NATO Puzzle

While the American hyper-power is in advanced decline and President Donald Trump has evoked a possible exit of his country from NATO, the member states are wondering about the future of the Atlantic alliance. This is why, in April, its Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, set up a Commission of Reflection, composed of 10 Atlantic personalities, to define what NATO would be in 2030.

Its objective was to redefine the alliance, as was the case in 1967, after France’s exit from the integrated command and at a time when the 20-year period during which it was not possible to leave the Treaty was about to come to an end.

At the time, the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Pierre Harmel, undertook to coordinate a very broad consultation, taking into account the French desire for national independence. Adapting to the logic of President Charles De Gaulle, he distinguished the political aspects (the Treaty) from the military aspects (the Organization).

Of course, Pierre Harmel was fundamentally committed to American domination of the “Free World”. As a Christian Democrat, he was opposed to the USSR as much for its atheism as for its collectivist principles. As such, he was involved in the Christian Leadership Movement [1] organized by the Pentagon.

The new reflection group has just submitted its report on November 25, 2020.

Contrary to expectations, it does not imagine new horizons, but calls for refocusing on what unites the member states: the “common values” defined by the founding treaty of the Alliance: “the principles of democracy, individual liberties and the rule of law. [2] In fact, the principles of democracy have just been violated in the United States by electoral fraud, while individual liberties have been restricted in each member state during the Covid-19 epidemic. As for the rule of law, it no longer exists in Turkey.

Preamble

Here, a preamble is necessary. NATO has never been an “alliance” in the sense of a free association of partners aimed at strengthening their defense. On the contrary, from its foundation, all have been forced to accept and obey an eternal military command from the United States. In practice, NATO is a foreign legion at the service of the Anglo-Saxons: the Pentagon first, Whitehall second. This blatant violation of the principle of sovereignty set out in the UN Charter has forced NATO to practice biased rhetoric.

Its noble and beautiful rhetoric should not mask its rogue management.

– During the Cold War, the Anglo-Saxons used a secret service of the Alliance to ensure that member states always accepted their command. They formed a stay-behind network, allegedly to resist a Soviet invasion. However, they used this network only to eliminate any desire for independence. They organized assassinations of leaders and provoked coups d’état among their partners. These facts are taught today in Anglo-Saxon military academies and have been studied in detail by many historians. [3]

– This system has continued since the end of the Cold War in another form. Each member state has been asked to authorize the Anglo-Saxons in writing to spy on them with the help of their own officials, as Edward Snowden revealed, and as we saw again last month in Denmark. . [4]

– Finally, the Anglo-Saxon military command does not hesitate to violate the statutes of the Alliance when it suits it. Thus, it was this command, and not the Atlantic Council which was opposed to it, who decided to bomb Libya and overthrow Muamar al-Gaddafi.

A commission under surveillance

Under these conditions, it would be naive to believe that the Reflection Commission had the freedom to think for itself.

It was chaired by Wess Mitchell, former assistant to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson for European and Eurasian Affairs;

Wess Mitchell happens to be the author of a surprising study, The Godfather Doctrine, [5] which does not appear in his biography released by NATO. He compares the three main schools of US foreign policy to the methods of the three sons of the “Godfather”, Don Vito Corleone, the heroes of Mario Puzzo’s books and Francis Ford Coppola’s films. He preaches a mixture of soft and hard power, including mafia techniques.

However, how can these methods not be found in the blackmail operations that several other members of the commission have been subjected to in the past years. Warning: the elements we are going to present do not mean that some members of the commission committed very serious crimes, but that they knew about them and did not denounce them.

Take the case of Thomas de Maizière, former director of the Federal Chancellery, then German Minister of the Interior and Defense. [6] Let’s leave aside his indisputable sponsorship by US think-tanks. Before becoming Angela Merkel’s right-hand man, this illustrious personality was, among other things, Interior Minister of Saxony (2004-5), a post during which he had to deal with the “Saxon Marshland” affair (Sachsensumpf). He considered the information gathered by his office as “serious”, but did not pass it on to the judiciary. It was a case of underage prostitution involving high-ranking local personalities. It resurfaced years later, when Thomas de Maizière became Minister of Defense, with the revelation of several facts that had been suppressed, the questioning of testimony, and parliamentary debates. [7].

Or again the case of Hubert Védrine, former Secretary General of the Élysée (1991-95) then French Minister of Foreign Affairs (1997-2002). When he was President François Mitterrand’s closest collaborator, [8] he was trapped by NATO in a house where he went twice a month to participate in the municipal council of the small village where he was elected. Before his carefree eyes, neo-Nazi members of the NATO stay-behind network set up the largest child pornography studio in Europe. [9] The affair was hushed up. On his own initiative, the head of security at the Élysée Palace made two actors disappear, one of whom had a “heart attack”. However, the death of the second, probably murdered by an intelligence policeman who improperly came to his home to question him, did not go unnoticed and provoked a debate in Parliament. [10]

In both cases, since the truth has not been exposed, the members of the Commission are susceptible to blackmail.

A report revealing internal conflicts

The report of the Reflection Commission, entitled NATO 2030: United for a New Era, is very enlightening, more by what it should have contained, but did not say, than by what it makes explicit.

– In the first place, it insists heavily on “common values”, which resonates as an accusation against the United States and Turkey. It proposes to no longer react to the shortcomings observed (which is practically impossible against Washington), but to take initiatives before these values have been violated. This is just another way of making a clean sweep of the past and demanding that it never happens again.

– It points to Russia as the only current rival and China as the next.

– It recapitulates all NATO’s operations in its geographical area and outside this area, with the exception of the destruction of Libya. One recalls that this decision was taken by the Anglo-Saxon command behind the back of the Atlantic Council. This “omission” manifests resentment.

Now, dealing with the South, the report emphasizes that when NATO’s neighbors are safer, NATO is safer; a roundabout way of rejecting the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski doctrine of systemic destruction of state structures in the “Broader Middle East” and thus questioning the destruction of Libya.

Let us recall that in 2011, at the time of this war, Muamar el-Gaddafi had become an ally of the United States. He had been congratulated by President Bush Jr., notably for having renounced nuclear power, and had agreed to entrust Mahmoud Jibril with the reorganization of his economy. However, overnight, Jibril became the leader of the opposition and NATO summoned al-Gaddafi to leave.

– On the issue of arms control, the Commission is ignoring the UN Treaty on Nuclear Disarmament, which it has strongly condemned. It refers to the work of Pierre Harmel, in 1967, and to the affirmation of the double objective of deterrence and détente. Here again, it condemns the current drift of the Organization, which is strengthening its arsenal while rejecting President Putin’s proposals on disarmament.

– On the subject of energy resources, it states as a matter of course NATO’s right to ensure its full access to hydrocarbon resources in the world regardless of the needs of other powers.

– Concerning the information war, the Commission of Reflection invites the Organization to rely on citizens. Without calling into question the call for tenders of October 15, 2020, it approves the objectives of the Riga Centre of Excellence for Strategic Communications, but challenges its methods.

– Dealing with the unity of the alliance, the Commission underlines the commitment of all to defend a member when it is attacked (Article 5). It then explains, alluding to Turkey’s behaviour, that this commitment can only be fulfilled if each member state strictly respects the ’common values’ of the Organization. Since the publication of the report, the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has come to tell his counterparts how badly he feels about Turkey. He thus made it possible for Ankara to be excluded from the alliance, or even a possible war against it.

Not without humour, the Commission suggested the creation of a Centre of Excellence for Democratic Resilience.

– On the subject of the functioning of the alliance, the Commission tries to prevent a new violation of the statutes of the alliance under the pretext of an emergency as was the case for the destruction of Libya. It therefore advocates consultations as far downstream as possible, notably with the European Union and partners in the Indo-Pacific zone that could join NATO.

Conclusion

Despite the pressure exerted on members of the Advisory Commission, the Commission did not evade the real problems, but refrained from making them explicit. Everyone is aware that the alliance is a tool of Anglo-Saxon domination, and those who wish to free themselves from it try to avoid being drawn into new conflicts at their own expense.


By Thierry Meyssan
Source: Voltaire Network

(Visited 41 times, 1 visits today)