The unjustness of George W. Bush’s war against Iraq is understood by millions of people around the world. That this war also has something to do with capitalism is less widely understood, however. And that this connection to capitalism casts an enormous cloud over the credibility of the United Nations is also rarely acknowledged. So, what are the links between war, capitalism and the UN?

To see how capitalism breeds war, we need to start by recognizing that one of the central features of this system is intense competition between rival companies over markets and profits. Everyday, the business pages describe intense battles between the likes of General Motors, Toyota and Volkswagen for automobile markets, clashes between Microsoft and Apple over computer operating systems, conflicts between Boeing and Bombardier in the aircraft industry, and so on. In the long run, these are battles to the death in which the strongest firms plot to first destroy and then absorb their competitors.

This economic competition doesn’t take place only within the confines of a single state; it also extends into global markets. So, American banks and media companies endeavour to seize markets worldwide, while Japanese automakers and German steelmakers attempt to do exactly the same. When foreign companies start to dominate large shares of markets in other nations, it is typical for companies based in those countries to call on their governments for protection and support.

The most typical way governments have done this is by restricting foreign imports into their nations (although there are a number of other tricks which effectively do the same thing). Then, as one government starts discriminating against foreign firms, other governments quickly do the same. Once this happens we have entered into a trade war, an economic showdown between corporations based in different countries, all backed by their national governments.

Many historians acknowledge that the First World War was in large measure the product of intense trade wars between capitalist nations such as Britain, France, Germany, Japan and the United States. That acknowledgment would not have surprised experts at the time. In fact, in those days, politicians were much more forthright about this than they are today. Consider the following statement issued by the Republican Party in the United States during the presidential campaign of 1916 (right in the middle of the First World War): “We cannot extend our trade further than we are able to defend it. The rivalries that begin in commerce end on the battlefields. The history of war is green with international jealousies. Whatever the diplomatic excuse, every great conflict in modern times had its origin in some question of property rights.”This remarkable statement – remarkable, that is, for the forthrightness with which it proclaims the basis of modern wars – was signed by 25 leading US bankers and industrialists. Of course, the occasional voice in the mainstream says such things today: witness New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman’s admission that the US war against Iraq is centrally about oil (January 5, 2003). But, perhaps worried by his own bluntness, Friedman rushes to add that it should also be about things like democracy.

Even the intense disagreements between the United States and France over military action against Iraq come down ultimately to issues of wealth, markets and power. As a number of experts have pointed out, France and Germany are deeply worried that a new war could give the United States a stranglehold over Middle East oil given that Iraq has the world’s second largest reserves. But, should the Bush government be willing to guarantee France access to Iraqi oil, the odds increase that the French government will drop its opposition to the war. As a Globe and Mail columnist noted recently about support for war against Iraq, “France’s price? It wants guaranteed access to Iraqi oil, just as Russia does, and early commercial involvement in the rebuilding process” (February 11, 2003). If the right-wing French government continues to oppose war with Iraq, it will be because it sees little for French capitalism to gain from the conflict.

Imperialism

In other words, support for war is being dictated by calculations among the major powers as to whether or not war can promote their world interests. And this is how it always is in capitalist society which, from the beginning, has involved empire-building by the major powers.

Beginning in the late 1400s, different European powers began to establish colonies in other parts of the world. This process continued over several hundred years. But it was with the great burst of capitalist development in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that almost the entire globe was divided among the most powerful capitalist nations, with most of Asia, Africa and Latin America being claimed by colonial powers. Between 1876 and 1915, for instance, about one-quarter of the territory on the planet was seized: Britain increased its territories by four million square miles, France by 3.5 million square miles, Germany acquired over one million square miles, while Italy and Belgium trailed just behind it.

When we talk about modern capitalism as involving a system of imperialism (whose root, imperium, means empire), it is the domination of most of the globe by a handful of capitalist nation-states to which we refer. Modern imperialism today, however, does not rely upon direct colonial control of other regions. Instead of using colonial armies, it uses multinational corporations, banks, and international agencies to economically dominate and exploit most of the peoples on the planet. And more than any other global power, it is the United States that has developed this system of modern imperialism.

When we look at American foreign policy, therefore, we are observing imperialism at work. The US ruling class looks at the availability of wealth, resources and markets around the world and acts to maximize its global power. It is no accident, then, that it so regularly intervenes in the Middle East since this region is home to two-third of the world’s known oil reserves.

Similarly, the dominant class in countries like Britain, Canada, France and Australia are all trying to get their cut of the business of western imperialism. They may not be full rivals to the American capitalist class, but they are determined to get their share of imperial spoils.

These are the motives that drive military policy among the major imperial powers, of which Canada is one. These governments, and the powerful interests they represent, police the globe in the interests of western banks and corporations.

Often, they simply use their economic power – represented globally by institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF),World Bank and World Trade Organization – to dominate and control the poorest parts of the world. But when that is not enough, they turn to armies, navies and air forces that wield the most destructive weaponry in human history.

Racism and War

Domination of most of the peoples of the globe by corporations and governments based in a handful of countries would seem to be straight-forwardly unfair. After all, how can governments in some countries proclaim their right to exploit the labour and resources of the poor countries, overthrow their governments when they choose, and wage war against them on the flimsiest of pretexts? A crucial part of the equation here is racism – the practices and ideologies which justify oppression on the basis of ostensible racial difference.

When they invade Afghanistan or Iraq, the western powers depict these countries as barbaric and uncivilized places full of barely-human types: warlords, dictators, fanatics and terrorists. These people are consistently described as “evil,” as George W. Bush likes to say. And even if it is only political leaders who are directly presented in these terms, the mass of the population is portrayed as too stupid, timid or corrupt to be able to do anything about it. Only the “civilizing hand” of the western powers can be relied upon to make the world “safe.”

Having depicted Arabs, Muslims and “non-white” people generally as crude, primitive and uncivilized, it’s an easy matter to write off the thousands who are killed in wars. Represented as not-fully human, unlike good, pure white people in the West, their lives don’t really matter.

United Nations

This brings us to the United Nations. After all, many opponents of war are looking to the UN to prevent it. Sadly, they are looking in the wrong place.Like the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, the UN reflects the unequal structure of power in the world. Just like those institutions, the UN is dominated by a handful of powers – the five permanent members of the Security Council – each of which has a veto over any resolution. More than this, behind the scenes, the dominant players use threats and bribery to get their way.

To insure Pakistan’s support for war in Afghanistan, for instance, the US government bought off its leadership at a price of $1 billion. At the moment, the Bush administration is doing the same thing with countries like Angola and Guinea which are temporarily on the UN Security Council. And France, as we have seen, is manoevering for a share of Iraqi oil. In short, the UN operates like a den of thieves with the most powerful governments dominating the wheeling and dealing.

The emerging anti-war movement cannot afford to be lulled by diplomatic posturing at the UN. Because it is dominated by the major capitalist nations, the UN is not part of the movement for global justice but, rather, an obstacle to it. That’s why we need a grassroots movement of youth, workers, the poor and the oppressed that will create its own global solidarity against war, racism and imperialism.