Blog No. 71.

Events have a way of intruding on my planned blog writing agenda and stuff keeps getting postponed. I have now had several requests to write something about the recent mass-groping in Cologne.  There seems good reason for me to write on this subject, while the media still ensures the outrage inspiring incident remains prominent in public awareness.  Refugee problems


Hauptbahnhof Cologne

In the 1960’s, when my wife was a fifteen year-old in Berlin, free of parental oversight, she and a German girl-friend daringly entered a Cinema on the Kurfürstendamm. Showing, was a porn-movie, titled something to do with the Kama-Sutra. The film came up to the audience’s expectations in all but one respect. While duly portraying copulation in every one of the umpteen recommended positions, the two lead roles were taken by wooden dolls. The audience, no doubt mainly composed of dirty old men, grew restless. Then, finally, the auditorium collapsed in laughter when, from the back-row, in a broad Berliner accent, came the cry ‘Wir wollen Fleish.” (“Give us meat!”)

Though it is hard to imagine that there was that much Fleish being displayed by their female victims in the cold of a German winter’s night, I guess similar emotions were running through the testosterone packed North African refugee youths outside the Cologne Hauptbahnhof on New Year’s eve. Arriving from Moslem cultures of varying extremes of sexual conservatism into the apparent permissiveness of modern day Germany, they must have felt themselves in an Aladdin’s cave of earthly delights. In what market that they had known, would you not be allowed to handle the wares on display?

Ever since the ending of the Cold War, European foreign policy has been in thrall to the lords of that castle in the air, the dream of unchallengeable, uni-polar, global dominance that has gripped the imagination of America’s neo-conservative elite. It is the American controlled and commanded NATO, rather than European political institutions, which has come to dominate Europe’s foreign policy. Cologne provides a dramatic symbol of how ill their leadership’s subservience to American ambition has served the European public. The events in question might just prove a landmark in the development of a long-overdue, European foreign policy, based on a realistic view of European self-interest. As this is a blog and not a book, I will make several claims, which are not supported by argument – though anyone who has followed the thread of my blogs, over time, will have read enough to understand how I have arrived at the clams that I make.

At about the same time that fun-seeking German girls were getting so alarmingly mistreated in Cologne, another event occurred that is entirely germane. WikiLeaks released a series of emails from Obama’s then Secretary of State, now assumed by most about to become the next President of the USA, Hillary Clinton. Hillary’s email leak The contents of Hillary’s emails confirm the claims made in my 2015 blog on the Libyan refugee crisis Khakispecs Libya Though EU nations such as the UK and France have contributed significantly to the rise of jihadism and the creation of Europe’s current refugee crisis, they have only been able to summon the courage to take their missteps due to American encouragement and the assurance of US support.

The key to interpretation of post-Cold War international relations is the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Wolfowitz Doctrine Wolfowitz may no longer be on stage, but the fundamental neo-conservative, global dominance concepts expressed in his doctrine, though perhaps not wholeheartedly embraced by the current occupant of the Oval Office, still dominate the thoughts of the all-powerful USA security establishment (and, it would appear, feature significantly in Hillary Clinton’s world vision.)

Paul Wolfowitz takes the stand

The EU, founded on an integrationist vision of a peaceful and expansive economic community, faces many problems. In regard to the making of foreign policy, there are two horns to the dilemma on which it now finds itself impaled.

Firstly, from the outset, two key players in the unification game, Britain and the USA, shared neither the ambition nor the intention of the EU’s founding fathers. Britain, as an actual member of the EU, is all too happy to play Sancho Panza to America’s Don Quixote on the world stage. For centuries, British foreign policy has been governed by the need to ensure that no continental power should ever grow so powerful as to be able to dominate the Continent. America, following the Wolfowitz Doctrine and all the historical lessons and perceptions of national interest that had led up to it, sees a key national interest in ensuring that Russia and Germany (especially a united Germany) should never become allied or work in unison.

Secondly, the EU’s founders were too tentative in its establishment. Too much sovereignty was retained at the national level. The tipping point for increasingly effective, integrated foreign policy decision-making, could never be reached. Consequently, the EU’s administrative superstructure, in attempting to coordinate so many devolved decisions, became much too bureaucratic to be either cost-effective or respected. Far more detrimental a consequence, however, was that foreign policy decision-making was diluted among multiple sovereign parliaments. The individual leaders of these governments became easy prey to the parallel and fully unified militarised foreign policy-determining body embedded in their midst.   NATO, originally, created, in the words of its first General Secretary, Lord Ismay, to “keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down,” should, theoretically have been disbanded at the end of  the Cold War. Instead, it and all the vested interests that dwelt therein, found a new lease of life by filling the power vacuum that was left as a result of the EU’s inability to develop a unified foreign policy.

The highly centralised NATO command structure,  dominated by the USA defence establishment, knew what it wanted, whereas the European polities had no common vision and were thus easily divided and ruled. Until now, western European leaders have still not dared say ‘boo’ to the NATO goose that is latched onto their trouser leg and pulling them up the garden path! Perhaps that could change as it dawns on their electorates that to-date, the USA has accepted less then twenty refugees from the civil war of its making in Syria, whereas their hapless European ‘partners’ are expected to assimilate several million! The recent IS killing of German tourists in Istanbul will inevitably draw further attention to the fact that not only has Turkey been a major enabler of IS and other Syrian terrorist organisations, but also that it is a key NATO member and much wooed by NATO’s American bosses.  It is obvious that Turkey’s, i.e. NATO’s and the EU’s Middle Eastern interests do not compliment each-other.

In previous blogs, I have referred to the events at the end of the Cold War, when the Russians felt they had successfully thrown off an out-dated and no longer welcome tyranny and the US felt it had defeated the Russians. At that critical juncture in European history, the Russians, who, until recent developments, had always regarded themselves as primarily a European nation, made a determined attempt, if not immediately to join the EU as it currently stood, to at least integrate with and coordinate with the Union as closely as possible. The Americans did all in their power to persuade the Europeans to rebuff the Russian approaches and ensure that such a rapprochement should not happen. Despite their significant reservations, European leaders were too divided and too weak to resist the consequent, American driven, eastward expansion of NATO that was bound ultimately, to lead to the Ukraine crisis. Again, when faced with that crisis and despite their own dire economic problems, the Europeans were again too weak to resist American demands that they should impose economic sanctions and further disrupt relations with Russia.

NATO keeps growing and growing

The conflict with Russia might be in the USA’s best interest, but there is no benefit in it for European interests, which would best be served by an integrated market stretching from the North Pacific Ocean in the East to the Atlantic in the West. Had European leaders the courage to seize the opportunity in the face of self-interested American objections, China, with its ambitions for a new Silk Road and Russia, with its geophysical location, would be able to provide just such a boon to western European economies.

However, a ‘good’ that might have been, offers nothing like as powerful an incentive to action as a ‘bad’ that is real and present. The refugee and jihadist crises, now faced by Europe, are also consequences of European leaders’ meek submission to the American Empire’s pursuit of global dominance. This time, now that it is happening in their hall, even the apathetic and media-bamboozled European electorates have noticed something is amiss.

The recent up-tick in the destabilisation of the Islamic world, in which several short-sighted European nations have been persuaded to participate, is a consequence of the Wolfowitz doctrine in action. Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, North Africa, Yemen, Syria have all seen massive outflows of refugees unable to cope with the consequences of Western interference in their societies.

Both Europe and Russia face the economic problems associated with declining populations. Under these circumstances an influx of refugees could well be welcome. However, in this particular instance, that is not the case. Firstly, the incoming refugees are well-laced with bitterness against the host countries in which they are seeking refuge and whom many among them must hold responsible for the destruction of their homelands and their current plight.

Secondly, European populations have been vaccinated against Islamic refugees by a long-standing and most effective media campaign emanating from Israel and designed to promote Islamaphobia in western societies. The basis for this Zionist sponsored campaign has been that the more western nations view Islam as their enemy, the more they will regard Israel as their friend and accept as just, or at least turn a blind eye to, continued Israeli territorial expansion at Arab expense. With its immune system now on high alert, it doesn’t take many incidents, such as that in Cologne, to ensure that the European body-politic starts to reject the influx of foreign bodies.

Bring us your huddled masses!

In these circumstances, the European view of the best possible outcome to the current refugee crisis coincides with that of Russia. That these destabilising wars in the Islamic world should cease and the vast majority of the refugees should be able to return to their homes (with considerable assistance in reconstruction, being given to their ruined governments.) Though this might to a certain extent coincide with the view held by the current President of the United States, it does not coincide with that of the neo-cons, who still, despite their set-back in regard to the Iranian nuclear programme, appear to retain the upper-hand in major aspects of  American foreign policy decision-making.

Thus, as things currently stand, with European acquiescence seemingly guaranteed, the USA is likely to continue to insist on Assad’s removal from power before any Syrian peace settlement can be reached (see my most recent blog Syrian peace .) This is, in effect, a guarantee that there will be no peace settlement for as long as the neo-con faction, with full Israeli support, can keep the war going. Likewise, no Saudi Arabian arms are likely to be twisted hard-enough to bring peace to the Yemen and no serious negotiations will take place that will domesticate the Taliban. (Nor is this situation likely to change should Hillary become the next president – this is especially so, given the recent Saudi donations to her campaign fund. Hillary joins the Harem  )

If my above analysis is correct and if Europe is to avoid a total collapse into disharmony, there need to be a radical reorientation of Western European foreign policy along Eurasian rather than Atlanticist lines.


For a very recent interview with Putin on NATO’s eastern expansion

Something to add? Please leave a comment in the box below

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.