Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #396 Economics, Geopolitics, & Proxy War In the Middle East

MP3 Side 1 | Side 2

This broad­cast presents the events in and around 9/11 as a con­tin­u­a­tion of a geopo­lit­i­cal strug­gle between the Under­ground Reich and the Unit­ed States. With recent events under­scor­ing the rapid growth of post-Cold War fric­tion between the US and West­ern Europe, this broad­cast ana­lyzes the con­flict in the con­text of the the­o­ries of sev­er­al promi­nent polit­i­cal intel­lec­tu­als. Of cen­tral impor­tance are the for­mu­la­tions of Pruss­ian mil­i­tary the­o­reti­cian Karl Von Clause­witz, Ger­man econ­o­mist Friedrich List, and Ger­man “geopoliti­cian” Karl Haushofer—all have strong­ly influ­enced the cur­rent devel­op­ment of events. Von Clause­witz not­ed that: ‘war is the con­tin­u­a­tion of diplo­ma­cy by oth­er means.’ The con­verse of that state­ment is also true (‘. . .a post-war is the con­tin­u­a­tion of war by oth­er means.’) Friedrich List posit­ed the idea of Ger­man-dom­i­nat­ed cen­tral Euro­pean eco­nom­ic union as a vehi­cle for estab­lish­ing Ger­man eco­nom­ic and impe­r­i­al supe­ri­or­i­ty to Britain, Ger­many’s top geopo­lit­i­cal rival. Karl Haushofer (a key influ­ence on a num­ber of impor­tant Hitler aides) devel­oped the con­cept of Ger­man alle­giance with “the Col­ored Peo­ples” of the colo­nial world as a fur­ther vehi­cle for secur­ing Ger­man eco­nom­ic and polit­i­cal con­trol. These thinkers’ applied (and com­bined) the­o­ries are cen­tral to an under­stand­ing of the theme pre­sent­ed here.

Anoth­er major ele­ment of the dis­cus­sion is the fur­ther analy­sis of “the Bat­tle of Men­with Hill,” the con­flict between the U.S. and Britain on the one side and Ger­many and the EU on the oth­er over the Men­with Hill elec­tron­ic intel­li­gence facil­i­ty and relat­ed ECHELON net­work. Bin Laden’s aware­ness of US intel­li­gence sig­nals intel­li­gence capa­bil­i­ties was cen­tral to his escape from Afghanistan. The broad­cast also presents fur­ther scruti­ny of the Ger­man role in 9/11.

A cen­tral ele­ment of the pro­gram con­cerns the use of Islam­o­fas­cist and sec­u­lar Arabo/fascist ele­ments in the Mid­dle East as “proxy war­riors,” car­ry­ing out the designs of the Under­ground Reich (in many cas­es unknow­ing­ly.) The PLO, Iraq, Al Qae­da and relat­ed ele­ments are essen­tial to the Under­ground Reich’s efforts at the destruc­tion and/or sub­ju­ga­tion of the Unit­ed States.

Much of the broad­cast deals with the applied con­cept of the “vir­tu­al state.” The “vir­tu­al state”—a state with­out for­mal geographical/legal bor­ders as such—is exem­pli­fied by both Al Qae­da and the Bor­mann Organization/Underground Reich. This pro­gram under­scores the “poly-eth­nic” nature of the Under­ground Reich by high­light­ing the fas­cist her­itage of key ele­ments of the Hin­du Nation­al­ist move­ment that is cur­rent­ly gain­ing influ­ence in Indi­an pol­i­tics. An asso­ciate of this fas­cist ele­ment with­in the Hin­du Nation­al­ist move­ment assas­si­nat­ed Mahat­ma Gand­hi. At the same time that the Under­ground Reich is present in the fas­cist pres­ence in the Hin­du Nation­al­ist forces, it is vital­ly rep­re­sent­ed in the Islam­o­fas­cist move­ment in Pak­istan, Indi­a’s mor­tal ene­my.

Pro­gram High­lights Include: analy­sis of the Franco/German revi­sions to the gov­ern­ing struc­ture of the EU; the sig­nif­i­cance of Ger­man con­trol of French cor­po­ra­tions; the pro-Pales­tin­ian activism and appar­ent anti-Semi­tism of the wife of the pres­i­dent of the ECB; the geopo­lit­i­cal ram­i­fi­ca­tions of the Iraqi and Israeli/Pakistani con­flicts for the deep­en­ing fric­tion between the US and the EU; a ter­ri­fy­ing pre­sen­ta­tion of the pre­car­i­ous eco­nom­ics of the cur­rent US world polit­i­cal stance.

1. The dis­cus­sion begins by touch­ing on a cen­tral premise of the think­ing of Pruss­ian mil­i­tary the­o­reti­cian Karl Von Clause­witz. Von Clause­witz not­ed that: ‘war is the con­tin­u­a­tion of diplo­ma­cy by oth­er means.’ The con­verse of that state­ment is also true (‘. . .a post-war is the con­tin­u­a­tion of war by oth­er means.’) In order to under­stand how the events of 9/11 fit into the par­a­digm, it is impor­tant to com­pre­hend the fact that the Under­ground Reich’s geopo­lit­i­cal thinkers have a deep under­stand­ing of the con­ti­nu­ity of wars and post­wars.

“The end of bat­tle in 1945 had sin­gled the start of a new kind of war‑a post-war. Ger­many’s clas­si­cal mil­i­tary the­o­rist, Von Clause­witz, is famous for hav­ing declared that ‘war is the con­tin­u­a­tion of diplo­ma­cy by oth­er means.’ In deal­ing with a Ger­many which had gone to school with Von Clause­witz for gen­er­a­tions, we knew that, con­verse­ly, a post-war is the con­tin­u­a­tion of war by oth­er means. Since Bis­mar­ck, wars and post-wars have formed a con­tin­u­ous series, chang­ing the qual­i­ty of the events only slight­ly from year to year, with no such thing as a clear dis­tinc­tion between heat of bat­tle and calm of peace.”

(All Hon­or­able Men; James Stew­art Mar­tin; Copy­right 1950 [HC]; Lit­tle, Brown & Co.; p. 235.)

2. Friedrich List is anoth­er of the the­o­reti­cians whose ideas are cen­tral to an under­stand­ing of the geopo­lit­i­cal con­test between the Under­ground Reich and “Anglo-Sax­o­nia” (the Unit­ed States and Britain.) List posit­ed the idea of Ger­man-dom­i­nat­ed cen­tral Euro­pean eco­nom­ic union as a vehi­cle for estab­lish­ing Ger­man eco­nom­ic and impe­r­i­al supe­ri­or­i­ty to Britain, Ger­many’s top geopo­lit­i­cal rival. List’s for­mu­la­tions are the basis for the Ger­man-dom­i­nat­ed Euro­pean Mon­e­tary Union. List under­stood that eco­nom­ic con­trol led auto­mat­i­cal­ly to polit­i­cal con­trol. That aware­ness is cen­tral to an under­stand­ing of the oper­a­tions of the Bor­mann Orga­ni­za­tion.

“Many of the major ele­ments of eco­nom­ic impe­ri­al­ism were enun­ci­at­ed in the 1840’s by the ubiq­ui­tous Friedrich List. List argued that over­seas colonies were need­ed to sup­ple­ment his favorite scheme for eco­nom­ic devel­op­ment: a cen­tral Euro­pean eco­nom­ic union. He fore­saw an eco­nom­ic orga­ni­za­tion with an indus­tri­al­ized Ger­many as its cen­ter and a periph­ery of oth­er cen­tral and east­ern Euro­pean states that would sup­ply food and raw mate­ri­als for Ger­man indus­try and would pur­chase Ger­man indus­tri­al prod­ucts. A semi­au­tar­kic struc­ture would thus be cre­at­ed; it would have the advan­tage of per­mit­ting con­trol, or even exclu­sion, of British com­pe­ti­tion, thus allow­ing cen­tral Europe to indus­tri­al­ize suc­cess­ful­ly in an order­ly, planned man­ner.”

(The Ide­o­log­i­cal Ori­gins of Nazi Impe­ri­al­ism; by Woodruff D. Smith; Copy­right 1986 [SC]; Oxford Uni­ver­si­ty Press; ISBN 0–19-504741–9 (PBK); p. 30.)

3. Karl Haushofer (a key influ­ence on a num­ber of impor­tant Hitler aides) devel­oped the con­cept of Ger­man alle­giance with “the Col­ored Peo­ples” of the colo­nial world as a fur­ther vehi­cle for secur­ing Ger­man eco­nom­ic and polit­i­cal con­trol.

“In its strug­gle to break British dom­i­nance, Ger­man mil­i­tary intel­li­gence also looked to nation­al­ist inde­pen­dence move­ments in the Mid­dle East, Asia, and Ire­land. After World War I, Haushofer con­tin­ued to sup­port these anti-British groups. In the 1930’s, Indi­an nation­al­ist leader Sub­has Chan­dra Bose [whose Indi­an nation­al Army lat­er received mil­i­tary sup­port in World War II from both Ger­many and Japan] was a cor­re­spon­dent for the Zeitschrift fur Geopoli­tik. [Haushofer­’s pub­li­ca­tion.] . . . In July 1942, for­eign pol­i­cy expert Hans Weigert pro­filed Haushofer­’s ‘Eurasian lib­er­a­tion front’ poli­cies in For­eign Affairs. Weigert point­ed that Haushofer actu­al­ly wel­comed ‘the rise of the col­ored world,’ even writ­ing that ‘the strug­gle of India and Chi­na for lib­er­a­tion from for­eign dom­i­na­tion and cap­i­tal­ist pres­sure agrees with the secret dreams of Cen­tral Europe.’ ”

(Dream­er of the Day: Fran­cis Park­er Yock­ey and the Post­war Fas­cist Inter­na­tion­al; by Kevin Coogan; Autono­me­dia Inc.; Copy­right 1999 [SC]; ISBN 1–57027-039–2; pp. 68–69.)

4. Putting Haushofer­’s the­o­ries into prac­tice, the Under­ground Reich has uti­lized the “col­ored world” in the real­iza­tion of its polit­i­cal agen­da-the sub­ju­ga­tion of the Unit­ed States, in par­tic­u­lar. This pro­gram under­scores the “poly-eth­nic” nature of the Under­ground Reich by high­light­ing the fas­cist her­itage of key ele­ments of the Hind­hu Nation­al­ist move­ment cur­rent­ly gain­ing increas­ing influ­ence in Indi­an pol­i­tics. An asso­ciate of this fas­cist ele­ment with­in the Hind­hu Nation­al­ist move­ment assas­si­nat­ed Mahat­ma Gand­hi. At the same time that the Under­ground Reich is present in the fas­cist pres­ence in the Hind­hu Nation­al­ist forces, it is vital­ly rep­re­sent­ed in the Islam­o­fas­cist move­ment in Indi­a’s mor­tal oppo­nent, Pak­istan. The dis­cus­sion focus­es on the RSS‑a key Hind­hu Nation­al­ist orga­ni­za­tion.

“Dur­ing the 1940’s the RSS’s new leader, Mad­hev Gol­walkar, fol­low­ing the death of [RSS founder Keshav Bali­ram] Hedge­war, sym­pa­thized both with Ger­man Nazism and Ital­ian fas­cism. In 1939, Gol­walkar said: ‘Ger­man race pride has now become the top­ic of the day. To keep up the puri­ty of the Race and its cul­ture, Ger­many shocked the world by her purg­ing the coun­try of the Semit­ic races-the Jews. Race pride at its high­est has been man­i­fest here. Ger­many has shown how well nigh impos­si­ble it is for Races and cul­tures, hav­ing dif­fer­ences going to the root, to be assim­i­lat­ed into one unit­ed whole, a good les­son for in Hin­dusthan to learn and prof­it by.’ (Gol­walk­er [1939] in We, or Our Nation­hood, Defined.’ ”

(“Hin­du Fun­da­men­tal­ism: Why We Are Con­cerned” by Paul Crofts and Anjona Roy; Search­light Mag­a­zine; January/2003 [#331]; p. 20.)

5. “There has been no explic­it and uncon­di­tion­al dis­avow­al of nazi-like doc­trines by the RSS/HSS or a repu­di­a­tion of Gol­walk­er’s ideas. Indeed, Gol­walkar is held up as an exam­ple and spir­i­tu­al leader for young RSS/HSS Swayam­se­vaks (mem­bers) and affec­tion­ate­ly referred to as ‘Guru­ji.’ ”


6. “Fol­low­ing Mahat­ma Gahd­hi’s assas­si­na­tion by a for­mer RSS mem­ber, Nathu­ram Godse, the RSS was banned by the Indi­an gov­ern­ment from 1948 to 1949. After the ban was reversed the RSS, while claim­ing to devote itself sole­ly to cul­tur­al activ­i­ties, cre­at­ed sev­er­al off­shoot orga­ni­za­tions, includ­ing the Vish­wa Hin­du Parishad (VHP), or World Hin­du Coun­cil, in 1964, the Jana Sangh polit­i­cal par­ty in 1951, which was the pre­cur­sor to the cur­rent Bharatiya Jana­ta Par­ty (BJP) and numer­ous oth­er orga­ni­za­tions.”


7. Numer­ous pro­grams have focused on the Islam­o­fas­cist Al Taqwa milieu. We have exam­ined the Bush admin­is­tra­tion’s efforts on behalf of a Sau­di nation­al who sits on the board of direc­tors of the DMI. In con­sid­er­ing the Islam­o­fas­cist Al Taqwa net­work, it is impor­tant to bear in mind its pro­found links to Sau­di Ara­bia and the Bush admin­is­tra­tion’s links to the Saud­is. The Bush fam­i­ly, in turn, has strong his­tor­i­cal con­nec­tions to the Third Reich. The “poly-eth­nic­i­ty” of the Under­ground Reich is evi­dent on both sides of the US con­flict with the Islam­o­fas­cists.

“In 1981, in the back­rooms dur­ing the Islam­ic sum­mit in Taef, Mohammed Bin Fay­cal al-Saud, broth­er of Prince Turk­i’s broth­er, brought togeth­er major investors from Sau­di Ara­bia and the Unit­ed Arab Emi­rates to cre­ate a pri­vate Islam­ic bank, Dar al-Mal al-Isla­mi. DMI, the ‘Islam­ic finan­cial house,’ shares a head­quar­ters in the Bahamas with the bank of the Mus­lim Broth­ers [Al Taqwa].”

(Dol­lars for Ter­ror: The Unit­ed States and Islam; by Richard Labeviere; Copy­right 2000 [SC]; Algo­ra Pub­lish­ing; ISBN 1–892941-06–6; p. 240.)

8. The Sau­di-based DMI is a prin­ci­pal share­hold­er in Al Taqwa.

“Dar al-Mal al-Isla­mi (DMI) is an invest­ment con­sor­tium made up of var­i­ous eco­nom­ic and finan­cial insti­tu­tions like Faysal Finance, the Islam­ic Invest­ment Com­pa­ny of the Gulf, etc. Based in Gene­va, DMI had sub­sidiaries in ten coun­tries (Bahrain, Pak­istan, Turkey, Den­mark, Guinea, Sene­gal, Niger and Lux­em­bourg). The King Faysal Foun­da­tion of Riyadh fig­ures among the prin­ci­pal share­hold­ers. Cre­at­ed by the heirs to the late King of Ara­bia, this foun­da­tion is known for its many schools, Islam­ic arts cen­ters and mosques. DMI is also one of the prin­ci­pal share­hold­ers of Bank Al Taqwa Lim­it­ed, the Mus­lim Broth­ers of Egyp­t’s bank, which also plays a cen­tral place in financ­ing many Islamist orga­ni­za­tions.”


9. Ger­many’s strange behav­ior in con­nec­tion with 9/11 exem­pli­fies the con­tem­po­rary appli­ca­tion of Haushofer­’s the­o­ries on uti­liz­ing “the col­ored peo­ples” of the world as vehi­cles for con­quest-with the Unit­ed States being the main tar­get of this “proxy war.” Sup­ple­ment­ing dis­cus­sion of a top­ic pre­sent­ed in FTR#395, the pro­gram presents more infor­ma­tion about the Ger­man phys­i­cal sur­veil­lance of the 9/11 cell that launched the attacks. Moham­mad Zam­mar (a Syr­i­an nation­al) was a key per­son­age mon­i­tored by Ger­man intel­li­gence offi­cials.

“The inves­ti­ga­tors watched him [Zam­mar] close­ly, obtain­ing war­rants to tap his phone and fol­low him, accord­ing to Ger­man intel­li­gence doc­u­ments. On Aug. 29, 1998, for exam­ple, inves­ti­ga­tors not­ed that Mr. Zam­mar attend­ed a meet­ing on Buntaweite Street in Ham­burg. Also present: Mr. Motas­sad­eq and Said Baha­ji, who fled Ger­many just before the Sept. 11 attacks and remains at large.”

(“Pre‑9/11, Ger­many Had al Qae­da Cell In Sights for Years” by David Craw­ford and Ian John­son; The Wall Street Jour­nal; 1/17/2003; p. A6)

10. The Ger­man fail­ure to thwart the 9/11 attacks is all the more inter­est­ing in light of the fact that Mr. Zam­mar’s activ­i­ties were of an obvi­ous­ly unsa­vory nature.

“Two months after that meet­ing, author­i­ties had anoth­er clue that Mr. Zam­mar had links to dan­ger­ous peo­ple. Accord­ing to Ger­man intel­li­gence doc­u­ments, his name, address and two of his phone num­bers were dis­cov­ered in a raid by Ital­ian police on an apart­ment used by mem­bers of Jihad Isla­mi in Turin. The Ital­ian police arrest­ed three men and found an Uzi sub­ma­chine gun, hand­guns, ammu­ni­tion, wigs, false beards and Mr. Zam­mar’s con­tact infor­ma­tion. By then, Ger­man inves­ti­ga­tors had begun anoth­er oper­a­tion that would lead them to some of the Ham­burg cell mem­bers. Action on a U.S. war­rant, police arrest­ed a Sudanese busi­ness­man, Mam­douh Mah­mud Sal­im. The charge was that he was one of al Qaeda’s chief financiers.”


11. “Ger­man police not­ed that Mr. Sal­im had reg­u­lar ties to Ger­many; it was his fifth trip in three years. He reg­u­lar­ly met with Mamoun Dark­azan­li, a Ham­burg-based trad­er who ran an import-export com­pa­ny. Ger­man inves­ti­ga­tors were skep­ti­cal that Mr. Sal­im was much of a threat, but under pres­sure from the U.S., they extra­dit­ed him to New York, accord­ing to inves­ti­ga­tors. And they put Mr. Dark­azan­li under obser­va­tion.”


12. “They soon noticed that Mr. Dark­azan­li had reg­u­lar con­tact with a fel­low Syr­i­an immi­grant: Mr. Zam­mar. They also found that both men, as well as Messrs. Motas­sad­eq and Baha­ji, paid reg­u­lar calls to a cer­tain apart­ment on Marien­strasse in Ham­burg. Occu­py­ing that apart­ment was Mr. Atta, lat­er the pilot of one of the planes that struck the World trade Cen­ter. . .”


13. In eval­u­at­ing the behav­ior of the Ger­man author­i­ties under the cir­cum­stances, one should remem­ber that all res­i­dents of Ger­many are required to reg­is­ter with the police. The lax­i­ty of Ger­man intel­li­gence with regard to the 54 Marien­strasse cell is all the more sus­pi­cious in light of this fact.

“On anoth­er occa­sion a man named ‘Mar­wan’ called. Mr. Zam­mar, who urged him to vis­it him in Ham­burg as soon as pos­si­ble. ‘Mar­wan’ lat­er moved back to Ham­burg. Inves­ti­ga­tors have said that they did­n’t know who all the men dis­cussed in the phone calls were. But Ger­man res­i­dents must reg­is­ter with police where they live. A check of some of the address­es Mr. Zam­mar called could have revealed, for exam­ple, that ‘Mar­wan’ was Mar­wan al-She­hi, lat­er a room­mate of Mr. Atta and the pilot of the oth­er plane that hit the World Trade Cen­ter. . .”


14. Tak­en in con­junc­tion with their fail­ure to suc­cess­ful­ly inter­dict the 9/11 attacks, the Ger­man attempt to deflect respon­si­bil­i­ty to US intel­li­gence is more than a lit­tle inter­est­ing under the cir­cum­stances. It is par­tic­u­lar­ly impor­tant to note that US intel­li­gence was pres­sur­ing the Ger­mans to do more with the field intel­li­gence infor­ma­tion high­light­ed above.

“The Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency was aware of at least part of the Ger­man efforts, accord­ing to Ger­man inves­ti­ga­tors. They say that in Decem­ber 1999, the CIA assigned a case offi­cer to the U.S. con­sulate in Ham­burg. The agent tried to push his Ger­man coun­ter­parts to take stronger action against Mr. Dark­azan­li, accord­ing to a Ger­man intel­li­gence offi­cer. When the Ger­mans replied that they had­n’t been able to find any crim­i­nal activ­i­ties, the agent sug­gest­ed turn­ing him into a dou­ble-agent. Skep­ti­cal, the Ger­mans approached Mr. Dark­azan­li but were rebuffed. Mr. Dark­azan­li, who remains free in Ham­burg, declined to com­ment. Accord­ing to Ger­man inves­ti­ga­tors, the CIA offi­cer then turned to the Fed­er­al Office for Pro­tec­tion of the Con­sti­tu­tion, which was con­duct­ing Oper­a­tion Ten­der­ness. It could­n’t be estab­lished whether he learned about the oper­a­tion. The CIA had no com­ment.”


15. Sup­ple­ment­ing dis­cus­sion of “the Bat­tle of Men­with Hill” the pro­gram notes that Osama bin Laden’s aware­ness of US sig­nals intel­li­gence capa­bil­i­ties fig­ured promi­nent­ly in his escape from Tora Bora. Is there a con­nec­tion between the begin­ning of the German/EU attack on the Men­with Hill sta­tion and bin Laden’s aban­don­ment of satel­lite phone tech­nol­o­gy to com­mu­ni­cate with his lieu­tenants?

“With U.S. forces clos­ing in on him, Osama bin Laden deceived U.S. spy tech­nol­o­gy and van­ished into the moun­tains that led to Pak­istan in late 2001, accord­ing to senior Moroc­can offi­cials. A Moroc­can who was one of bin Laden’s long­time body­guards took pos­ses­sion of the al Qae­da lead­er’s satel­lite phone on the assump­tion that U.S. intel­li­gence agen­cies were mon­i­tor­ing it to get a fix on their posi­tion, said the offi­cials, who have inter­viewed the body­guard, Abdal­lah Tabrak.”

(“Guard’s Phone Ploy Helped bin Laden Flee, Moroc­cans Say” by Peter Finn [Wash­ing­ton Post]; San Fran­cis­co Chron­i­cle; 1/21/2003; p. A5.)

16. “Tabarak moved away from bin Laden and his entourage as they fled. He con­tin­ued to use the phone in an effort to divert the Amer­i­cans and allow bin Laden to escape. Tabarak ws cap­tured in the Tora Bora moun­tains in pos­ses­sion of the phone, offi­cials said. ‘He agreed to be cap­tured or die,’ a Moroc­can offi­cial said of Tabarak. ‘That’s the lev­el of his fanat­acism for bin Laden. It was­n’t a lot of time, but it was enough.”


17. With the US and Britain (“Anglo-Sax­o­nia”) ranged against a renewed Fran­co-Ger­man axis with­in the EU, the pro­gram notes a Ger­man ini­tia­tive to max­i­mize its con­trol over Europe.

“Denis Mac­Shane, Britain’s Europe min­is­ter, has accused Ger­many of want­i­ng to appoint an all-pow­er­ful ‘kaiser’ at the top of the Euro­pean com­mis­sion and warned Ger­hard Schroder, Ger­many’s chan­cel­lor, that the Eng­lish decap­i­tat­ed such a fig­ure 350 years ago. In an inter­view with the Finan­cial Times, Mr. Mac­Shane dis­missed sug­ges­tions that Britain might lose influ­ence in Europe to a renascent Fran­co-Ger­man axis.”

(“UK Attacks Ger­man Plans for ‘Kaiser” to Lead Europe” by Christo­pher Adams and James Blitz; Finan­cial Times; 1/2/2003; p. 2.)

18. “He attacked the Ger­man pro­pos­als for a stronger head of the Com­mis­sion, argu­ing that they would side­line nation­al gov­ern­ments and their lead­er­ship. One idea being tout­ed by a Josch­ka Fis­ch­er, Ger­many’s for­eign min­is­ter, is for a sin­gle per­son to be pres­i­dent of both the Com­mis­sion and the Euro­pean Coun­cil, the body rep­re­sent­ing mem­ber states.”


19. “At Decem­ber’s Euro­pean Union sum­mit, France backed Britain by sup­port­ing alter­na­tive pro­pos­als for the appoint­ment of a new EU pres­i­dent to lead the Euro­pean Coun­cil. Mr. Mac­Shane said: ‘I was very struck at Copen­hagen by how France com­plete­ly lined up with Blair on the neces­si­ty for an elect­ed chair­man for the Euro­pean coun­cil of min­is­ters, where­as the Ger­man posi­tion is for giv­ing all pow­er to a new kind of Euro­pean kaiser, a Com­mis­sion pres­i­dent who will tell all the oth­er Euro­pean insti­tu­tions what to do. ‘I had long dis­cus­sions with Ger­hard Schroder on this and I explained that 350 years ago we sep­a­rat­ed a king’s head from his body because we did­n’t want to take orders from one indi­vid­ual.’ ”


20. A col­umn by William Safire in The New York Times placed the French endorse­ment of the Ger­man pro­pos­al for the EU in the con­text of the diver­gence between the US and Ger­many over war in the Mid­dle East. (Recall that “Cor­po­rate France” is con­trolled by “Cor­po­rate Ger­many” and, by exten­sion, the Bor­mann Orga­ni­za­tion and the Under­ground Reich. It is cred­i­ble that the break between the US and its West­ern Euro­pean allies is due to far more than the myopia and stu­pid­i­ty of the Bush admin­is­tra­tion. Those very real and evi­dent short­com­ings are being tak­en advan­tage of by the Under­ground Reich. Again, the inter­change­abil­i­ty of war and diplo­ma­cy as for­mu­lat­ed by Von Clause­witz is impor­tant to bear in mind.

” . . . In its [Schroder’s sec­ond tri­umph] wake came the sec­ond Schroder tri­umph, his recent spinaround of Jacques Chirac of France. Chirac had made a deal with the U.S. last fall: we agreed to post­pone the inva­sion of Iraq until after U.N. inspec­tors had been jerked around long enough to sat­is­fy the world street’s opin­ion, and in return France would not demand a sec­ond U.N. res­o­lu­tion before allied forces over­threw Sad­dam. . . ”

(“ ‘Bad Herr Dye’ by William Safire; The New York Times; 1/23/2003; p. A27.)

21. ” . . . Then Schroder, reliant on his mil­i­tant­ly anti­war Greens, made Chirac an offer he could not refuse to per­ma­nent­ly assert Fran­co-Ger­man dom­i­nance over the 23 oth­er nations of Con­ti­nen­tal Europe. In a stun­ning pow­er play in Brus­sels, Ger­many and France moved to change the prac­tice of hav­ing a rotat­ing pres­i­den­cy of the Euro­pean coun­cil, which now gives small­er nations influ­ence, to a sys­tem with a long-term pres­i­dent. This Fran­co-Ger­man czar of the Euro­pean Union would dom­i­nate a tooth­less pres­i­dent of the Euro­pean Com­mis­sion, cho­sen by the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment.”


22. “Lit­tle guys of Europe hollered bloody mur­der this week, but will find it hard to resist the Fran­co-Ger­man steam­roller. France then had to repay Schroder by dou­ble-cross­ing the U.S. at the U.N. that explains France’s star­tling threat to veto a new U.N. res­o­lu­tion O.K.‘ing the inva­sion of Iraq‑a sec­ond res­o­lu­tion that France had promised Col­in Pow­ell would not be need­ed.”


23. Anoth­er area of diver­gence between the US and Europe con­cerns the Israeli/Palestinian con­flict. In the con­text of the present dis­cus­sion, the Pales­tini­ans are also seen as an Under­ground Reich “proxy force”-working against the US in both mil­i­tary and diplo­mat­ic modes. One should not lose sight, how­ev­er, of the con­nec­tions between inter­na­tion­al fas­cism and the Israeli right-wing-the “vir­tu­al state” of the Under­ground Reich is to be found on BOTH sides of the Israeli/Palestinian con­flict. In addi­tion to the fascist/Third Reich her­itage of Arafat, it is impor­tant to remem­ber that Sau­di Ara­bia is the num­ber one finan­cial backer of the PLO, while the Ger­man-dom­i­nat­ed EU is the pri­ma­ry finan­cial backer of the Pales­tin­ian Author­i­ty. Exem­pli­fy­ing the diver­gence between the US and Europe with regard to the Palestinian/Israeli con­flict is the pro-Pales­tin­ian activism of Gret­ta Duisen­berg (the wife of Euro­pean Cen­tral Bank pres­i­dent Wim Duisen­berg.)

“Here and abroad, some Pales­tini­ans treat Gret­ta Duisen­berg like a queen. Yas­sir Arafat refers to Ms. Duisen­berg as Her Excel­len­cy. She is not a queen and her hus­band, Wim Duisen­berg, is not a king or a prince. Mr. Duisen­gerg is pres­i­dent of the Euro­pean Cen­tral Bank-the Euro­pean ver­sion of the Fed­er­al Reserve-and the polit­i­cal activism of his wife on behalf of Pales­tin­ian caus­es has cre­at­ed a roy­al prob­lem for him and for their coun­try, the Nether­lands.”

(“Pro-Pales­tin­ian Wife of Europe’s Banker Upsets the Dutch” by Gre­go­ry Crouch; The New York Times; 1/9/2003; p. A6.)

24. “The Dutch Min­istry of For­eign Affairs said diplo­mat­ic pass­ports issued to civ­il ser­vants and their spous­es should only be used on offi­cial busi­ness. One Dutch politi­cian has called on the gov­ern­ment to rescind Ms. Duisen­berg’s diplo­mat­ic priv­i­leges.”


25. “Ms. Duisen­berg first drew atten­tion last April after she draped a Pales­tin­ian flag over a bal­cony out­side the cou­ple’s Ams­ter­dam home. ‘That came straight from my heart because I want­ed to show what my feel­ings were,’ she said. That dis­play in turn led to a ral­ly speech and peti­tions along with con­tri­bu­tions to a pro-Pales­tin­ian Web site.”


26. A remark made by Ms. Duisen­berg about a peti­tion she was cir­cu­lat­ing on behalf of the Pales­tini­ans is more than a lit­tle reveal­ing. It is dif­fi­cult to imag­ine that social jus­tice is the real con­cern of Ms. Duisen­berg, under the cir­cum­stances.

“Some Jew­ish groups were out­raged sev­er­al months ago after a radio inter­view Ms. Duisen­berg gave. The reporter asked her how many sig­na­tures she intend­ed to col­lect for a pro-Pales­tin­ian peti­tion. She paused, laughed and then respond­ed, ‘Six mil­lion?’ [Ital­ics are Mr. Emory’s]”


27. The use of the Mus­lim pop­u­la­tion of the Mid­dle East as “proxy war­riors” is implic­it in the pas­sage that fol­lows.

“It is much eas­i­er to appre­ci­ate the evil of Sep­tem­ber 11 than it is to grasp that the US and its civ­i­liza­tion are wide­ly seen in the Mid­dle East as the unique source of all the evils that beset the Islam­ic world-the exis­tence of Israel, the dis­pos­ses­sion of the Pales­tini­ans, the US mil­i­tary pres­ence in the holy places. As the fount of all evils, the US then becomes the only tar­get that mat­ters. Amer­i­ca’s allies may say that they are all tar­gets now. But they hope and believe the in the glob­al­iza­tion of ter­ror­ism as spec­ta­cle, Big Ben, the Eif­fel Tow­er the Reich­stag or St. Peter’s in Rome will remain just tourist attrac­tions, not mil­i­tary objec­tives, for the assas­sins of al Qae­da. [Empha­sis added.]”

(“The Divid­ed West” by Michel Ignati­eff; Finan­cial Times; 8/31–9/1/2002; p. 4.)

28. Although many ana­lysts have placed the grow­ing divide between the Unit­ed States and Europe in the con­text of Euro­peans’ pro­gres­sive polit­i­cal atti­tudes, it is worth remem­ber­ing that Euro­pean pol­i­tics are swing­ing right­ward. This right­ward shift is par­tial­ly due to the resent­ment of “immi­grants” from the Mid­dle East-many of them Mus­lim. Exem­pli­fy­ing the suc­cess­ful manip­u­la­tion of the anti-immi­grant theme is the Aus­tri­an Jörg Haider.

“And if Mr. Haider’s par­ty is floun­der­ing oth­ers are not. The Swiss Peo­ple’s Par­ty led by the busi­ness­man Christoph Blocher, almost won a ref­er­en­dum it had called for, on the issue of ban­ning all except rel­a­tive­ly wealthy asy­lum seek­ers from Switzer­land-one of the rich­est coun­tries on earth. . . ”

(“No to Brus­sels, No to Immi­gra­tion: How Rightwing Pop­ulism Entered the Main­stream” by John Lloyd; Finan­cial Times; 11/28/2002; p. 11.)

29. “Else­where in Europe, pop­ulism still surges. The Octo­ber con­fer­ence of the Dan­ish Peo­ple’s par­ty was an exul­tant affair of a vast­ly suc­cess­ful group­ing that had risen to become third par­ty in the elec­tions of the pre­vi­ous Novem­ber. Under the ban­ner of Et Frik Dan­mark (A Free Den­mark), it gave the coun­try notice that it would make it free from too much immi­gra­tion, free from too much Europe. . . .”


30. “. . . Sud­den suc­cess caused the implo­sion of one of the best known of the pop­ulist groups, Pim For­tuyn’s List, which came from nowhere to be the Nether­lands’ sec­ond largest par­ty in May’s elec­tions.”


31. Umber­to Bossi’s North­ern League is a coali­tion part­ner with for­mer P‑2 mem­ber Sil­vio Berlus­coni’s Forza Italia and the Allian­za Nationale of Gian­fran­co Fini.

“The con­clu­sion, wide­ly drawn, is that pow­er does not become pop­ulists. That may be true-but only in par­tic­u­lar instances. The North­ern League under Umber­to Bossi is part of the rul­ing coali­tion in Italy and Mr. Bossi is him­self a min­is­ter, with some influ­ence. More impor­tant­ly, when the pop­ulists stay out of pow­er but are seen to have iden­ti­fied a pop­u­lar issue, they can be high­ly influ­en­tial-as both the DPP and Nor­way’s Progress Par­ty are.”


32. This broad­cast con­cludes with dis­cus­sion of the eco­nom­ic vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty of Amer­i­can pow­er. It is Mr. Emory’s view that eco­nom­ic sub­ju­ga­tion of the US is the pri­ma­ry goal of the Under­ground Reich.

” ... The US, unlike the British Empire, is build­ing its rule on a foun­da­tion that is poten­tial­ly quite unsta­ble. The British Empire in its 19th-cen­tu­ry hey­day ran enor­mous cur­rent account sur­plus­es (7 per cent of gross domes­tic prod­uct on the eve of the First World War). For more than 20 years, in the peri­od of its cold war vic­to­ry and of the con­ver­sion of the world to a new con­sen­sus about mar­kets, the US has had quite large cur­rent account deficits. In 2001, the deficit was 4.2 per cent of GDP.”

(“Lessons to Learn from the Decline and Fall of Empire” by Harold James; Finan­cial Times; 12/30/2002; p. 11.)

33. “One way of read­ing this odd sit­u­a­tion-which is pop­u­lar with many Amer­i­cans-is that the rest of the world has bought into US sta­bil­i­ty. The deficits are financed by cap­i­tal inflows, as the non-Amer­i­can world buys the stock of fast-grow­ing US com­pa­nies or ‑when the stock mar­ket looks bad, prop­er­ty . . . ”


34. ” . . .But nobody thinks that this kind of inflow can be sus­tained indef­i­nite­ly. The inflows of for­eign cap­i­tal could be rapid­ly reversed on some chance piece of bad news. Such a rever­sal would involve a col­lapse of the US stock mar­ket, the prop­er­ty mar­ket and the dol­lar. US con­sumers would no longer be able to binge on cheap goods sup­plied by the rest of the world. Amer­i­can pro­duc­ers would try to pro­tect their mar­kets; for­eign pro­duc­ers would be thrown out of busi­ness and no longer see any gains to be real­ized by peace­ful inte­gra­tion in a benign world econ­o­my.”


35. “The finan­cial rever­sal would also bring the col­lapse of the US secu­ri­ty pol­i­cy and of its cal­cu­lat­ed strat­e­gy of world paci­fi­ca­tion. The cost of US defense spend­ing would look much too high and scal­ing it down would give a chance to would-be rivals, at least on a region­al basis-Chi­na, for exam­ple.”


36. Ref­er­ence is made to Edward Gib­bon’s his­to­ry of the fall of Rome.

“The Amer­i­can case would then look more like that of Spain (which also ran a cur­rent account deficit, financed by the out­flow of pre­cious met­als from its impe­r­i­al pos­ses­sions) than that of 19th-cen­tu­ry Britain. And Gib­bon’s sto­ry of decline would begin.”



No comments for “FTR #396 Economics, Geopolitics, & Proxy War In the Middle East”

Post a comment