The citizens of the European
Union, who are supposed to elect their parliament on 25 and 26 May, are getting
ready to make the wrong choice. By concentrating on their immediate problems,
they are hesitating between several different priorities. But on the contrary, if
they were to analyse their history over a long period, they would discover the
origins of their social, economic and political problems, and without any
doubt, would decide differently.
After the Second World War,
in 1947, ambassador George Kennan created the policy of containment [1] and President Harry Truman constituted the
apparatus of national security (CIA, Joint Committee of the Chiefs of Staff,
National Security Council) [2].
Washington and London then
turned against Moscow, which had only recently been their ally. They were
planning to create a common Anglo-Saxon nationality, and decided to include
Western Europe in this group by creating the « United
States of Europe », under their control.
It was important for them to
stabilise the part of Western Europe that they occupied, faced with the Soviets
in Eastern Europe. They enjoyed the support of the bourgeoisies, in particular
those who had collaborated with the Nazi Axis, and who were now frightened by
the new legitimacy of the Communist parties, the main victorious forces
alongside the Soviet Union.
They based their work on the
dream of a French senior civil servant, Louis Loucheur , to join the management
of coal and steel necessary for the German and French armament industries in
such a way as to prevent them from ever making war on one another again [3]. This idea was the ECSC (European Coal and
Steel Community), the ancestor of the European Union.
In the context of the Korean
War, North against South, Washington decided to rearm West Germany against East
Germany. The Western European Union (WEU) was created in order for the developing United States of Europe to manage a
common army under Anglo-Saxon control, but which would not attempt to transform
itself into an independent force. The WEU would be responsible for foreign
policy and common defence.
Relations
between London and Washington became strained during the Suez crisis in 1956.
The United States, who were proud to be counted among the liberators from Nazi
rule, were unable to accept the way in which London managed its ex-colonial
empire. They moved closer to Moscow in order to sanction the United Kingdom.
There was no longer any question
of creating a common Anglo-Saxon nationality, and London’s influence in the
world slid inexorably into the arms of Washington. The United Kingdom therefore
decided to join with the developing United States of
Europe.
Charles De Gaulle was against
this. It was in fact foreseeable that the reconciliation between London and
Washington would only come about by depriving the developing United States of
Europe of all political power, and founding them in a transatlantic free-trade
zone. Western Europe would thus be castrated and would become a vassal of
Washington, set against « the Russians » [4].
Since
De Gaulle was not eternal, the United Kingdom finally joined the anti-Russian
United States of Europe in 1973. As predicted, it transformed the European
Community into a free-exchange zone by the Single European Act (SEA), and
opened the way for transatlantic negotiations.
This
was the time of the « Four Freedoms » (by analogy with Roosevelt’s speech in
1941) – the free circulation of property, services, people and capital.
Interior Customs regulations were progressively repealed. Imperceptibly, the
Anglo-Saxons imposed their model of a multi-cultural society which had earlier
been thought to be incompatible with European culture.
It
was only when the USSR was dissolved in 1991 that the 1947 project was finally
implemented. Washington decided to transform the organisation in Brussels into
a supra-national structure and introduce the nations of the Warsaw Pact,
placing this anti-Russian « European Union » under the protection of NATO, and
forbidding it any political role.
It
was the US Secretary of State, James Baker, and not the Europeans, who
announced the opening to the East and the Treaty of Maastricht. The structure
in Brussels was metamorphosed – the 15 nations of the Western post-World War
block extended to 13 post-Warsaw Pact countries, the WEU was dissolved, and a
senior civil servant was named to handle foreign policy and common defence,
still under Anglo-Saxon control, which was locked into place by the Treaty of
Maastricht. Finally, a European nationality was created.
At that point , Washington
considered gaining London’s adherence to the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) [5] and creating an Anglo-Saxon nationality, as
had been planned in 1947. This is the project which caused the United Kingdom
to want to leave the European Union, and that Theresa May came to the USA to
defend, in vain, in the troubled United States which had just elected Donald
Trump.
The Brexit, if it should
occur, would change nothing of the dependency of the Union, which is carved in
stone by the various Treaties. Things would simply return to what had been
planned in 1947, at the time of Churchill, who encouraged the creation of a
United States of Europe without the United Kingdom [6].
Record
The history of the European Union shows
that this organisation was never conceived in the interest of the European
people, but against Russia.
This is why, in 2007, Vladimir Putin came to the European Union to give
his resounding speech in Munich [7]. He reminded the Europeans that their
economic and political interests, as well as their ethical demands, were with
Moscow, and not with Washington. Everyone listened to him, but no-one claimed
their independence.
The
European Union managed for decades to guarantee economic prosperity, but failed
to do so after the dissolution of the USSR. Today, it is dragging behind –
since 2009, (in other words, after the world financial crisis of 2008), the
United States recorded growth of +34%, India +96%, China +139%, while the
European Union has decreased by -2%.
The EU
has never been able to help the poor to free themselves. At best, they are able
to consider allowances to prevent the needy from starving to death.
Finally, and above all, the
European Union has never fought for peace, but only for its Anglo-Saxon
masters. It has supported all US wars [8], including the war against Iraq, which
France and Chancellor Schröder had nonetheless denounced. In cowardly fashion,
it abandoned its members to their fate – its own territory is occupied in the
North-East of Cyprus by the Turkish army, a member of NATO, without raising the
slightest protestation.
Future
On 25
and 26 May, the anti-Russian European Union will elect its Parliament, without
anyone knowing how long the British will be occupying their seats.
The people are slow to react
– if, during the Cold War, it was legitimate to prefer one side rather than
another, for some to choose to serve the Anglo-Saxons rather than a
Georgian [9], it is absurd today to continue to obey
them in order to protect against a non-existent « Russian threat ».
After three quarters of a
century of subjugation, the political parties opposed to the European Treaties
are hesitating to define their priorities – should they first of all claim
their independence from the Anglo-Saxons or defend their culture from that of
the Arabo-Turks? In truth, the second problem proceeds from the first, and not
the other way round.
It is not a question of imagining a pseudo-superiority
of one culture over another, nor even to talk about religion, but to recognise
the impossibility of co-existing in the same society with two different forms
of social organisation. To make it simple, you can not abstain from work both
on Sunday and on Friday.
It is due to their dependency that the
Europeans imagined a multi-cultural society. But this does not work in their
own homeland. And it is only when they are independent that they will be able
to save European culture.
—
[1] The long telegram, by
George Kennan to George Marshall, February 22, 1946.
[2] National Security Act of 1947.
[3] “The
European Union’s Secret History”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation
Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 28
June 2004.
[4] De Gaulle considered the
Capitalist/Communist opposition to be secondary in terms of the geopolitics of
the Anglo-Saxons/Russia conflict. He avoided speaking of the USSR.
[5] The Impact on the U.S. Economy
of Including the United Kingdom in a Free Trade Arrangement With the United
States, Canada, and Mexico, United States International Trade
Commission, 2000.
[6] “Winston
Churchill speaking in Zurich on the United States of Europe”, by
Winston Churchill, Voltaire Network, 19
September 1946.
[7] “The
unipolar governance is illegal and immoral”, by Vladimir
Putin, Voltaire Network, 11 February 2007.
[8] “The
European Union is obliged to participate in US wars”, by Thierry
Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 23
April 2019.
[9] Joseph Stalin was not Russian, but
Georgian. (Author’s note).
French
intellectual, founder and chairman of Voltaire Network and the Axis for Peace
Conference. His columns specializing in international relations feature in
daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish and Russian. His last
two books published in English : 9/11 the Big Lie and Pentagate.
The
articles on Voltaire Network may be freely reproduced provided the source is
cited, their integrity is respected and they are not used for commercial
purposes (license CC BY-NC-ND).
