A Global Coup

by Guillaume Faye

  In order to measure the magnitude of the American fear of a European rebirth, let us turn our attention to the report published in June 2003 by The New Republic, a neoconservative weekly paper. Despite the stagnation afflicting the European economy and regardless of our global weakness, demographic aging and the mass immigration weighing us down, etc., the headline was ‘Europe, a Superpower’, followed by two central articles entitled ‘Why America Should Fear the European Economy’ and ‘Why America Should Fear the Construction of Europe’. In fact, as remarked by Pascal Riche in Libération (20/06/2003), ‘something has changed’ since the Franco-German refusal to support the war against Iraq:

  Washington had previously considered Europe to be a loyal and harmless ally. The neoconservatives were convinced that this peaceful continent, whose military capacity seemed to be virtually inexistent, was not only experiencing a demographic decline, but also stricken with economic weakness and did not therefore merit excessive attention. However, the European Union has suddenly become the source of a potential threat.

  ***

  What follows is the very core of the NAI’s neoconservative and unilateralist doctrine regarding both Europe and France. In the above-mentioned weekly, neoconservative ideologist Andrew Sullivan states:

  The power that stands to benefit most from the construction of Europe is France. And as we have learnt through bitter experience, French intentions are essentially hostile to the US, whether culturally, economically or diplomatically. The current challenge faced by our American foreign policy lies in finding a way to prevent the new European configuration from taking shape, courting and maintaining the loyalty of pro-American governments and states and saving the European continent from ancient Europe’s smothering embrace.

  What is noticeable is that neoconservative ideologists are no longer willing to handle the world with kid gloves. With a sort of rabid naivety, they have shown their hand and revealed their intent to callously interfere in the affairs of others (‘to prevent the new European configuration from taking shape’ while ‘courting’ governments that are expected to remain loyal).

  In the aftermath of the French opposition to the irreproachable legalism pervading the Iraqi campaign, the threat of targeting France with ‘punishment’ corroborates Sullivan’s ideological point of view and confirms the fact that Washington has relinquished indirect imperialism for the sake of a straightforward and openly acknowledged imperialistic approach reflected in an American return to a suzerain-like attitude towards Europe, an attitude which the Americans have now explicitly disclosed and which obviously constitutes an enormous blunder in terms of diplomatic psychology.

  In June 2003, Robert Bradtke, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, poured his soul out to the American media, explaining that the White House was going to put Europe and particularly France ‘under observation’. This notion of a counterweight, which Europe may well end up developing under French leadership, embodies the bane of all neoconservatives, including Bradtke himself.

  ***

  One of the reasons behind Washington’s animosity towards France is perhaps also the fact that our country represents the sole independent nuclear power in the western world, for, as demonstrated elsewhere, Great Britain cannot be perceived as one at all, since its small arsenal (totalling 30 % of the French nuclear potential in terms of genuine striking capacities) is completely dependent on American ‘double-keying’.

  In short, the NAI perceives our potentially ailing Europe as a pebble in its cowboy boot and France as the flint’s sharp tip. Imagine that Europe were to regain its health and will… Many of the friends with whom I have shared this hypothesis have told me that if such a development ever came to pass, the USA would find itself compelled to wage war upon us, in harmony with the restored logic of World War II. I personally have severe doubts about this scenario and rather believe that our awakening would trigger a Euro-American ‘cold war’, but definitely not a genuine conflict.

  ***

  According to Tom Waisse, the USA must ‘increase its efforts to dilute the European Union’ by integrating subservient eastern countries into the latter, countries that no longer belong to the diabolical Soviet Empire of Evil, but are controlled by the beneficent Uncle Sam, while simultaneously ordering the EU to grant Turkey membership before incorporating the Maghreb as well. The French vision of a ‘European power’ that is perhaps allied to the US, yet still autonomous, is a scandal in the eyes of the new American notion of the world. Waisse says: ‘Eastern countries will reject Chirac’s project of turning Europe into a counterweight to American power’. In a display of calm cynicism, he then makes the following confession: ‘The White House wants [not even ‘wishes’ or ‘would like’] Europeans to share the military burden through NATO, but rejects [instead of ‘deplores’] the idea of a common diplomacy or defence that would, one day, turn cooperation into rivalry’.

  In other words, Europe is expected to participate in the American military effort and obey Washington at all times, without having a legitimate right to its own strategic policy. By contrast, the USA has every right to monitor the shaping of the EU, which is required to function similarly to NATO and, above all, grant Turkey membership. The European Union must never have a foreign policy of its own; such a policy is only acceptable if it abides by American definitions (and thus never sees the light of day). The emergence of a common European diplomacy and defence will result in sanctions should this attitude be hostile to the US (which is logical), even in the event that European countries create a simple alliance while remaining independent. The simplest rivalry cannot be tolerated by this ‘liberal’ America, an America that allows itself to rival others without giving them the opportunity to reciprocate.

  ***

  In his essay entitled American Power, European Weakness, American Robert Kagan points out that, as a result of their weakness and rejection of military efforts, the Europeans have turned towards a moralising and utopian vision of a legalistic and consensual world order inspired by the philosophy of the Enlightenment. He says that the USA has, on the other hand, espoused the realism of Thomas Hobbes. Even Atlanticist Wolfgang Schäuble, the CDU-CSU vice-president at the Bundestag, acknowledges the fact that Europe must make a military effort to equal the USA and that moralistic speeches regarding ‘international law’ could never replace power.

  The NAI is right to believe that in our current world, where menace is henceforth protean and globalised conflict leaves no region unscathed, a sovereign and unilateral power to strike (without UN involvement) cannot be contested and the lead-footed legalism of international legislation has become naïve. The problem is that the Americans are, as ever, implementing this sound philosophy with horrific clumsiness.

  During the 21st century, war will take on every conceivable shape but that of a sport with applicable rules. Just like Alain Juppé and his concept of ‘global governance’, those who believe in the birth of a global state (and there are many in France who do) are completely mistaken. We are heading straight towards a jungle where all political coups are allowed. The notions of respect for the sovereignty of the weak and the prohibition of preventive military interventions, which embodied the very foundations of international law following the Treaty of Westphalia (whose ideology was first adopted by the League of Nations, then by the UN), already failed miserably back in the 19th and 20th centuries and will certainly be impossible to implement during the 21st.

  ***

  This is precisely why the French position, which claims to be able to counter American unilateralism through the reign of law and consensual multilateralism, clearly relates to both a Kantian sort of unrealism and a vision worthy of the Third Republic. In this regard, Chirac is the faithful successor of Aristide Briand and his judicial pacifism, as analysed by Éric Zemmour. The European power advocated by Chirac’s France through mere lip service and meant to counterbalance American hegemony can never be founded upon a UN world order presided over b
y elderly wise men. Instead, due to the resumption of Islamic jihad (a jihad that knows no law but that of a fanaticism legitimised through superstition) and the NAI’s equally fanatical attitude, a European power could only see the light of day through Europe’s genuine sovereignty as part of an alliance with Russia, meaning through an approach that is free of both pacifistic utopianism and the cosmopolitan naivety that typifies the religion of Human Rights and rooted in a considerable military power surpassing America’s, which is within our reach from a technological and financial perspective. What certain American milieus are counting on is the Third-Worldisation of Europe, as this constitutes the ideal means to radically weaken their economic and strategic rival. However, it is not Washington that is at the source of Europe’s Third-Worldisation, but the indigenous forces of European decadence, as the USA contents itself with watching these events unfold. The American insistence on Turkish EU membership, which would serve as a major decomposing factor, will not be sufficient on its own should European governments be strongly opposed to such a step. In no way does the USA force Europe to Third-Worldise and Islamise itself by putting a knife to its throat. It is we who are completely responsible for what is afflicting us. The European opposition to geostrategic American imperialism, especially that of France, Belgium and Germany, would gain far more credibility if those countries’ politicians dared resist the economic and commercial war waged by America upon Europe; but they all lack such courage. One is often under the impression that this emotional sort of anti-Americanism is but a façade, relying on empty words and enragement, on inconsequential clawing in an attempt to justify and overshadow Europe’s incredibly complicit passivity in the face of America’s economic and technological grip on our own lifeblood. What seems far graver to me than the fact of breaching the Security Council’s rules or the aggression against Iraq is that 40 % of France’s private high industry is in the hands of various American pension funds. Europe’s anti-Americanists are only preoccupied with one aspect of US imperialism: its effect upon the Third World. Rarely do they worry about its weakening impact on Europe. As for me, I am hardly moved by the fact that the USA exercises a merciless hegemony upon southern countries; the only thing that matters to me is our ability to defend our continent against the American sway.

  ***

  According to certain analysts including Italian political scientist Giorgio Agamben, the main purpose behind the Iraqi campaign was to weaken and divide Europe. In Le Figaro (07/04/2002), Agamben stated:

  It is above all a war against Europe. The moment Europe became an economic power that threatened American supremacy, the USA set out to prove that Europe lacked any political existence. […] The American diplomacy has openly and systematically strived to destroy European political unity. Its endeavour has unfortunately been successful. It is one of the secret and unspoken motivations behind this war. […] In addition to demonstrating that Europe did not have any political power, the USA has also proven that the UN is not a genuine political entity, but a humanitarian one at the most.

  Indeed, in a display of sheer cynicism, America entrusts the UN (which it considers subservient) with the partial task of bringing humanitarian relief to a post-war and devastated Iraq, whose situation the Americans are primarily responsible for after 10 years of embargoes and bombardments, not to mention the impact of the latest campaign.

  ***

  Through the Iraqi war and its effort to govern Mesopotamia, for instance, one of the NAI’s primary objectives is to trigger Europe’s neutralisation and enfeeblement, as well as to seize control of local oil fields. The NAI is fixated on the notion of preventing Europe — or rather what I have termed Euro-Siberia, which includes both Europe and Russia — from emerging as a counterpower. It all began with the American intervention in Kosovo and the war in Serbia (i.e. long before the 11th of September 2001), where, as demonstrated by Alexandre Del Valle, the Americans were intent on founding Muslim states now located at the very heart of Europe. Divide and conquer: the USA thus advocates Turkish EU membership so as to disfigure our continent and set the ‘old’ Franco-German Europe (Donald Rumsfeld) against a ‘new’ vassal Europe rooted in former communist countries, while simultaneously exploiting Great Britain as a permanent source of discord and a staging post for its own imperialism.

  In this respect, there is a subtle difference between the NAI and traditional American imperialism. The latter was meant to enable the containment of both the USSR and Communism, in accordance with McNamara’s renowned doctrine. Following the collapse of the USSR, Washington was quick to realise that Europe was no longer in need of military protection and that it would soon become a fearsome strategic rival. Europeans thus lost their sympathetic and harmless protégé status and became dangerous vassals that covet emancipation. And yet Europe is so weak! It has neither military power, nor an assertive will to speak of; it suffers from a declining demography and allows both Islam and the Third World to invade it. Despite all this, it remains an ever-increasing source of worry for the ruling American political caste. The European cadaver may still regain its mobility. In the eyes of the American hegemonic ambition, Europe (and especially Euro-Siberia) is far more of a threat than Communism ever was, since it is perceived as a global adversary and a major obstacle hindering Washington’s hunger for absolute hegemony. For this reason, the NAI has proceeded to apply the principle of precaution: ‘even if today’s Europe lacks the necessary will to genuinely defy us, we must resort to every possible means to prevent it from becoming a real power’.

  B. A Europe Perceived as a Menace

  What is it that actually motivates the NAI? Emanuel Todd is the author of After the Empire, a book in which he writes that ‘the USA is attempting to mask its own waning by directing its military activism against insignificant states’. He proposes the following interesting scenario: the Iraqi oil reserves were just the secondary purpose behind the attack against Iraq. The true aim was to ‘send the whole world a message stating that the Americans were still the masters and that others had better behave themselves’. According to the author, Saddam Hussein (a toothless tiger by any means) was part of a simulated piece of theatrical antagonism, the true adversary being none other than Europe itself, a continent that the Americans wanted to intimidate and drive out of the region. The Iraqi campaign thus targeted a certain ‘European power’. Sensing that, after the fall of the Soviet Union and Communism, the world no longer required US protection and having taken heed of their own global economic decline, the American leaders in Washington are artificialising and willingly overestimating the threat posed by the ‘Axis of Evil’, a fabricated earthly Satan. The USA thus manifests ‘a fundamental desire to remain at the very centre of the world’ by showing us that ‘its role remains indispensable, when, in actual fact, the old world is ever less in need of its involvement’. Todd clarifies that:

  … in order to remain at the centre of the world, the USA has developed a theatrical sort of micro-militarism and proceeded to attack military midgets so as to create an illusory impression of its own power.

  ***

  In an article entitled America’s Divided View of European Unity, Gerard Baker, a political editorialist at London’s Financial Times, explains that if, following Eisenhower’s presidency, various US business and political milieus looked upon European unification very favourably, things are far less evident today. He advocates the notion that current American leaders view with great suspicion the prospect of a united Europe acting as a counterweight to US influence:

  A Europe united under traditional Franco-German leadership would have constituted a catastrophe for America’s political and military ambitions.

  In Baker’s view, the future establishment of such a European entity is frowned upon because it anticipates, however timidly, an independent security policy. The USA will simply not tolerate any European contestations against its own objectives. The only thing that it could condone is a discussion regarding the means. In the eyes of th
e current US administration, a genuinely independent European Union no longer acting in tandem with NATO would embody a true casus belli.

  ***

  For Christopher Gérard, the fact that Washington is so intent on accomplishing Muslim Turkey’s EU membership is reminiscent of the ancient thalassocratic strategy once embraced by Great Britain and nowadays by the US in an effort to sabotage the continental Union embodied by Europe. He writes:

  America’s current hegemony allows Washington, which has taken over from the City, to pursue with an equal dose of coherence and patience an ancient strategy towards the weakening of Europe, going to any possible lengths to separate the latter from Russia. […] Our geopolitical enemy has every interest in neutralising its potential rival by playing the Lebanisation card. This process began with the Iron Curtain and endured during the American expeditions in the Balkans, spreading from Bosnia to the Kosovo region. Once Europe has been paralysed, Washington will be able to turn its attention towards its other rivals, namely Moscow, Delhi and Beijing, and shatter the Eurasian axis. […] Are we to accept the fact that Rome will thus no longer be in Rome and that the banner of Muhammad will flutter above its toppled temples? (La Libre Belgique, 13/12/2003.)