What is at stake in the Mediterranean
The American imperialists, however, had been preparing to replace them for several years, and on January 5, 1957, the 'Eisenhower doctrine' was put forward. This stated that the vacuum created in the eastern sector of the Mediterranean by the continued decline of the former colonial powers should be filled
The next conference of the European peace movements will take place in Perugia, Italy in mid-July. A central theme of this conference will be the militarisation of the Mediterranean. This new international meeting will be an important event.
First of all, it will offer the opportunity to discuss the new situation created by the first deployment of American Cruise and Pershing missiles in Western Europe, despite the biggest mobilisations against militarisation ever seen in Europe.
Secondly, the Soviet counter-measures, notably the deployment of nuclear weapons in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, give a new immediacy to the vital need for a linkup between the Western peace movements and their counterparts in the East, whether they are official or independent of their governments. Both are invited to Perugia.
Finally, and perhaps most important, the peace movement's recognition of what is at stake in the Mediterranean attests to its ability to respond to the manifold challenges of the capitalist governments' war-
The broader spread of the national delegations to include important components of the international anti-war movement that were not present at the previous conferences, such as certain forces from Greece, or the French 'Movement for Peace' rising to the tasks that confront it.
There are, moreover, many delegations expected from the dominated
A delegation from the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and delegations from the revolutionary leaderships in Central America are expected to take part in the conference.
There are many reasons why all the currents of the international peace movement and workers movement should take part in these debates.
article contributes to that discussion, particularly on the question of the
Mediterranean, which is decisive for the peace movement today.
There are many received ideas current about the Mediterranean. One is that this
'enclosed sea' had been untroubled by the general process of militarisation up until the latest wave of it, which was touched off in the early 1980s by growing East-
West tensions.
While it is true that today the Mediterranean basin is undergoing an increasing militarisation, both in its sea routes in the land approaches to them, over the last forty years this reputedly calm sea has seen many spectacular military developments, particularly in the eastern basin and in the southern sector.
What is more recent is the insistence of the imperialist armed forces on strengthening their military capacity in the region, particularly in the west, and the justification they give for this to public opinion.
They are trying to build up the idea that fate of East-West relations overall will be decided by what happens there.
It is important, therefore, before anything else, to clarify the facts and, in doing so, highlight the political, economic and military stakes involved, to establish clearly where reponsibility lies.
the overall relationship of forces between the European powers and the United
, also bears witness to the movement States began to shift in favour of the latter at the end of the First World War, it took several decades for this process to really take hold in the Mediterranean.
In the mid-1950s this evolution led to American forces replacing those of
British colonialism. imperialism, which had previously played a secondary role to its British counterpart, succeeded, however, in maintaining a very strong presence in the area. This was due both to its advantageous position on the Mediterranean and to the role that General de Gaulle's policies made it possible for France to play on the world political scene.
As a primarily colonial and maritime
Britain held positions in the Mediterranean as important as the control of Gibraltar, Cyprus and Suez which opens directly the Persian Gulf. At the beginning of the 1950s, British companies such as Anglo-Persian, Shell or British Petroleum (BP) still controlled than half the total oil production of the Near and Middle East.
turn came after the hugh fiasco of the Franco-British expedition to Suez in October and November
Under the combined effects of the rise of national liberation struggles in the Arab world and the international by American forces. It was in this context that the formidable armada of the American Sixth Fleet, unrivalled in the region, was to become the principal military force in the Mediterranean.
This fleet alone represents today the third largest nuclear force in the world behind the central American and Soviet systems, and well in front of the nuclear forces of Britain or France. In normal times it has, at a minimum, 41 warships. with 32,500 personnel and almost : 200 airplanes and helicopters. As it did recently in fact off Beirut, it can rapidly double its combat potential. In this case it had no less than three aircraft carriers, along with the battleship New Jersy, which is in a class of its own, as it can fire a one-ton shell thirty kilometres miles) and carries 32 Cruise missiles with nuclear capacity. The fake 'Soviet threat'
While the American forces have been the major component in a first-rate imperialist military presence in the region for almost thirty years, they are not the only ones. Other naval forces from the Atlantic Alliance, including those from the bordering countries France, Italy and Spain, keep squadrons, whose importance would be irresponsible to underestimate, particularly as in case of crisis their intervention capacity would be added to that of the American Sixth Fleet.
In addition, to appreciate the military balance of forces in the Mediterranean, the dozens of bases and port facilities that the imperialist forces have there should be taken into account. However, this article will confine itself to looking at the consequences of the new course in the American imperialists military policy for the Iberian peninsula on the one hand and Italy on the other. In fact, its major implications are for these two countries.
But it would be useful to once again show the falseness of the arguments about an increased Soviet presence in the Mediterranean, and the threat this supposedly poses. Such claims, in fact, are Canal by the Egyptian president Nasser in July 1956, a Joint British-French expeditionary corps occupied the canal zone; while Israel attacked Egypt under the pretext of opening up the port of Elath. Condemned by the United Nations, and facing a verbal threat of Soviet intervention, the two colonial powers had to finally withdraw.
International Viewpoint 16 July 1984
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
used to justify Reagan's rearmament policy, and that of the European capitalist governments, who are completely integrated into this policy.
It is conventional wisdom among Western geopolitical pundits to point out that 'Soviet expansionism' is caused by the continual efforts of this continental power to find access to the warm seas to the south. (2) In this context, some of them even make a sort of continuity between the entry of the first Russian squadron into the Mediterranean in 1979 and the present Kremlin policy in the region. (3) It is easy to see that, however important
There is one thing in common in all the arguments about the 'Soviet threat' in the Mediterranean: they are built on the basis of a conspicuous lack of any real facts, and lead to the most fantastical
One of the most fashionable is known as the 'Yugoslavia arc'. According to this theory, the USSR, in order to neutralise Turkey and Greece, and to put direct pressure on Italy, wants to make a springboard out of Yugoslavia, which has been rendered more vulnerable to Moscow's pressure because of its internal economic, social and political crisis. (5) Obviously, in this arena of political fiction almost anything goes!
It only has one permanent base, at Latakia in Syria. In addition, from the point of view of the 'Soviet bloc, the situation of Yugoslavia since 1948, Albania since the end of the 1960s, not to mention the uncertainty of Romania, pose a serious problem to the Sov-
Thus, to claim that Mediterranean is under a direct Soviet threat, or even that the USSR and USA confront each other there on an equal footing, is quite absurd. The inescapable logic of Reagan geographical factors may be in military strategy and tactics, such a simplification cannot stand as a coherent explanation.
DEL
MILITARES
(DEJRONOS 1 MIAL PROYECTO DE
NO AIR BECION LONDENER BURGOS ECOLOGIS TH MO VIMIENTO OBJELIUN UL
The American defence doctrine has been turned towards taking a more overall view of conflicts and American interests, since Reagan's arrival in the White this main imperialist fortress, every conflict is a product of the worldwide confrontation between East and West. American military forces have been systematically redeployed to respond to the least hint of destabilisation of any pro-imperialist government. In the framework of this orientation, any crisis of a pro-American regime can only directly benefit the other side and put into question vital American interests, whatever their objective importance. Grenada in October 1983 by thousands of GIs indicates that the imperialist threat flowing logically from this analysis must be taken seriously.
The practical significance of this orientation for a Central European theatre of been analysed several The 'Airland Battle' doctrine
The Spanish peace movement focuses on opposition to Nato and US bases (DR)
The policy of the Soviet Union in the orientation of the bureaucracy on an into maintain a global status quo with imperialism and the attempt to renegotiate around the edges of this general
Again as many secondary advantages as possible. matic games in the Near East are within this general framework.
Moreover, in this particular area, the
Consider, for example the irresponsible support the Soviet Union gave the young Zionist state in 1948, or how quickly the diplomatic alliances it made with Egypt and the Sudan turned sour, to say nothing of the disappointments that the Soviet Union is likely to suffer in its relations with its present Syrian ally. (4)
As for the support that the USSR is supposed to give to national liberation struggles in the region, hypocrisy of the imperialists' propaganda machines to build up such a false impression. The Soviet Union's odious desertion of the PLO during the siege of Beirut by the Israeli army is yet another striking illustration of how little backing the Kremlin is actually ready to give to anti-imperialist fighters. International Viewpoint 16 July 1984 support the claim that there is any Soviet that would justify the present imperialist military buildup in the region.
Since 1965, the USSR has had a selfsupporting squadron, its Fifth Squadron, them access to the Atlantic via Gibraltar, access to the India Ocean via Suez...in peacetime, but imperialist forces tightly control the exit ports. The figure of 40 to 60 vessels is frequently accepted for
But this obscures the fact that the Soviets have only one helicopter carrying cruiser, which cannot be compared to the Western aircraft carriers, not just the American but also French and, soon, Italian and Spanish. (6)
What is more, the major and decisive handicap for the USSR in the Mediterranean is its lack of port facilities, other those allowed for its peacetime This thesis is defended in France by Cointet 'La Mediterranee et USSR was the second country, Zionist state, proclaimed two days earlier. The USA waited until January 1949 to do the same.
Cf. Ivo Paparella, du flane sud de l'OTAN, Defense There are 14 American aircraft carriers in all, which makes it possible for two or three of projects the United States launching a preventive attack and a forward battle deep behind the Soviet lines at the same and nuclear attacks along the Soviet lines.
In fact, this doctrine leads to an inescapable logic of a rapid escalation of every military conflict, in which the threat of a holocaust is counter-balanced by the, inhope that the Soviet bureaucracy can be forced to throw in the towel by a decisive blow at the start of the hostilities
The consequence of such a military orientation can only be to for a decisive advantage aspects of weaponry, in order to regain imperialist aggressor in all areas, even if this is at the price of an unprecedented stepup in the arms race.
impetus to present arms race comes from the deep them to be assigned to the Sixth Fleet in times of crisis, as recently off Beirut.
and it has been build a third, nuclear-powered carrier.
Having developed differences suspended participation in the withdrawal of all
Soviet troops in 1958, and often defends difquestions within the Warsaw Pact.
Cf. particularly, nucleare
CIRPES, Paris.
19
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
The truth is that the concrete facts that are available to anyone by no means PAL COLECTIVO
----- photo credits and running heads -----
EN
Mediterranean constitutes the southern have also got a major boost in the form of crisis of the capitalist whole, but this politico-military doctrine has some not insignificant effects.
The significant growth in all sectors of the American military is particularly noteworthy in the navy, which will have some 600 fighting ships at the end of the present 'modernisation' Navy Secretary in the present government, John Lehmann, considers that 'a classical naval battle between the East and West could not be limited to the Oceanic [i.e., the Atlantic and/or Pacific] theatre alone' • (9) This justifies the deployment of American squadrons all over the world. In this context, the Mediterranean occupies a prime place as a point of contact between Europe, Africa and the Middle East. accordingly been given a high priority, reflected by the strengthening firepower. This firepower is to be 'projected' forward, not only on sea but also against land-based targets. means in the latter case is shown by what the battleship New Jersey did in Beirut.
Another element that testifies to the importance of the Mediterranean in American warplans is that the US naval command in Europe has been transferred from London to Naples, where it has fused with the Nato southern command. This is significant because it shows how little importance the American leaders give to respective responsibilities and the geographical spheres that are in theory respected by Nato and to which the Europeans are committed.
In fact, imperialism has established a strategic continuity, a single scheme, that goes from the Iberian peninsula and Moroçco to the Persian Gulf, through the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. Such a policy is not free from contradictions. Because it assumes that in practice all the US's allies around the Mediterranean will align themselves with Washington's policy, within a strategic framework that corresponds neither to their military capacity nor even to their conception of how they would treat this or that conflict in the light of their own interests. But, for the time being, it is this American policy that is being implemented, with a certain success, in the western part of the Mediterranean basin. The Italian centre of gravity
American defence secretary, Caspar Weinberger, on an official visit to Rome in September 1983, declared that, 'the threat is global and we must respond at the global level....The Mediterranean in particular has increased in importance because of the problems we have had to deal with in Africa as well as the Middle East....Italy is the centre of gravity for defence in the Mediterranean.' (10)
In the same tone, the Italian minister of defence at the time, the socialist Lelio Lagorio, estimated that, 'Italy is no longer the southern flank of Nato. It would even be wrong to say that the 20
REFERENDUM! 'NO UPUISE flank, because the strategic situation has part of the central front of the Alliance, while the potential southern front extends from the Horn of Africa to the Gulf.' (11)
The militarisation of Italy in fact takes the form of United States use of a great number of installations in the country and the modernisation of the Italian forces themselves, the imperialist military forces as a whole thus extending further to the south. (12) The US Sixth Fleet already has huge bases at Naples, Gaeta, Maddalena and Sigonella. Sicily in particular deserves its nickname of the biggest American aircraft carrier, with the Sigonella base, the port of Augusta and the Palermo dockyards, the main function for all of which is to service the Aminstallation of 112 new Cruise missiles at Comiso in Sicily, Italy's function as an advance base for American imperialism in the Mediterranean will loom still larger, particularly as new American personnel will arrive with the missles. (13) There were 13,000 American military personnel in 1983 and there will
The logical consequnce of this aspect of the pile up of American military hardware in Italy is that the national forces
REFERENDUM
higher appropriations. The defence budget has risen by 105.7 per cent in three years, from 4,780 billion lire in 1980 to 11,149 billion in 1983. This, of course, for the Italian government, is a good reason for the austerity policies it has introduced, not without being caused some problems by the workers.
For the military forces, this new financing will make it possible to continue with the reorganisation started in the mid-1970s, which has mainly taken the form of slimming down the land army and giving increased priority to the air and naval forces.
The Italian navy, with already some 50 combat units, will get an carrier (the Garibaldi) for helicopters, two cruisers, five frigates and two new
A rapid intervention force because of Italy's crying lack of auton9. J. Lehman, Statement before the Congress, Washington, February 1983. 10. Repubblica, Rome, September 28, 1983. 11. Nato, 'Interim report of the sub-commission on the southern region', The Hague, 1983. 12. Cf. F. Tonello and J. Finkelstein, Un role accru dans le systeme de defense occidentale' Le Monde Diplomatique, March 1984 The installation of these missiles was part of the Nato 'double track' decision in December 1979. The first installations started in November 1983
International Viewpoint 16 July 1984
omous means of transport, it is difficult to see what role this could play, unless it were integrated into the American forces. The first elements of this force were tested in the dispatch of an Italian contingent in the multinational force in Beirut.
All in all, this reveals an undivided American control over the militarisation process in Italy. The United States of course hopes to win political, military and diplomatic advantages from this. But they also expect economic benefits: greater participation by Italy in bearing the costs of Nato, and openings for their arms industry. The combination between the process of militarisation, the introduction of drastic austerity measures to finance the war effort, and the loss of national sovereignty to the dominant imperialist power, have taken an almost caricatural form in Italy.
There are striking similarities between the process of militarisation in Italy and in the Iberian peninsula. Alain Echegut, summarising the conclusions of the Portuguese general Firmino Miguel, recently noted that, In the Western defence system, Spain and Portugal have three major complementary functions: as 'airsea platforms' for operations launched in Europe, the Mediterranean and the eastern Atlantic; as an air and sea staging post for the Central European theatre; and finally as a last defence and advanced base for the United States to prepare and that have never been discarded - dating from 1946 with Lisbon (renewed in December 1983) and from 1953 with Madrid (the Madrid Pact), and furthered by the 1976 Spanish-American Friendship and Cooperation Treaty, renewed on February 24, 1983, by the Gonzalez government - veritable guardianship rights over the peninsula. The Iberian air/sea platform
The only change in thirty years is that, while up till the end of the 1970s the peninsula was considered as simply a stopper in the breach for defence of the southern flank of Europe, it has since become a decisive link in the overall strategy of the USA in the region. What is involved in this is a shift in the axis of US policy towards the Mediterranean and its transformation into an advance base for the American rapid deployment force (RDF) on the way to the Middle East. This is obviously the pretext for a military buildup involving a stronger foreign presence and new bases, which are in fact envisaged by the USA. Negotiations are presently underway for bases — at Madeira (a submarine base at Puerto Santo) and in the Canaries (a base for the RDF on the island of Hierro and the Gando base on Gran Canaria). But this is also the justification put forward for a major reorganisation of the Spanish and Portuguese military forces.
As Portugal was reintegrated into Nato in 1976, it formed a mixed (landair) brigade of 3,000 men under the direct command of the Allied Commander in Chief in southern Europe. This had first of all a big political significance. The USA and the leading circles of Nato wanted to definitively 'normalise' this army or, in other words, to purge it of all those who, to a greater or lesser extent, took part in the activities of the Armed Forces Movement. The return of Mario Soares, leader of the Portuguese Socialist Party to power, was for this reason accompanied by a series of dismissals, and a reorganisation of military decision-making centres. This made it possible to allow for a reshaping of the Portuguese military forces under American tutelage. In return, the US gave 1.3 billion dollars in 'aid' to Portugal when the 1946 agreement was renewed in December 1983.
Spain also got 1.4 billion dollars in American aid for the period 1976-81. This dropped in 1982 to 144 million dollars and rose significantly again in 1983 to some 400 million dollars. At the same time, the government of Felipe Gonzalez and the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE) decided to devote 2,150 billion pesetas (14 billion dollars) to modernising and reorganising its army 14. Le Monde Diplomatique, Paris, February 1984.
develop counter-offensive on the a
In Italy there is growing demand for a referendum (DR)
European continent.' (14)
In order to carry out this triple function, the military plans on the Iberian peninsula are organised around two
REFP VOLI big schemes that the United States, in conjunction with the governments concerned, has undertaken to build up still
MISE ENMISE
The first is the strategic triangle formed by Portugal-the Azores-Madeira, in which the Azores archipelago constitutes the cornerstone with the American base at Lajes on the island of Terceira. second is the dozens of foreign bases in the Spanish state, the most important of (Cadiz), and the Moron (Seville), Sanjurjo (Saragossa) and Torrejon (Madrid)
bases, with a permanent staff of In addition, there are the armed forces of the two countries, 62,00 Portuguese military, and particularly the 347,000 men of the Spanish army who have an essential military function on the Balearie Isles-Gibraltar-Canaries should the British garrison of 6,000 men on Gibraltar or the German presence at Beja in the south of Portugal be forgotten.
While Portugal has been a member of Nato since its inception in 1949, with, it is true, a short break during the Portuguese revolution, Spain has only been a member since June 5, 1982. malities aside, the United States has exmilitary control over the whole of the Iberian peninsula for the last thirty years. Old bilateral agreements,
SUI
IE
21
in the period 1983-1990. This war effort has been financed by particularly severe austerity measures.
Such injections of capital, moreover will go mainly to benefit the American arms manufacturers, once again confirming the unfairness of the cooperation between the European capitalist states and the USA on the military level. (15) In 1983 the Spanish government, for example, ordered 72 F-18 fighter planes from McDonnell Douglas, an aircratt in competition with the Tornado, produced jointly by Britain, West Germany and Italy. The bill for this order alone is 1.6 billion dollars. The Spanish navy will be given its first aircraft carrier, the Principede-Asturias, as well as three new submarines and 12 Harrier jets.
The land army, where the ultrareactionary sectors, direct inheritors of Francoism, still have a big weight, will be 'slimmed down' by 90,000 men, includ ing one-quarter of its officers. It will also be redeployed over the whole of the national territory, particularly towards the south. The number of military
Violent repression of anti-missiles protestors at Comiso (DR) regions will be decreased from nine to six, and will be under stricter direct control from Madrid.
For Spain, as for Portugal and Italy, the conclusion is quite clear. The American imperialists have initiated a process of militarisation in countries in all directions. This has reduced their already relative autonomy in this field, and integrated them still more into the defence lines of the 'pax Americana' in this region, that extends from the eastern Atlantic to the Persian Gulf through the Mediterranean.
In these conditions it is obvious that the situation around the Mediterranean constitutes one of the key areas in the fight against the imperialist wardrive. should be able to reach broad agreement on this point between the various components of the European anti-war move-
The experience of the pacifist forces in Spain, particularly the remarkable work of the Anti-Nato Commission in Madrid, should make it possible in a short period to mobilise a broad movement for closing down foreign bases, particularly American, in the Iberian peninsula, in Italy, Greece and Turkey.
Because of the very complexity of the problems encountered in this particular strategic zone, there is a danger that overly general and abstract responses may obscure the concrete issues at stake. Therefore, it is important to be clear about the practical objectives for which thousands of women and men in southern Europe could mobilise, since this is the only way to hold back the development of a process that would have very serious consequences for peace and freedom in
There are in fact many these problems that are formulated in terms that are much too vague to have any useful effect in stimulating activity. During the last ten years the question of the Mediterranean has been examined by many international conferences and other bodies. The final declaration of the Helsinki conference on security and cooperation in Europe, signed in 1975, included a section on 'security and cooperation in
The Sixth Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement in Havana in 1979, came out in favour of 'the transformation of the Mediterranean into a zone of peace and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each state, the right of the peoples to take their own decisions, of non-intervention and non-interference in internal affairs and equal rights? (16) The general assembly of the United Nations adopted this position in its resolution 34/100.
The Madrid Conference finished on July 15, 1983, with a tinal agreement the same pious wishes, without the least tangible result. One can bet it will be the same at Stockholm, despite the growing movement in public
So, this is not the time for experts to draw up plans for denuclearisation, or indeed for total or partial demilitarisa-
On the contrary, people of southern Europe and the other peoples around the being more and more left to the care of the Western governments, seconded by the Soviet bureaucracy and its allies, which are playing out a farce that goes by the name of the European Conference on Security and Cooperation.'
Given the dangers that the peoples of this region face because of the policies of imperialists and of the imperialist countries that border on the
Mediterranean, they can hardly put their trust in such negotiations. The solution is rather an involvement of the masses of youth and workers in the fight against foreign bases in Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy.
The objective conditions exist for a struggle of this sort. It is up to the antiwar movement in each country to initiate and organise such mass actions, and to the peace movements in other European countries to give them help and strong support in this task.
Such a campaign is made even more urgent and important by the fact that the governments in the Mediterranean countries, which are mostly run by social democrats, are using American aid as an argument to justify their refusal to keep the promises they made to withdraw from Nato and close down foreign bases, in Greece and in Spain.
Far from being mitigated by this so-called American aid, officially keeping the US bases, the effects of the austerity policies are being increased tenfold by the militarisation process initiated by Reagan and Nato.
By taking up the fight against the foreign military presence, against American occupation, for the closure of foreign the peoples of southern Europe could make a decisive contribution to the struggle against the US imperialists and their allies, whose common policy inextricably combines austerity policies and militarisation. Viewpoint, No 5°, May 7, 1984. armament', United Nations, New York, 1981.
International Viewpoint 16 July 1984
tions with the guerrilla movement take according to the terms set by the place guerrillas themselves. The truce indicates that president Betancur succeeded in convincing the bourgeoisie that the method