EU is growing quite fast. This process of growth is directed and encouraged principally by the German imperialism. Last year ten countries joined EU. Bulgaria and Romania signed the treaties of membership. The negotiations with Turkey for membership began in October 3rd. The other Balkan countries are waiting their turn. In the think-tank centres of EU, they are thinking of the membership of Byelorussia and Moldavia. As a result of its expansion, EU can change into a 35-state free trade region or can be reconstructed as an internal market of national states.

Everything began with the Rome Treaty in 1957. European Economic Community (Common Market) was established on the basis of this treaty. After 1957 no other treaty was signed for 30 years. But after 30 years, many treaties followed each other to deepen and expand the economic integration: In 1987, Single European Act to form a unique market; in 1992 Maastricht; in 1997 Amsterdam; in 2000 Nice Treaties were signed and finally the Constitution of the European Union came to agenda.

The constitution draft was put to a vote in some countries' parliaments, and in some others they went to referenda. The results of referenda showed very clearly that EU is in a deep crisis and it can not go beyond being an economic integration. The effort of founding a federal super EU state on the base of mentioned constitution became a dream for now.

The political crisis which broke out during the process of the discussions on the budget and the approval of the constitution reflected the attitudes which were directly questioning the future of EU. An EU with a constitution is an important step forward to establishing a Western Europe centered new hegemonic system and to form a whole external policy and militarism. It is quite definite that the constitution will be the first relevant step of achieving a political union. Taking this step will strengthen EU before the USA and it will increase its competition capacity in the world markets. In this context an EU with a constitution will be stronger than an EU without a constitution.

Whether in this manner or that manner, EU has arrived today expanding and growing. Its growth and expansion has brought into agenda its contradictions which were not on the agenda until today. The present political crisis shows that EU increases its internal contradictions, internal and external competition, while it is growing and expanding.

Does the growing and expanding EU deepen at the same time? There are two different opinions about deepening: One side understands democracy and welfare from deepening. This side generally consists of those who have expectations from EU. The other side, and first of all, Germany and France understands to keep "EU's capacity of moving". What those countries understand from deepening and from keeping "EU's capacity of moving" is to form a "nucleus" which they will lead. In this manner they will direct EU's development and the future according to their own interests such as they have directed until now. And the task which falls upon the other countries is to form a circle around this "nucleus" surrounding it.

The foremost imperialist countries of EU such as Germany and Europe understand a both expanding and deepening EU, a EU whose members do not have equal rights.

The constitution was prepared to legitimize and legalize this situation. But it was refused, before all, in France which is one of those who want this.

How democratic is the mentioned constitution? Saying pretentious and inflated words about democracy make no sense. If one day this constitution comes in force, it will make EU as "democratic" as USA. Because this constitution was prepared in order to form a European centered new hegemonic force under the leadership of Germany-France binary. This constitution is based on the neoliberal "values". The neoliberal "values" which have been realized by US imperialism for a long time take place in the EU constitution. In this context, the hegemonic force which is aimed to be formed can be at least as democratic as USA, with its mentioned neoliberal "values". We say "at least", because the constitution goes further than the neoliberal "values" of the US imperialism. The constitution is quite open to establish a "democratic" dictatorship. The neoliberal policy which took place in the Maastricht Treaties is constituted in the 3rd Part of the constitution. Majority is not enough to change this but unanimity is required. US imperialism can change its neoliberal "values" in force when it is suitable for its interests. But the constitution puts a neoliberal "straitjacket" on EU. Today the economical, political and social life as a whole is organized according to these "values" in the EU countries. Is it necessary to think about how democratic can EU be with its constitution of neoliberal "values"?

Briefly: The constitution projects an EU without democracy. Its preparers and ideologists are national and EU-wide technocrats, elites. These elements are the masters of the proceeding step by step strategy. First they began with the common market for coal and steel. The conception of Common Market followed this. The establishment of the Common Market or the formation of an internal market of the participating countries made certain rules, laws, treaties inevitable. Every rule, law or legislation; or more correctly, every treaty had to serve the free circulation of commodities, capital, etc. from the beginning. The Single European Act was signed for this goal in 1987.

In order to utilize maximally the internal market which was formed, monopolies needed a common currency. Maastricht was signed for this goal. But a common currency was not enough. To utilize this common currency Euro maximally, it was necessary for the union to be formed on the base of a legal ultra-structure; a common foreign policy and security policy. This means, they had to think of a common defence, an army had to be formed, and this army had to be strong enough to defend and realize the will of EU outside the borders of EU.

So, a political union was necessary to utilize this economic union, common currency maximally. They reached this goal partially with the Amsterdam Treaty; to be clearer, the way of developing as a political union was opened legally. But later, they remembered that Europe didn't consist of Western Europe only; but this old continent also had a north, south and east! And a treaty was necessary for this. And this was realized: Southern and Eastern Europe were joined to EU with Nice Treaty, according to the interests of Germen and French capitals. This was not enough, either. They had to take the steps of establishing a Federal European Union state. And the first step of this only could be a constitution which binds the member countries to German and French monopolist capital's interests: These two imperialist countries were aiming to establish a quite centralized Federal European Union state under their control. France and Germany were relatives during the period of tribes also. Maybe for this reason they wanted to establish a new, modern Carolingian Empire! But as it was shown by the referendum results, they failed in their accounts!

At the end of the year 2004 new measures were developed to make the "fortress-Europe" a reality. They laid the foundation of a common shelter system, of the EU-Border Defence Unite, of closer exchange of information between police forces, intelligence services, in the meeting of the ministers of 25 countries in Brussels. These measures were gathered under the name "Haag Programme".

EU gives the right to "send the illegal immigrant back to their country" to the member countries under the name of "guaranteeing fundamental rights".

"Haag Programme" is valid for all EU countries; and forms the basis of travel and immigration measure in the context of EU.

Every important big political crisis brings out into the open the basic problems and motives which were hidden until that time. The refusal of the EU constitution in France and Netherlands, after that, the budget problem and breaking out of the financial crisis must be taken as the means and, at the same time, the reasons of the breaking out of the present political crisis. When we go through the EU process, we always see many contradictions, discussions, competition. There is a contradiction in EU between the big states and small states. There are countries which refrain from the Germany-France dominance. At the same time there are ones who see this dominance as the motor force of EU. Recently the contradictions between the "old" and "new" Europe came to agenda. What is mentioned here is the opposition of the pro-USA states in EU to the dominance of Germany-France binary. And of course there are contradictions in EU between poor countries and rich countries; between poor regions and rich regions and between the poor and the rich.

EU was able to control and limit its self contradictions and conflicts to some extent by subventions and promotion policies which it had been realizing until now and because of this, there were no serious obstacles against the progress of the integration process, the growth and expansion of EU. But the miserable situation of the world and EU economies in the last years; the massive opposition developing as a result of the neoliberal attacks; US imperialism which wants to keep its hegemonic position in the world politics and its steps in this direction resulted in national interests being expressed again in a strong, vivid manner in old Europe.

By the exact meaning of the word, the Iraqi War divided EU into two, and left nothing behind from the common external and security policy or concept which they spoke about a lot. So, it became clear that EU had not proceeded even a little as a political integration.

They could hardly make a consensus on the preliminary constitution. EU was going to enter a new stage of its development with the approval of the constitution: At the end of this process, Europe was going to have realized its integration both economically and politically. This means, somehow, "United States of Europe" was going to be founded. But this did not happen. The refusal of the constitution by the people in France and Netherlands, the quarrels of the foremost countries of Europe such as Germany, France and England during the summits following this, resulted in that they had to postpone the realization of the Europe project.

USA orients Great Britain to make EU remain as a union of national states. Great Britain really sabotaged the hegemony plans of Germany-France binary, yes, destroyed them, with its recent clear oppositions. The prime minister of this country, T. Blair expressed this in his statement to the press with the following words:

"This is important. A Europe with a structure that G. Britain can establish alliances, can feel at home; a Europe without any dominant opinions in it, where there is flexibility and progress."

"No one who considers seriously the agreement can claim that it forms the basis of a federative super state. This is a new Europe and the difference can be felt when gathering around a table with those new states. There is a fight still continuing on the question of how the future Europe would be shaped. There are the ones who want to make taxes harmonious or abolish the right of veto in the policies of foreign affairs and defense. But there came out a new situation: Instead of that, to find a common alliance in order to guaranty that Europe stays as the Europe of national states85"

"The common ally who they found for guaranteeing that Europe remains as the Europe of national states" was nobody else but the support of the US imperialism and the Eastern and Middle European countries which were members of EU as well as of NATO.

And in this manner T. Blair was saying that they (G. Britain and the USA) were dictating the future of Europe. Blair considers that the participation of G. Britain in the formation of EU, in the EU project is an obligation and believes that it can struggle against the German-French dominance in EU, with the US support. This means, he is determined to develop EU as a free trade land which has no contradiction with NATO and USA.

Beyond this, T. Blair has another trump in this struggle: The Prime Minister of Great Britain aims to organize the new members of EU in a pro-American course and to re-shape EU with their contributions.

Blair acts through the fact that these new members of EU, the Eastern and Middle European countries which are also NATO members have the same vision with G. Britain about the future of Europe and they are determined to keep their independence within EU. So that Blair claims that these countries have a "duty" to USA; they are "aware of that it helped them to gain their freedom" and they will continue this friendship or collaboration in EU. Such a claim shows that the British vision of the EU is an organized activity.

It is clear that T. Blair's -the Prime Minister of Great Britain- vision of the EU consists of breaking the influence of Germany-France binary and guaranteeing that USA will remain as a European force and will use EU as a "democratic bridgehead" in its Eurasian geo-policy.

Briefly:

The old Europe, which has been the scene of wars, destructions, uprisings and revolutions, or EU which forms a part of it is experiencing the deepest political crisis ever since the 2nd World War. The refusal of the constitution in the referendums in France (May) and in Netherlands (June the fiasco of the financial summit of EU which took place again in June; the fact that many EU countries put aside the approval of the constitution meanwhile and this was also accepted in the EU summit; finally the quarrel between the heads of the governments almost "swearing" at each other in the summit, all these were not like the sharp discussions which had happened until that time. The recent duel of accusing each other shows that EU is in a deep political crisis. It is clear that European Union project; the project of transition from economic integration to political integration had faced the obstacle of inter-imperialist contradictions, had reached a dead-end street of competition which was the expression of these contradictions.

The mentioned political crisis has shown that EU does not and cannot easily go beyond being an economic integration.

EU has capitulated to "national" political interests and national egoisms.

Many factors play a role in the breaking out of this political crisis:

1- EU has the financial opportunity to reduce the regional and social inequality between the member countries to some extent. But globalization impedes this. The capital of EU countries cannot afford the expenses for agricultural subventions, regional funds and some other subventions to compete globally with the countries which offer low wages and take low taxes, any more. This also contains the financing of the social systems such as retirement, health etc. For this reason the Prime Minister of G. Britain, T. Blair finds the agricultural subventions foolish. Because 40 per cent from EU's budget is spent on agricultural subventions.

But it is not so easy to abolish these expenses. The social and political structure which has been established in Western European countries after the Second World War and which has been balanced with great attention is destined for destruction, without these expenses. The destruction or the steps which may cause the destruction of these structures will not only cause a national political crisis, but also will bring the national interests of the EU countries face to face and in this manner it will sharpen the rivalry of the countries within EU. The row between Germany-France binary and G. Britain is a clear reflection of this situation. As the last developments within EU has shown, the countries and the governments which always praise a united Europe are not slow to show their real faces when the problem touches the national interests.

2- The pressure of US imperialism which is getting harder everyday is another reason for the political crisis. Since the Iraqi War the US imperialism has been using its influence intensely on EU which does not support its world hegemony, in order to prevent the development of this union as a rival on the international scene. The US imperialism has succeeded in its efforts and it seems to have reached its goal. USA has carried the "old"-"new" Europe to agenda and has towed the members of EU in Eastern and Middle Europe which are defined as "new" Europe and together with some countries of "old" Europe; it has divided EU into two, on the base of Iraqi War.

The American Minister of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld expressed the split/contradiction between USA and EU; between USA-G. Britain binary and German-France binary, which broke out because of the imperialist war, US plans of war and which became more and more clear since the first Gulf War in 1991 until today. Rumsfeld explained after the question of a journalist: "When they say Europe, you think of Germany or France. But I do not think so. This is the old Europe. Look at many other countries of Europe. They do not agree with France and Germany in this subject. They support USA."

USA had never attacked so sharply and clearly these allies and it had never before questioned the union of Europe in the context of EU as something questionable.

The US imperialism was expressing its aim to form an influence area in Europe which would be opposed to Germany and France and under its control.

There were not so many alternatives for the German and French monopolist bourgeoisies: Whether they would submit to the demands of USA and in this manner they would accept that EU would openly change into the protectorate of US imperialism, or, they would behave as "false wrestlers" and they would show that they supposedly stood against USA. The monopolist bourgeoisies of EU; particularly German and French monopolist bourgeoisies could not save themselves from this dilemma.

In the contradiction between USA and EU, G. Britain takes the side of USA. This country has acted and is acting as the partner of US imperialism against Germany-France binary in EU.

And another reason why the Middle and Eastern European countries take the side of USA is that they are not comfortable about German-French dominance and the axis of France-Germany-Russia.

The passing time has neither reduced the importance of nor did away with the mentioned dilemma of EU. On the contrary, it resulted in voices in "old" Europe defending the USA.

The passing of time has shown Germany and France that their present potential is not sufficient at all to compete with US imperialism in Europe or in the international area and that they cannot trust EU as a force. So they had to postpone their intentions to challenge seriously the USA.

3- The social opposition, which has been formed against the imperialist war and neoliberal attacks for the last few years and which has sometimes been expressed by hundreds of thousands and millions, must be taken as one of the most important reasons for the breaking out of the political crisis in EU.

The movement against imperialist globalization on the world scale organized itself in Europe as the European Social Forum and culminated in February 2003 in the demonstrations aiming to stop the imperialist war against Iraq. Millions filled the streets against war, and at the same time, to protest against the neoliberal attacks. In some European countries, the governments tried to utilize the opposition of millions against war for their own interests. The foremost of them are Germany and France who declared that they were against the US aggression against Iraq. In these countries the governments of the monopolist bourgeoisies opposed the war on the basis of the interests of their capital and were able to use the movement against the war for their benefits. For example when the coalition of the Social Democrats and the Greens won the elections again in Germany in 2002, it played an important role that they had pretended to be between the working class-the labouring masses and the bourgeoisie turned clearer and clearer against war.

But the reason why masses took to the streets in these countries to protest against the war was not that they thought "our governments are against war, so let us take to the streets to protest the war as well". Their motives to stand against war and the governments' motives were basically different: The working class and the labouring masses were protesting the war and militarism which was serving the interests of monopolist capital, while the governments were against the imperialist war with the motive of defending their own interests against USA.

Massive chronic unemployment; realization of the neoliberal policies which have been prepared for the interests of monopolist capital; reduction of the social rights captured in the fields such as retirement, health, education etc; irregularisation of the working life are the main policies of the monopolist bourgeoisie in recent years in Europe. All these caused millions to fill the streets.

This contradiction became the main factor of the reformation of the social and political life in these countries. For this reason the fact that masses were against the neoliberal policies and attacks in France played an important role in the refusal of the constitution: this means, in France, the majority of the voters said "no" to the constitution not only because it was the constitution of the monopolies. There is no doubt that the neoliberal policies, the neoliberal attacks, which found their reflections in the reduction of the democratic, economic and social rights as a whole, play a determining role in the refusal of the constitution.

The results of the referendums were the expressions of the non-confidence in the governments in these countries. The process of approval of the constitution was frozen in some EU countries in order to prevent the crisis, which broke out in the context of approval of the constitution, to spread to the other countries.

So, the refusal of the EU constitution in this country should not be taken only as a result of wide masses understanding that the constitution was antidemocratic. The same thing is also valid for Netherlans. Also in this country, the neoliberal policies and attacks within the country and within Europe played an important role in the refusal of the constitution. So that in Germany the government had to hold early elections.

Because of the reasons that we have mentioned, a political crisis broke out in France as a result of the refusal of the constitution of EU. The reason for the political crisis that broke out in German was also the same.

In France, which has no other way else than realizing the neoliberal policies in order to be sure of itself in the world markets under the conditions of imperialist glo-balization, French monopolist bourgeoisie are preparing N. Sarkozi, who follows a neoliberal, pro-US political course, as the successor of the president, Jacques Chirac.

In Germany, before the elections, the social democratic wing of the coalition emphasized that they were determined about Agenda 2010 and that it was necessary to carry out the neoliberal policies in a determined way in order to make Germany sure of itself in the world markets.

4- The contradiction between Continen-tal Europe and G. Britain is one of the reasons for the political crisis of EU. Consider-ing these developments in Continental Europe, T. Blair is planning to utilize the political crisis in these countries and generally in Europe, to shape EU and beyond this, entire Europe according to the British model. Anyhow, he has an opportunity, Presidency of the Council of EU. Blair was speaking about "modernizing" Europe in the speech which he made in the European Parliament during his assumption of office. According to Blair, a new social model must be formed -and no doubt, considering the British model- and by the help of this model, "the competition capacity of EU must be improved" and EU "must get rid of some unnecessary legislations, it must decrease bureaucracy, it must support a global Europe, a Europe which is open to the world and which has a competition capacity". Continuing, Blair says the main idea: EU must not compete against USA, on the contrary, it must be an "active actor in foreign policies" which is a "good partner" of USA.

The model suggested by Blair is the model which is in force in G. Britain: The wages are quite low in this country. More than one third of the houses are in the category of those who cannot live on their salary, although they have a job and they work. This means, they are poor. This country is the country with the longest working hours. In this country more than 25 per cent of children exist formally in the category of the poor, which is a high ratio for developed countries. But this country is one of the countries in Europe where business taxes are the lowest and despite this, indirect taxes are the highest.

Blair is not opposed in Continental Europe because of the social model he has suggested. The neoliberal attacks which are on the agenda in Germany and France are being held in order to realise the neoliberalism which Great Britain has been realising since 1980. Continental European countries almost imitate G. Britain in this subject. The main difference between them is on the foreign policies. Germany and France stand for the development of EU as a political integration and for developing a common foreign policy, in order to be able to compete with USA. Blair stand for the opposite of this: He wants EU to be an "active partner" of USA in foreign policy.

In other words: Blair is preparing the conditions of a discussion on the future of EU. The developments and the attitude of the member countries show that it is the time to give a concrete answer to the question "What kind of a Europe do we want?" We have already mentioned above a few reasons of the present political crisis. Almost each of these reasons is related to the future of EU and for this reason the crisis is caused by the opinions about the future of EU. As a result of this, EU has been divided into two parts on the basis of the opinions about its future:

-Those who want EU to remain as an economic integration (First of all, Great Britain)

-Those who want EU to develop as a political union (First of all, Germany-France binary)

The British monopolist capital declares what kind of an EU they want, through the words of Blair: EU must remain as an economic integration, as the partner of the USA. T. Blair has got the direct support of the US imperialism on this subject.

Germany-France binary stands for the development of EU as a political union. German and French monopolist capitals know very well that they fight for world hegemony on their own, that they cannot demand the re-share of the world on their own; and that the political, economic and military potential must be united. Because of all these reasons, they demand that a political union must be realized, because its relevance in the realization of their aspirations is vital.

EU can solve its present financial crisis in the way that it solved its economic and financial crisis before now. But it cannot solve so easily its political crisis which took place in the context of constitution and which directly make an effect on the future of EU; this crisis is caused by the opinions about the future of EU, the problem "What kind of an EU". There are two ways to solve this crisis:

-Whether the EU countries can act through the opinion of Great Britain and meanwhile gain the support of USA and in this manner they can decide that EU remains as an economic integration

-Or they can act through the opinion of Germany-France binary and they take steps to change EU into a political union.

In any case, the development of EU after this crisis will be different from its development until today. Because, as an economic integration, EU has reached the borders of its development. For this reason, EU does not have much possibility to renew itself as an economic integration further. The development from now on means going beyond its present limits. It can only renew itself by taking steps towards achieving political union.

As a conclusion:

The developments in the context of EU show that things are getting serious. It is clear that EU, which was able to solve its problems and expand in the context of the present integration until now, has come to a fork on its road: Whether they will take the steps to achieve the political integration, or EU remains as an economic integration.

Political integration in capitalism means that those who want to integrate inevitably give up their national properties and interests by force and they unite in so-called "common values".

In such unification, "common values" are the values of the strongest.

It is clear that EU has entered a process of facing its own reality.

Is EU a political union or is it possible to establish a "United States of Europe"?

In order to answer this question, it is necessary to establish who and for what is EU.

First of all, EU is the EU of monopolies: What bourgeoisie understand from freedom is freedom for capital (including the valuable papers). For this reason EU was established to provide the free movement of capital, the monopolies and its growth and expansion means the growth and expansion of the capital, of the monopolies. What we mention here are not the capital and the monopolies which are no longer national but of EU. EU is freedom for capital and the monopolies of the member countries. In this context EU is the EU of capitals and monopolies of the member countries of EU:

According to the data of the year 1999, 68 monopolies which have their centre in EU take place among the 200 biggest monopolies of the world. Including the Swiss monopolies, this number increases to 74. None of them are EU-monopolies; none of them have the identity of being an EU-monopoly. These are national monopolies which have their centres in EU or Switzerland. This is clear: 22 German, 17 French, 10 British, 6 Netherlander, 6 Italian, 3 Spanish, one Luxembourgian and one Swedish monopoly. And this EU is the EU of monopolies. In this context EU is freedom for the national capitals and monopolies on the basis of member countries.

EU means free commodity circulation: For the realization of free commodity circulation, borders and customs must be abolished. What is mainly mentioned here is the free circulation of monopoly products. For this reason EU is an integration which guarantees the free circulation of monopoly products. Therefore, EU means nothing but the circulation of commodities for the international monopolies; the monopolist capital.

EU means free circulation in services sector: What is mentioned here is the abolition of national borders or national limitations and to provide free bank and insurance activities for the monopolies in this field. For this reason EU is the EU of the monopolist banks; big banks and the insurance firms.

EU is the "free" circulation of citizens: According to EU, EU citizens can travel without a passport within the EU countries. But when they try to pass the borders for some demonstrations, it is seen that this is not always the case. It is a reality that the freedom of travel is abolished in order to prevent the free movement of demonstrators.

What EU understands from the freedom of travel is the cheap labour force immigration from other countries, which means immigration from the countries where labour is cheap to the countries where the labour force is "expensive". In this context, EU means free circulation of cheap labour force.

In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels told: "By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying". EU means nothing else but this freedom, for the monopolist capital.

There is no doubt that such an EU cannot be the EU of the workers and the labouring masses. The present EU can only be the EU of the monopolist capital, monopolist bourgeoisie. In this context; it is possible for both classes to establish the "United States of Europe". The discussions on this are not new. But to discuss the subject in the context of "United States of Europe" and to make a correct evaluation, it must not be forgotten that the present EU is yet an economic integration.

Bourgeoisie do not avoid establishing a "United States of Europe" special to them, if it suits their interests. Such as they laid the foundation of today's EU in 1957 with the European Community because they found it suitable for their interests. The history of EU has shown that such an economic integration of this present form can be realized by a gathering of the countries which are interested in this. Such an economic integration has no permanent character. But its members can increase the content of, can extend the life of such integration if they find it suitable for their interests, but it is impossible for them to develop as a political union; to establish a united state in "peaceful" conditions.

As Lenin has shown in his article, "On the slogan of United States of Europe": "Of course, temporary agreements are possible between capitalists and between states. In this sense a United States of Europe is possible as an agreement between the European capitalists".

Lenin explains the reasons of establishing such a state for that time as follows: "... but to what end? Only for the purpose of jointly suppressing socialism in Europe, of jointly protecting colonial booty against Japan and America, who have been badly done out of their share by the present partition of colonies, and the increase of whose might during the last fifty years has been immeasurably more rapid than that of backward and monarchist Europe, now turning senile. Compared with the United States of America, Europe as a whole denotes economic stagnation. On the present economic basis, i.e., under capitalism, a United States of Europe would signify an organisation of reaction to retard America's more rapid development."

Today the reasons of establishing such a state have changed: Germany and France which stand for the development of EU as a political integration does not want this today for the purpose of "jointly suppressing socialism". The objective reasons for such an inclination do not exist at this moment. But they want it because they think that they have been "badly done out of their share by the present partition of colonies", they want it for the purpose of "jointly protecting colonial booty against America"; so they want the development of EU as a political integration to re-share the world with the US imperialism and the other hegemonic forces, to be stronger in competition in order to get the biggest pie in the world markets.

Is such a development possible in peaceful conditions? Can the other members of EU accept the interests of Germany-France binary and renounce their national identities? More important than that; can Germany and France fuse in a peaceful way, which means, can the German and French leave their identities of being German capital or French capital to represent a certain integrality, can they be the capitals representing a certain will? In any case, it is inevitable to use force for the realization of EU's political union.

Lenin speaks on this issue in his mentioned article:

"A United States of Europe under capitalism is tantamount to an agreement on the partition of colonies. Under capitalism, however, no other basis and no other principle of division are possible except force. (...) Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, and anarchy in production. To advocate a "just" division of income on such a basis is sheer Proudhonism, stupid philistinism. No division can be effected otherwise than in "proportion to strength", and strength changes with the course of economic development. (...) There is and there can be no other way of testing the real might of a capitalist state than by war. War does not contradict the fundamentals of private property -on the contrary; it is a direct and inevitable outcome of those fundamentals. Under capitalism the smooth economic growth of individual enterprises or individual states is impossible. Under capitalism, there are no other means of restoring the periodically disturbed equilibrium than crises in industry and wars in politics."

EU does not guarantee that the balance of power among its member countries will not change. Neither it has such an objective nor is this possible. Unequal development is essential in capitalist conditions and the inevitable result of this unequal development is that the balance of power between capitalist countries chances continuously. In this context, the present balance of power between the imperialist countries in EU may change tomorrow and there will be no way but force to establish a new balance.

Briefly:

For EU to be a political will, to change into the "United States of Europe", first Germany-France binary must use force against the other members and then they must use force between each other. This is the fact.

Or, as Lenin said: "from the standpoint of the economic conditions of imperialism -i.e., the export of capital arid the division of the world by the "advanced" and "civilised" colonial powers- a United States of Europe, under capitalism, is either impossible or reactionary."

The fact, objective situation is:

EU is expanding and getting stronger as an economical integration, but the capital remain national within EU.

There has never been even one European monopoly since it was founded. It has a constitution though it has not been accepted by all of its members yet. It has legislations almost in every field. Almost every obstacle in front of the free movement of capital has been thrown out. Internal borders have been abolished. So that, many functions which were under the authority of the national states before are under the authority of Brussels now. But the capitals and the monopolies are still national. The capitals and the monopolies belonging to each country have not left their national identities to fuse as EU-capitals and EU-monopolies. For this reason EU is a union where mother capitals/monopolies remain national, it is an economic integration model.

Due to this characteristic of the EU, its strategists and geo-politicians are face to face with an important question. The question is caused by the relations of base-superior structures; the economic structure and the existence of different political structures-states which correspond to the economic structure. There is a dialectic connection between the base and superior. And according to that: there should be an EU-Capital, EU-economic structure in order to form an EU-superior structure, an EU-state. That is to say; the EU-infra structure, economy must develop an EU-superior structure that corresponds with itself. This is what is missing. In its existing circumstances, there is a merciless competition for the interests of national states in all EU-superior structure, EU institutions. The powerful make others accept them in the competition. Therefore, the EU essentially is in the position of an integration where a tough rivalry is being carried out for the interests of national state, the interests of national capital/monopoly, but continues to exist by maintaining conciliation.

EU is an integration process developing since the European Community was founded as the predecessor of EU. The stage which this development has reached today is its present situation. This situation shows that the foundation of a "United States of Europe" on the basis of capitalist relations can only be possible by using force; by war. No EU country would like to found the "United States of Europe" under the hegemony of France and Germany, becoming French or German.

We should expect France to become German or Germany to become French for EU to change into "United States of Europe" on the basis of France-Germany binary. And this can only be possible by using force which is a direct result of unequal development in capitalism.

All possibilities and the reality of capitalism show that the easiest way for EU to change into "United States of Europe" is war.

The period since its foundation until now shows how exaggerated is the conception that EU is proceeding towards being a political integration.

The expectations which are spread by the reformists and liberals depending on the development of EU until now are also illusions all on their own. It will be useful to clear this point:

Kautsky (Ultra-imperialism): "... Cannot the present imperialist policy be supplanted by a new, ultra-imperialist policy, which will introduce the joint exploitation of the world by internationally united finance capital in place of the mutual rivalries of national finance capitals? Such a new phase of capitalism is at any rate conceivable.".

Lenin: "85This is because the only conceivable basis under capitalism for the division of spheres of influence, interests, colonies, etc., is a calculation of the strength of those participating, their general economic, financial, military strength, etc. And the strength of these participants in the division does not change to an equal degree, for the even development of different undertakings, trusts, branches of industry, or countries is impossible under capitalism. (...) Therefore, in the realities of the capitalist system, and not in the banal philistine fantasies of English parsons, or of the German "Marxist", Kautsky, "inter-imperialist" or "ultra-imperialist" alliances, no matter what form they may assume, whether of one imperialist coalition against another, or of a general alliance embracing all the imperialist powers, are inevitably nothing more than a "truce" in periods between wars. Peaceful alliances prepare the ground for wars, and in their turn grow out of wars; the one conditions the other, producing alternating forms of peaceful and non-peaceful struggle on one and the same basis of imperialist connections and relations within world economics and world politics." (Lenin; "Imperialism85", German V. 22, p. 299-301).

According to Kautsky, "such a new phase of capitalism is at any rate conceivable". After this, he was continuing as follows: "Sufficient premises are still lacking to enable us to answer this question."

This did not happen: "Ultra-imperialism" was not able to organize the "joint exploitation of the world" by its "internationally united finance capital". The opposite of this happened as Lenin had predicted; unequal development and competition caused war.

And today EU is seen as a Kautsky-style expectation against the "aggressive US imperialism", the US militarism. But EU does not develop in a Kautsky-style way; in the direction which he had predicted. Competition, unequal development is undermining the present integration.

As a conclusion:

The US imperialism stands on the basis of "national" interests and develops geo-policies for these interests.

Nevertheless, there isn't any EU-imperialism; but there are the imperialist countries of EU; there are the "national" interests competing against each other in the context of EU integration. The difference between them is this one.

The relation between Turkey and EU or, under which conditions can Turkey be a member of EU and under which conditions it cannot?

EU has been divided into two, about Turkey's membership issue: Those who stand for the full membership of Turkey and those who support that it must be a "privileged partner". The main attitude of those who support its membership is very clearly expressed by the former Foreign Minister of Germany, Fischer:

EU has to reach a certain or indispensable size to be the superpower "responsible" in the world system. Turkey is important in the task of helping EU becoming such a power. The former Foreign Minister of Germany, Fischer is explaining why Turkey must be a member of EU:

"85The unity of Europe has a strategic dimension. Here, a Turkey which is in correspondence with the European standards is as important as the Common Foreign and Security Policy of EU." (J. Fischer, "Berliner Zeitung", February 28, 2004).

Fischer continues as follows: "We must give shape to globalization politically. It is only possible by acting on the continental scale to control the asymmetric conflicts and to solve them as long as it is possible. Russia, India and of course USA have the necessary size. The problem for us Europeans is: Can we unite until we have a prevailing weight? We must consider the discussions on Turkey in this perspective."

Fischer, considering the interests of German imperialism, is speaking about the "strategic dimension" which EU should have. He says that EU or Europe should act on a "continental scale" in order to make policy on the world scale. What he says means that it should have the same dimension as USA.

According to the former Foreign Minister of Germany, EU must not be the one which "is subjected to" globalization, but on the contrary, it must be the one which "gives shape" to globalization. In this manner Fischer expresses that the problem which stands before EU is re-sharing the world, capturing the biggest pie in the world markets, competing against the strongest rivals.

According to Fischer, Turkey must help EU to be such a power, to realize its "strategic process". And they do not want that much from Turkey! They only want it to submit its strategic situation to the possible strategic proceedings of EU; those who want to be "continental-scaled" actors say: Turkey is situated like a bridge between Europe and different "conflict structures"; this means, Turkey is situated on the centre of the triangle consisting of the Balkans, the Middle East and the Caucasus; Turkey is a "bridge" between Europe and the "Islamic world".

EU wants to open out into the Middle East, Caucasus and interiors of Asia through Turkey. It does not want to leave these regions, which are so important that imperialists might fight for them for imperialist plundering and domination, to its rivals such as USA, Russia and China. For this reason it expresses that Turkey is a "model country" for the Middle Eastern countries.

The meaning of these conceptions is: EU wants to interfere in the local, "ethnic problems", "conflict structures" in the mentioned triangle in order to compete against US imperialism for the world hegemony, and just as USA do, it wants to utilize the strategic situation of these regions in the hegemony fight and of course, it wants to control the energy resources in this region. And accepting Turkey as a member, it wants to utilize Turkey which has a certain regional size in order to be able to do all of these.

And about the ones who say that it must only be a "privileged partner". This sector which is mainly represented by the conservative parties also wants the same EU. But these ones emphasize that they must be more careful about giving a role to Turkey in the process of forming such an EU. We can summarize the preoccupations of these elements as follows:

- It can ruin the limits of the integration capacity of Europe.

- It is quite big. (Stoiber)

- It is so arbitrary that it cannot be a tool of the unilateral EU strategies; which means, it may act on its own and cannot be controlled. (Stoiber)

- It can turn the present balance of forces upside down. (Stoiber)

- It is able to impose its own opinions on the European internal and foreign policies. (Stoiber)

- It can make alliances with other countries against Germany and France about EU¡¦s internal discussions and problems on rivalry.

Both those who want the full membership of Turkey and those who are against speak clearly: Those who want to be effective in the world politics must have geo-political aspects and must act strategically, and must be able to set the forces which it has towed into action. The meaning of this for EU or Europe is as follows:

EU must be as strong as USA; it must be stronger than all the other states; it must have the power and the capacity to give shape to all the international relations unilaterally.

Today, the world is being re-shared by USA. USA is in a determining position as the hegemonic power. EU's strategists arrive at the following conclusion: We must be at least as strong as USA in order to make it feel our existence and understand that we are a power which must be considered in the re-sharing of the world.

EU approaches the full membership of Turkey on the basis of these opinions. For this reason, according to the German Foreign Minister Fischer, the task of helping EU to have a "continental dimension in the states system of the 21st century" which it does not have yet falls upon Turkey. The key role is given to Turkey in the mentioned triangle for EU to realize its interests.

The fear of a Trojan horse:

The fear of France-Germany is concentrated upon whether including Turkey into EU which they have been directing according to their interests will be a danger for them or not; whether Turkey will be a branch of USA in EU or not.

The chief of CSU, Stoiber who is one of the foremost of those who support giving Turkey the status of "privileged partnership" tells that the full membership of Tur-key will destroy the vision of Europe and in this case Europe will change into a free trade zone which has no political power.

Those who stand for the "privileged partnership" of Turkey (Merkel, SchE4uble, Stoiber in Germany and those in Europe who have the same political attitude with this conservative party) are not clear about whether EU will get stronger against USA in the case of Turkey's full membership or not; whether Turkey will play the role of Trojan horse within EU in the name of USA or not; whether USA will try to realize its strategic goals within EU through Turkey or not.

For this reason, those who support "privileged partnership" stand for the strengthened French-German leadership which has influence all over the rest of Europe instead of an EU including Turkey.

Turkish bourgeoisie has been waiting at the door of European Community of that time, then the European Economic Community and now EU, since the first negotiations began in 1963. It was not tired of waiting in the waiting hall for 40 years, and even waiting until Helsinki summit in December 19 99 was no problem. Turkish bourgeoisie, who had expressed that they would reconsider the relations if they would not get any result in Helsinki summit, roared and also were put out with them when they met with that waiting tactic again. So EU understood that Turkish bourgeoisie's patience of waiting had come to an end in Helsinki. Being worried about loosing Turkey completely, EU overcame this situation by sending its two high-position representative (Solana and Verheugen) to Ankara at midnight. As a result, Helsinki summit opened the way of taking the steps which could give a new quality to EU-Turkey relations. In this manner Turkey¡¦s way to enter EU was only opened. Consi-dering the "Progress Report", Turkey was announced as a "democratic" country with some defects. In this manner, a fascist dictatorship was acquitted by "democratic" EU.

The "Progress Report" which is defined as a "recommendation" was approved in the EU leaders' summit which took place in December 17th, and they gave the date October 3rd, 2005 to Turkey as the date to start negotiations.

It is often declared that full membership of EU for Turkey will not be realized before 2014 even if everything goes alright.

Turkish bourgeoisie carried out all the criterions that EU proposed. In this manner EU declared that Turkey could be its member with its present situation: Thus EU has ignored in one stroke of a pen the torture and massacres in Turkey as state policy despite its emphasis especially on the issue of democratic rights, and closed its eyes to the lynching attempts which recently have increased. According to EU, the dictatorship has removed obstacles against freedom of speech and thinking, and the colonialist fascist dictatorship has taken the necessary steps in settlement of the Kurdish question and, the question only remains for the abolishment of some hitches on implementation. In this manner EU has shown that its attitude to the Kurdish question has no difference from that of the colonialist fascist regime. Such that, following the same way as the banning of the fascist dictatorship, for example Germany has banned the newspaper Ozgur Politika which is the voice of the Kurdish patriots and has confiscated all its materials. It is clear that continuity of the colonial status of Kurdistan suits the interests of EU's imperialist countries.

There is nothing that the working class and the labouring masses of our country can expect from EU. The expectations about EU membership that it will bring democracy, that the Kurdish nation will get some national rights can only remain as expectations. If EU were democratic about the rights of the working class and the labouring masses, these rights would not be abolished in the present member countries. If we consider the attacks against the economic and democratic rights of the working class and the labouring masses which they had achieved through struggle; the destruction of the social systems such as retirement and health: the reactionary, fascistic laws made under the pretext of "terrorism"; the provocation of racism and chauvinism, the reality that they open the way for the fascist parties, as the direct expressions of neoliberal attacks in EU countries, and particularly in the imperialist countries such as Germany, France and England, we can easily understand that believing or supposing that such EU will bring democracy and welfare to Turkey is naked evil or an intent for deception of the working class, the labouring masses and the Kurdish nation in our country.

Our duty is not having such expectations about EU but struggling against it. The ruling classes which find their future in alliance with this or that imperialist power keep on spreading pro-American or pro-European expectations through the mediation of some reformists whom they have used and some so-called writers which they have bought. The struggle against imperialism and its native collaborators must be taken as the struggle against these empty hopes.

In opposition to the expectations which are being spread by the reformists, the government and the capitalist class who stand on the same side about this membership issue, emancipation will not come with EU. Being a EU member will not bring democracy, employment, welfare to Turkey. National and social emancipation in Turkey and Northern Kurdistan can only be achieved through revolution. Therefore, emancipation cannot be achieved through EU but through revolution.

EU membership of Turkey is not related to whether it realizes the Copenhagen political criterions, those political criterions of the EU imperialists or not. This is a deception.

A date (October 3rd, 2005) was given to Turkey for the negotiations for membership but this does not guarantee membership. EU has declared that it can put the negotiations off for any reason. And they are using the refusal of the constitution in some countries and the Cyprus problem as an excuse for putting the negotiations off. For example, on 11th August 2005 Sabah newspaper writes the following words on this issue:

"Opportunist Chirac

While October the 3rd, the date to start membership negotiation, gets closer, discussions on Turkey have again become an agenda in the European Union (EU). At first, the Prime Minister of France, Dominique de Villepin said 'if Turkey would not recognize one of the EU members then its membership cannot be thought of. Than, in his letter to the Greek leader Papadopuls, the President, Jacques Chirac gave the guaranty 'if Turkey would not recognize the Republic of Cyprus then it will not be able to start to negotiations of full membership'. And, the Prime Minister of Denmark, Anders Fogh defended 'There is a necessity to discuss again Turkey's full membership of EU'.

'They are Using Cyprus'

In the complexity of Turkey's statements, which were made in the last two days, we asked Joost Lagendijk, the Chair of the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee. In his interview with Sabah he said "We cannot return from the decision of December 17th" and accused Chirac with opportunism. He said: "When the December 17th decision was taken, all the leaders, whose names are mentioned, were also there, including Chirac. Now he is being opportunistic. This attitude cannot be accepted. Discussion on Turkey is an expected development. Turkey's opponents are putting opportunities to use. Balkenende, the Prime Minister of Holland, which was the Term-Presidency of EU said the signing of the protocol does not mean recognizing Cyprus. The members of international press have asked this many times. And Balkenende has very clearly and openly repeated that the additional protocol and recognition of Cyprus are two different issues85"

And as a matter of fact, the crisis, which broke out between the EU countries just before the 3rd October on the question of Turkey's membership and the beginning of the negotiations for membership, seems to have been overcome after the Foreign Minister of Austria Ursula Plassnik declared "Our common aim is full membership". She declared this just after EU accepted in the last moment to start the negotiations for full membership with Croatia. They can find an-other pretext tomorrow. What is important for the foremost imperialist countries of EU, more correctly, for France-Germany binary who direct EU is how mature can Turkey become in being used in EU policies and how independently will it act of the USA.

By such expressions, EU gives the message that they will think about Turkey's membership again, if Turkey takes steps in opposition with EU' interests in regional and world politics and if it insists on taking the side of US imperialism.

The progress of EU-Turkey relations before giving a date for negotiations for membership also shows the dimensions of EU-USA competition on Turkey and the region. EU wants a Turkey which is completely dependent on EU and it will prolong the negotiation process until it makes Turkey completely dependent on EU. And USA will also do its best not to loose such an "ally". US imperialism needs another Trojan horse like England in the EU. It needs this for weakening EU in world politics, for preventing it to have a common foreign policy. For this reason it supports the EU membership of Turkey. EU imperialists also know very well the reason why USA supports the EU membership of Turkey.

Whether Turkey will be a full member of EU or not and the progress of the EU-Turkey relations as a whole depend on the progress of the competition between EU and USA and which side Turkey will take in this process.

The membership adventure of Turkey may last until the rivalry between EU and USA takes its final shape; until a certain situation of alliances, and the dismembering of the strained organizations of alliance such as NATO which was formed in the context of the cold war. It is not difficult to find a reason for prolonging the membership process.

Both USA and EU see that Turkey cannot be excluded in their efforts for influence in the region.

The present relations of EU and USA with Turkey carry the character of being a relation with a power which they cannot exclude, because of their interests. Both centres of imperialist rivalry are trying to gain this power for themselves. The hegemony struggle on Turkey is continuing. But they also know that Turkey is a country with opportunities and dynamics and it is one of the top 20 strong countries of the world in the economic sphere. It is a power with this strength and with military potential; it is a power which has the desire of being imperialist, which takes steps on this direction. Such a power in EU can turn all the balance of forces in EU upside down. As we have mentioned above, this is the cause of the fear of the foremost countries of EU and particularly of Germany.

What is to be done?

In EU countries, the bourgeoisie is attacking the working class and the labouring masses through neoliberal policies which are sometimes realized in different forms but always with the same content; they are reducing the economic and social rights which have been achieved through struggles; they are serving the material wealth of the countries to capital. Such attacks which are on the agenda of almost the entire EU countries make it inevitable and necessary to organize a common resistance against these attacks. There exist for the working class and the labouring masses in EU the material conditions to organize their national wide struggle in a common manner. Of course what is mentioned here is not a conception of organization and struggle such as European Social Forum. Likewise, we do not support struggling for a "United Socialist States of Europe" as Trotskyites do.

European Social Forum is struggling for reanimating the "state of social welfare" or returning to the period of "state of social welfare", while Trotskyites are aiming to realize their anti-capitalist revolution and to establish a "United Socialist States of Europe" through this social forum or those social movements. But they do not say anything about in what way this revolution can be realized.

The principal task of the working class within the EU countries is not struggling for "United States of Europe". The working class and the labouring masses are facing the task of struggling against their bourgeoisies. The working class, who are nationally politically disorganized, is a captive of defeat before the EU, the Trotskyites promoting the "social state" or "social Europe" and "united states of socialist Europe". The only method of struggle against these counter-revolutionary forces is to organize the working and labouring masses for socialist revolution; and this goes through the organization of the communist forces in each country as a political party. The slogan "the only alternative is socialism" cannot go beyond being an agitation slogan, without the realization of this precondition.

We are face to face with a heartrending situation in the EU countries about the question of the organization of the communists, about communist party question. This must be considered as how to act. But this must not be presented like "what can we do, there is no such party, so we have nothing to do". This would be another type of surrendering. Communist forces must be within the social movements, they must try to direct the social opposition and to make it revolutionary, wherever they exist. They must try to act together with the progressive, revolutionary sectors, and to influence them for socialist revolution. They can develop relations with the working class and the labouring masses and have a word to say in social opposition only if they act in this way.

The absolute task of the communists in each country is to unite politically and to organize the working class forces. Only after fulfilling this task, there can exist the material conditions of organizing and carrying out the struggle with a socialist perspective on an EU wide scale.