-Caveat Lector-
>From antiwar.com
{{<Begin>}}
Airstrip One
by Emmanuel Goldstein
Antiwar.com
December 15, 1999
The Belgian Empire.
The Balkan Stability Pact and the European Army
The reason we really went into Kosovo remains a mystery. I know, I know, it was
to look after the Albanians who were denied their political rights. The fact
that we made a complete mess of looking after any of the rights of the Kosovan
Serbs, Gypsies or even Albanian Catholics is purely down to the incompetence of
some of the most professional soldiers in the world. It has nothing to do with
the racism of our noble allies in the KLA. The comparative insouciance shown
towards the Chinese for their treatment of the Tibetans, or the Turks because
of their treatment of the Kurds is purely due to the complex situations here,
as if anything was clear cut in the Balkans.
ECONOMICAL WITH THE TRUTH
Is there an economic rationale to this adventure? This is unlikely, for the
simple reason that the Balkans will not pay. Most reconstruction, for example,
is actually being paid for by the American and European taxpayers. Together
with the cost of recruiting and stationing troops, this is going to be an
enormous economic drain. Some individuals and companies, like Cecil Rhodes in
British Africa, are bound to make a killing (sorry) but as a whole it is going
to run at a loss. Someone, somewhere, is bound to mention oil pipelines, please
don’t. As far as oil pipelines go, Chechnya is far more important, and we are
not intervening there, yet.
THE LIE MACHINE
Nevertheless, the clinching fact that lays the humanitarian lie is the by now
well documented fact that all the propaganda NATO fed us about a humanitarian
tragedy is false. The promised mountains of bodies are strangely absent. Now we
are told that three thousand bodies have been discovered, but more may be on
their way, with unexhumed sites and people taken to Serbia. I would even say
fewer bodies might be on their way, as these are all bodies found. It does not
account for the Serbs, KLA fighters, victims of NATO bombing raids and even
those who died of natural causes – all of whom would be present there. NATO
knew it was lying, and manufactured (or at the very least vastly exaggerated) a
humanitarian catastrophe, and then went on to create a real humanitarian
tragedy. As the British Government MP, Tam Dayell said, "Where did the Russians
get the idea that high level bombing might be a way of conducting a modern
war?" If it was a genuine humanitarian catastrophe, all NATO needed to do was
tell the truth; NATO refused to tell the truth; so, NATO wanted this war for a
different reason. What was the reason?
MY FIRST CONSPIRACY THEORY
I think that the reason we went to war in the Balkans was the time-honoured
reason for all forms of evil, the European Union. Now you are going to say, not
again. Just as he was beginning to talk about conspiracies and Kosovo, up pops
his far less sexy obsession with the EU. Bor-ing. Hear me out. The EU wants the
nations of the Balkan region to sign a "non-aggression" pact. Most nations want
to sign this pact, but a few do not. So, with the backing of their American
allies they coerce one of the few remaining recalcitrant powers into
submission, and provide a graphic example of the follies of resisting the
Balkan dimension of the New World Order.
THE INSTABILITY PACT
The Belgian Empire does not call the Balkans protectorates or anything like
that. What it says is that nations who wish to receive foreign aid and wish
even to think of applying to join the EU must join the Stability Pact. The
applicant country agrees to accept European legal norms and European policy
decisions (for example they accept the Euro) in return for – well aid.
Nevertheless, why would politicians in Bulgaria, Serbia or Albania do this sort
of thing? To put it bluntly it is a business decision. In Bosnia, which seems
to be a model for most of this neo-colonialism, foreign aid does not reach the
genuinely needy until the various politicians get considerable finders’ fees.
Bosnian politicians can be sacked at will because they are not servants of the
people but servants of the occupying powers. It is rather a shock to the West
to come across a politician, like Milosovic, who has his own private sources of
wealth and his own agenda.
BY THE FRUITS, YOU WILL KNOW THEM
Look at the results thus far, the Macedonians are given a clean bill of health
after rigging their elections. Croatia runs a relatively clean election and the
West responds with warnings that an HDZ reelection will not be accepted under
any circumstances. Serbia is bombed for ethnic cleansing, while the KLA is
given the mildest slap on the wrist. Kosovo and Montenegro take up the
Deutschmark, and Bosnia shadows it. Serbian towns are given aid if their
councils oppose Milosovic, while the Bulgarian governing party, thanks to
plentiful foreign aid, is more corrupt and repressive than their communist
opponents are. Montenegro rewards draft dodgers, a move designed to provoke a
reaction from Serbia. Even comparatively advanced countries such as Hungary
balk at the costs of needless military expenditure. The rationale is that if
this area is all put together under a beneficent overlord they will all start
getting on. Only one problem, it has been tried already and both the Ottoman
Empire and Yugoslavia fell apart.
THE BALKAN ATTRACTION
Why does the EU want to take over the area that Bismarck said was "not worth
the bones of a Pomeranian Grenadier"? The Balkans in particular where chosen
because the EU has nowhere else to play Empires. Although Oswald Moseley, the
prophet of British pro-Europeanism, talked of "Europe a Nation, Africa an
Empire", Africans are rather proud of their hard won independence, even in
Somalia. This goes for pretty much anywhere else in the world. Except perhaps
the Balkans, where minds seem to be concentrated by the presence of Russia and
quite dire poverty cheek by jowl with European prosperity.
THE RISE OF THE BELGIAN EMPIRE
Why does Europe want an Empire at all? The economic gains are negligible,
although the economic disaster of the Euro has shown that economics comes a
poor second behind politics. It is hard to remember overt imperialism. For the
last two generations honest imperialism has been confined to the history
textbooks and the inscrutable Russians and Chinese. Much of Western Europe has
in fact been going through a painful process of decolonisation, and America’s
small scraps of formal empire have been mostly given away. However, empires
fill a useful role for otherwise unviable countries that can best be summed up
in the phrase "war is the health of the State". Now Britain is finding this out
with the relatively recent outburst of Scottish Nationalism. Why were the Scots
the most conspicuously British subjects in the last century yet want nothing to
do with Britain in this? The reason was that when Britain ruled the waves,
Scotland seemed to be a distraction. However when the choice is being part of
one medium sized power or your own medium sized power, the idea of Britishness
seems somewhat less attractive. Per capita, the Scots sent out far more
emigrants than England. Now there is no imperial project the differences
between these two English speaking, politically liberal, Protestant peoples is
highlighted rather than minimised.
THE LESSONS OF THE WEST
An empire also means that the central government becomes more powerful than the
states. Nothing helped the American federal government in their constant battle
to take centralise the state’s powers more than Federal control over Western
lands. The ceding of all western claims by the states when the constitution was
written gave the Federal government the excuse to build a superstructure of
internal government. No federal police were needed, or wanted, in the thirteen
states, but Federal marshals were active in the "Wild West". At a time when the
constitution was more than an historical document, the Federal Government was
given a large shelter under which to construct its activities. The curiously un-
Jeffersonian Louisiana Purchase not only more than doubled the Federal realm,
but also made permanent the Government debt. With the cavalry needed to police
the wilderness a case for an internal standing army could be made, who could
then be used to coerce states which talked of secession or nullification. The
advocates and opponents of slavery largely accepted that they could not force
slave or free soil states to change their ways. However, the Federal government
did have the power to force the territories to become slave or free soil.
Indeed the very way in which the right to secession was viewed had changed due
to the federal presence on Western lands. Whereas pre-existing states that
joined the Union could claim that they had the right to secede from a Union,
those that were carved out of Federal territory could not be alienated from
their federal parent. I know its rubbish (especially considering the fact that
Virginia and Texas had a clear right to secede) but to many it was convincing
rubbish.
AMERICAN BOYS WILL NOT BE COMING HOME
Let me clear up one misconception now. American troops will not be brought back
home if the Europeans integrate their armies. If there is an integrated EU army
and no noticeable increase in military spending or decrease in commitments, the
effect will be negligible. In fact it will be worse as the State Department can
say to impatient Republicans "look the EU is doing something", when in fact
nothing on the ground has changed. Is there a higher chance that the French,
British and Germans will be more willing to spend tax money on increased
military expenditure if the armed forces are not recognisably theirs? Is there
a higher chance that the Europeans will be less willing to commit troops to all
wars going if the body bags are going through someone else’s airport? The
questions should answer themselves. Europe’s problem is about over-ambition not
a lack of integration. Britain, for example has drastically cut its Territorial
Army and funneled the savings into a "Rapid Reaction Force", hardly a move in
the direction of a peaceful world. Europe can adequately defend itself without
military integration, American involvement or even a massive increase in
defence expenditure. How? They can do this by concentrating on defence and not
aggression. But a belligerent Europe will get itself into a large number of
scraps, expecting America to rescue it whenever the going gets tough. America
must stop underwriting European belligerence, not just for the sake of the
Balkans and America, but for the people of Europe themselves.
EVERY EMPIRE NEEDS AN ARMY
An empire would also give a boost to another symptom of the State, an
integrated EU army. The decision to move the responsibility of policing Kosovo
to the EU can be seen as part of this pattern. Nevertheless, it is not
primarily as just another empty symbol of state that a European army is needed,
but as a final guarantee of European Union. There is a fear that haunts
Brussels that a large member may withdraw because of economic pressure or a
number of court cases changing their political system. Indeed in Britain, there
is a small but active withdrawal movement. If it is made clear that any attempt
at withdrawal will be met with force, then maybe potential secessionists will
think again. It may be a misjudgment of European character (there will more
likely be civil war rather than a craven surrender) but it is a potent threat
nonetheless. The plain fact is that a European Army is needed for internal
repression. A British army would find it hard to fire on its own people if they
had democratically decided to leave the EU. Foreign troops would have fewer
scruples (as would British troops if they were abroad – in Serbia, say). To
dismiss the army as a pointless token of statehood or as something that annoys
the Americans is missing the point. It is intended as an instrument of
repression.
AMERICA'S ROLE
America is the guarantor of this process. In true Orwellian fashion, where war
is peace and slavery is freedom, intervention is disengagement. A European Army
is seen as a positive thing, her troops are coming home. Do not be fooled. A
European Army will defend Europe no better. Operational problems brought into
being by national antagonisms, the Babel of languages and the unwillingness of
taxpayers to pay for a mostly foreign army may make a European Army worse at
defending Europe than its predecessors. Europe needs a sober reassessment of
just what are vital national interests. It does not need a palliative of a
common army and America should stop underwriting this European belligerence, or
there will be blood, very possibly my blood, in London streets when the Empire
wishes to control rebellious provinces.
Please Support Antiwar.com
A contribution of $20 or more gets you a copy of Justin Raimondo's Into the
Bosnian Quagmire: The Case Against US Intervention in the Balkans, a 60-page
booklet packed with the kind of intellectual ammunition you need to fight the
lies being put out by this administration and its allies in Congress. Send
contributions to
Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
or Contribute Via our Secure Server
Credit Card Donation Form
Back to Antiwar.com Home Page | Contact Us
{{<End>}}
A<>E<>R
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Integrity has no need of rules. -Albert Camus (1913-1960)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said
it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your
own reason and your common sense." --Buddha
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers." Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut." Ernest Hemingway
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
