Secret History of the EU Project

 June 10, 2016

Pew research data released a few days ago indicates a growing dissatisfaction with the EU even in countries like France and the Netherlands, founding members of the Union.

It would be easy, of course, to blame the spread of euroscepticism on Brexit, on the 2008 financial debacle or last year’s migration crisis. In fact, as I will attempt to demonstrate further, it is the design flaws inherent in the European project that now undermine its survival.

This project – involving “an ever-closer union” of European nations – originated on the other side of the Atlantic and had started as a covert operation of the then newly-formed CIA. These essential details were hidden from the public for decades. Even I, as an historian, was made aware of them thanks to the interventions on French TV of Mrs. Marie-France Garaud, the eminence grise of presidents De Gaulle, Pompidou and Chirac.

Recently declassified CIA-OSS archives also prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that men whom we have considered for years to be the EU’s founding fathers (Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman and so on) were in fact paid to impose the CIA’s European project on an unsuspecting public opinion.

The CIA’s project was chiefly inspired by former OSS boss “Wild Bill” Donovan and by John Foster Dulles, former CIA director. Together with a small group of other lawyers, they elaborated the mad project of an “United States of Europe”. It was supposed to be realized in stages, by stealth and without European nations being fully informed about the ultimate shape or objectives of the EU institutions created in the mid-fifties.

Its original design flaws reflected the founders’ lack of grasp of European history, geography and geopolitics. Donovan and Dulles, steeped in European clandestine operations during WWII instead, had also developed an unhealthy admiration for existing Nazi blueprints to unite the continent’s countries and/or of Nazi high-ranking officials like Walther Funk. Their ideas by and large were incorporated into the CIA project, with the consequences only now made apparent by the financial and sovereign debt crises of the past decade.

However, had the initiators of the CIA project taken into consideration their own, American geopolitical scholarship concerning the organization of Europe after the war, Germany would have never been included into NATO but had been kept neutral instead, possibly undivided and under military occupation. Nicholas Spykman, the founder of American geopolitics, writing in 1941 considered that:

 

“Any proposal for the unification of Europe would tend to put them in a subordinate position to Germany (regardless of the legal provisions of the arrangement), since Germany, unless broken up into fragments, will still be the biggest nation on the continent. It is hardly conceivable that countries now fighting for their freedom would turn around and voluntarily submit to any such arrangement. It is equally improbable that the United States, after having made such tremendous sacrifices to help free these countries from the German yoke, would consent to the restoration of German domination.” (Nicholas Spykman,“The Geography of the Peace”, 1944)

 

 

 

Today when we look back at the crucial 1947-1957 decade, we can start to understand why the EU Commission and institutions are manned by an opaque bureaucracy unresponsive to public scrutiny, which is hell-bent on advancing the agenda of global corporations at the expense of the European citizen. Being a covert project inspired and financed by the CIA, the EU is indeed unable to fulfil the aspirations for progress of the European nations, although for a few decades it has seemed to function in that sense.

Towards the end, however, the central tenets of the project – the creation of the United States of Europe, Brussels’ centrally-planned economic and fiscal management, the common currency – became the foremost priorities of the subservient EU bureaucracy and of some EU political leaders alike. But this was also the point where European nations could not continue to support the project and started having serious doubts about the whole construction.

In hindsight, after two devastating world wars, the creation of NATO and the Marshall Plan would have been sufficient to keep the peace on the continent and return it to prosperity. The CIA on the other hand, which during the same period also financed the creation of the Bilderberg club, wanted to make sure that American multinationals and later global corporations can fully profit from European reconstruction and the accompanying economic development. Hence the adoption of an European union project and the creation of European institutions which were from the outset under the influence or management of people vetted and approved by the CIA/Bilderberg bosses.

The un-European nature of the entire EU project is its major flaw, although there are others, as well. No such project originating in the New World – even if elaborated with the best of intentions (which of course is not the case) – could ever be expected to work for long on the old continent. And vice-versa.

The EU’s apparent fleeting success had more to do with European reconstruction efforts and with the ubiquitous desire for peace after the two devastating wars. During the past two decades, unfortunately, CIA-sponsored politicians and intellectuals on both sides of the Atlantic have overplayed their hand and the entire edifice is crumbling as a result. While it is hard to gauge right now what alternative structures and arrangements will ultimately replace the EU, what’s for certain is that European nations should never again go to war with each other or allow outside powers and institutions to make vital decisions on their behalf concerning their collective future.

NATO and the Baltics' Geopolitical Predicament

May 6, 2016

During the 90’s, the uncontested dean of American diplomacy, the late George Kennan, fulminated against NATO’s expansion eastwards, which he considered both unnecessary and potentially dangerous for the security of the United States. The Clinton and Bush administrations did not heed sound professional advice and now the Baltics’ inclusion into NATO is creating major headaches for the alliance’s military planners.

The planned deployment of a few NATO battalions in the Baltics has already irked the Russian military, who decided to deploy three divisions in order to counter the perceived danger on their northwestern border. Most Western military analysts have recently highlighted the fact that NATO is in no position to really protect Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in case the Russians do decide to attack, which they obviously do not intend to at this point in time.

Objectively speaking, small coastal states – like the Baltics – cannot be defended indefinitely against a much more powerful neighbour in search of access to the sea. Here is what the founder of American geopolitics, Nicholas Spykman, had to say in 1938 about it :

“The fate of the newly-created coastal states (…), the three Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is still to be determined, but to the geographer they appear as distinct anachronisms in the evolution of geographic state types, and it is hard for any student of history to study a map of Europe without a strong conviction that Russia will some day force her way to the Baltic and swallow them a second time” (“Geography and Foreign Policy II”, pp.219-220)

The size and geographical location of the Baltics, therefore, will render their defense against Russia useless in the long run. This does not mean that Vladimir Putin – or even his successor in the Kremlin – has any current invasion plans concerning these three republics. NATO military planners, however, are duty-bound to take these geopolitical realities into consideration and avoid the risk of exposing the alliance to military conflict with Russia.

Granted, over the past few decades Western politicians have chosen to ignore solid geopolitical advice and to act in the name of certain ideals that are at odds with geography and sound foreign policy principles. This ignorance of geopolitics has been the source of many a policy error in Europe and the Middle East, to mention but two geographical regions currently in turmoil.

The upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa and the shaky internal situation in Turkey, on the other hand, mean that the United States – and the West generally – needs Russia’s cooperation more than it ever did in the past. Accordingly, by making an unnecessary troop deployment decision in the Baltics, NATO risks being embroiled in facing alone the Islamist threat in the Middle East and possibly even the unraveling of the political order in Turkey. As matters currently stand, the president of Turkey has already proven his willingness to stoke up an open military conflict with Russia, which of course his country cannot hope to win.

Both the small Baltic republics and Turkey, therefore, have the potential to drag the other NATO members into direct confrontation with the Russian army, a development that no NATO commander seriously contemplates though. Still, the ugly European experience during WWI illustrates the fact that small countries, like the Baltic republics, or desperate political leaders like Erdogan are quite able to ignite a generalized military conflict, paid for with the lives of their much larger and peaceful neighbours that can be induced to sleepwalk their way into such a conflict.

Consequently, the political leaders of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania should be well advised by NATO’s major military powers to tone down their anti-Russian rhetoric and try to find ways to cohabitate peacefully with their neighbour. ( Incidentally, this is the same type of advice I have given in 2008 to the Estonian Ambassador to France during a seminar on these matters that took place at Sciences po in Toulouse).

As for Turkey, the NATO high command should make it clear to the country’s military that shooting down Russian aircraft for minor violations of the country’s airspace will not constitute the casus belli that could automatically trigger the full involvement of NATO into conflict, as stipulated by Article 5 of the alliance’s treaty. To be sure, this provision in the treaty is activated only when one of NATO’s member states is subject to fully fledged armed intervention by a hostile power.

Terrorist Networks and the Panama Papers

 April 5, 2016

What is the connection between the terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels and the huge size of the tax-avoidance industry, as illustrated by the recent publication of the “Panama Papers” ?

On a superficial level, none. In actual fact, the exponential proliferation of illegal activities – the drug and arms trade, the rapid multiplication of criminal networks, the smuggling of refugees and, ultimately, terrorism in the Western world – has everything to do with the financial and logistical incapacity of states to collect revenues in order to police their neighbourhoods or their internal and external borders.

For almost two decades now, conservatives have imposed on most Western economies a “small government” agenda followed by drastic budget cuts. This has had the effect of rendering formerly powerful Western states defenceless against all sorts of illegal trafficking, criminal networks and now against terrorists. Meanwhile, in order to get elected and stay in power, a good many centre-left parties have pushed a similar if not identical agenda. The consequences of such destructive policies are now clear for all to see.

The world-wide dissemination of the “Panama Papers” serves as comprehensive proof that the global business elites, political elites and nowadays even small-time investors have indulged in massive tax avoidance schemes that bleed their respective national treasuries dry. Governments in need have been forced to resort to borrowing and to reducing essential services – such as healthcare, education, police and even the military – in order to make up for the budget shortfall.

The extreme weakening of most Western states is ultimately responsible for fuelling the exponential growth of criminal and terrorist networks on a global scale. To give but a few examples, the German police is unable to defend its own population because its numbers have been reduced to a bare minimum in the past ten years; the Belgian secret services lack the manpower to keep tabs on jihadis in the country; the French legal system lacks sufficient personnel and in some cases courts have to do without photocopying paper; EU agencies such as Frontex have less than half the manpower needed to stem the flow of illegal refugees; and everywhere in Europe the number of competent tax collectors and auditors is far below the minimum required to verify compliance with existing taxation rules for corporations and individuals alike.

Little wonder, therefore, that major corporations – but also politicians, smaller firms and individuals with money – have used to their advantage the dire predicament in which Western states currently find themselves.

Not to be outdone, criminal and terrorist networks have flourished to levels unforeseen and are putting public authorities on the defensive. A global war against them, however, would be fought in vain unless the community of states takes resolute action against tax evasion and fiscal havens.

But as matters now stand, Western states are not financially able to employ the number of people needed to detect, prosecute and punish tax fraudsters. Consequently, they are not in a position to give their bureaucrats the means to hire and train more police, judges and secret service agents, or to proceed to a wholesale dismantling of existing criminal cartels and terrorist networks.

The implosion of southern EU states' political systems

 March 14, 2016

The EU’s macroeconomic indicators for 2015 – the growth rate standing at 0.3 percent, the inflation rate at 0.2 percent – paint the picture of a continent severely affected by what economists call “secular stagnation“.

Secular stagnation is afflicting not only the EU but also Japan, and in the years ahead it will most probably end up engulfing the United States as well. Until recently, the only growth engines for the global economy were the BRICS countries. The slowdown in China and the economic woes experienced by Brazil and Russia have, however, reignited fears that the world economy is about to go off the rails, as the latest IMF warning clearly states.
The dire consequences of secular stagnation for Western economies could have been mitigated, if not reversed, by higher levels of public spending on infrastructure and on health and education systems. Instead, most EU countries under German leadership opted for the implementation of harsh and totally counterproductive austerity policies, which made matters worse.

Nowhere is the destruction of social fabric and political systems more evident than in the southern half of the EU. Greece is yet to register any signs of economic recovery after five years of the harshest austerity policies ever, while Portugal, Spain and Italy show only minor signs of recovery and stubbornly high levels of unemployment and social misery. Even Ireland, until recently deemed to have benefitted from austerity, has seen its political system unravel after the latest elections.

The danger in the political implosion of the above group of countries is real, as elections in 2015 have demonstrated. Neither Greece, nor Ireland, Portugal or Spain have returned traditional parties to power – a situation that has created political deadlock and instability, risking to make these countries ungovernable. Extremist and nationalist forces thrive in such an environment, further complicating matters for Brussels and for more stable (until now) northern members of the EU.

Weighing in on the dire political situation of southern EU members like Greece, Portugal and Spain is these states’ recent political history. Until the 1980s, they had been ruled by dictatorships and subsequently made enormous efforts to democratize their political systems in order to join the EU. Nowadays, the same union that bankrolled their valiant efforts during the last decades of the 20th century is imposing austerity policies which are in fact destroying both their societies and recently democratized political systems. For a majority of southern European citizens, the EU has failed to live up to their expectations and has become the problem, instead of the solution, to their plight.

The Migrant Crisis: Why Germany Can't Cope

 February 1, 2016

The biggest refugee crisis in Europe since WWII looks set to get worse in 2016. The country most responsible for the huge inflow of migrants from the Middle East is, as we all know, Germany.

What is less well-documented is the fact that its state apparatus simply cannot cope anymore. Chancellor Angela Merkel is quick to reassure her national and European audiences that her country can handle the challenges of integrating a million refugees, but events have proved her wrong time and again.

The New Year’s Eve disorders in Cologne are, according to German police, just the tip of the iceberg. The sheer numbers of refugees Germany has agreed to accept have led to administrative and security chaos in a country known until recently as one of the best-run and most orderly in the world.

To be sure, last year’s huge refugee influx is only partly to blame. At least as important a cause has been Germany’s adoption of tough austerity policies in recent years, which had seriously affected the budget and capabilities of the police and civil service, both on a local and federal level. After years of hugely misguided austerity, Germany nowadays has 10,000 less police than in the year 2000. Since 2014, repeated requests by the Interior Ministry for the hiring of an additional 3,000 personnel have been denied funding by Mr. Schaeuble’s ministry, the latter being bent on balancing the German budget at the expense of its citizens’ most basic security needs.

What’s worse, nobody can expect this situation to improve anytime soon. Although the creation of 3,000 new posts has recently been approved, the new police recruits will have to be trained first, becoming effective only in 2019. Meanwhile, the safety of ordinary German citizens will continue to be affected by the chaos engulfing the entire country and the lack of manpower and resources needed to deal effectively with the migrants’ influx.

The EU in the Age of Geoolitics

 January 4, 2016

At the beginning of the year, it has become customary for ‘pundits’ to make predictions about forthcoming developments which might affect the global economy, elections in leading countries or international relations. From my part, I would like to take my readers back in time, in an attempt to make today’s armed conflicts around the world easier to understand.

This approach is all the more necessary as virtually all of today’s armed conflicts – in Ukraine, Libya, Syria, Iraq or Yemen – have geopolitics as a common denominator. Even ISIS has a clearcut geopolitical agenda of sorts, namely that of establishing an “Islamic caliphate” in territories snatched from war-torn Syria and Iraq. Taken together, these tensions and conflicts among ethnic, religious or military blocs have brought to an untimely end the era of globalization and ushered in the Age of Geopolitics. But where did it all start ?

Over the past sixty years, specialists and the European general public were led to believe that geopolitics died together with Nazi Germany and was replaced with the ideological confrontation between the capitalist and communist worlds commonly referred to as the Cold War. Yet by the 1970s, as the confrontation apparently led to a stalemate, geopolitical-type conflicts again started to prove their usefulness for policymakers intent on destabilizing their opponents’ camp.

In Europe, conflicts of a geopolitical nature were rekindled by stealth courtesy of the United States. Thus, during the seventies the Ceausescu regime, fearful of being axed by the Soviets following the Prague Spring, was encouraged to denounce the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact and pushed some of the country’s historians into demanding the return of Bessarabia within Romanian borders. That geopolitical conflict is still very much alive today, with Romania, the EU and the Russian Federation involved in a tug-of-war confrontation over the future of the Republic of Moldova.

As it turned out, in the end the Soviets lost their post-WW II domination of Central and Eastern Europe following a decade of cooperation between the CIA and the Vatican – which led to the formation of the Solidarnosc trade union movement and the organization of free elections in Poland – and not as a result of the geopolitical, USA-backed proxy confrontation between the Ceausescu regime and Moscow.

Following the fall of the Berlin wall and the implosion of the Soviet Union, geopolitical conflicts have made a spectacular return to Europe, in Yugoslavia. The separation of Slovenia and Croatia, the two Catholic regions of the Yugoslav federation, is likely to have been requested to the Western alliance by the Vatican as a reward for its successful assistance in undermining the Soviet Union during the eighties. It is also very likely that US strategists did not in fact plan for the total destruction of the Yugoslav federation, but for a diminished one, after which Serbia could be allowed to control the remainder of the territory. As events unfolded, however, the Macedonians and Albanians also decided to secede, spelling the end of the Yugoslav state.

Since 2001, the US has openly embarked on a drive to stoke geopolitical conflicts in places around the world where it wanted to expand or consolidate its hegemony. In Europe this drive led to the 2004 colour revolutions in Ukraine, Moldova or Georgia, as well as the 2008 Georgian war, and culminated in 2014 with the toppling of the elected government of Ukraine by the CIA-backed Maidan movement.

In the Arab world, the US and some of its European allies like France and the UK gave full backing to armed groups involved in the fall of the Gaddafi regime in Libya, or in the civil war in Syria, sometimes in alliance with Saudi Arabia and/or Turkey. The Russians and the Chinese have either been largely neutral in these conflicts or have sided with the embattled Syrian regime, which for more than four years is fighting some of the most dangerous terrorist groups on the planet.

For the EU, the price to pay for the US’ post-cold war geopolitical forays in Eastern Europe and the Arab world is staggering.

Already affected by years of stagnation after the 2008 financial crisis, EU countries have lost tens of billions of euros in trade with Russia, following the Washington-dictated sanctions against this country which prompted the Russians to reply in kind. At least ten billion euros more is the likely cost for resettling the 1 million Syrian refugees within the EU, an amount that does not include the 3 billion euros promised by the European Commission to Turkey so far, in a futile effort to convince this country to stem the flow of Europe-bound refugees.

Geopolitics as a field of study can not only provide us with a better understanding of what is at stake in today’s conflicts, but also with some insights into what the future could bring.

In the Middle East, the Sunni-Shia confrontation between the region’s main powers, Saudi Arabia and Iran, is likely to continue for years to come. We are in all likelihood entitled to expect that the Alawite minority in Syria will establish its own separate state, as are the Kurds from northern Iraq and parts of today’s Syria, much to the chagrin of Turkey. The rest of the Syrian territory and possibly parts of Iraq will probably emerge as a new Sunni state entity, as sectarian conflicts will prevent the continued existence of Syria and Iraq in their current form.

For the European Union, Ukraine is poised to play the same role as Afghanistan in the demise of the Soviet Union. The unwise decision to back American neocon planners will thus backfire and hasten the EU’s own demise in the process. The main catalyst for its undoing are the nationalistic movements gaining in strength, from the UK and France in the West, to Hungary and Poland in Central and Eastern Europe. The continent is already back to barbed-wire fences not only in Ukraine, but also in Hungary, Austria and Germany – a trend that will mean the final collapse of the Schengen area in the following years, if not as early as 2016.

All these developments combined suggest one thing. Namely that, when compared to Russia, China or the United States, the European Union is the worst-equipped entity to survive in the age of geopolitics and deal with its consequences.

How NATO is Failing the EU

 December 3, 2015

The untrained observer could be forgiven for believing that NATO is still acting as a military and political organization dedicated to protecting the security of its members. Enlarging the organization with a less-than-significant member (militarily speaking) like Montenegro cannot, however, obscure NATO’s huge failure to adapt to today’s radically changed geopolitical and strategic landscape.
Headed in the past few years by Russia-obsessed officials hailing from European northern kingdoms (Rasmussen from Denmark or Stoltenberg from Norway), the alliance has failed to recognize that these days the biggest threat to the security of all NATO countries is represented by existing or emerging Islamic countries from the Middle East instead.
Nor did NATO reckon with the fact that, since 2002, the secular regime in Turkey was replaced by an Islamic one. This mega transformation of Turkish society – which is still ongoing – has ended up creating a serious security threat for the European Union as a whole, as illustrated by this year’s refugee crisis. Indeed, not only has Turkey failed to live up to its obligations as a NATO member, such as sealing its border with Syria, but over the past four years it has allowed tens of thousands of jihadi fighters from all over the world to cross the country and join ISIS. This year it has decided to allow hundreds of thousands of refugees on its territory to practically invade EU countries unhindered. One of Erdogan’s advisers, Burhan Kuzu, has even hailed Turkey’s latest exercise in extortion as a success for the AKP regime:

“The EU finally got Turkey’s message and opened its purse strings. What did we say? ‘We’ll open our borders and unleash all the Syrian refugees on you.”

For a number of years after 2002, I too believed that a moderate Islamic government in power in Turkey could make the country more politically stable and economically prosperous. Not anymore. The assistance – overt or covert – extended by the AKP regime to Islamists in Syria and elsewhere, the scandal of appointing Erdogan’s son-in-law as energy minister and his son as the head of another energy company ( as if Turkey was an oil-producing powerhouse), the savage repression of journalists, of the free press and of Turkish officials who are trying to uphold the rule of law within the country, have all finally contributed to convincing me that the AKP regime has outlived its usefulness for Turkey and for the NATO alliance, as well.
Undaunted, the current NATO leadership, with some behind the scenes assistance from American neo-cons, is trying to recycle expired Cold War policies and continue to depict Russia as the main enemy of the West. In so doing, the organization conclusively proves that it has become obsolete and useless when it comes to addressing major security threats affecting its members.
It is my belief that Turkey wouldn’t have dared shoot down a Russian aircraft – a jamais vu event in the Alliance’s history – if the country’s leaders had not been certain that anti-Russian bias at the top levels of NATO would prevail.

Still, instead of discussing Russia, NATO ministers would be well-advised to hold a special session dedicated to assessing Turkey’s continuing usefulness for the Alliance in the current strategic circumstances. In the light of this year’s developments, Turkey – NATO’s only Muslim member – has emerged as a dangerous ally and a questionable friend. In other words, instead of trying to evict Greece – Turkey’s main victim in the refugee crisis – from the Schengen area, it would definitely prove more useful to consider the suspension of Turkey from NATO command structures until such time as the AKP leadership could come clean on the issues of unchecked refugee migration to Europe, jihadi movements to and from Syria, shady oil dealings and the supply of weaponry to Islamic insurgents.