Tag Archives: Donald Tusk
NATO, the EU, and peace in our time…?
In 2003, the British government published a Defence White Paper entitled "Delivering Security in a Changing World". Chapter 3 was headed "Further Requirements for Defence"; it opens as follows:
There are currently no major conventional military threats to the UK or NATO – but the threat from proliferation and international terrorism remains very real and in the worst case could result in serious casualties and significant disruption to the national economy and our way of life. 1
[bold emphasis added]
However, more recently, following Nato's deployment of thousands of troops to the Baltics and Poland, Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg defended his decision telling German newspaper Bild, "[it] is an appropriate response" to Russia's "aggressive actions":
"We want to show our partners that we are there when they need us. And we want to show potential attackers that we react when they threaten us." 2
To understand this extraordinary and troubling volte-face from "no major conventional threats" (2003) to the current 'new Cold War' hostilities and Russia singled out as a "potential attacker", it is helpful if we retrace the steps just a little further again. Back to the early '90s as the rubble of the Berlin Wall lay strewn and the dust had barely settled.
Nato's chequered retreat
Once the Cold War ended (officially at least), Nato's raison d'être was inevitably thrown into question. If it was to re-establish its role in the world, then it urgently needed to rediscover a purpose. The breakdown of Yugoslavia and the ongoing civil war between the republics perfectly served these ends. Nato became the peacemaker.
With UN Security Council Resolution 816 calling for the enforcement of "a no-fly zone" over Bosnia-Herzegovina, Nato entered the conflict in April 1993. For the first time in its history, it was directly engaged in combat. (Note the bold highlight – it will be repeated later.)
The Bosnian War (1992–1995) happened during an unprecedented period of modern history. In the immediate wake of the West's "victory" in the Cold War, anti-imperialist voices were at their weakest. Consequently, with anti-war opposition stifled, there was almost nothing by way of countervailing analysis or commentary.
By the time of the Kosovo War (1998–1999), the silencing of dissent became more intense again. The proclaimed success of Nato's earlier intervention ending the Bosnian War with the negotiated settlement of the Dayton Accords had engendered an atmosphere in which anti-war sentiment had been completely marginalised and opposition voices were quiescent.
As in Bosnia, Nato's campaign in Kosovo was presented as a purely "humanitarian intervention" – a phrase that pre-Iraq and -Libya did not possess such a deathly, hollow ring. It was a propaganda line that would be adopted as an article of faith, particularly, it seemed, within ranks of the liberal left. And those who protested too loudly against the bombing were judged to be appeasers – there was little outcry at the time.
One journalist who spoke up against the official narrative was John Laughland. The following extract is taken, however, from a later article published in 2007 by the Guardian: it is Laughland's response to the now largely forgotten verdict of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), after it ruled that Serbia was not guilty of the massacre Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica in 1995. 3
In the piece, Laughland challenges some of the half-truths that had inculpated the Serbs and their leader, "the Butcher of the Balkans", Slobodan Milošević:
The international court of justice (ICJ) did condemn Serbia on Monday for failing to act to prevent Srebrenica, on the basis that Belgrade [Milošević] failed to use its influence over the Bosnian Serb army. But this is small beer compared to the original allegations. Serbia's innocence of the central charge is reflected in the court's ruling that Serbia should not pay Bosnia any reparations – supplying an armed force is not the same as controlling it. Yugoslavia had no troops in Bosnia and greater guilt over the killings surely lies with those countries that did, notably the Dutch battalion in Srebrenica itself. Moreover, during the Bosnian war, senior western figures famously fraternised with the Bosnian Serb leaders now indicted for genocide, including the US general Wesley Clark and our own John Reid. Should they also be condemned for failing to use their influence? 4
Click here to read John Laughland's full article.
This is Noam Chomsky, another critic of the Kosovo war, answering questions regarding the guilt or otherwise of Milošević and the Serbian forces:
Investigative journalist John Pilger was another who spoke out strongly at the time and continues to do so now:
Milosevic was the victim of war propaganda that today runs like a torrent across our screens and newspapers and beckons great danger for us all. He was the prototype demon, vilified by the western media as the "butcher of the Balkans" who was responsible for "genocide", especially in the secessionist Yugoslav province of Kosovo. Prime Minister Tony Blair said so, invoked the Holocaust and demanded action against "this new Hitler". David Scheffer, the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes [sic], declared that as many as "225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59" may have been murdered by Milosevic's forces.
This was the justification for Nato's bombing, led by Bill Clinton and Blair, that killed hundreds of civilians in hospitals, schools, churches, parks and television studios and destroyed Serbia's economic infrastructure. It was blatantly ideological; at a notorious "peace conference" in Rambouillet in France, Milosevic was confronted by Madeleine Albright, the US secretary of state, who was to achieve infamy with her remark that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children were "worth it".
Albright delivered an "offer" to Milosevic that no national leader could accept. Unless he agreed to the foreign military occupation of his country, with the occupying forces "outside the legal process", and to the imposition of a neo-liberal "free market", Serbia would be bombed. This was contained in an "Appendix B", which the media failed to read or suppressed. The aim was to crush Europe's last independent "socialist" state.
Once Nato began bombing, there was a stampede of Kosovar refugees "fleeing a holocaust". When it was over, international police teams descended on Kosovo to exhume the victims of the "holocaust". The FBI failed to find a single mass grave and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing "a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines". The final count of the dead in Kosovo was 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the pro-Nato Kosovo Liberation Front. There was no genocide. The Nato attack was both a fraud and a war crime.
All but a fraction of America's vaunted "precision guided" missiles hit not military but civilian targets, including the news studios of Radio Television Serbia in Belgrade. Sixteen people were killed, including cameramen, producers and a make-up artist. Blair described the dead, profanely, as part of Serbia's "command and control". In 2008, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Carla Del Ponte, revealed that she had been pressured not to investigate Nato's crimes. 5
Click here to read John Pilger's latest article [August 23rd] in full.
For an alternative perspective on Nato and the West's involvement in the breakup of Balkan states of the former Yugoslavia, I also recommend Boris Malagurski's controversial Canadian documentary The Weight of Chains which is embedded below – although the style is light, the content is serious and, on the whole, well-documented:
The West's about-turn
But then came the attacks of September 11th, which presented the Nato alliance with a fresh threat – purportedly of existential proportions. Overnight, everything was changed. Indeed, on September 12th, Nato met in emergency session and, for the first time in its history, invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an attack against one is an attack against all.
The "Global War on Terror" was thereby launched with Nato at the helm, although during the early stages of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan (OEF-A), of course, only America and Britain sent out forces to overthrow the Taliban. The other Nato allies looked on and waited. Meanwhile, Canadian and US forces were jointly mobilised under Operation Noble Eagle (ONE) around the North American continent.
It was later, in October 2003, under the mission title International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) when Nato forces stepped fully into the fray. Here is how BBC news had then reported the story:
Nato is repositioning itself for a future as a key force in the "war on terror", according to its US ambassador, Nicholas Burns.
The organisation has been struggling to define its role in the world since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the threat from which was the basis of its foundation. […]
Questions have been asked about Nato's role in the world since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Although the alliance intervened in Kosovo, it did not formally operate in the military campaigns in either Iraq or Afghanistan. […]
"Nato's purpose is to be on the front lines, to fight the war on terrorism for Europeans, and for Americans and Canadians.
"That's where we've turned the organisation, that's how we've transformed it over the last two years."
In particular, Mr Burns stressed the role the newly-established rapid response force would play.
The force is designed to be able to deploy within days to anywhere in the world if needed, with between 20,000 and 30,000 troops.
Mr Burns refuted suggestions that it would merely be a tool of American foreign policy. 6
[bold emphasis in original]
A decade on and, after the 2014 Wales Summit, that same Nato Response Force (NRF) has been enhanced with the formation of a "spearhead force" or Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) within it. And the prime target is no longer "terror", but Russia instead (already by 2014, history had turned full circle):
At the 2014 Wales Summit, NATO agreed the Readiness Action Plan (RAP) to ensure the Alliance is ready to respond swiftly and firmly to new security challenges. This is the most significant reinforcement of NATO's collective defence since the end of the Cold War. The RAP addresses risks and threats from the east and the south. […]
Due to the changed security environment on NATO's borders, the RAP includes 'assurance measures' for NATO member countries in Central and Eastern Europe to reassure their populations, reinforce their defence and deter potential aggression. 7
This is taken from Nato's official release on its Readiness Action Plan (RAP) and note that references to Russia remain oblique throughout – although you certainly don't need to be a mind-reader to understand the real message, which goes on as follows:
To facilitate readiness and the rapid deployment of forces, the first six NATO Force Integration Units (NFIUs) – which are small headquarters – were inaugurated in Central and Eastern Europe. Two more NFIUs are being set up in Hungary and Slovakia. Headquarters for the Multinational Corps Northeast in Szczecin, Poland and the Multinational Division Southeast in Bucharest, Romania were also established. In addition, a standing joint logistics support group headquarters is being set up.
And whereas Nato (at least in their public documents) are timid when it comes to mentioning the name of their latest (and oldest) enemy, the closely-affiliated think tank Atlantic Council is altogether brazen:
Firstly, the VJTF's size does not pose a credible deterrent to Russia, particularly with regard to the Baltic States, which are widely viewed as the flash point for any potential NATO-Russia confrontation. Russia has undertaken massive impromptu military exercises involving up to 100,000 troops along its borders with the Baltic States. It would be difficult for a NATO force of 5,000 to deter Russia from afar. […]
The VJTF should be high on the agenda of the Alliance's seminal Warsaw Summit in July, and for good reason. Russia has become emboldened by its military forays in Ukraine and Syria. In the unlikely event it sets its sights on NATO territory next, NATO must ensure its spearhead force is sharp enough to respond. 8
Likewise, following a meeting of Nato ministers of defence last February, Nato released this more coded announcement:
"NATO Defence Ministers agreed on an enhanced forward presence in the eastern part of our Alliance," Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said. The enhanced forward presence will be "multinational, to make clear that an attack against one Ally is an attack against all Allies, and that the Alliance as a whole will respond," he stressed. 9 [bold highlight added]
Stoltenberg is thus invocating Article 5 of the Washington Treaty – Nato's call to arms.
In short then, the "War on Terror" has allowed Nato's existence to be kept on ice. Ready for when the Cold War could begin again in earnest.
Nato and the EU pincer
At last month's Warsaw summit [on July 8th], Nato issued a official joint declaration with the EU for the first time in its history. The declaration begins:
We believe that the time has come to give new impetus and new substance to the NATO-EU strategic partnership.
Today, the Euro-Atlantic community is facing unprecedented challenges emanating from the South and East. Our citizens demand that we use all ways and means available to address these challenges so as to enhance their security.
Now let us unpick this opening statement. Firstly, notice the fig-leaf of democratic legitimacy. After all, "our citizens" did not get a vote on the actions of the long-standing Nato-EU strategic partnership and we certainly have no say whenever it comes to Nato's long-standing meddling in "the South and East".
In fact, contrary to this official statement, "the Euro-Atlantic community" (presuming this uncertain label attaches to the people of Europe and America) has been consistently opposed to the post-9/11 spate of wars. Our only consistent and clear demand having been for a cessation to hostilities. Yet in spite of the wishes of the "Euro-Atlantic" majority, a perpetual "Global War on Terror" is ravaging Central Asia, the Middle East and (though rarely if ever reported upon) many territories in North Africa. This extended warzone – reduced in the Nato-EU lexicon to 'the East and the South' – involves multiple interconnected battles which spill over into each other causing incalculable misery to some of the poorest people on earth, and very much to the detriment of our own western security.
We read on:
The substantial cooperation between NATO and the EU, unique and essential partners, established more than 15 years ago, also contributes to this end.
In light of the common challenges we are now confronting, we have to step-up our efforts: we need new ways of working together and a new level of ambition; because our security is interconnected; because together we can mobilize a broad range of tools to respond to the challenges we face; and because we have to make the most efficient use of resources. A stronger NATO and a stronger EU are mutually reinforcing. Together they can better provide security in Europe and beyond. [bold emphasis added]
This post-Brexit statement signed by Presidents of the European Commission and European Council, Jean-Claude Junker and Donald Tusk, and Secretary General of Nato, Jens Stoltenburg, is all about a deepening collaboration between the two organisations. An arrangement that, amongst other things, will involve "Facilitat[ing] a stronger defence industry and greater defence research and industrial cooperation within Europe and across the Atlantic."
Is this the same EU that proponents say brings peace in our times?
James Baker's booby trap
For those puzzled by the relationship between Nato and the EU, here are a few vital statistics – encyclopaedic background details. Firstly, the EU and Nato individually comprise 28 member countries. Of these countries, 22 are joint members of both bodies. A club of nations including many that once fell behind the Iron Curtain: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, plus the formerly occupied Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. 10
As Soviet satellites under Moscow's thumb, these states were once the buffer zone between the USSR and the West. Today there is no buffer.
And here is another piece of the historical geostrategic jigsaw, albeit a forgotten one – at least in the West – that Nato membership of every one of these former Eastern Bloc countries is in contravention to Western promises made shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall; a deal (declared though never formally signed) that if Russia acceded to the reunification of Germany then the old Eastern Bloc would remain non-aligned:
What the US secretary of state [James Baker] said on Feb. 9, 1990 in the magnificent St. Catherine's Hall at the Kremlin is beyond dispute. There would be, in Baker's words, "no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east," provided the Soviets agreed to the NATO membership of a unified Germany. Moscow would think about it, Gorbachev said, but added: "any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable." 11
The West's double-dealing, though a dusty footnote in the West, is very well-remembered in Russia. The loss of twenty-four million lives during the Second World War (one third of the total fatalities) gives Russians good reason to fear an invasion – especially one from the west – its concerns about Nato's eastward expansion are perfectly understandable.
During the last seven decades of the post-war nuclear age, a fragile peace held out. Just. As much, if not more, by sheer luck than judgement. Indeed, our world very narrowly escaped all-out thermonuclear obliteration on numerous occasions – two of the best known incidents remembered in an earlier post. Here is a more detailed overview titled "Close Calls: We Were Much Closer to Nuclear Annihilation Than We Ever Knew" written by Gunnar Westberg and published in Counterpunch.
We did not need hindsight to see that the first Cold War was an era of astonishing madness, but with the aid of hindsight we do know that the madness itself was premised on a wholly non-existent threat of Soviet invasion. The Kremlin had no plans to launch an attack and there never had been a "missile gap" of any kind. Instead, the USSR was mainly preoccupied with quelling dissent amongst its own downtrodden population (or crushing those desperate to flee the occupation of its Eastern Bloc satellites).
Yet, in spite of the lack of an authentic communist threat, the superpowers repeatedly went to the brink of Armageddon, and had it not been for the remarkable courage and cool-headed reason of (at least) two men (both Russians – or, more accurately, Soviets) who held their nerve during moments of extreme crisis, there would be little that remains of our wonderful and shared European heritage besides a few smouldering mounds of rubble.
So what of Russia today? Is it planning to invade the West? Let us consider the evidence as dispassionately as we can.
Eighteen months ago it was widely reported (and believed by most in the West) that Russian battalions and, even more crucially, columns of tanks had begun crossing into Eastern Ukraine. At one point, Poroshenko held up Russian passports as evidence – there were six. 12 The principle claims, however, turned out to be completely bogus, though retraction by our media has been understandably muted. Russia did not invade Ukraine, and there is literally no evidence that it had any intention of doing so. (Crimea was not invaded, and though the territory was annexed following a referendum that was never legally sanctioned, the majority of Crimeans evidently welcomed the return of their territory to Russia – the reason there was no bloodshed.)
It is undeniable that Russia has covertly aided the 'rebels' in Eastern Ukraine (or the 'separatists' – both labels are propagandistically skewed and there is no absolutely neutral alternative), just as America has provided military assistance to Kiev. However, when the 'rebels' held a referendum of their own, the Russians ignored the results. They preferred not to be dragged directly into a war with Kiev. Meanwhile, while some Russians did indeed cross the border to fight, so did many westerners – individuals in fact joined the armed factions on both sides in the conflict.
Perhaps more revealing was Russia's judicious response when Turkey shot down one of its jet fighters flying close to the Syrian border last winter. Was their jet violating Turkish airspace? The Russians said it didn't; the Americans said it did – no evidence was ever released to prove the Russians guilty:
Either way, if Russia was wishing to spark a wider war, then what better provocation could The Kremlin find? In refraining from a retaliatory strike, however, Russia was careful to avoid a potential tripwire and an escalation into a full-blown war against a Nato member.
By contrast we have recently seen Nato forces, with the EU's mutual aid and consent, engaged in one of the largest military exercises since the end of the first Cold War:
For more than 10 days, 30,000 troops backed by large numbers of vehicles, aircraft and ships will be deployed in one of the biggest exercises on NATO's eastern flank since the end of the Cold War, a move likely to put further strain on the already-tense relations between the Kremlin and the West.
The Anakonda-16 exercise, which includes manoeuvres such as a night-time helicopter assault and the dropping of US paratroopers to build a temporary bridge over the Vistula river, is being held one month before a NATO summit in Warsaw that will approve more troops to be stationed in eastern Europe. 13
Stretched out for 450 miles across the length of Poland, more than 30,000 troops from 24 nations played out war games on Russia's borders. These forces actually included German tank divisions; the first to move in sight of Russia's border since 1941. According to The Independent article quoted above, this sent out a "clear message to Russia".
Is there also a clue in the name of this "clear message" too? After all, an anaconda is a snake, but not just any old snake, the largest snake in the world – and it kills its prey by constriction.
At the same time, Nato formally switched on the first stage of its $800 million state of the art "missile defence" shield in Romania and broke the ground on a sister site in Poland. Ostensibly to protect Europe against Iranian nukes, which are, of course, non-existent, the system is rather blatantly directed against Russia's security. Understood in terms of the twisted but unavoidable logic of nuclear deterrence, this becomes a far greater provocation than mere tanks rolled up to the Russian border. For if Russia's deterrent is effectively defused, then, rendered defenceless, Russia is de facto under attack.
Indeed, to better navigate the geopolitical landscape of today, rather than hastily dismissing the Russian outlook as deeply paranoid (as we are encouraged to view it), we might try to step into their shoes for a moment. Suppose, for instance, a potentially hostile power – let's say China – deployed thousands of troops to Ireland. Would Britain raise any concern? Or suppose China built bases in Mexico… there are none but that doesn't stop the howls of red scare rumour-mongering. And we do not even need imagine the response were Russia to install its latest "regional missile defence system" in Cuba… Another missile crisis, anyone?
But then, Russia is routinely portrayed as the aggressor by the western media, so now consider these further incontestable facts:
Russia has two bases in the Middle East and a handful in Central Asia. The U.S. has 662 bases around the world and Special Forces (SOF) deployed in between 70 and 90 countries at any moment. Last year SOFs were active in 147 countries. The U.S. is actively engaged in five wars and is considering a sixth in Libya. Russian military spending will fall next year, and the U.S. will out-spend Moscow by a factor of 10. 14
On July 6th Sibel Edmonds' alternative outlet 'Newsbud' broadcast a discussion with Montenegrin author, political activist and university professor, Filip Kovacevic, who had recently authored a piece published by 'BoilingFrogsPost' in which he analyses "The Travels of NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg".
Here Kovacevic explains why he believes Nato's influence is undergoing serious decline, and the danger this poses of more widespread international conflict:
America über alles
The Russian army can outgun British troops on the battlefield, according to a shock Ministry of Defence report.
So begins a flabbergasting article even by Daily Mail standards entitled perhaps even more hilariously "Shock Ministry of Defence report warns Russian forces could defeat us on the battlefield… [blah, blah, blah]"
This same piece continues:
The leaked assessment warns that rocket launchers and other weapons at Moscow's disposal were superior to ours – while its mastery of electronic warfare technology was 'game changing'. 15
Well, I say "blah, blah, blah" although the headline actually reads "… as Theresa May bids to thaw relations with Vladimir Putin".
If true, then surely that represents a move to the good? Or is the Daily Mail and the MOD proposing that Britain might one day wish to test its relative might on the battlefield against Russia?
The peace we have enjoyed in Europe is becoming extremely fragile again. Outside Europe, after two decades of sustained neo-imperialist adventuring, we have destroyed lives and devastated ancient civilisations, spreading only chaos and pandemonium. The havoc we have wrecked is certainly coming back to haunt us, both directly and indirectly. But far more dangerous to the West is the immediate threat we pose to Russia. If Russia fights back, then everything is lost.
To prevent the unthinkable, there has to be a rollback. Our perpetual meddling in "the South and East" is already generating a crisis close to Russia's borders. If this meddling moves along to Iran (as is being mooted again), then Russia will be directly drawn into conflict against the West.
Equally pressing, however, is the requirement to normalise diplomatic relations with Russia. Sanctions historically are a precursor to war, but surely even the biggest warmongers cannot seriously contemplate war with Russia. So why inflict such counterproductive damage on our own European economies when this tactic of isolation achieves nothing except to serve the vested interests of neo-cons in Washington? There has to be rapprochement with Russia.
With relations between Russia and Europe (or, better still, the West) restored, the resolution of many conflicts and international disputes becomes foreseeable again. It also becomes possible to end the overwhelmingly dire threat of thermonuclear exchange, accidental or otherwise. Such a genuine commitment to multilateral disarmament could and should have happened long ago – shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the official ending of Cold War hostilities. Instead, as we know, Nato and the West opportunistically pressed eastward.
Nato was inaugurated to confront a perceived communist threat – a threat, largely imagined, that has since been vanquished altogether. In light of this irreversible change in international relations, Nato's dissolution ought thereafter to become a final peacetime objective. For what function does Nato serve in any truly post-Cold War world? To ensure its own survival it will always look for enemies elsewhere.
In an extended piece recently published in The Atlantic arguing the case for Nato, former Fulbright Professor of Political Science at Moscow State University and ardent globalist, Ira Straus, writes candidly that:
The main, but unstated, reason the U.S. has troops in Europe nowadays is not for the defense of Europe but because it is a cheaper, more convenient location for getting to the Mideast than the continental U.S. It costs us more, not less, when we keep all our troops at home.
We have an irrationally small number of troops in Europe today (64,000). It would be cheaper for us if we put three times as many of our troops in Europe.
Under the heading "The [American] people support NATO as a plus for American power, and they're right", Straus continues:
Most people have the common sense to support their own society and their own power. NATO is the greatest extension that America has in the world. It is a kind of Greater America (and so is its informal additional wing in the Pacific). Trump likes American greatness and building big. This is the place for it.
The Alliance is what has preserved America's greatness no matter how weak or incompetent its leaders. 16
So yes, Nato is "a kind of Greater America" although in reality they operate together as a sort of 'good cop, bad cop' team. America lost its reputation long ago and is less squeamish about getting its hands bloodied. Nato generally turns up afterwards and mops up.
Meanwhile, the more soft-spoken but firm Atlanticist alliance between Nato and the EU, with neighbouring HQs in Brussels and joined-at-the-hip foreign policy agendas (EU foreign policy is totally reliant on Nato), has also been instrumental in expanding post-9/11 Western influence militarily into Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, throughout many other regions of North Africa, into Syria, and within Ukraine. And whatever the EU may have dreamed of becoming — no matter how many Nobel Peace Prizes it receives! — it is no longer tenable to claim that it is in the business of making peace.
Ties between the EU and Nato ought now to be loosened rather than strengthened, as is actually happening. Last month's joint statement supplying further proof, if any were needed, that the EU is really just a different arm of our aggressively expanding military-industrial complex:
A stronger NATO and a stronger EU are mutually reinforcing.
Is this the Europe we were hoping to build?
Afshin Rattansi spoke with John Pilger in an extended interview broadcast on RT's Going Underground on August 31st. The subjects covered included the last days of the Obama presidency, the race between Sanders, Clinton and Trump, and the looming threat of global conflict. Pilger says:
"The United States is in a frenzy of preparation for conflict of some kind. And conflict of some kind can lead to war of the real kind – against China and against Russia – on two fronts. The greatest build-up of forces since the Second World War has happened in Eastern Europe and in the Balkan states." [from 9:00 mins]
"The full American so-called "interest" has gone to a country [Ukraine] that means 'borderland' and through which the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in the early 1940s at the cost of something like 27 million lives. Imagine – and this is something that we're not allowed to imagine – imagine the equivalent in the United States. The border with Mexico. The border with Canada. Well, we can imagine it because it happened when the Russians unwisely put missiles into Cuba, and we almost had then World War III.
"But I think what is striking in a country like the United States which has constitutionally the freest media in the world. These war preparations against Russia and against China have not been mentioned. A great silence covers them.
"When China is mentioned it's about its aggressive moves in the South China Sea. It's very interesting to see how the American public is being primed to accept so-called "aggressive moves" by China when in fact they are clearly defensive moves. The United States has something like 400 major bases encircling China like a great noose. Well, actually it's an arc: it starts in Australia, it goes all the way through Asia – the Philippines (where they're back – were thrown out a few years ago, but they're back now), Thailand, Japan and Korea.
Looking straight at Shanghai is Okinawa. Okinawa has 32 American military installations. Japan has 130 in all. Okinawa is interesting – it's about the size of Long Island. If you imagine Long Island as a Chinese base looking straight at New York, that's the equivalent. [from 10.50 mins]
1 From a 2003 British government white paper entitled "Delivering Security in a Changing World", Ch3, p. 11. http://archives.livreblancdefenseetsecurite.gouv.fr/2008/…/whitepaper2003.pdf
2 From an article entitled "Jens Stoltenberg: NATO troop deployment right response to aggressive Russia", written by Hanne Cokelaere, published in Politico.eu on June 6, 2016. http://www.politico.eu/article/jens-stoltenberg-nato-troop-deployment-right-response-to-aggressive-russia/
THE HAGUE, Feb. 26 — The International Court of Justice on Monday for the first time called the massacre of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica in 1995 an act of genocide, but determined that Serbia itself was not guilty of the enormous crime.
Nonetheless, it faulted Serbia, saying it "could and should" have prevented the genocide and, in its aftermath, should have punished the Bosnian Serbs who systematically killed close to 8,000 men and boys in July 1995.
The ruling resulted from a civil lawsuit Bosnia had brought against Serbia, the first in which one country sued another for genocide. […]
The ruling appeared to give some satisfaction — and frustration — to both sides. It freed Serbia of the stigma of being a genocidal nation and absolved it from having to pay war reparations, as demanded by Bosnia.
At the same time, Bosnia obtained what it said it wanted from the outset: a recognition of Serbia's guilt.
From an article entitled "Court Declares Bosnia Killings Were Genocide" written by Marlise Simons, published in The New York Times on February 27, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/world/europe/27hague.html?ref=world&_r=0
Slobodan Milosevic was posthumously exonerated on Monday when the international court of justice ruled that Serbia was not responsible for the 1995 massacre at Srebrenica. The former president of Serbia had always argued that neither Yugoslavia nor Serbia had command of the Bosnian Serb army, and this has now been upheld by the world court in The Hague. By implication, Serbia cannot be held responsible for any other war crimes attributed to the Bosnian Serbs.
The allegations against Milosevic over Bosnia and Croatia were cooked up in 2001, two years after an earlier indictment had been issued against him by the separate international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) at the height of Nato's attack on Yugoslavia in 1999. Notwithstanding the atrocities on all sides in Kosovo, Nato claims that Serbia was pursuing genocide turned out to be war propaganda, so the ICTY prosecutor decided to bolster a weak case by trying to "get" Milosevic for Bosnia as well. It took two years and 300 witnesses, but the prosecution never managed to produce conclusive evidence against its star defendant, and its central case has now been conclusively blown out of the water.
From an article entitled "Lies of the vigilantes" written by John Laughland, published in the Guardian on February 28, 2007. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/feb/28/warcrimes.balkans
5 From an article entitled "Provoking nuclear war by media" written by John Pilger, published on August 23, 2016. http://johnpilger.com/articles/provoking-nuclear-war-by-media
6 From an article entitled "Nato turns to terrorism fight" published in BBC news on October 18, 2003. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3201578.stm
7 http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_119353.htm
8 From an article entitled "It's Time to Sharpen NATO's 'Spearhead' Force" written by Robbie Gramer, published by the Atlantic Council on March 21, 2016. http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/it-s-time-to-sharpen-nato-s-spearhead-force
9 From an article entitled "NATO boosts its defence and deterrence posture" published by Nato on its official website on February 10, 2016. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_127834.htm
10 28 NATO member countries: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.
28 EU member countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom.
Of course there was a promise not to expand NATO "as much as a thumb's width further to the East," Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet president at the time, says in Moscow today. However, Gorbachev's former foreign minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, speaking in the Georgian capital Tbilisi, says that there were no such assurances from the West. Even the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the Eastern military alliance, "was beyond our imagination," he says.
For years former US Secretary of State James Baker, Shevardnadze's American counterpart in 1990, has denied that there was any agreement between the two sides. But Jack Matlock, the US ambassador in Moscow at the time, has said in the past that Moscow was given a "clear commitment." Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the German foreign minister in 1990, says this was precisely not the case.
After speaking with many of those involved and examining previously classified British and German documents in detail, SPIEGEL has concluded that there was no doubt that the West did everything it could to give the Soviets the impression that NATO membership was out of the question for countries like Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia.
From an article entitled "NATO's Eastward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow?" written by Uwe Klussman, Matthias Schepp and Klaus Wiegrefe, published in Der Spiegel on November 26, 2009. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html
12 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31206434
13 From an article entitled "NATO allies launch largest military exercise since end of Cold War in clear message to Russia" written by Wiktor Szary, published in The independent on June 6, 2016. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/anakonda-16-nato-allies-launch-largest-military-exercise-since-end-of-cold-war-in-poland-in-clear-a7068141.html
14 From an article entitled "Baiting the bear: Russia and Nato" written by Conn Hallinan, published in Counterpunch on May 4, 2016. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/04/baiting-the-bear-russia-and-nato/
15 From an article entitled "Shock Ministry of Defense report warns Russian forces could defeat us on the battlefield as Theresa May bids to thaw relations with Vladimir Putin" written by James Tapsfield, published by the Daily Mail on August 10, 2016. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3732828/Russian-forces-defeat-battlefield-shock-Ministry-Defence-report-warns.html
16 From an article entitled "Is America Getting a Bargain With NATO?" written by Nicholas Clairmont, published in The Atlantic on August 23, 2016. http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/08/natos-a-deal/496952/
Filed under analysis & opinion, Bosnia-Herzegovina, China, did you see?, Europe, John Pilger, Kosovo, Noam Chomsky, Russia, Serbia, USA
Tagged as "The Weight of Chains", Anakonda-16, Bill Clinton, Boris Malagurski, Bosnian War, Carla Del Ponte, Donald Tusk, European Union, Filip Kovacevic, Gen. Wesley Clark, International Court of Justice (ICJ), International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), Ira Straus, James Baker, Jean-Claude Juncker, Jens Stoltenberg, Kosovo War, Madeline Albright, Mikhail Gorbachev, NATO, Slobodan Milošević, Srebrenica massacre, Tony Blair, UN Resolution 816, Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF)
this is the EU — so take it or leave it… #6. refugees and "The Jungle"
Update: Please note that the original article begins after the asterisk
On the same day I posted the article below, Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) issued the following public statement:
The medical humanitarian organisation Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) has today announced that it will no longer accept funds from the European Union and Member States, in opposition to their damaging deterrence policies and continued attempts to push people and their suffering away from European shores.
This decision will take effect immediately and will apply to MSF's projects worldwide.
"For months MSF has spoken out about a shameful European response focused on deterrence rather than providing people with the assistance and protection they need," said Jerome Oberreit, International Secretary General of MSF. "The EU-Turkey deal goes one step further and has placed the very concept of 'refugee' and the protection it offers in danger."
Last week the European Commission unveiled a new proposal to replicate the EU-Turkey logic across more than 16 countries in Africa and the Middle East.
These deals would impose trade and development aid sanctions on countries that do not stem migration to Europe or facilitate forcible returns, rewarding those that do. Among these potential partners are Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan and Afghanistan – four of the top ten* refugee generating countries. [bold emphasis added]
Click here to read MSF's full statement.
"The wind tears down our tents. Whenever there's a storm, it blows our tents down," said Mohammad, a 21-year-old man who fled Syria's war. "This is how we live. Since when do people in modern Europe live like this? They put us in camps without decent food. We just sit around. We count the days. It's a slow death."
Mohammad says he is willing to risk his life by taking a ride in a refrigerated truck to Britain. "Maybe I'll die, but I'm dying here anyway," he said.
Photo: Malachy Browne licensed under CC BY 2.0
This comes from an article published by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) on February 25th. The same piece continues:
Now, with heightened tension in the Calais area, many asylum seekers believe that "the UK is closed". It used to cost £5,000 to £6,000, but now, perhaps because of heightened security, it costs at least £10,000. Many people don't have that much, and they are giving up.
But there are few options open to people living a life in limbo. They wonder whether the fact that the authorities fingerprint people who agree to live in the containers might affect a future request for asylum in Britain.
People are also reticent about moving to the containers because they know they won't feel free there – it is surrounded by a fence, and its residence live under constant surveillance, with rule upon rule marring their daily lives. The authorities have installed new toilets and running water there, but people want to be able to cook, and the fact that they need to register every time they return from the outside world makes it harder to move freely. Visitors, also, are not allowed.
"Look at that. It reminds me of a film I saw back in Sudan about the Nazi detention camps during World War II," said Omar, a 22-year-old asylum seeker from Darfur. 1
So how did we come to this? Mud-drenched, rat-infested shanty towns only a hundred and fifty miles outside Paris – and closer to London. Places like "the Jungle" where 'people of colour', most often fleeing from conflicts initiated by western governments, rather than finding salvation are subjected instead to nonstop harassment by French state and local authorities:
Migrants flee war, repression or living conditions they believe are unacceptable. Their situation in the North of France represents France's own part in the failure of European policies to welcome refugees; policies that rely on insecurity and the haggling between states as much as they rely on the building of physical and virtual walls to keep migrants at Europe's borders.
Following the example of most European leaders and heads of states, France's leaders today are ready to sacrifice and mistreat millions of lives in the vain hope of dissuading future asylum seekers. In Calais, this policy is fanning tensions just as it reinforces perceptions of an increasingly inhospitable France. 2
While the French goal is seemingly to push 'the problem' (as they see it) over to Britain, the British, in return, are eager to maintain the status quo – although in fact both governments are in cahoots:
"The French would love to pull out of the arrangement. We'll be telling people, 'if we leave the EU the Jungle camp in Calais will move to Folkestone'. That's not something people want" – senior Downing Street source 3
This was first reported by The Telegraph in an article published on February 8th. It surrounds the government's claim, subsequently expanded upon by Cameron in a press conference, that France may seize on the opportunity presented by a Brexit to renege on the current bilateral Le Touquet treaty that was signed between the UK and France in 2003 to allow the UK to conduct border controls on the French mainland:
The Prime Minister is to argue that a Brexit would also leave Britain vulnerable to terror attacks and that migrant camps will spring up across the South East of England.
However, fewer than usual were convinced by Cameron's fevered bout of xenophobic scaremongering, and so the same article continues:
[Fellow Tory and Former Defence Secretary] Liam Fox told the World at One that David Cameron's claim that leaving the EU could lead to the formation of "Jungle" camps in southern England is a "complete red herring" and "utterly untrue".
"First of all, the treaty is nothing to do with the EU. This is a treaty that was signed between two sovereign governments because it was in both our interests to have this. And it's not right to misquote the French interior minister, in fact if I tell you his exact words on 20th October last year, he said 'calling for the border with the English to be opened is not a reasonable solution.
"It would send a signal to people smugglers and would lead migrants to come in far greater numbers. A humanitarian disaster would ensue, it is a foolhardy path and one the government will not pursue'. So the French government have already ruled this out. 4
Click here to read the full article in The Telegraph.
Of course, the "migrant crisis" (as the media prefers to call it) has many fronts, and relatively few people actually make it as far as Calais. The vast majority instead find themselves held up in rudimentary encampments close to the ports in Italy and Greece where they first landed, or else trapped by newly erected fences as they attempt to trek northwards. Greece, in particular, is the land where many of the victims of our wars (less than 50% are Syrian, others come from Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere including Africa 5) are now forced to shelter.
More recently, we have seen the EU horse-trading with Turkey to swap Syrian "migrants" on a one-for-one basis. The deal, which is almost certainly illegal 6, will do little to remedy the situation and only serve to heighten the suffering of the victims. And yet this refugee crisis can be easily summed up in one image:
In other words, the crisis is not just an outcome of unprecedented (if avoidable) circumstances, but a catastrophic consequence of institutional failure to present a workable plan of action or organise a timely and commensurate response. A measure not only of incompetence, but of how disunited the EU now is. Merkel says come and then don't come, Cameron responds not in my backyard, and although the Greek government has stayed resolute in its commitment to offer humanitarian assistance, East European partners instead slam the door shut.
Moreover, by supplying minimal assistance and practically no aid for what quickly became a second crisis for Greece, this sustained inaction has exacerbated the pre-existing financial crisis which was more dynamically of the EU's making. Would it be cynical to conclude that Greece is being punished all over again?
Back in June 2012, non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International, former chairman of BP, former EU Commissioner and current UN's Special Representative of the Secretary-General for International Migration, Peter Sutherland, was cross-examined by a House of Lords EU home affairs sub-committee investigating global migration. Sutherland, also a member of the Bilderberg steering committee, recommended that the EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states. 7
In arguing for greater immigration, Sutherland feigns an internationalist standpoint and presents a case he knows will to appeal to progressives and those on the political left. However, it is a grave mistake to think that Sutherland is an internationalist when in reality he is a globalist. So his desire to "undermine" the "homogeneity" of member states conceals the deeper desire which is to abolish them altogether. To supplant national sovereignty with supranational governance, and in the process hollow out democracy and replace it with overarching technocracy.
To those like Sutherland, the so-called "migrant crisis" therefore represents another prime opportunity. Fresh grounds to empower EU institutions and to give them greater sway over national governments. Sutherland and likeminded globalists are keenly aware that our road to hell is paved with good intentions: good intentions they are happy to exploit.
Incidentally, for those who remain sceptical that this is actually how the Eurogarchs operate then I direct you to consider the views of British economist Bernard Connolly, who worked for many years inside the European Commission as head of the unit responsible for the European Monetary System and monetary policies. Connolly was sacked by the Commission in 1995 over disagreements about the Exchange Rate Mechanism in the lead up to the introduction of the single currency (criticisms expressed in his book The Rotten Heart of Europe: The Dirty War for Europe's Money).
Afterwards, Connolly became global strategist at Banque AIG (the Paris-based financial arm of AIG) and it was during his eleven year stint working at AIG when in May 2008 he produced a document entitled "Europe – Driver or Driven?" The opening question of which addresses "What Europe Wants?" to which Connolly supplies the answer in the form of four bullet points:
To use global issues as excuses to extend its power:
environmental issues: increase control over member countries; advance idea of global governance
terrorism: use excuse for greater control over police and judicial issues; increase extent of surveillance
global financial crisis: kill two birds (free market; Anglo-Saxon economies) with one stone (Europe-wide regulator; attempts at global financial governance)
EMU: create a crisis to force introduction of "European economic government" 8
Here is Bernard Connolly speaking about the moral degeneracy at the heart of the European project:
And here is Connolly giving a more recent interview with Merryn Somerset Webb of MoneyWeek and explaining at greater length why he believes Britain should exit the EU:
Additional: The horrific plight of refugees in Turkish camps
Last month, Germany's Angela Merkel urged EU support for Turkish refugee camps, saying her country intends providing its own.
She praised Turkey for "not only…provid(ing) a safe haven for millions of refugees, but also…provid(ing) them with opportunities and perspectives" – an outrageous perversion of truth.
Her photo-op with former Turkish prime minister Ahmet Davutoglu was willful staged deception, covering up regime crimes against humanity against defenseless, largely Syrian, refugees.
European Council president Donald Tusk called "Turkey…the best example for the whole world for how we should treat refugees. Nobody should lecture Turkey on what to do."
Amnesty International accused EU officials of ignoring horrific abuses refugees receive in Turkey – facilities more like concentration camps than safe havens, hellholes of mistreatment.
Turkish media reported about 30 boys, aged 8–14, were raped or sexually abused by a Nizip refugee camp worker – the country's so-called model facility Merkel and Tusk were shown during their visit last month.
What they were allowed to see was polar opposite reality, an illusory snapshot unrelated to horrors refugees face. Opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) lawmaker Elif Dogan Turkman called child abuse in the camp the tip of the iceberg.
writes independent journalist and activist Steve Lendman in an article published on May 24th. (Please note that all links to related articles have been added.)
Lendman continues:
BirGun newspaper journalist Erik Acarer broke the story of mass rapes at Nizip by one camp worker identified only as "EE." He was indicted and faces longterm imprisonment if convicted.
How many others like him remain to be outed perhaps in all Turkish camps?
On May 24, Fars News reported on Turkish refugee camps "turned into centers for raping children and selling refugees' body organs."
BirGun's Ankara correspondent Yashar Idan reported on mass rapes and sexual abuse at Nizip, organs of a number of refugees sold for profit.
Ankara knows what's going on in its "model" Nizip camp, yet does virtually nothing to stop it, EE's indictment an exception proving the rule.
The Prime Ministry Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD) in charge of refugee camps turns a blind eye to rape and other crimes against defenseless refugees.
Brussels has no interest in protecting their rights, just keeping as many as possible out of Europe.
Click here to read Lendman's full article entitled "Turkish Refugee Camps: Unsafe Havens, Children Raped, Organs Sold".
1 From an article entitled "France: Refugees face 'sow death' in Calais' Jungle" published by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) on February 25, 2016. http://www.msf.org/article/france-refugees-face-%E2%80%98slow-death%E2%80%99-calais-jungle
2 From an article entitled "The Calais "Jungle" today: France's shame" written by Anne Chatelain, who was Deputy Programme Manager, MSF migration Projects and Michaël Neuman, the Director of Studies at MSF – Crash, published by Glasgow Refugee Asylum and Migration Network (GRAMNet) on January 30, 2016. https://gramnet.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/the-calais-jungle-today-frances-shame/
The same article was originally published in French Slate Magazine on December 4, 2015 and is accessible here. It was translated into English by Teresa Piacentini. The original text read:
Les migrants fuient la guerre, la répression ou des conditions de vie qu'ils jugent inacceptables. Leur situation dans le Nord de la France n'est que la part hexagonale de l'échec des politiques européennes d'accueil des réfugiés, qui misent sur la précarité, sur le marchandage entre États comme sur l'érection de murs, physiques ou virtuels, pour maintenir les migrants aux frontières de l'Europe.
Aujourd'hui, les dirigeants français sont, à l'instar de la majorité des chefs d'États et de gouvernements de l'Union européenne, prêts à sacrifier et à maltraiter des milliers de vies dans le vain espoir de dissuader les futurs candidats à l'exil. À Calais même, cette politique accroît les tensions comme elle renforce la perception d'une France toujours plus inhospitalière.
Note that: MSF – Crash (The Centre de reflexion sur l'action et les savoirs humanitaires) was created by Médecins Sans Frontières in 1999. Its objective is to encourage debate and critical reflexion on the humanitarian practices of the association.
3 First reported in an article entitled "Britain 'faces influx of 50,000 asylum seekers' if it leaves the European Union" written by Peter Dominiczak and Michael Wilkinson, published in The Telegraph on February 8, 2016. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12145781/David-Cameron-warns-of-migrant-camps-in-southern-England-if-Brexit-vote.html
"This is a complete red herring, it is utterly untrue that the French are considering it, it would not lead to a major change and it's a great pity that those who want to remain in the European Union are not making the case for project Europe, for supranational control that they presumably believe in and they are engaging in what I think are ridiculous scaremongering tactics.
"It is a treaty, which is signed between two sovereign nations who happen to be in the European Union at the time, but it was signed because it was in both countries' interest.
6 https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-releases/2016/04/turkey-illegal-mass-returns-of-syrian-refugees-expose-fatal-flaws-in-eu-turkey-deal/
7 From an article entitled "EU should 'undermine national homogeneity' says UN migration chief" written by Brian Wheeler, published by BBC news on June 21, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395
8 From a report entitled "Europe – Driver or Driven?" written by Bernard Connolly, published by Banque AIG for ACI Congress on May 30, 2008. https://www.scribd.com/doc/271676558/Bernard-Connolly-Europe#fullscreen
Filed under analysis & opinion, Britain, France, Turkey
Tagged as "The Jungle", Ahmet Davutoğlu, Amnesty International, Angela Merkel, Bernard Connolly, Brexit, Calais, David Cameron, Donald Tusk, Elif Doğan Türkmen, EU referendum, European Union, Le Touquet treaty, Liam Fox, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), Nizip refugee camp, Peter Sutherland, Steve Lendman
Elliot Abrams and the Trojan horse of humanitarian aid