''ALL DANGERS COME FROM THE USA" -- willy wimmers. highly respected former german minister

[teddytennisfan]

Current Concerns
The international journal for independent thought, ethical standards, moral responsibility,
and for the promotion and respect of public international law, human rights and humanitarian law
14 November 2016
No 25
ISSN 1664-7963
Current Concerns
PO Box
CH-8044 Zurich
Switzerland
Phone: +41 44
350 65 50
Fax: +41 44
350 65 51
E-Mail: CurrentConcerns@zeit-fragen.ch
Website: www.currentconcerns.ch
English Edition of Zeit-Fragen
continued on page 2
World Economy:
Recently you’ve
been in Russia.
Provocatively for-
mulated – is Putin
preparing for a
war?
Willy Wimmer:
Re
-
garding all the dis-
cussions I have had
in Moscow – and
I’ve just returned
from Moscow – I must say: People worry
about the same things there as we also
do here in our own country. I’m familiar
with the public statements of the Russian
President and can only recognise that he
calls for moderation and to have common
sense. I didn’t see any facet of arguments
in Moscow, that would go in the direction
you have raised in your question. Looking
at the global political situation, one must
soberly assess that currently all dangers
come from the United States. Hopefully
this will settle after 8 November this year.
The Caribbean crisis started 55 years
ago. You just talked about the United
States, and we know or sense what hap
-
pened at that time. Do we have a similar
situation now which is to be character
-
ised by: “it’s an eleventh-hour decision”?
Getting to the bottom of things, you
have to look at it like this. The Caribbe
-
an crisis, the Cuban missile crisis, has a
background, and most interestingly I lis-
tened to a speech by the long-time Sovi
-
et Ambassador
Valentin Falin
in Bonn
at a conference that I attended. Within
these comprehensive historical consid-
erations Ambassador Falin called atten
-
tion to something which directly result
-
ed in the Cuban crisis. In the forties and
fifties of the last century, there was an
American strategic plan called
Drop
-
shot.
This plan was to attack the 30 larg
-
est Soviet cities with a nuclear decapi
-
tation strike, making the Soviet Union
incapable of acting.
And most interesting – as broadcasted
on the Franco-German TV station
Arte
a
few weeks ago – the Soviets learned for
the first time, what the United States in
-
tended to do in this great plan, from the
communication intercept station of the
Red Army on Brocken mountain in the
German Harz. And it was mentioned with-
in this
Arte
broadcast that the Cuban mis-
sile crisis had its actual root cause in this
Dropshot plan. And so, it was for me not
only fascinating to talk with Valentin Falin
about it, but also to realise that these are
the things we currently must deal with as
part of NATO planning. NATO is taking
aggressive action against the Russian Fed-
eration. The NATO has altered clauses of
its contract regarding its purpose and is no
“Currently all dangers come from the United States”
Interview by World Economy with Willy Wimmer
Willy Wimmer
(picture ef)
Since the US
dropped the two nu
-
clear bombs on the
Japanese cities of Hi
-
roshima on 6 August
and Nagasaki on 9
August 1945, nucle
-
ar weapons have be
-
come a reality in our
world. The reality of
the presence of nu
-
clear weapons resem
-
bles a Janus face. On
the one hand, these weapons are extremely
threatening because of their enormous de
-
structive power, especially for those coun
-
tries that do not have nuclear weapons. On
the other hand, nuclear weapons are also a
guarantee of security because of their de
-
structive potential, as, in view of their de
-
structive effect, no nuclear power will dare
to use these weapons in a conflict with an
-
other nuclear power. The number of coun
-
tries having nuclear weapons at their com
-
mand has increased since the fifties of the
last century. Apart from the US and Russia,
these countries also include the two Euro
-
pean states of medium power Great Britain
and France, as well as China, India, Paki
-
stan, Israel and North Korea.
The United States and the former
USSR mutually recognised the mutual de-
terrence of their nuclear offensive weap-
ons in their first armaments control agree-
ment SALT-I (
Strategic Arms Limitation
Talks)
of 26 May 1972, by means of nu-
merically limiting their offensive weap-
ons. Since the disintegration of the USSR
at the end of 1991, this recognition also
applies to the Russian Federation as the
successor state of the USSR.
There are different definitions of de-
terrence to be found in strategic litera-
ture. Thus deterrence is described as the
attempt,
“[...] not to fight a war but to pre
-
vent it by threatening any attacker
with retaliation that will bring him
more harm than that which he may
wreak by means of his recourse to
v i o l e n c e .”
1
The authors
Schwarz
and
Hadik
define
mutual deterrence as the
“[...] situation of nuclear-armed
States, each of which is in pos
-
session of a sufficiently protected
weapon of destruction, which allows
it to prevent an attack by threaten
-
ing that any such attack will be an
-
swered in the form of a crushing re
-
taliation.”
2
Robert S. McNamara,
US Defence Sec
-
retary under
Kennedy
and
Johnson,
for
-
mulated the following objective for the US
power of nuclear retaliation in 1967:
“What causes the deterrence is not
our ability to limit the damage to
The United States have been undermining
nuclear deterrence
by Prof Dr Albert A. Stahel, Institute for Strategic Studies, Wädenswil
continued on page 2
Albert A. Stahel
(picture ma)
No 25 14 November 2016
Current Concerns
Page 2
”
′
Currently all dangers ...
′
”
continued from page 1
longer a defensive Alliance, as we know
it from the cold war, but rather an offen
-
sive one as it was revealed firstly during
the war in Yugoslavia. Against this back-
ground, the situation concerning Russia is
highly dangerous.
Furthermore – visible for the world –
the Democratic-Republican war complex
in Washington postulates a corresponding
action against the Russian Federation.
Let’s look in the direction of Syria – also
a source of danger. Let’s assume Russia
retreats and pulls back from Syria, Assad
is dethroned. How will the situation in the
region and in the world develop? Next is
the Libya scenario, is there a thread of a
third world war?
I personally do not tend to make such
considerations, because Syria is more
than just a civil war, that we are current
-
ly facing. We must not ignore that here
two different concepts from two differ
-
ent great powers play a role. On the one
hand, the attempt of the United States –
much like in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya,
Mali or elsewhere – is to enforce a new
world order according to their own pref
-
erences. However, on the other side the
Russian Federation has a double inter
-
est from my point of view. Russia doesn’t
want to contribute to the American ap
-
proach eliminating existing internation-
al law, which for a long time ensured
peace in Europe and beyond. On the
other hand, and this must be made per
-
fectly clear, a victory for the coalition
led by the United States would mean that
those forces prevail in Syria, Lebanon,
Jordan and Iraq, all of which have origins
in the Caucasus: As a result of the Cau
-
casus wars Chechens, Ingush, Dagestan
-
is ended up in the aforementioned region
and are already settled there.
And their interest is to resume the Cau-
casus wars against Moscow. That is, in this
area Russia is defending not only a major
alliance partner or international law, but
also its own national interests, which are
to protect its own borders. Everything is in
compliance with international law, and that
makes the situation in Syria so complicated.
Thank you, Mr Wimmer.
•
Source:
www.world-economy.eu/pro-contra/de
-
tails/article/die-nato-geht-aggressiv-gegen-die-
russische-foederation-vor/
from 30.10.2016
(Translation
Current Concerns)
ourselves but our ability to destroy
an aggressor as a viable nation of
the twentieth century. We cannot
say exactly what kind and what de
-
gree of destruction we should have
to inflict on an attacker to achieve
this deterrence. However, it seems
reasonable to assume that in the
case of the Soviet Union, the de
-
struction of say one-fifth to one-
quarter of the population and one-
half to two-thirds of the industrial
potential would mean that it would
be excluded as a major power for
many years.”
3
A year later, McNamara noted that the
Soviet Union’s deterrence would be the
same in respect of the US. From this
point in time onwards, the nuclear strat
-
egy was designated as “Mutual As
-
sured Destruction”, abbreviated MAD.
Both superpowers of that time were sup
-
posed to be able to engage in a crush-
ing counter-attack with nuclear weapons
against civilian and industrial targets of
the enemy power, even after suffering an
enemy first-strike with nuclear weapons
directed against their own nuclear-strate
-
gic weapons. This meant that, after an in
-
itial enemy strike, there would remain a
sufficiently large potential of
Interconti
-
nental Ballistic Missiles
(ICBM), subma
-
rine-assisted ballistic missiles (SLBM),
and long-range bombers for the counter-
attack. For a credible mutual deterrence
the mechanism of the MAD strategy had
to be based on the potential of the nucle
-
ar-strategic offensive weapons belonging
to the two powers.
In order to prevent one side’s power of
retaliation with offensive weapons being
eliminated, the establishment of missile
defence systems on both sides was nu
-
merically limited by the ABM Treaty (
An
-
ti-Ballistic Missile(s))
, which was also an
integral part of SALT-I.
4
A comprehensive
deployment of defence systems would not
only have been able to outmanoeuvre the
retaliatory and thereby the deterrence abil-
ity of both powers, but it would also cer
-
tainly have triggered an expensive arma-
ment race on both sides. Thanks to their
adherence to the ABM Treaty, a stable bal-
ance of deterrence prevailed for decades
between the two powers.
Until the investiture of the
Bush jr.
ad-
ministration in 2001, the ABM Treaty was
considered as sacrosanct in the relations
between the US and the USSR. Under the
influence of his power-hungry Defence
Minister
Donald Rumsfeld
the younger
President Bush unilaterally revoked the
ABM Treaty soon after his appointment.
Without paying any attention to Russia,
the Bush administration decided to build
a missile defence system that would not
be restricted to the US. Amongst the el-
ements of this defence system there had
to be radar traps and missile defence sys-
tems put up in Poland and Romania. With
their one-sided approach, the US has put
an end to the ultima ratio of nuclear deter
-
rence. Today there can no longer be any
question of a truly stable balance of nucle-
ar deterrence between the two powers. In-
stead, the US and Russia are increasingly
confronted with a degree of mutual uncer
-
tainty about their possible use of nuclear
weapons in a crisis.
•
1
Legault
, A., &
Lindsey
,
G
. . The
dynamics
of
the
nuclear balance
. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell Uni
-
versity Press. (1976)
2
Schwarz, U. and Hadik, L.,
Strategic Terminology,
A Trilingual Glossary.
Econ-Publishers, Dussel
-
dorf and Vienna, 1966, p. 62
3
Legault, A. and Lindsey, G.
4
Legault, A. and Lindsey, G.
Source:
www.strategische-studien.ch
(strategic-
studies) of 30 October 2016
(Translation
Current Concerns)
”The United States have been ...”
continued from page 1
No 25 14 November 2016
Current Concerns
Page 3
The trade deal set to be signed by the
European Union and Canada is a cor
-
porate-driven, fundamentally flawed
treaty which should not be signed or rat
-
ified without a referendum in each coun
-
try concerned, a United Nations human
rights expert says.
Alfred de Zayas,
the UN Independent
Expert on the promotion of a democrat
-
ic and equitable international order, de
-
plored the pressures brought on the Bel
-
gian regional parliament of Wallonia,
which initially said it would not approve
the treaty but later said its concerns had
been met. “A culture of bullying and in
-
timidation becomes apparent when it
comes to trade agreements that currently
get priority over human rights,” the ex
-
pert said.
In his reports to the Human Rights
Council and General Assembly Mr de
Zayas has previously warned that CETA
is incompatible with the rule of law, de-
mocracy and human rights, and substan-
tiated how and why before the Parlia-
mentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe.
CETA and TTIP
give undue power to corporations
He believes that both CETA and TTIP – the
Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Part
-
nership currently being negotiated by the
EU and the US – give undue power to cor
-
porations at the expense of national govern
-
ments and human rights, and deplores that
the mere existence of investor-state dispute
settlement generates a regulatory chill.
“The danger of CETA and TTIP being
signed and one day entering into force is
so serious that every stakeholder, espe-
cially parliamentarians from EU Member
States, should now be given the opportu-
nity to articulate the pros and cons. The
corporate-driven agenda gravely endan-
gers labour, health and other social legis-
lation, and there is no justification to fast-
track it” Mr. de Zayas said.
“Civil society should demand refer
-
endums on the approval of CETA or any
other such mega-treaty that has been ne-
gotiated behind closed doors,” he noted.
The expert said the EU should have heed-
ed expert warnings and strong civil society
opposition to CETA. His specific concerns
include provisions which he says could
hamper States’ regulatory powers and could
allow investment companies to sue over leg-
islation affecting profits, even in cases where
the laws were designed to protect workers’
rights, public health or the environment.
States should not sign the agreement
unless their powers to regulate and legis-
late in the public interest are fully safe-
guarded and the so-called “investment
protection” chapter is removed.
Chapter on investment protection
must be removed
“This chapter creates privileges for inves-
tors at the expense of the public,” said Mr
de Zayas, noting that the new text may
slightly amend this chapter but adding
that the Investment Court System (ICS)
is similarly incompatible with the Inter
-
national Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, which requires legal cases to be
heard by transparent, accountable, inde
-
pendent public tribunals.
“The associations of German and
Spanish judges have already decried this
kind of investor-State dispute settlement,
which is a one-way street, and also dis-
criminates against domestic enterpris-
es. Moreover, ICS is not necessary when
all participating States are parties to the
ICCPR and already have public courts
that are independent, transparent and ac-
countable,” he said.
“CETA – along with most trade and in-
vestment agreements – is fundamentally
flawed unless specific provision stipulates
that the regulatory power of States is para-
mount and must not be impacted by a reg-
ulatory chill. It must also be clear that in
case of conflict between commercial trea-
ties and human rights treaties, it is the lat-
ter that must prevail.”
The expert said there was now a
strengthened case for a legally binding
instrument on corporate social respon-
sibility, obliging transnational corpora-
tions not to interfere in the internal af-
fairs of States, and imposing sanctions
when they pollute the environment or
shift their profits into tax havens. The
Human Rights Council has established
an inter-governmental working group on
transnational corporations, which is hold
-
ing its second session this week. Mr de
Zayas, who has participated in this work-
ing group, urges the prompt adoption of
a treaty that makes the Guiding Princi-
ples on Business and Human Rights le-
gally binding and enforceable.
He also said it was time to discuss the
secrecy surrounding the drawing up of
the CETA treaty, and the anomaly that
much of the information about it became
available only through whistleblowers,
in violation of State obligations to ensure
open access to information.
Constitutionality of CETA and TTIP
has to be tested
“The constitutionality of the CETA and
TTIP agreements should be tested before
the European Court of Justice in Lux
-
embourg, and the human rights aspects
before the European Court of Human
Rights, which could be called upon to
issue interim measures of protection,”
said Mr de Zayas.
“National courts should also test the
compatibility of the agreements with na-
tional constitutions,” the Independent Ex-
pert stated.
“There is a legitimate fear that CETA
will dilute environmental standards, food
security, and health and labour protec-
tion,” he said. “A treaty that strengthens
the position of investors, transnational
corporations and monopolies at the ex-
pense of the public interest conflicts with
the duty of States to protect all people
under their jurisdiction from internal and
external threats.”
Mr de Zayas said the EU should have
paid greater attention to a warning from
a committee of Members of Parliament
from the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe.
The Committee on
Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable
Development said earlier this month that
CETA imposed unacceptable restrictions
on the legislative powers of national par
-
liaments, and called for the signing to be
postponed.
•
Source:
www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/
DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=20787&LangID=E
from 28 October 2016
UN rights expert on the CETA treaty:
No signing without referendum
Pressrelease by the Office of the High Comissioner on Human Rights, Geneva
Prof Dr iur et phil
Alfred M. de Zayas
is UN Independent Expert on the pro
-
motion of a democratic and equita
-
ble international order and professor
of international law at the Geneva
School of Diplomacy.
His 2015 report to the UN Human
Rights Council to the adverse human
rights, health and environmen
-
tal impacts of so-called free trade
agreements such as CETA, TPP, TTIP
and TISA. Check the report (A/
HRC/30/44):
www.ohchr.org/EN/Is
-
sues/IntOrder/Pages/Reports.aspx.
His 2015 report to the UN General As
-
sembly focused on the incompatibility
of Investor-state-dispute-settlement
arbitrations with fundamental prin
-
ciples of transparency and account
-
ability. Check the report (A/70/285):
www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.
asp?symbol=A/70/285
No 25 14 November 2016
Current Concerns
Page 4
Ef.
On 20 and 21 October 2016, the
Swiss government received an official
visit from Russia.
Valentina Matvienko,
Chairperson of the Federation Council,
the Russian upper house, took part in the
annual meeting of all Senate presidents
of Europe in Berne. On 20 October, she
attended the 16th session of the Russian
Economic and Financial Forum in Swit
-
zerland. For her stay in Switzerland, the
Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Af
-
fairs (FDFA) had issued an extraordinary
entry permit “on grounds of national in
-
terest” because, like other Russian politi
-
cians, she is still on the EU and US sanc-
tions list. Although Switzerland has not
accepted the EU sanctions of 2014, the
special permit was necessary because of
the Schengen agreement.
On the occasion of her visit, talks were
also held with Council of States president
Raphaël Comte
and
Didier Burkhalter,
the
Swiss Foreign Minister.
“Thaw in the bilateral relations”
The former president of the Council Of
States,
Filippo Lombardi
(CVP), issued
the invitation as early as in 2013, be
-
cause he expected the meeting to lead to a
“thaw in bilateral relations”. In the spring
of 2014, Switzerland had suspended its ne
-
gotiations on a free trade agreement with
Russia, which had been conducted in the
EFTA framework. FDP National Council
-
lor
Hans-Peter Portmann
told the news-
paper “Tages-Anzeiger” in August: “Swit
-
zerland must strive to reduce its economic
dependency on the EU. ‘This includes ex
-
panding our trading activities in markets
such as Russia’.” (9 August 2016)
International fight against terrorism
only in the legal framework of the UN
The fight against terrorism was also dis-
cussed at the meeting of Senate presi
-
dents, which currently includes 15 Euro
-
pean countries. It was agreed that in this
field, the cooperation of the countries is of
utmost importance.
Parliamentarians should enhance coop
-
eration internationally in order to agree on
the “UN Comprehensive Convention on
International Terrorism” as soon as possi-
ble, said Mrs Matvienko to her colleagues.
She stressed that Russia’s position on this
issue was that the interntional anti-terror
-
ist cooperation must be based on the ex-
isting international legal framework, in
particular, the UN Security Council res-
olutions and the global counterterrorism
strategy of the United Nations. Despite
the great importance of international co-
operation and international mechanisms
to counter terrorism, nation states should
play a key role in that issue.
Developing and deepening
of relations between
Switzerland and Russia
After her meeting with Foreign Minister
Didier Burkhalter, she told journalists that
Switzerland had a very balanced position
“even speeking about sanctions.” About
the Swiss Foreign Minister she said that
he “once again showed interest in devel
-
oping and deepening relations with Russia
as strategic relations. This is Switzerland’s
stance that has remained unchanged, and
we appreciate very much both our bilater
-
al cooperation and cooperation on the in
-
ternational agenda”.
Switzerland: Dialogue with all
partners for peace
and humanitarian aid
During her meeting with the President
of the Council of States, Raphaël Comte,
he pointed out the difficult situation in
Ukraine and Syria and the subsequent
flow of refugees. He continued to say that
it was a Swiss tradition to take a stand for
dialogue, peace and humanitarian aid with
all partners. Switzerland did this bilater
-
ally, within the framework of the OSCE,
the Council of Europe and other organi
-
zations. The parliamentary level was par
-
ticularly suitable for dialogue, since par
-
liamentarians were often in a position to
express themselves more openly than gov
-
ernment representatives might be able to
do. Switzerland expected a constructive
approach from Russia in the context of the
negotiations that were taking place to re
-
solve the ongoing conflicts. According to
Comte, the Minsk Agreement and the res-
olution of the conflict in the Donets Basin
had the highest priority. (Swiss Parliament
press release of 20 Oct. 2016)
“Russia is playing an increasingly
important role in world politics”
In an interview with the newspaper “Tages-
Anzeiger”, Valentina Matvienko commented
on international cooperation: “Today every
-
one knows that no major international prob
-
lem or even a regional conflict can be solved
without us. On the contrary, Russia plays an
increasingly important role in world politics.
We advocate compliance with international
law, leadership of the UN, and ensuring se
-
curity of all. We are against the interference
in the internal affairs of sovereign states and
for these aims we are getting more and more
support in the world.” (translated by
Current
Concerns)
Matvienko: “The world has changed”
When asked what kind of world Russia
wanted, she replied, “We are advocating a
multipolar world and we refuse to accept
it when a single state or group of states
tries to dictate conditions to another coun
-
try. This is not acceptable; the world has
changed. A very fundamental transfor
-
mation is taking place. We are advocat
-
ing a more equitable worldorder in which
the national interests of each country are
valid. We are not letting ourselves be pro
-
voked and we are engaging in a dialogue
with all our partners.” (20.10.2016,
trans
-
lated by
Current Concerns
)
•
Official visit from Russia in Switzerland
Valentina Matvienko, Chairperson of the Russian Federation Council,
was on a visit to Berne
No 25 14 November 2016
Current Concerns
Page 5
On 24 June 2016,
no more than 24
hours after the
British voted on
their country’s
leaving the EU,
Paul Craig Rob
-
erts
asked on the
website of the “In-
stitute for Political
Economy”, which
he had set up him
-
self: “The Brexit
Vote - What does
it Mean?” and in
his explosive article he gave an unam
-
biguous answer: “Hopefully it means a
break-up of the EU and NATO and thus
the avoidance of the Third World War”
1
.
For this former high official in the
Ron-
ald Reagan
government Treasury, the EU
and NATO are “evil institutions”, created
by the US “to destroy the sovereignty of
the European peoples. NATO and the EU
enable Washington to control the West-
ern world. It is under this camouflage that
Washington’s aggression becomes possi-
ble. Without the EU and NATO, Wash-
ington cannot force Europe and the Unit-
ed Kingdom into a conflict with Russia.
Without the EU and NATO, Washing-
ton could not have destroyed seven Mus-
lim countries in the past 15 years, without
being hated and isolated as war criminals.
No US government official could have
travelled abroad without being arrested
and brought to justice.”
2
Paul Craig Roberts’ crushing analysis
is worth to be placed within its historical
context:
The French President
Charles de
Gaulle
had already learned at an early
stage that US and British were concerned
primarily with the connection of the West-
ern European countries to the transatlan-
tic pillars NATO and EU (then EEC). In
the first months of 1947, the US had al-
ready kept two command centres out of
the remnants of their Second World War
command structures: the Pacific mili
-
tary command PACCOM in the east of
Eurasia and the European military com-
mand EUCOM in the west of Eurasia. On
4 April 1949, NATO was founded with
the aim of “keeping the Russians out, the
Americans in and the Germans down”
3
,
as said the first NATO Secretary Gener
-
al, Lord
Ismay
. And as early as in Decem-
ber of the same year, NATO introduced its
Dropshot
war plan, which was about an at-
tack on the Soviet Union in 1957.
4
These
imperial ambitions made de Gaulle very
angry. He saw Europe as stretching from
the “Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Moun-
tains”.
Europe was also to be divided econom-
ically. On 9 May 1950, which is today cel-
ebrated as “Europe Day,” the French For
-
eign Minister
Schuman
announced the
creation of a “European Coal and Steel
Community” (ECSC ), to the surprise of
the Western Europeans (
Adenauer
is said
to have been informed about all this just a
few hours earlier).
John Foster Dulles
as the chief power broker
Behind this plan was a whole network
of politicians, military officers, bank
-
ers, industrialists and speculators.
John
Foster Dulles
was to evolve into one
of the shadow strategists. The ECSC
was largely due to the French entrepre
-
neur and diplomat
Jean Monnet
(1888–
1979). Since the Versailles negotiations
(1918/19), Jean Monnet had been keep
-
ing up a lifelong political and personal
friendship with John Foster Dulles, then
a consultant under
Bernhard Baruch
, the
former senior representative of the US
Reparation Commission, and a member
of the “War Trade Board” (Central Of
-
fice for Planning and Statistics). Under
Baruch’s instructions, Dulles formulat
-
ed the German war guilt (“War guilt
clause”) in Article 231 of the
Versailles
Trea t y
. This article was the main reason
why the first German delegation under
Count
Brockdorff-Rantzau
refused their
signature.
5
In order to force the Germans to agree
to sign a peace treaty, the effective sea
blockade was continued after the armi-
stice of 11 November 1918. When the
German Minister of Foreign Affairs
Her
-
mann Müller
(SPD) and Transport Min-
ister
Johannes Bell
(Centre) had placed
their signature under the Peace Treaty of
Versailles on 28 June 1919, the blockade
was lifted on 12 July 1919.
6
In 1921, Dulles was a co-founder of
the
Council on Foreign Relations
; he be-
came a member of the “Rockefeller Foun-
dation” and also took part in the compila-
tion of the “Dawes-” and “Young Plan”,
which were intended to regulate German
reparation payments.
7
After 1919, companies such as the
In-
ternational Nickel Company
or the
Over
-
seas Security Cooperation
, and also
banks such as
J. P. Morgan
were amongst
Dulles’ main customers. He advised them
on credit transactions and partly also
headed them. John Foster Dulles and his
brother
Allen
represented US-American as
well as German and European companies
as part of their activity at the
Sullivan &
Cromwell
Economic Chancery. These in-
cluded
Chase Bank, Ford, ITT, SKF
, the
I.G.Farben
Group and the
Belgian Nation-
al Bank
. However, they represented these
companies not only legally, but also as
hidden placeholders for company shares
and as political lobbyists.
During the Second World War, Dulles
also worked for the
Bank for Internation-
al Settlements
.
8
In 1945, Dulles advised
Arthur H. Van-
denberg
at the United Nations Founding
Conference in San Francisco, where he
worked on the preamble of the UN Char
-
ter. Dulles later became a member of the
General Assembly at the conferences from
1947 to 1949. At the same time, he kick-
started the establishment of NATO and
later that of its South Asian counterpart,
the SEATO. As a supporter of the Kore-
an War, he sharply opposed President
Tru
-
Is another world war to be manipulated forth?
A historical view of the importance of EU and NATO as well as of the First World War
by Wolfgang Effenberger*
“The war parties in Washington, supported by the military-indus
-
trial complex, the tame media and the neocons, they are all agitat
-
ing hard for war [...]. Ever since the times of
Frederick the Great
wise European heads of state and government have learnt not to fight
against Russia [...]. All that is needed now is a terrorist attack like
in Sarajevo to spark a great war between the two nuclear powers.”
(
Eric Margolis)
*
Wolfgang Effenberger,
born in 1946, is a publi
-
cist and author of books. His two current books
are called “Wiederkehr der Hasardeure. Schat
-
tenstrategen, Kriegstreiber, stille Profiteure 1914
und heute” (Return of the gamblers – under
cover strategists, war-mongers, on the quiet prof
-
iteers in 1914 and today), written together with
Willy Wimmer, 2014 (ISBN 978-3-943007-07-
7) and “Geo-Imperialismus. Die Zerstörung
der Welt.” (Imperialism. The Destruction of the
World), 2016 (ISBN 978-3-86 4 45-323- 6)
continued on page 6
Wolfgang Effen
-
berger
(picture ma)
No 25 14 November 2016
Current Concerns
Page 6
man’s
containment policy, advocating a
more aggressive variant, a policy of mas-
sive deterrence.
As Director of the CIA, respectively
US Secretary of State, the brothers Allen
and John Foster Dulles continued their
previous activities unabated.
9
Abolition of the historical
nations of Europe
With the establishment of the ECSC, the
first step towards the abolition of the his-
torical nations of Europe was taken. Thus
the Schuman plan is not the beginning of
the construction of Europe, but the begin
-
ning of the destruction of the individual
European nations by supranational insti
-
tutions.
At the same time, de Gaulle saw a dan-
ger in the special relations between Great
Britain and the United States, and this
caused him to try to prevent their joining
the
European Economic Community
. The
distance he kept to the Anglo-American
geo-strategy and his trustworthy relation-
ship with German post-war Chancellor
Konrad Adenauer kept him from repeat-
ing the policy of
Georges Clémenceau
,
who had poisoned the already difficult re-
lationship between France and Germany
after the First World War.
From the spirit of discord
to the mushroom cloud
As Paul Craig Roberts’ statements about
the motives which led to the founding
of the EU and NATO are not to be dis-
proved, he is not alone with his fear of a
Third World War. On the same day, the
Canadian journalist, author and human
rights defender
Murray Dobbin
pub
-
lished his article “Do We Really Want
a War With Russia?” in the US month-
ly magazine
Counterpunch
.
10
The former
board member of the
Canadian Centre
for Policy Alternatives
says that NATO
has been steadily expanding by absorb
-
ing many former Soviet republics, such
as Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Lithuania,
Latvia, Estonia and Romania. It is hard-
ly surprising that Russia sees this expan
-
sion as a gross violation of its confidence
in the West and as a military threat, espe
-
cially as NATO was officially established
as a bulwark against Soviet communism.
So, NATO would consequently have had
to be dissolved in 1990. Dobbin also sees
Poland as the key in this dangerous cha-
rade. Does he mean the similar situation
of Poland as in 1938/39, when the war
began with tensions on the Polish west
-
ern frontier? In the course of the year
2016, NATO carried out extensive ma-
noeuvres – Dobbin refers to Operation
Anaconda
with 30,000 Western military
men, the largest military deployment on
Russia’s borders since the German inva-
sion of Russia in June 1941.
Poland’s President:
“We are preparing for an attack”
This goes together with the threatening
gesture of Polish President
Andrzej Duda
,
who said: “The goal of the exercise is
clear. We are preparing for an attack.”
11
On 25 June, an article with an identi-
cal title and commenting on Dobbin’s ob-
servations was published on the platform
of
Ron Paul
’s Peace Institute. This was
written by the internationally acclaimed
US journalist
Eric Margolis
.
12
He gradu-
ated at the prestigious
School of Foreign
Service
(SFS), which is part of George
-
town University in Washington D.C., the
oldest Roman Catholic and led by Jesu-
its university in the USA. This school was
founded in 1919 by the Jesuit Father
Ed-
mund A. Walsh
, who taught political geog-
raphy at the same time as
Karl Haushofer
.
Today, Madame
Albright
also belongs to
its teaching body.
13
She is also a member of the board of
the
Council on Foreign Relations
, the
Aspen Institute
and the
Center for Ameri-
can Progress
. As head of a NATO expert
group, she presented a new strategic con-
cept in 2010.
Margolis exhorts all today’s politicians
to read
Christopher Clark
’s masterpiece
“The Sleepwalkers” again and again. For
Margolis Clark describes “how the small
intrigues (small cabals) of anti-German
officials in France, England and Russia
manipulated forth the First World War, a
conflict that was unnecessary, idiotic and
illogical [...]; today we see the same pro-
cess at work. The war parties in Washing-
ton, supported by the military-industrial
complex, the tame media and the neo-
cons, they are all agitating hard for war
[...]. Ever since the times of
Frederick the
Great
wise European heads of state and
government have learnt not to fight against
Russia [...]. One shudders at the thought
of seeing
Hillary Clinton
as commander-
in-chief in the future [...]. All that is need-
ed now is a terrorist attack like in Sarajevo
to spark a great war between the two nu-
clear powers.”
14
What cannot be read in
the writings of Christopher Clark
What would Margolis have written if
he had been aware of other connections
which are not to be found in Clark’s book?
So, for instance, Clark withholds the ac-
tivities of the naval department in the
Committee of Imperial Defense
: the long-
term preparation (against international
law!) of a naval blockade against Germa-
ny, which was to hit the German econo
-
my in a sustained manner. Two members
of the CID naval division testified clear
-
ly to this effect:
Maurice Hankey
in “The
Supreme Command”
15
and
A.C. Bell
in
“A History of the Blockade of Germa-
ny”
16
. Such plans had been developed in
the naval department since 1908, and the
First Sea Lord
Churchill
was very pleased
with them.
According to British naval historian,
naval strategist and official historian of the
Royal Navy
Sir Julian Corbett
, the First
World War was planned by Lord Hankey
and his co-workers within the British gov-
ernment with “an orderly completeness in
every detail, that has no parallel in our his-
tory”
17
.
Significantly, you look in vain for the
authors Hankey, Bell and Corbett in the
index of Christopher Clark’s “Sleepwalk-
er”. But neither do they appear in the Ger
-
man publications of
Winkler, Münkler,
Friedrich
, or
Leonhard
.
Leon Trotsky’s analysis
about the First World War
There is another important contemporary
witness whose historical analysis is not
flattering for Great Britain:
Leon Trotsky.
“... It is English democracy that has
led to the imperialist war, not only in the
sense of the general responsibility of all
capitalist states for war – no, in the sense
of the direct and immediate responsibili-
ty of the English diplomacy, which con-
sciously and in a cold and calculating
manner drove Europe into the War. If the
English ‘democracy’ had openly declared
that it would enter the war on the side of
the Entente, Germany and Austria-Hun-
gary would probably have beaten the re-
treat. If England had declared her neu-
trality, France and Russia would probably
have retreated. But the British government
acted differently. It secretly promised the
Entente its support, and so misled Germa-
ny and Austria-Hungary by allowing them
to reckon on the possibility of neutrality.
Thus the English ‘democracy’ provoked
the war [...].”
“Merchants of death”
and the lessons of the World War
So we see that it was not the “small ca-
bals” that led to the war in 1914 but larger
ones. Ultimately, it was a small circle of
British politicians who acted behind the
backs of their unsuspecting colleagues:
Edward Gray, Richard Haldane, Her
-
bert H. Asquith
, and not least Winston
Churchill. They surprised Cabinet and
Parliament, while Lord
Milner
pulled the
strings in the background. In 1934, under
the chairmanship of Senator
Gerald Nye
,
the
Senate Munitions Investigating Com
-
mittee
began to investigate the influence
of American banks and arms manufactur
-
ers on the entry into the War in 1917. The
”Is another world war to be ...”
continued from page 5
continued on page 7
No 25 14 November 2016
Current Concerns
Page 7
committee found that, in addition to price
agreements before and during the war, the
arms industry had influenced US foreign
policy strongly. Because of the immense
loans to the Entente, the Morgan banks
would have had to file for insolvency in
the event of a defeat of the Entente. After
two years (93 hearings and 200 witness-
es, including JP Morgan), the Committee
came to the conclusion that the US had
been “tricked” into the War by the
Mer
-
chants of death
, i.e. bankers and arma
-
ments industrials.
19
Does this scenario not seem some-
how familiar to us? The interests of an
unleashed greed for returns and resourc-
es have become visible behind the glob
-
al unrest and conflicts at least since 2008.
Today like then conflicts are being fuelled
or even provoked, in order to break up
economies and make countries depend-
ent. Imperialism was by no means buried
after the Second World War.
Looking at recent history we see that
most of today’s global upheavals have
their roots in the imperial politics at
the beginning of the 20
th
century. It was
about ruthless exploitation and disre
-
gard for other cultures. With the peace
of Versailles, injuries were manifested
which cannot be permanently suppressed.
Therefore the 100
th
anniversary of Ver
-
sailles might be regarded as the occasion
for all those concerned to recognise the
bar in their own eyes and to initiate a pro-
cess of healing – so that President Wil-
son’s famous 14 points could finally be
realised.
However, this requires the dissolution
of the present-day imperial Western struc-
tures. With the withdrawal of Great Britain
from the NATO-dominated EU, the restruc-
turing process could be launched towards a
genuine European Community, a European
community that involves Russia.
•
1
Craig Roberts, Paul. The Brexit Vote – What
Does it Mean? Friday June 24, 2016
www.
paulcraigroberts.org/2016/06/24/the-brexit-
vote-paul-craig-roberts/
2
ibid.
3
Gebauer, Matthias; Neukirch, Ralf; Repins
-
ki, Gordon; Schult, Christoph. “VERTEIDI
-
GUNG: Fortschritt im Schneckentempo” (De
-
fence: Progress at a Snail’s Pace) in “Der
Spiegel” 9/2013
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/
print/d-91203385.html
4
cf. Effenberger, Wolfgang.
Das amerikanische
Jahrhundert Teil 1 “Die verborgenen Seiten des
Kalten Krieges.
(The American Century part 1
“The hidden sides of the Cold War)”. Norder
-
stedt 2011
5
Der Unfriede von Versailles.
(The Discord of
Versailles) In: “Der Spiegel” No. 28, 2009 (on
-
line).
6
Osborne, Eric.
Britains Economic Blockade of
Germany
1914 –1919, p. 189
cf. Vincent, C. Paul.
The Politics of Hunger:
The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915–1919.
Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio 1985
7
In 1929, the Young Plan superceded the Dawes
Plan of 1923. Now repairs of 121 billion reichs
-
marks were to be paid in the course of 59 years
(i.e. until 1988). As a result of the global eco
-
nomic crisis, transfer payments were significant
-
ly hampered and temporarily postponed under
the Hoover moratorium in 1931. In 1932, the
Young Plan was finalised at the Lausanne con
-
ference.
8
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS)
was established on 17 May 1930 in the frame
-
work for a new arrangement for the German
reparation commitments. It is the world’s old
-
est international financial organization. See
“Schweiz: Hitlers beflissene Helfer”
(“Swit
-
zerland: Hitler’s Assiduous Fences”) In: “Der
Spiegel” of 17 March 1997 (Der Spiegel 12/1997
online) (access on 12 September 2015).
9
cf. Rügemer, Werner.
Die Berater.
(The Advi
-
sors) Bielefeld 2004
10
Dobbin, Murray.
“Do We Really Want a War
With Russia?” http://www.counterpunch.
org/2016/06/24/do-we-really-want-a-war-
with-russia
11
ibid.
12
Margolis, Eric.
“Do we really want war with
Russia?”
http://ronpaulinstitute.org
of 25 June
2016
13
In addition, Dr Albright was active in the man
-
agement of the “Council on Foreign Relations”,
in the “Aspen Institute” and the “Center for
American Progress”. In 2009, Mrs Albright took
over the presidency of an expert group to work
out a new NATO strategy concept.
14
Margolis, Eric.
“Do we really want war with
Russia?” http://ronpaulinstitute.org
from 25
June 2016
15
Hankey, Maurice.
The Supreme Command
1914 –1918.
George Allen & Unwin, London
1961
16
Bell, A. C.
A history of the blockade of Germa
-
ny and of the countries associated with her in
the great war, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and
Turkey, 1914 –1918.
London 1937
17
Corbett, Julian.
Official History. Naval Opera
-
tions.
London 1921, Vol. 1, p.18
18
Trotski, Leon.
Wohin treibt England? Europa
und Amerika.
(Where is Britain going?) Reprint
Berlin 1972, p. 54
19
Effenberger, Wolfgang/Wimmer, Willy.
Wiederkehr der Hasardeure – Schattenstrategen,
Kriegstreiber, stille Profiteure 1914 und heute.
(Return of the gamblers – under cover strategists,
war-mongers, on the quiet profiteers in 1914 and
today) Höhr-Grenzhausen 2014, p. 438
(Translation
Current Concerns)
”Is another world war to be ...”
continued from page 6
No 25 14 November 2016
Current Concerns
Page 8
To understand this unique
history book in its diversity,
it is helpful to remember the
former British and now An
-
glo-American geostrategy
for the European continent.
After the foundation of
the German Empire in 1871 after the Ger
-
man-French War and the Prussian’s vic-
tory, the European balance of power got
considerably mixed up. The British elites
faced a threatening of their predomina-
tion and their trade routes to India. Histor
-
ically proven since 1887 is the up to now
valid geo strategical doctrine: Germany
and Russia are not allowed to ally.
The First World War granted the world
a new imperium. Since the British trade
route and the American oil transport route
in large parts were congruent, the new im-
perium readily participated in the experi-
ence of the British Empire 500 year last-
ing colonialisation. This unholy alliance
persists until today.
After the First World War, the politi-
cal systems on the European mainland
and their territories were thoroughly de-
stroyed. Three empires vanished. The Aus-
tro-Hungarian Monarchy was chopped up,
Russia did not receive its promised reward
– the access to the Mediterranean Sea. In-
stead it was drowned by revolutionary
chaos, and Germany underwent a political
humiliation and economical fragmentation
by the “Contract of Versailles”. The victo-
rious powers of the west – USA, England,
and France – rearranged the continent.
In the period between the world wars the
Molotov-Ribbentrop
Pact (between
Hitler
and
Stalin)
was not really a constructive
connection between Germany and Rus-
sia. The Second World War granted Eu-
rope new borders and an Iron Curtain di-
viding Germany. From both sides of the
curtain the atomic powers USA and USSR
faced each other.
Hardened fronts during the Cold War
After World War 2, each citizen, each
family in the Federal Republic of Germa-
ny (FRG) and German Democratic Re
-
public (GDR) had to deal with the Cold
War while reconstructing Western respec
-
tive Eastern Germany. The Building of the
Berlin Wall cemented the geo-strategical
reality for the citizens of both republics.
The fronts were hardened. Media on both
sides of the curtain operated the propa-
ganda machinery by all available means.
Nevertheless or maybe because of that it
was a great pleasure, when the reunifica-
tion hit Germany in a flush. Church ren
-
itence, Monday-demonstrations, “We are
the people”, the fall of the Wall, the sell
-
out of the GDR, the setting in of a disillu
-
sion – all these things developed in such
a rapid pace, that only now, after 25 years
the process of coming to terms with it can
start. “Die Akte Moskau” provides an in
-
sight into the historical context, which
normally are accessible only by laborious
reviewing of documents.
Willy Wimmer
(born in 1943) grew
up in the part of Germany under Ameri-
can influence, and he is a Christian and a
Democrat. He was an active member of
the CDU (Christian Democratic Union
of Germany) in the German “Bundestag”
for more than 30 years. He served as vice
president of the OSCE Parliamentary As-
sembly, and as an undersecretary of the
Federal Ministry of Defense, he was not
only a contemporary witness but also an
actor in the process of the German reuni-
fication. He was given the task of integrat-
ing the Bundeswehr of Western Germany
and the NVA (National People’s Army)
of Eastern Germany, who opposed each
other as hostile and atomic armies before
the time of reunification, into an alliance
of defense. He set the world on fire here,
especially built bridges wherever possible
– and quite often against considerable re-
sistance within his own government and
administration.
As the representative of the federal
government in the eye of the tornado
At the time of “The Turnaround”, as a rep
-
resentative of the Federal Government, he
was, so to speak, in the eye of the torna
-
do, and thanks to his position, but also to
his personality, we know today that be
-
hind the official agenda there is another
one existing. He was unable to reconcile
the NATO exercise
Wintex/Cimex
with
his conscience, an exercise, which simu
-
lated the fact that US atomic bombs were
to be thrown down to cities of the eastern
part of Germany (albeit only by way of
practice), and with the approval of Federal
Chancellor
Helmut Kohl,
he put a stop to
the the German part of this NATO exer
-
cise. The US representatives were not yet
accustomed to this type of disobedience
of one of their coalition partners.
After this crucial experience, Willy
Wimmer noticed a lot of other oddities.
Even before the reunification in 1988, of-
ficial visits to the White House in Wash-
ington and, unexpectedly, also in the CIA
headquarter in Langley, showed him who
was pulling the strings in Europe. At time
even he, who had some geopolitical expe-
rience, was holding his breath. Like when
he had to see how, as early as 1988, a new
and modern Soviet constitution including
civil rights like freedom of speech and re-
ligious freedom was worked out in a White
House briefing. Another time, Willy Wim-
mer witnessed the preparation of the agen-
da for the Central Committee of the CPSU
(Communist Party of the Soviet Union),
also in the White House. In addition, there
were serious considerations if (Western)
Europe should still be run as a Condo-
minium of the USA and the USSR. In the
same year, in Langley, the CIA headquar
-
ter, of all places, he was told that, since the
end of World War II, the Soviets in Cen-
tral Europe were lined up in a purely de-
fensive manner and that their proceedings
were exclusively defensive, serving exclu-
sively the protection of “Mother Russia”,
as the instructing CIA official pointed out
almost tenderly. Of course, such reports
created a flurry of activity in Bonn’s gov-
ernment circles since the possible conse-
quences could not be overseen and were
threatening to get out of control.
Such experiences with the US Ameri-
can agenda, however, are giving us food
for thought, also because they demonstrate
that Western Europe, the EU and partic-
ularly Germany are far from any sover
-
eignty. The Empire, as
Daniele Ganser
is calling the US in his latest book “Ille-
Building bridges wherever possible
Willy Wimmer “Die Akte Moskau” (The Moscow File)
by Wolfgang van Biezen
continued on page 9
ISBN 978-3-943007-12-1
No 25 14 November 2016
Current Concerns
Page 9
”Building bridges wherever ...”
continued from page 8
gale Kriege” [illegal wars], is controlling
events on the Continent.
After 1990, the time for real
disarmament had come
In his book, Willy Wimmer points out
that, after the breakdown of the USSR, the
time for real disarmament had come. Even
more since politicians like
Mikhail Gor
-
bachev
were signaling that they were se
-
rious about the reunification. As had been
negotiated, the Russian troops were with-
drawn from Germany and the West prom
-
ised several times not to extend NATO
towards the East. The Warsaw Pact was
dissolved.
Willy Wimmer spoke to the com-
manders of NVA battalions, spoke to
Russian military officials in the GDR,
was received as a human being and lis-
tened to the cares and concerns of moth-
ers and fathers who happened to be sol-
diers and feared for their existence. With
them and his superiors he was looking
for solutions in this highly complicat-
ed and unprecedented situation. The fol-
lowing became clear on both sides of the
“Iron Curtain”:
People are longing for peace and it
would have made sense to also dissolve
NATO for obsolescence. But the US mil-
itary-industrial complex decided other
-
wise. Instead, the (NATO) defense alli-
ance was transformed into an aggressive
alliance; NATO was extended as far as the
border of the Russian Federation, even
though the states were aware that NATO’s
current progress reminded Russia of the
times of
Hitler
and
Napoleon.
This histor
-
ical experience was deeply engraved into
the Russian collective memory, as a CIA
official told Willy Wimmer. Why then this
demonstration of power?
The frantic call “No more war from
German soil!”, resulting from the cata-
strophic experiences both from World
War I and the 55 million victims of World
War II, was true for both German states.
But a Red-Green Federal Government
made a farce of it with lies and false ap
-
peals to humanity. Since the war in Yugo-
slavia, Germany is at war again.
Since the Yugoslavian War,
Germany is at war again
And the real big war is in preparation.
The situation is serious, if we tend to
believe
George Friedman,
formerly of
the
Stratfor Institute,
consultant in is-
sues of war for the still acting President
Barack Obama.
The further develop
-
ment on the Continent depends on the
Germans. A press brought in line is lull
-
ing Europe’s citizens into a false sense
of security. But the US know what they
are doing.
Willy Wimmer’s book is no easy read-
ing, but it should be read, and it makes the
reader to reflect if this planet really needs
a power telling the rest of the planet how
it should live. Who says that this Europe
cannot take its fate in its own hands? Who
says that this Europe cannot be sover
-
eign? Who says that Europe cannot sur
-
vive without a hegemon? Or should we
join
Rolf Hochhut’
s demand: “Abolish
NATO!”
Don’t we think that the time has come
to start working towards Europe and Rus-
sia doing commerce on an equal basis,
peacefully, sovereign and for the benefit
of all their citizens and to jointly develop
the Continent which has got so much cul-
ture, technology, science and resources?
•
Current Concerns
The international journal for independent
thought, ethical standards, moral responsibility,
and for the promotion and respect
of public international law, human rights
and humanitarian law
Publisher:
Zeit-Fragen Cooperative
Editor:
Erika Vögeli
Address:
Current Concerns,
P.O. Box, CH-8044 Zurich
Phone:
+41 (0)44 350 65 50
Fax:
+41 (0)44 350 65 51
E-Mail:
CurrentConcerns@zeit-fragen.ch
Subscription details:
published regularly electronically as PDF file
Annual subscription rate of
SFr. 40,-,
€
30,-, £ 25,-, $ 40,-
for the following countries:
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Canada,
Cyprus, , Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Hongkong, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy,
Japan, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Nether
-
lands, New Zealand, Norway, Qatar, Singapore,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab
Emirates,
United Kingdom, USA
Annual subscription rate of
SFr. 20,-,
€
15,-, £ 12,50, $ 20,-
for all other countries.
Account:
Postscheck-Konto: PC 87-644472-4
The editors reserve the right to shorten letters to
the editor. Letters to the editor do not necessarily
reflect the views and opinions of
Current Concerns.
© 2011. All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or
transmission of this publication may be made without written
permission.
No 25 14 November 2016
Current Concerns
Page 10
Ten years after the
last “White Paper
on German Se
-
curity Policy and
the Future of the
Bundeswehr” had
been published
the Federal gov
-
ernment thought
it was appropriate
timing to present
the new amend-
ed version of this
fundamental doc
-
ument on security issues in summer this
year
1
. It offers an overview about crucial
parameters of security policies of the Ber
-
lin republic.
While the Federal Ministry of Defense
had been in charge, as it has been tradition
for a long time, other ministries contribut-
ed to writing the paper, such as the Fed-
eral Foreign Office, the Federal Ministry
of the Interior, the Federal Ministries for
Economic Cooperation and Development
and for Economic Affairs and Energy, as
well as the Chancellery.
Probably the most problematic aspect
of the paper is dedicated to a development
which has been expedited persistently and
with determination by the protagonists
of security policies of the Berlin repub-
lic ever since Michail Gorbachev had de-
prived the Atlantic alliance of their enemy
at the end of the Cold war, which meant
that the Bundeswehr [German Armed
Forces] had to search for new commit-
ments.
Strategies resulting from that search
may be subsumed under the terms
de-con-
straining, interfusion and appropriation
.
De-constraining
The first of these crucial terms to describe
the development of the German security
policy, which is de-constraining, refers to
the new spectrum of options for deploy
-
ment of German military forces both in a
geographical sense and in respect of form
and content. These options range from
“pre-emptive self-protection” via “antic
-
ipatory aid for allies”, deployment in the
context of a “reformulated Responsibility
to Protect”, task prioritization in the con
-
text of “international conflict prevention”
up to the unrestrained utilization of the
military as “a means of foreign policy”
2
.
More than a quarter of a century after
the end of the cold war thousands of Ger
-
man troops have participated in various
missions of wide-ranging quality and in-
tensity all over the world, hundreds of
them have been harmed both psycholog-
ically and physically, many have been
killed. Not to mention the victims on the
side of their enemies and most important-
ly the civilians – the white paper doesn ́t,
unsurprisingly.
Interfusion
One of the words that appear most often
in the white paper 2016 is “networking”.
This word belongs to those fashionable
terms with positive connotation, since no
-
body wants to be isolated today; but eve
-
rybody likes the idea of being kept warm
and looked-after in as many cozy net
-
works as possible. This attitude is uti
-
lized by the security strategists who de
-
clared the “networking approach” to
be the “central guideline of our govern-
ance”
3
. “Our country”, the white paper au
-
thors point out, “has many competencies
and instruments which are employed in
order to meet foreign and domestic chal
-
lenges.”
4
And one of the most important of
those instruments is the Bundeswehr, one
should add. Since this seems to be the aim
of all this networking rhetoric, namely
providing legitimacy for the military, by
letting the Bundeswehr take root as an in
-
dispensible instrument of German Foreign
and Security Policies in the conscience of
a highly unsettled public.
How handy it seems to be, that in the
opinion of our Ministry of Defense “...
military and civilian instruments com-
plement each other in our networking ap-
proach”
5
. This exactly is the reason why
the leadership of the ministry emphasiz-
es the importance of “... anchoring the
networking approach of the Bundeswehr
and developing it even further”
6
, moreo-
ver they plan to “intensify the co-opera-
tion between the Bundeswehr and gov-
ernmental and non-governmental actors”,
“nationally and internationally”
7
, that is.
Apart from taking over and colonizing
all sorts of civilian non-governmental or
-
ganizations under the pretext of security
issues all conceivable risks will alleged-
ly be mastered with this networking ap-
proach, including – and this is the actual
goal – means of military violence which
are pictured as essential political tools.
The following quote of the white paper
impressively illustrates how far the
inter
-
fusion
of the civilian sector by the military
is supposed to go: “Effective networking
of relevant political areas considerably im
-
proves the chances to successfully build
resilience in order to fight off hybrid at-
tacks. This includes improved protection
of critical infrastructure, decreasing the
vulnerability of the energy sector, issues
of emergency management, efficient bor
-
der control, supporting the police to main-
tain domestic order and creating rapid mil-
itary deployment forces. Politics, media
and civilian society are all to be enlisted
in the efforts to counter propaganda with
fact-based communication.”
8
The tenden-
cy of this “networking” strategy towards a
comprehensive “securitilization”
9
of more
and more political areas and eventually a
total militarization of state and society is
clearly visible.
Appropriation
The third crucial term apart from
de-con
-
straining
and
interfusion
is
appropria
-
tion
. This term refers to the new option to
deploy the Bundeswehr in order to enforce
national interests of the Berlin republic
worldwide, which had been developed by
the red-green coalition government ac
-
cording to the quote by Gerhard Schröder
that “the military should be de-tabooed”
10
.
De-constraining, interfusion, appropriation
The 2016 White Paper of the German Bundeswehr
by Jürgen Rose*
Jürgen Rose
(picture Nahost-Forum
Bremen)
“More than a quarter of a century after the end of the cold war thou
-
sands of German troops have participated in various missions of
wide-ranging quality and intensity all over the world, hundreds of
them have been harmed both psychologically and physically, many
have been killed. Not to mention the victims on the side of their en
-
emies and most importantly the civilians – the white paper doesn’t,
unsurprisingly.”
*
Dipl. Päd.
Jürgen Rose
is a retired lieutenant-
colonel of the German armed forces. He is a
member of the Darmstädter Signal, an associa
-
tion of German officers and non-commissioned
officers (former and current). Since many years
he writes a lot of critical articles about the Bun
-
deswehr. He has published a book about defence
policy. The above published article is the second
part of a larger paper on the issue. The complete
article (in German) can be ordered at
CurrentConcerns@zeit-fragen.ch.
continued on page 11

 

[teddytennisfan]

strategic-culture.org
How a United Iran, Russia and China are Changing The World - For the Better

The two previous articles have focused on the various geopolitical theories, their translations into modern concepts, and practical actions that the United States has taken in recent decades to aspire to global dominance. This segment will describe how Iran, China and Russia have over the years adopted a variety of economic and military actions to repel the continual assault on their sovereignty by the West; in particular, how the American drive for global hegemony has actually accelerated the end of the 'unipolar moment' thanks to the emergence of a multipolar world.

From the moment the Berlin Wall fell, the United States saw a unique opportunity to pursue the goal of being the sole global hegemon. With the end of the Soviet Union, Washington could undoubtedly aspire to planetary domination paying little heed to the threat of competition and especially of any consequences. America found herself the one and only global superpower, faced with the prospect of extending cultural and economic model around the planet, where necessary by military means.

Over the past 25 years there have been numerous examples demonstrating how Washington has had little hesitation in bombing nations reluctant to kowtow to Western wishes. In other examples, an economic battering ram, based on predatory capitalism and financial speculation, has literally destroyed sovereign nations, further enriching the US and European financial elite in the process.

Alliances to Resist

In the course of the last two decades, the relationship between the three major powers of the Heartland, the heart of the Earth, changed radically.

Iran, Russia and China have fully understood that union and cooperation are the only means for mutual reinforcement. The need to fight a common problem, represented by a growing American influence in domestic affairs, has forced Tehran, Beijing and Moscow to resolve their differences and embrace a unified strategy in the common interest of defending their sovereignty.

Events such as the war in Syria, the bombing of Libya, the overthrowing of the democratic order in Ukraine, sanctions against Iran, and the direct pressure applied to Beijing in the South China Sea, have accelerated integration among nations that in the early 1990s had very little in common.

Economic Integration

Analyzing US economic power it is clear that supranational organizations like the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund and the World Bank guarantee Washington’s role as the economic leader. The pillars that support the centrality of the United States in the world economy can be attributed to the monetary policy of the Fed and the function of the dollar as a global reserve currency.

The Fed has unlimited ability to print money to finance further economic power of the private and public sector as well as to pay the bill due for very costly wars. The US dollar plays a central role as the global reserve currency as well as being used as currency for trade. This virtually obliges each central bank to own reserves in US currency, continuing to perpetuate the importance of Washington in the global economic system.

The introduction of the yuan into the international basket of the IMF, global agreements for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and Beijing’s protests against its treatment by the World Trade Organization (WTO) are all alarm bells for American strategists who see the role of the American currency eroding. In Russia, the central bank decided not to accumulate dollar reserves, favoring instead foreign currency like the Indian rupee and the Chinese yuan. The rating agencies - western financial-oligarchy tools -have diminishing credibility, having become means to manipulate markets to favor specific US interests. Chinese and Russian independent rating agencies are further confirmation of Beijing and Moscow’s strategy to undermine America’s role in western economics.

De-dollarization is occurring and proceeding rapidly, especially in areas of mutual business interest. In what is becoming increasingly routine, nations are dealing in commodities by negotiating in currencies other than the dollar. The benefit is twofold: a reduction in the role of the dollar in their sovereign affairs, and an increase in synergies between allied nations. Iran and India exchanged oil in rupees, and China and Russia trade in yuan.

Another advantage enjoyed by the United States, intrinsically linked to the banking private sector, is the political pressure that Americans can apply through financial and banking institutions. The most striking example is seen in the exclusion of Iran from the SWIFT international system of payments, as well as the extension of sanctions, including the freezing of Tehran's assets (about 150 billion US dollars) in foreign bank deposits. While the US is trying to crack down on independent economic initiatives, nations like Iran, Russia and China are increasing their synergies. During the period of sanctions against Iran, the Russian Federation has traded with the Islamic Republic in primary commodities. China has supported Iran with the export of oil purchased in yuan. More generally, Moscow has proposed the creation of an alternative banking system to the SWIFT system.

Private Banks, central banks, ratings agencies and supranational organizations depend in large part on the role played by the dollar and the Fed. The first goal of Iran, Russia and China is of course to make these international bodies less influential. Economic multipolarity is the first as well as the most incisive way to expand the free choice before each nation to pursue its own interests, thereby retaining its national sovereignty.

This fictitious and corrupt financial system led to the financial crisis of 2008. Tools to accumulate wealth by the elite, artificially maintaining a zombie system (turbo capitalism) have served to cause havoc in the private and public sectors, such as with the collapse of Lehman Brothers or the crisis in the Asian markets in the late 1990s.

The need for Russia, China and Iran to find an alternative economic system is also necessary to secure vital aspects of the domestic economy. The stock-market crash in China, the depreciation of the ruble in Russia, and the illegal sanctions imposed on Iran have played a profound role in concentrating the minds of Moscow, Tehran and Beijing. Ignoring the problem borne of the centrality of the dollar would have only increased the influence and role of Washington. Finding points of convergence instead of being divided was an absolute must and not an option.

A perfect example, explaining the failed American economic approach, can be seen in recent years with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), two commercial agreements that were supposed to seal the economic trade supremacy of the US. The growing economic alternatives proposed by the union of intent between Russia, China and Iran has enabled smaller nations to reject the US proposals to seek better trade deals elsewhere. In this sense, the Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP) proposed by Beijing is increasingly appreciated in Asia as an alternative to the TPP.

In the same way, the Eurasian Union (EAEU) and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) have always been key components for Moscow. The function these institutions play was noticeably accelerated following the coup in Ukraine and the resulting need for Russia to turn east in search of new business partners. Finally, Iran, chosen by Beijing as the crossroad of land and sea transit, is a prime example of integration between powers geographically distant but with great intentions to integrate vital structures of commerce.

The Chinese model of development, called Silk Road 2.0, poses a serious threat to American global hegemonic processes. The goal for Beijing is to reach full integration between the countries of the Heartland and Rimland, utilizing the concept of sea power and land power. With an investment of 1,000 billion US dollars over ten years, China itself becomes a link between the west, represented by Europe; the east, represented by China itself; the north, with the Eurasian economic space; the south, with India; Southeast Asia; the Persian Gulf and Middle East. The hope is that economic cooperation will lead to the resolution of discrepancies and strategic differences between countries thanks to trade agreements that are beneficiary to all sides.

The role of Washington continues to be that of destruction rather than construction. Instead of playing the role of a global superpower that is interested in business and trade with other nations, the United States continues to consider any foreign decision in matters of integration, finance, economy and development to lie within its exclusive domain. The primary purpose of the United States is simply to exploit every economic and cultural instrument available to prevent cohesion and coexistence between nations. The military component is usually the trump card, historically used to impose this vision on the rest of the world. In recent years, thanks to de-dollarization and military integration, nations like Iran, Russia and China are less subject to Washington's unilateral decisions.

Military deterrence

Accompanying the important economic integration is strong military-strategic cooperation, which is much less publicized. Events such as the Middle East wars, the coup in Ukraine, and the pressure exerted in the South China Sea have forced Tehran, Moscow and Beijing to conclude that the United States represents an existential threat.

In each of the above scenarios, China, Russia and Iran have had to make decisions by weighing the pros and cons of an opposition to the American model. The Ukraine coup d’état brought NATO to the borders of the Russian Federation, representing an existential threat to the Russia, threatening as it does its nuclear deterrent. In the Middle East, the destruction of Iraq, Libya and Syria has obliged Tehran to react against the alliance formed between Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United States. In China, the constant pressure on South China Sea poses a serious problem in case of a trade blockade during a conflict. In all these scenarios, American imperialism has created existential threats. It is for this reason natural that cooperation and technological development, even in the military area, have received a major boost in recent years.

In the event of an American attack on Russia, China and Iran, it is important to focus on what weapon systems would be used and how the attacked nations could respond.

Maritime Strategy and Deterrence

Certainly, US naval force place a serious question mark over the defense capabilities of nations like Russia, China and Iran, which strongly depend on transit via sea routes. Let us take, for example, Russia and the Arctic transit route, of great interest not only for defense purposes but also being a quick passage for transit goods. The Black Sea for these reasons has received special attention from the United States due to its strategic location. In any case, the responses have been proportional to the threat.

Iran has significantly developed maritime capabilities in the Persian Gulf, often closely marking ships of the US Navy located in the area for the purposes of deterrence. China's strategy has been even more refined, with the use of dozens, if not hundreds, of fishing boats and ships of the Coast Guard to ensure safety and strengthen the naval presence in the South and East China Sea. This is all without forgetting the maritime strategy outlined by the PLA Navy to become a regional naval power over the next few years. Similar strategic decisions have been taken by the navy of the Russian Federation. In addition to having taken over ship production as in Soviet times, it has opted for the development of ships that cost less but nevertheless boast equivalent weapons systems to the Americans carrier groups.

Iran, China and Russia make efficiency and cost containment a tactic to balance the growing aggressiveness of the Americans and the attendant cost of such a military strategy.

The fundamental difference between the naval approach of these countries in contrast to that of the US is paramount. Washington needs to use its naval power for offensive purposes, whereas Tehran, Moscow and Beijing need naval power exclusively for defensive purposes.

In this sense, among the greatest weapons these three recalcitrant countries possess are anti-ship, anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic systems. To put things simply, it is enough to note that Russian weapons systems such as the S-300 and S-400 air-defense systems (the S-500 will be operational in 2017) are now being adopted by China and Iran with variations developed locally. Increasingly we are witnessing an open transfer of technology to continue the work of denying (A2/AD) physical and cyberspace freedom to the United States. Stealth aircraft, carrier strike groups, ICBMs and cruise missiles are experiencing a difficult time in such an environment, finding themselves opposed by the formidable defense systems the Russians, Iranians and Chinese are presenting. The cost of an anti-ship missile fired from the Chinese coast is considerably lower than the tens of billions of dollars needed to build an aircraft carrier. This paradigm of cost and efficiency is what has shaped the military spending of China, Russia and Iran. Going toe to toe with the United States without being forced to close a huge military gap is the only viable way to achieve immediate tangible benefits of deterrence and thereby block American expansionist ambitions.

A clear example of where the Americans have encountered military opposition at an advanced level has been in Syria. The systems deployed by Iran and Russia to protect the Syrian government presented the Americans with the prospect of facing heavy losses in the event of an attack on Damascus. The same also holds for the anti-Iranian rhetoric of certain American politicians and Israeli leaders. The only reason why Syria and Iran remain sovereign nations is because of the military cost that an invasion or bombing would have brought to their invaders. This is the essence of deterrence. Of course, this argument only takes into partial account the nuclear aspect that this author has extensively discussed in a previous article.

The Union of the nations of the Heartland and Rimland will make the United States irrelevant

The future for the most important area of the planet is already sealed. The overall integration of Beijing, Moscow and Tehran provides the necessary antibodies to foreign aggression in military and economic form. De-dollarization, coupled with an infrastructure roadmap such as the Chinese Silk Road 2.0 and the maritime trade route, offer important opportunities for developing nations that occupy the geographical space between Portugal and China. Dozens of nations have all it takes to integrate for mutually beneficial gains without having to worry too much about American threats. The economic alternative offered from Beijing provides a fairly wide safety net for resisting American assaults in the same way that the military umbrella offered by these three military powers, such as with the the SCO for example, serves to guarantee the necessary independence and strategic autonomy. More and more nations are clearly rejecting American interference, favoring instead a dialogue with Beijing, Moscow and Tehran. Duterte in the Philippines is just the latest example of this trend.

The multipolar future has gradually reduced the role of the United States in the world, primarily in reaction to her aggression seeking to achieve global domination. The constant quest for planetary hegemony has pushed nations who were initially western partners to reassess their role in the international order, passing slowly but progressively into the opposite camp to that of Washington.

The consequences of this process have sealed the destiny of the United States, not only as a response to her quest for supremacy but also because of her efforts to maintain her role as the sole global superpower. As noted in previous articles, during the Cold War the aim for Washington was to prevent the formation of a union between the nations of the Heartland, who could then exclude the US from the most important area of the globe. With the fall of the Iron Curtain, sights were set on an improbable quest to conquer the Heartland nations with the intent of dominating the whole world. The consequences of this miscalculation have led the United States to being relegated to the role of mere observer, watching the unions and integrations occurring that will revolutionize the Eurasian zone and the planet over the next 50 years. The desperate search to extend Washington's unipolar moment has paradoxically accelerated the rise of a multipolar world.

In the next and final article, I will throw a light on what is likely to be a change in the American approach to foreign policy. Keeping in mind the first two articles that examined the approach by land theorized by MacKinder as opposed to the Maritime Mahan, we will try and outline how Trump intends to adopt a containment approach to the Rimland, limiting the damage to the US caused by a complete integration between nations such as Russia, China, Iran and India.