America’s Wars for Profit in East Asia and Oceania

So long as the monopoly bourgeoisie that is at the helm of the military industrial complex holds the reins of power in the U.S. government, the policy directions and strategies that embody American objectives and interests in East Asia and Oceania will always be highly influenced by the war industries. The U.S. military industrial complex of the monopoly bourgeoisie thrives on a war-driven economy and a “permanent war.”

By Bobby Tuazon*
Bulatlat

“The country that rules the Pacific, rules the world.” This is exactly what U.S. Sen. Alfred Beveridge said in 1900 when he rallied the U.S. Senate to support the U.S. invasion and colonial acquisition of the Philippines and other countries in Asia Pacific. Referring to the great landmass Eurasia, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. national security adviser, said: “A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world’s three most economically-productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia…A country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa.” Before we talk about reconciling these clashing geopolitical perceptions, I propose that the simpler formulation should be: “The power that rules America, rules the world.”

Indeed, it was the industrialists and bankers in the U.S. who, in their paramount quest for markets and sources of raw materials and to amass greater profits gave the impetus to U.S. imperialism’s westward expansion toward East Asia and the rest of the Asia Pacific region by the late 19^th century until the turn of the next century. Intense trade and financial competition with other imperialist powers including Japan and Germany drove U.S. imperialism to be involved in two world wars in the process expanding its war industries that became profitable particularly during World War II.

In East Asia and Oceania, with its rise as the world’s economic and military power beginning in the mid-1940s and in the guise of containing communism, U.S. imperialism became more aggressive and unilateralist in launching armed interventions in China, the Korean Peninsula, the Philippines, Indochina, Indonesia, Thailand and in other countries. With every war and armed conflict that it fomented, U.S. imperialism expanded its military presence and boosted the profits of its war industries in the United States giving rise to what is called “military industrial complex” that placed itself at the core of what some political economic theorists call an independent war-driven economy. The policy of maintaining military supremacy in the region was augmented by the creation of a system of security and basing agreements with these countries which, incidentally, also became the U.S.’ major recipients of military aid and importers of its weapons.

Today in East Asia, it may be considered that globalization-driven trade rivalries between the economic hegemon, U.S. imperialism, and Japan and also between U.S. imperialism and China, are the key flashpoints of hostilities that result in the flexing of military muscle. Trade rivalries are driving competition over the control of strategic trade routes even if the U.S. Naval Fleets under the command of the U.S.PACOM remain dominant in these waters. But the search for sources of fuel oil that will determine the rise and fall of the economies of Japan, China as well as the U.S. in the future is also aggravating tensions particularly between China and Japan in East China Sea. Australia is an economic and military power that also seeks a strong presence initially in Southeast Asia, and is poised to gain an economic foothold in East Timor while entering into bilateral and aggressive war exercises and counter-terrorism military cooperation with the Philippines and other countries.

U.S. fomenting tensions

All things considered, it is U.S. imperialism that is fomenting greater tensions in the region brought about by the desire of its trade and financial oligarchy to maintain monopoly capitalist hegemony and preserve this as an important bulwark of the global American Empire. It is this drive that pits U.S. imperialism against China through a military encirclement strategy supported in no small measure by a theater missile defense system. It is also suppressing the aspirations of the Korean people for reunification while provoking North Korea to maintain a high level of costly military preparedness speculating that it would crumble in an economic collapse. The struggles of the peoples of the rest of East Asia against economic disparity, unemployment and for self-determination are either suppressed by their own repressive regimes or rendered illegitimate by U.S. imperialist jingoism that describes these as mere terrorist threats or part of the so-called “arc of instability.” Their assertion of economic sovereignty and for a new liberating economic order within their own countries is continually undermined by bitter economic programs imposed by imperialist-led multilateral institutions such as the IMF-World Bank and ADB even as regional trade cooperation is being transformed into multilateral security arrangements couched in anti-terrorist ideology.

In justifying its enhanced policy of intervention in the aftermath of 9/11, U.S. imperialism is using the specter of “terrorist threat” posed by Al Qaeda networks and a member of the “axis of evil” – North Korea – thus drawing support from its junior partners, Japanese imperialism and Australia, as well as its client states and other allies. It is also using the threat of China as a rising military power to justify its continued encirclement of this former socialist giant even if it continues to engage it in a robust trade relationship. The threats contrived by U.S. imperialism especially in the light of 9/11 have – in East Asia and Oceania - led to the fast tracking of the missile defense system; the beefing up, readjustment and redeployment of U.S. forces and facilities; the forging and/or reorientation of security agreements to fit the “counter-terrorist” agenda; the increase in military aid and training exercises; the increase of arms sales; as well as the launching of combat operations, intelligence and surveillance particularly in the Philippines. Aside from helping secure U.S. imperialism’s access to the region’s resources and markets, maintain its preeminence in strategic trade routes, and ensure support for U.S. imperialism’s current geopolitical objectives, they also reap profits for the U.S.’ war industries.

War industry

For instance, the Bush government’s missile defense program that is used as a pre-emptive, pro-active and unilateralist offensive system against what its neo-conservative groups call regimes possessing nuclear weapons such as China, Russia, North Korea and, Iran in the Middle East, has been giving enormous profits to nuclear arms manufacturers whose interests are represented right within the government. The missile defense program reveals the role of corporate and institutional interests in developing modern nuclear technology and weapons – including a new generation of lower-yield nuclear weapons and long-range conventional strike systems – as a major part of U.S. military strategy.

The Bush administration’s new nuclear doctrine under its Nuclear Posture Review[1] replaces the previous doctrine of “deterrence” with “unilateral-assured destruction, American style.”[2] This new, pro-active and offensive missile program guarantees continuing and lucrative defense contracts to corporate war industries giving impetus to the Bush administration’s early decision to pull out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Some of the major corporate beneficiaries of projects clinched from the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) in the new missile defense program are: Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Boeing, Raytheon, Bechtel, and the University of California which runs the Los Alamos and Livermore nuclear weapons laboratories.

It has been easy for these corporate weapons and systems manufacturers to secure multi-billion projects considering that their interests are well-entrenched in the Bush administration with the presence, as of 2002, of 32 key cabinet officials or major policy makers who, before they were appointed in government, had significant financial ties to the arms industry (as compared with 21 appointees with ties to the energy industry) including Vice President Dick Cheney.[3] These arms manufacturers including their trading partners and powerful lobby groups have also contributed huge campaign funds to their patrons in the U.S. Congress’ House and Senate armed services committees who are also major advocates for nuclear weapons and missile defense programs.

World’s largest arms market

Under the regime of the “war against terrorism,” the Asia Pacific region most especially East Asia and Southeast Asia has become the world’s largest market for arms overtaking the Near East, with the U.S. as the biggest arms exporter. During the period 2002-2005, Asia Pacific accounted for nearly half – or $43.6 billion – of all arms transfer agreements made with the developing world. Four countries in East Asia – China, South Korea, Taiwan and Malaysia – were among the top arms importers together with India and Pakistan.[4]

The U.S. has been the single largest arms supplier to the region that remains a big market for the U.S. weapons industry. From 1998-2005, it delivered more than $21 billion worth of arms to the region or 35 percent of all U.S. arms exports in the world. Clearly, the recent interests in arms exports have been driven by economic considerations alongside military-strategic reasons (alliance-building, interoperability, geopolitical, etc.).[5]

Imperialist-driven market globalization has also resulted in weapons globalization, with the U.S. dominating the global arms market.[6] In fact since the 1970s, arms transfers have been a primary instrument of U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. uses arms exports and joint military exercises to gain access to overseas bases and to establish the infrastructure and interoperability necessary for U.S. intervention.[7] Other strategic rationales include preserving the defense industrial base (said to employ many Americans) and maintaining “regional stability” favorable for U.S. trade and investment and other interests.

Most important, military assistance and training bring economic benefits to arms producers and traders. As Alexander Watson, former assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs said in reference to U.S. training programs in South America, “training programs bring certain economic benefits as well; they give Latin and Caribbean officials experience using American hardware, and thus can influence their future procurement decisions.”

Expansive military plans

Hyping about the alleged threats posed by “terrorist groups” as well as the military power ambitions of China and North Korea’s nuclear threats justifies expansive military plans in the region. This has been the underlying motive in the U.S.’ obstructionist policy against the reunification of the two Koreas and its silence on Pyongyang’s proposal regarding a non-aggression treaty with the U.S.[8] As the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) would put it, “Reunification threatens vital U.S. interests in Korea…the loss of the ROK as the sixth largest importer of U.S. arms.” American threats against China’s takeover of Taiwan by force also benefit the U.S. arms industry: Taiwan remains the biggest recipient of U.S. arms exports in East Asia.

In the case of Japan, the changing U.S.-Japan security alliance structure is becoming increasingly dependent on Japan’s military contribution for maintaining U.S. military objectives in East Asia and the Middle East. Tokyo is also under obligation to bear part of the costs of maintaining U.S. military facilities in Okinawa again to the benefit of the U.S. arms industry.[9]

The U.S. government foresees the need to tap Japanese industries for U.S. military purposes. With the help of U.S. nuclear technology, Japan has a stockpile of plutonium enough to manufacture 4,000 nuclear warheads.[10]

An integrated defense system and the ‘invisible hand’

The present military pre-eminence in East Asia of U.S. imperialism and the objectives that it addresses is not only seen in the system of military bases, naval fleets, forward deployed forces, missile defense, arms sales and other projects and the pre-emptive wars of aggression that are launched every now and then. U.S. military supremacy is well-entrenched through a sophisticated system of decision-making and management that begins in the Pentagon and White House in Washington, DC, extends to the U.S. Pacific Command, diplomatic missions and other agencies.

The strategic objectives of this system are carried out in East Asia and Oceania through a system of mutual defense treaties, bilateral security agreements, sometimes even through non-military regional formations that are now adopting “counter-terrorism” security agenda, as well as through proxy armies and continuing programs of military assistance, training, and war exercises.[11] Behind the regional reach (as far as East Asia and Oceania is concerned) of this web of defense decision making and implementation is the “invisible hand” of the U.S. corporate war industries sometimes called the military industrial complex.

Defense Incorporated

Under the Bush administration, the DoD is sometimes called the Department of Defense, Incorporated. Forty-three policy makers occupying key positions in various departments in 2002 were former CEOs, shareholders, directors, board members and other officials of arms contractors. Thirteen of these were in the DoD including the defense secretary, his undersecretaries, directors and secretaries of the air force, navy and army.[12] When he was the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld ran the DoD using corporate management style, centered around a “Senior Executive Committee” that functioned as a business board of directors. Then there is the Defense Policy Board (DPB) composed of 30 members including former or active officials of America’s largest arms manufacturers, former CIA directors and executives of powerful neo-conservative think tanks. Although it serves as an advisory board, the DPB is a key player in the allocation of defense contracts and exerts a strong influence in the drafting of the Pentagon’s annual Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) that also serves as the basis for defense budget allocations including military contracts.[13]

Richard Stubbings, in his book The Defense Game (1986), says of the military-industrial complex: “…Not only is the defense budget the vehicle by which our nation plans how to fight the battles of tomorrow, but it is also a battleground by itself, where politicians, corporations, and military officers seek to serve their personal and parochial interests.”

The war blueprints, strategies and doctrines that are pursued by the U.S. government’s defense and military commands, and forces that, in turn, require the use of new arms technology, facilities, and weapons are formulated by policy consultants, think tanks and research institutions that are connected to the military industrial complex, including officials of the Pentagon, neo-conservatives and both the Republican and Democratic parties. Among these are the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), American Enterprise Institute, Council for Foreign Relations, Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Center for Security Policy (CSP) and the National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP).[14] These are also the same institutions, aided in no small measure by global media conglomerates and public relations agencies, that conjure false and scary scenarios - often peddled or cosmeticized as “policy strategies” - about “rogue regimes,” “terrorist threats,” arcs of instability and other security threats that justify not only America’s benign intervention but also new security strategies, major increases in defense budgets and the development of new weapons technology.

Every grim scenario that they paint creates expectations of bigger bonanzas of profits. By the way, they also cover up the fascist brutality, the disregard for the oppressed peoples’ rights to national sovereignty and self-determination and clothe these with 19^th century moralisms of new imperialism and racism, assuming that America was pre-ordained to be the world hegemon acting with benevolence. They demonize nations that dare oppose U.S. imperialism as “rogue regimes” or “failed states” and national liberation struggles as “terrorists.” Showing neither remorse nor apology, they call the hundreds of thousands of recent victims of the “war against terrorism” as a mere collateral damage while they glorify invaders and murderers as “heroes” and “patriots.”[15]

Military-Industrial Complex

Prof. Edberto Villegas, in his “The U.S. Military-Industrial Complex: The Bane of Humanity,” comments on the U.S. military-industrial complex: “The highest social structure at present of the American monopoly bourgeoisie or monopoly capitalism is the U.S. military industrial complex…War and threat of war have always been good business for U.S. monopoly capitalism or imperialism. This is the reason why U.S. monopoly capitalism has established a firm foothold in Washington and closely influences the direction of U.S. domestic and foreign policies.”[16]

It is for this reason that, so long as the monopoly bourgeoisie that is at the helm of the military industrial complex holds the reins of power in the U.S. government, the policy directions and strategies that embody American objectives and interests in East Asia and Oceania will always be highly influenced by the war industries. They secure America’s trade and investment, its access to raw materials, energy sources and cheap labor. They suppress aroused masses who struggle in various ways against the impositions of monopoly capitalism through political and military intervention and support for repressive regimes such as in the Philippines. They use as enterprises for profit U.S. imperialism’s armed personnel, military infrastructures, operations and exercises, training programs and the like that are sustained and expanded through the constant drumming of security threats and the like. The U.S. military industrial complex of the monopoly bourgeoisie thrives on a war-driven economy and a “permanent war.” Posted by Bulatlat

* Paper written for the International League of People’s Struggle (ILPS) at its consultative conference on East Asia and Oceania, Dec. 12, 2006, in Cebu City.

------------------------------------------------------