Is the US Government interested in destabilizing the EU and Europe in order to assume more control of resources and trade?

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
#1
The inspiration for the title: "Is the US interested in destabilizing the EU and Europe in order to assume more control of resources and trade?" is a section from the Cassiopaean transcript, Session 13 May, 2017
[....]
A: US wishes to destabilize EU similar to Syria so that they can come in and "fix" things. i.e. rule and control resources and trade the "American way". Everyone will speak English!

Q: [laughter] (Pierre) They sure have a sense of humor, but I'm not sure that will be the only consequence...

(L) So basically, some kind of cabal in the deep state of the US is at the bottom of some kind of One World Order plan to really basically bit by bit take the entire planet under its control. Is that it either overtly or covertly?

A: Covertly at present, but overtly eventually.
One could ask if the idea put forward in the session from 2017 about the goals of the US Government or among part of its power elite has not been an agenda for many years. In order to decide on the question about US Government interference, one has to collect data, because the process is not complete. Any amount of data in favour of a case may not convince everyone, and that is not the goal, personally I would like to just understand the issue, this sector of reality more clearly.

There are several threads dedicated to individual areas and problems of Europe, like Ukraine, Poland, Scandinavia, Belarus, Nagorno-Karabakh War - Armenia vs Azerbaijan, Events in Russia, Huge Protests in Romania, French Election Result or from our Orwellian World: Mass protests in Macedonia: US attempting Maidan v2.0 in Skopje? In several of the posts in these threads and in articles on Sott.net one can find evidence of the US having a destabilizing influence on Europe. On the surface of events much of US aggression is targeted against Russia, but does this one sided presentation on the part of the US also hide its real intention towards the non-Russian parts of Europe like the EU. At least the EU has paid a very high price for the so-called anti-Russian sanctions, so much so that their effect could also be interpreted as being equivalent to anti-EU sanctions that the US wanted and convinced or forced its "allies" within the EU to accept.

Recently there was an article by Thierry Meyssan: Chaos, control and the Middle East peace process It seems to me that much of what Thierry Meyssan writes about the Middle East is of relevance to the EU. For instance:

Since 2001, the Pentagon has adopted the doctrine of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, Donald Rumsfeld's choice for Director of the Office of Force Transformation. The objective is no longer to grab natural resources for the USA, but to control the access of other powers to these resources. For that, it will be necessary to maintain indefinitely a state of chaos that only US Forces can contain. According the formula of President George W. Bush, this is to be an « endless war », which the USA must neither lose nor win [1]
. Is the US fomenting chaos in Europe?

Ukrainian General: US is advising Kiev to unleash 'chaos' In Donbass and with regard to the Ukraine, one recalls the role of Victoria Nuland' from the US State Department around 2013-2015
Loony Nuland fumes over Minsk agreement, gives instructions to 'fight against the Europeans' And the US has been successful. In Poland some estimate there are now about 2 million migrants from the Ukraine.
An open letter to Europe's leaders: "F*ck the EU" was an insult, not a command!


And what are some of the reactions to or consequences of these policies:
Europe is the loser in Washington's geopolitical games against Russia - Lavrov
America the Global Empire: French bank pays huge US fine for doing business in Cuba and Iran and there have been similar cases which one could list and discuss the extent to which they were justified.

There are some attempts among to European leaders to gain more independence, but are they realistic?
#ICYMI: France and Germany want a new EU army, what could possibly go wrong?
In creating an EU army, could Europe easily get rid of American political diktat?
Merkel joins Macron in call for European army - There's just the small issue of NATO treaties

What do others think about this subject?
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
#2
In this post, I will try to show the blurred line between the intentions of the US Department of State and the those of the Atlantic Council think tank, and that the policies of the US Government in Europe are moved forward by other actors than the US Government alone. This does not come as a surprise, especially when I later found that the Atlantic Council is the US chapter of the Atlantic Treaty Association, an umbrella association for national associations supporting NATO.

In the past week there was this headline:
In Siding With Fascism, Western Ideologues Pose a Greater Threat to The West's Security Than ISIS
'Popping' recently over Russia have been key figures of the Western geopolitical and ideological firmament - people for whom the world is made of a Western bloc of nations divinely ordained to command, and the rest of the world condemned to obey.

A prime example of what I mean concerns the Atlantic Council in Washington, one of the more notorious of an ever expanding network of neocon think tanks in our world, [...]
[...][...]
From the title of the previous article there is the idea that both ISIS and ideologues are a threat to security.
Many would agree ISIS is a threat except that the US Government has this problem to explain:
'Mysterious helicopters' have rescued and supplied ISIS and al-Qaeda time and time again
[...]January, 2015
- Although the majority of these reports took place in 2018-2017, we cannot forget reports that emerged earlier such as the one in January, 2015 where Iraqi Member of Parliament Majid al-Gharawi stated that all information available "pointed out that US planes are supplying ISIL organization, not only in Salahuddin province, but also other provinces," according to Iraq TradeLink.

He also stated that the United States is "not serious in fighting against the ISIL organization, because they have the technological power to determine the presence of ISIL gunmen and destroy them in one month [but have not done so]."

Gharawi suggested that the "the US is trying to expand the time of the war against the ISIL to get guarantees from the Iraqi government to have its bases in Mosul and Anbar provinces."

It is important to mention that, according to FARS News, the Iraqi Parliamentary Security and Defense Commission revealed that a US plane did indeed supply ISIS with arms and ammunition in the Salahuddin province in Iraq, yet that revelation has received little to no coverage in the West.
It appears that the US Government is fully capable of fighting ISIS, but is still supporting it enough to keep it alive. This policy is not a problem for the US, but it is a problem for the countries directly affected like Iraq, Iran, Syria and indirectly affected like neighbouring countries and Europe which the US pretends to support, at least the NATO part of Europe.

But what about the ideologues in the Atlantic Council? Are they a threat and is there a relationship between the Atlantic Council and the US Department of State which officially represents the US Government. I shall try to procede by first mentioning what the US State Department is about in terms of Europe, then the review the similar intentions of the Atlantic Council:
Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
The US Department of State
Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, headed by Assistant Secretary A. Wess Mitchell, develops and implements U.S. foreign policy in Europe and Eurasia. The Bureau promotes U.S. interests in the region on issues such as international security, NATO, coordination with the European Union and other regional organizations, support for democracy, human rights, civil society, economic prosperity, counterterrorism, and nonproliferation.
Here is a map of Eurasia, from the perspective of the US Department of State

and below more detailed:

In geological or geographic terms Eurasia would look rather different; the maps reflect the fragmented view of the World in the US Department of State. Therefore no surprise when one reads a message from an official of the US Department of State, incidentally published on the Atlantic Council page:
OCTOBER 19, 2018
State Department Official Sounds Warning on Russian, Chinese Influence in Central and Eastern Europe
‘The return of great nation competition is the defining geopolitical fact of our time,’ says US Assistant Secretary of State Wess Mitchell
BY DAVID A. WEMER[...]
Apparently the Atlantic Council carries the voice of the US State Department and also seeks to influence the US State Department:
SEPTEMBER 6, 2017
State Department Reform Report BY ATLANTIC COUNCIL
The Atlantic Council's State Department Reform Report—written by a group of ten foreign policy experts—explores the critical subject areas of structure and process, personnel, budget, congressional relations, and USAID. The report serves as a foundation for reform efforts that will lead to the empowerment of the State Department at a time when a rapidly evolving global environment consistently poses new challenges and threats. The department's role is indeed unique and vital in the US national security apparatus; diplomacy based in continued and robust support for US interests and values is critical to favorable long-term outcomes, including a more secure and stable global environment. [...]
The Atlantic Council has a Future Europe Initiative about which they write:
Our Mission
Europe is in the midst of a historic transition, the outcome of which is of great strategic importance to the United States. The Atlantic Council’s Future Europe Initiative promotes the leadership and strategies required to bolster the vision of a strong Europe advancing a better global future in partnership with the United States. The Initiative seeks to understand change in Europe, galvanize leadership, and forge a strategy of renewal.
"The Initiative seeks to .... galvanize leadership" what is that? The dictionary has:
(Definition of “galvanize” from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary © Cambridge University Press
galvanize verb [ T ]
US /ˈɡæl·vəˌnɑɪz/
to cause a person or group to suddenly take action, esp. by shocking or exciting them in some way:
Why not use the media to galvanize the community into action?
From this I understand the mission of the Atlantic Council’s Future Europe Initiative involves shocking and exciting the leadership to act in accordance with the mission:
[...]The Atlantic Council’s Future Europe Initiative is premised on the belief that the United States has an enormous strategic stake in Europe’s future, and in a coherent and cohesive Atlantic community. Vision, leadership, and sustainable strategies are needed to protect and bolster this unique partnership as a force for good in the world.
More on the Atlantic Council:
Atlantic Council members McFaul and Polyakova appalled at seeing Russian media outlets listed in Kerch search results
NATO's Atlantic Council: A US tool towards achieving geopolitical domination
A closer look at Ben Nimmo and the Atlantic Council's underhanded tactics against a UK citizen tired of government warmongering
Facebook teams up with Atlantic Council to meddle in elections around the world
The Atlantic Council should not be confused with the North Atlantic Council where the article on NATO's website reads https://www.nato.int/cps/ra/natohq/topics_49763.htm
The North Atlantic Council is the principal political decision-making body within NATO. It oversees the political and military process relating to security issues affecting the whole Alliance. It brings together representatives of each member country to discuss policy or operational questions requiring collective decisions, providing a forum for wide-ranging consultation between members on all issues affecting their peace and security.
What not apparent from the website of the Atlantic Council, but mentioned in the Wiki, is that the Atlantic Council is the US chapter of the Atlantic Treaty Association
ATA is active in 38 countries across and beyond the Atlantic Alliance
through its national chapters and respective youth branches, the Youth Atlantic Treaty Association (YATA).

With more than 500 activities per year, ATA is able to reach out to thousands of policy and decision makers, academics, officials, militaries, economic actors, young professionals and students in the field of international relations, security, defense and foreign affairs.

Since the transformation of the global security scenario ATA is today present with cooperation programs beyond the traditional borders of the Atlantic Alliance in regions such as: North Africa and the Middle East, Central and Eastern Europe, Balkans, Caucasus and Central Asia.

Relying on an extended and highly qualified network of 38 national organisations, ATA produces top-notch knowledge on strategic issues and organizes public events, closed-doors meetings as well as training and education programs on international affairs, security and defense.
The Wiki about ATA has:
"The Atlantic Treaty Association (ATA) is an umbrella organization which draws together political leaders, academics, military officials, and diplomats to support NATO. ATA is an independent organization separate from NATO "
and

ATA was created on 18 June 1954.[2] Since the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the role of the Atlantic Treaty Association has changed considerably. In 1992 the ATA Constitution was amended to accommodate associate members and observers from non-NATO countries. Given NATO's shifting nature, ATA now works beyond the borders of the Euro-Atlantic, operating in Central and Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean, and the South Caucasus. Following the ascension of the new NATO countries in 1999 and 2004, ATA membership expanded considerably, and its security focus has shifted south and eastward.[4][5][2]
ATA also has a web page about their policy focus on EU/NATO cooperation NATO/EU Cooperation Archives - Atlantic Treaty Association

The EU/NATO cooperation reveals much of Europe is in the pocket of a military power controlled by the US Government through a network of associations manned by ideologues supporting its intentions. Considering what the policies of the US and NATO have led to for many countries, and knowing some of the results flow back into the countries that participated, what is in store is becoming more predictable. Officially the idea is to strengthen Europe, but the conflict and divisions that have been seeded and supported over the last few years have weakened it.
 

Attachments

Maat

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
#3
Pierre Hillard would agree with you, unfortunately he doesn't write in english, but see this one for example (the explosion of Europe in the service of US) I hope an automatic translation will do enough the job for you.

One paper of him in english, but not directly related to your question.
 
Last edited:

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
#4
Pierre Hillard would agree with you, unfortunately he doesn't write in english, but see this one for example (the explosion of Europe in the service of US) I hope an automatic translation will do enough the job for you.
One paper of him in english, but not directly related to your question.
Thank you for sharing. I had a look at the "one for example" and found it is from July 11, 2003. which shows one could easily take a historic perspective of the question under consideration, rather than remaining within the limits of the latest headlines. In this post, I'll begin with the text Maat suggested, then dig deeper, reflect on the Wolfowitz doctrine and move on to present day work by the NED, the National Endowment for Democracy.

The beginning of the text by Pierre Hillard reads when translated by Google:
DIVIDE AND RULE
The break-up of the European continent in the service of the United States
by Pierre Hillard
The regionalization of Europe could be diverted from its original meaning through an imbalance of institutions. It would then be a means of politically dismembering Europe, leaving the field free for the domination of the American Empire. Pierre Hillard analyzes this variant of the Wolfowitz doctrine: how to turn the dream of European unity into a nightmare of the Yugoslavian type.
The modalities of European construction depend on the idea of the unity of Europe and its role in the world. Having spearheaded the creation of the Union to stabilize Western Europe and shield it from Soviet influence, the United States is now promoting both its geographic enlargement and its political dilution. The Union could then absorb Russia and crush the Member States into a myriad of regions and transform itself into a vast free trade area protected by the US military power.
There is much one could comment on in the above paragraph in relation to what has happened since 2003, but for now I move to the continuation of the text, which is an analysis of tendencies that show how the U.S. Government works to go about achieving its political goals.
The main interest of this article is to reveal the hidden meaning of the current form of European regionalization. This does not concern only the Union present, but is designed to extend to all Eurasia. All the Central European states, the Baltic States, Ukraine, Russia - with an eastern border stretching to Siberia - the Caucasian states and Turkey are already integrated into this European project or rather euro-Atlantic. Membership of the Union would no longer be the means to achieve European unity, but rather to dismember the continent, thus ensuring the peaceful triumph of US hyper-power according to the classical principle of "divide and conquer". Regionalization, presented as a means of bringing citizens closer to decision-making, would be no more than an artifice to prevent the emergence of a Europe-power in application of the "Wolfowitz doctrine" [1]
Cf. Defense Policy Guidance for the Fiscal Years 1994-1999, US Department of Defense, 18 février 1992. Des extraits du document ont été publiés dans The New York Times du 8 mars 1992. In the Wiki on the Wolfowitz doctrine they refer to Tyler, Patrick E. (8 March 1992). "U.S. Strategy Plan Calls For Insuring No Rivals Develop". The New York Times. Retrieved 30 October 2013.


In the above paragraph there is certainly also comments to be made, considering that it was written 15 years ago. What interested me more though was the mentioning of the "Wolfowitz doctrine" which some maintain where later evident in what became known as the Bush-doctrine. Another source begins its introduction to the Wolfowitz doctrine with:

We have all heard about it, We know it derives from the infamous "Securing The Realm" document published before it, and that the PNAC report spawned from it, but have you actually read it ?
Wolfowitz Doctrine is an unofficial name given to the initial version of the Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994–99 fiscal years (dated February 18, 1992) authored by U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz and his deputy Scooter Libby.
in this small excerpt there are other leads one could follow.

The comparison between the excerpts from the text in the original draft and the later text can be found in the above Wiki and here. Below are some excerpt from the original draft:

Superpower status
The doctrine announces the U.S.'s status as the world’s only remaining superpower following the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War and proclaims its main objective to be retaining that status.
Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.
This was substantially re-written in the April 16 release.
[...]
U.S. primacy
The doctrine establishes the U.S.'s leadership role within the new world order.
The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.
This was substantially re-written in the April 16 release.
Unilateralism
The doctrine downplays the value of international coalitions.
Like the coalition that opposed Iraqi aggression, we should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted, and in many cases carrying only general agreement over the objectives to be accomplished. Nevertheless, the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S. will be an important stabilizing factor.
This was re-written with a change in emphasis in the April 16 release.
Preventative Intervention
The doctrine stated the U.S’s right to intervene when and where it believed necessary.
While the U.S. cannot become the world's policeman, by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations.
This was softened slightly in the April 16 release.
"nsettle international relations" should be seen in the context of the previous points of maintaining U.S. superpower status, U.S. primacy and unilateralism. Similarly the comments on the next issue about Russia follows from the previous points.
Russian threat
The doctrine highlighted the possible threat posed by a resurgent Russia.
We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others... We must, however, be mindful that democratic change in Russia is not irreversible, and that despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States.
This was removed from the April 16 release in favour of a more diplomatic approach.
The U.S. has a significant stake in promoting democratic consolidation and peaceful relations between Russia, Ukraine and the other republics of the former Soviet Union.
Promoting democratic consolidation is examplified by the Ukraine Maidan?
Middle East and Southwest Asia
The doctrine clarified the overall objectives in the Middle East and Southwest Asia.
In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil. We also seek to deter further aggression in the region, foster regional stability, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways. As demonstrated by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, it remains fundamentally important to prevent a hegemon or alignment of powers from dominating the region. This pertains especially to the Arabian peninsula. Therefore, we must continue to play a role through enhanced deterrence and improved cooperative security.
The April 16 release was more circumspect and it reaffirmed U.S. commitments to Israel as well as its Arab allies.
The above points can be seen in the context of the quote in the very first post from the article by Thierry Meysan

Recently there was an article by Thierry Meyssan: Chaos, control and the Middle East peace process It seems to me that much of what Thierry Meyssan writes about the Middle East is of relevance to the EU. For instance:
Since 2001, the Pentagon has adopted the doctrine of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, Donald Rumsfeld's choice for Director of the Office of Force Transformation. The objective is no longer to grab natural resources for the USA, but to control the access of other powers to these resources. For that, it will be necessary to maintain indefinitely a state of chaos that only US Forces can contain. According the formula of President George W. Bush, this is to be an « endless war », which the USA must neither lose nor win [1]
The article by Pierre Hillard has this remark about the implementation of the U.S. policies in Europe and EU area:
Contrary to popular belief, there are many forces in the Union itself to promote this project, [...]
This is true, in the previous post I wrote about the Atlantic Treaty Association and its national chapters. But one could also consider analyzing the work of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which may have an American base, but it can not work locally without recruiting local support. NED explains the work it does in Europe here: Central and Eastern Europe – NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY NED: The different wikis do not say the same. the English one has even Wiki issues, because of a limited amount of sources. Therefor I take some quotes from other wikis translated by the browser.
The German wiki on NED: National Endowment for Democracy – Wikipedia
National Endowment for Democracy
(NED) is a US-American Foundation and think tank with the stated aim of worldwide promotion of liberal democracy. It was 1983 by the U.S. Congress in Washington, D.C. founded and receives for their work an annual funding from the U.S. Federal budget.
The Congress created the NED as a semi-public Arm of the foreign policy. In spite of the state funding is legally a private, non-profit organization. This allows the state of the transfer of budgetary funds to foreign organisations, through a third party.
and
Similar organizations in other countries
A model for the NED in the design that are independent of government foreign policy activities to promote democratic structures were the political foundations of the Federal Republic of Germany.[4]

In 1992, founded the British government, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the NED in the Central points is similar.[4]

On the proposal of the Polish presidency of the Council established the European Union in 2012 in the US-a model of NED-oriented European Fund for Democracy(EED).[5]
National Endowment for Democracy – Wikipedia
The French Wiki on NED: National Endowment for Democracy — Wikipédia
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) (in French, national endowment for democracy) is a private foundation non-profit of the United States, founded in 1983 under the government of Ronald Reagan1, whose objective declared by the us authorities is the strengthening and progress of the institutions of democratic worldwide2.
Since its creation jointly by the republicans and the democrats, the NED has remained bipartisan. It is governed by a board balanced between both parties and is supported by all the political groups of the Congress2, however the general orientation of its shares is that of the movement neo-conservative.
and
The former director of the CIA, William Colby, said in 1982, in the Washington Post, about the program of the NED : "It is not necessary to make use of covert methods. Many of the programs that [...] were conducted in in hand, can now be the big day, and consequentially, without controversy "3.
In 1991, one of the founders of the NED, Allen Weinstein, told the Washington Post that " many of the things that they [the NED] were doing now was done covertly by the CIA 25 years ago "4,5.

According to Ralph Morris Goldman, some in Congress suspect that the whole effort of collaboration between the major parties as a form of dubious colluded for a share of the public funds and sponsorship. Others see in the program of democracy of the NED is the extension of operations policy secret Central Intelligence Agency(CIA) is the instrument of the ideological prejudices of President Ronald Reagan. The fact that in the past few years the CIA has been involved, somewhat awkwardly, in the dissemination of political support, a new and official programme of assistance will undoubtedly be perceived at the beginning as the continuation of the activities of the CIA6. As William Blum writes that this organization was created specifically to serve as a surrogate for the CIA7.
and
In Ukraine, the NED using many structures45 related link to the orange revolution46 such that the part of ukraine, theOpen Society Foundations (OSF)45 and the Albert Einstein Institution47 , funded by the NED. The National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), the International Renaissance Foundation (IRF)48 and branch-Ukrainian of theOpen Society Foundation have publicly recognized to be involved in the reversal of power in the manifestations of the Euromaïdan49.
The English Wiki on NED: National Endowment for Democracy - Wikipedia
Source of funding
The NED receives an annual appropriation from the U.S. budget (it is included in the chapter of the Department of State budget destined for the U.S. Agency for International Development-USAID) and is subject to congressional oversight even as a non-governmental organization. In the financial year to the end of September 2009 NED had an income of $135.5 million, nearly all of which came from U.S Government agencies.[4]
and
Eastern Europe
During the 1980s and 1990s, NED invested millions of dollars in Eastern Europe.
Ukraine
In their 2012 report, NED indicated that it spent US$3,381,824 on programs in the Ukraine, encompassing the areas NGO Strengthening, Political Processes, Human Rights, Accountability, Developing Market Economy, Freedom of Information, Democratic Ideas and Values, Promoting Freedom of Assembly, Strengthening Political Institutions, and Monitoring Electoral Processes.[25]
It appears from the above excerpt that there are more leads that could be looked up, like the Open Society Foundation, but I'll end with coming back to the Voltaire.net which Maat linked to and where the work for this post began. It turned out that the article by Pierre Hillard is just one of more than 1400 articles in French about the control of Europe. some are also available in English and other languages. The link is EuCom : Contrôle de l'Europe [Réseau Voltaire]
 
Last edited:

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
#5
And there was Pax Americana: Pompeo tells UN, WTO, ICC to bow and comply with US-led world order delivered to the German Marshall Fund, so we may be led to assume the "hint" to Europe and the EU can hardly be missed.
Pax Americana: Pompeo tells UN, WTO, ICC to bow and comply with US-led world order
Published time: 6 Dec, 2018 12:10 Edited time: 6 Dec, 2018 13:22
The US will lead a new liberal world order, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared. Organizations and treaties not fitting this picture must be scrapped or reformed, so that non-compliers could not use them against America.

The vision of the bold new and prosperous (for the US and its supporters) world was delivered by Pompeo in a keynote speech to the German Marshall Fund on Tuesday.

The senior member of the Donald Trump administration said a multilateral approach is failing to produce a world of unrestricted capitalism, so the US should rule supreme – sorry, assume a leadership role – to ensure that countries like China didn’t try to offer an alternative way.

China, as well as Russia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and other nations on the US grudge list got their share of bashing in the speech, but its focus was more on international institutions, which Pompeo claimed to be incompatible with his grand vision.

The UN is a vehicle for regional powers to “collude” and vote in bad actors into the Human Rights Council. “Bad actors”are of course not Saudi Arabia. The World Bank and the International Monetary fund are in the way of private lenders. The EU is good, but Brexit should be a wake-up call for its bureaucracy, which doesn’t know how good nationalism actually is. The International Criminal Court is “rogue” because it attempts to hold Americans accountable for crimes in Afghanistan.

The Paris Agreement on climate change was bad for America, so it left. NAFTA was bad for America, so it forced a renegotiation. The nuclear deal with Iran didn’t make Tehran complacent, so it had to go.

But what organization was a good boy and doesn’t deserve a piece of coal from Uncle Sam? SWIFT was. The banking communications organization caved in to Washington and cut off Iranians from its system, so it has a place in the bright new world of US leadership.

Watch Murad Gazdiev’s report about Pompeo’s “new liberal order” to find out more.
In the article there is a short link to the point under consideration, but I can't embed it. The whole speech from the German Marshall Fund event in Brussels on December 4, 2018 can be seen here

About the German Marshall Fund
The German Marshall Fund of the United States – European Foundation Centre
Background
The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) is an American public policy and grantmaking institution dedicated to promoting greater cooperation and understanding between the US and Europe. Founded in 1972 through a gift from Germany as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance, GMF maintains a strong presence on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition to its headquarters in Washington DC, GMF has six offices in Europe: Berlin, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, and Bucharest. GMF also has smaller representations in Bratislava, Turin, and Stockholm.
[...]
Policy
Policy is a the largest part of their work, on both sides of the Atlantic and around the World. Staff and fellows have expertise in a wide range of subjects, from security to democracy and from energy to trade, and a wide range of regions, from North America to Asia and from Europe to the Wider Atlantic Basin. Their research and analysis in these areas is published in international media and GMF’s own publication series.
They organise many events to bring together the transatlantic policy-making community. They seek to attract influential leaders from a variety of backgrounds, such as U.S, European, Global political, corporate, media, and intellectual.

Topics include:
• Asia
•Energy Security
•Europe's East & Russia
•European Union
•Foreign & Security Policy
•NATO
•Trade & Investment
•Urban & Regional Policy
German Marshall Fund – Wikipedia has:
The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) is an independent American Foundation dedicated to the promotion of transatlantic relations in politics, economy and society.
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
#6
In Do some French people see what's going on? there was:
Thierry Meyssan had an article in this bent: How the West eats its children

It is long and yet worth the read, osit.

Snip of the opening:
Indeed and besides the comment on the situation in France, Thierry Meyssan also wrote:
The revolt of the Western populations
The revolt of the Western middle and working classes against the globalised upper class began two years ago.
[... He mentions the examples of the UK, the USA, Italy and France.]
If we look at each of these four countries separately, we will find four different explanations for what is happening there. But if we analyse the situation as a single phenomenon affecting different cultures, we will discover the same mechanisms across the board. In these four countries, consecutive with the end of capitalism, the middle classes disappeared more or less rapidly, and with them the political system that they incarnated - Democracy.

So either the Western leaders abandon the financial system they have developed and return to the productive capitalism of the Cold War, or they will have to invent a different organisation that no-one has so far been able imagine. Failing that, the West, which has directed the world for five centuries, will sink into a long period of internal chaos.
The Syrians were the first non-globalised People capable of surviving and resisting the destruction of Rumsfeld-Cebrowski’s infra-world. The French were the first globalised people to rise up against the destruction of the West, even if they are not aware that they are fighting the same unique enemy of all of humanity. President Emmanuel Macron is not the man for the situation, not because he has any responsibility for the system that preceded him, but because he is pure product of that system. In response to the riots in his country, he spoke from the G20 in Buenos-Aires, declaring that the meeting was a success in his eyes, (which it was not), and that he intended to advance more efficiently than his predecessors - in the wrong direction.
How to save privilege
It appears that the British ruling class has its solution - if London in particular and the Western nations in general are no longer capable of ruling the world, it will be necessary to cut one’s losses and divide the world into two distinct zones. This is the policy implemented by Obama in the final months of his presidency [10], then by Theresa May, and now by Donald Trump, with their refusal to cooperate and their ready-made accusations, first of all against Russia and now against China.

It also seems that Russia and China, despite their historical rivalry, are aware that they will never be able to ally themselves with these Westerners who have never ceased trying to carve them up. This is the source of their project, the « Eurasian Economic Union » - if the world must be split in two, each participant will have to organise its own. In concrete terms, for Beijing, this means abandoning half of its « Silk Road » project and its redeployment with Moscow only in Greater Eurasia.
Will the world be as dualized as is suggested?
 
Top Bottom