To Washington’s great displeasure, it did not take long for Russia, a country that is attempting to restore its military power, to react:
1) In the spring of 2003, its naval air forces conducted various military manoeuvres simulating nuclear strikes against both American and British forces;
2) Ivanov, the Russian Defence minister, gave a detailed presentation of Russia’s new military doctrine, a doctrine that extends the cases where nuclear weapons are to be employed. Never in the entire Cold War did the Soviets behave in this manner.
This example demonstrates that the new American policy has become uncontrollable due to its excessiveness and thoughtlessness. It is now capable of triggering an atomic war and actually reduces our planet’s security compared to the former ‘balance of terror’ between the East and the West. It seems that, in every conceivable domain, American leaders have taken it upon themselves to destabilise the world, which also applies to the economic level. The ‘New World Order’ sought by Bush Senior has now been transformed into global chaos by Bush Junior. Bravo.
***
The Euro-American antagonisms that pervade the Defence sphere are becoming increasingly self-evident. Will a European awakening result in efforts and decisions, rather than empty Americanophobic ideological declarations that are never followed by actions?
In the summer of 2003, the first ever ‘Summer University of Defence’ event was held in Arcachon. It was an excellent initiative which enabled all French industrials specialising in this sector to gather. The press barely covered the event, as this highly crucial subject does not, unfortunately, hold much interest from the public’s perspective.
What follows is a summary of the topics that were covered in the debates. The latter were marked by a truly salutary realisation of the threats that the USA burdens the European Defence with and that must urgently be attended to, as well as by the overall rejection of any and all Atlanticism of the British kind. First of all, the debates exploded the myth surrounding the existence of a ‘European fortress’. On the other hand, it is an undeniable fact that an American one does indeed exist. The USA has had several European countries grant it a total of 5 billion dollars to finance its Joint Strike Fighter combat plane, whose manufacture is meant to sink all rival European projects, especially the French and British-Swedish ones. However, no one can be blamed for this but the Europeans themselves, since they willingly agreed to collaborate with the Americans on making this fool’s bargain.
The US refuses to import European materials, while simultaneously compelling Europe to purchase American ones without allowing Europeans to technologically control the materials in question, thus plunging our continent into unambiguous techno-military dependency. Militarily speaking, the Americans have a triple interest and a threefold objective with regard to Europe:
1) To sabotage our continent’s ability to produce high-tech military material, in an effort to establish an American monopoly in this domain;
2) T0 take advantage of European brain-power and funds without, however, allowing any transfers of American technology;
3) To incite European countries to send their own ground troops (our soldiers are mere cannon fodder for the Americans) and increase the size of their infantry forces in matters of foreign intervention (all under American commandment, of course) so as minimise the number of casualties among the ‘boys’. This is especially true now, within the framework of all current and future US military adventures. In other words, America awards itself all noble tasks (the use of high-end technology and military commandment), while Europe is left with all the menial work. These are the terms that the Poles and Spaniards, with their limited means and constant eagerness to create an impression of international importance, agreed to during the Iraqi campaign.
Fortunately, the participants in the Acarchon debates were mostly very sceptical about any possible techno-military cooperation with the USA, since the American partner is not perceived as being reliable. As far as the establishment of a European armament agency is concerned, an agency that is supposed to harmonise our continent’s military industries and all intra-European material purchases, we must be careful not to allow it ‘to turn into an American Trojan horse on our own soil’. Furthermore, none of the participants truly believed that the American market could, in time, open itself up to European Defence companies, unless the latter were first bought off by their American counterparts, which is already happening to the unfortunate British, America’s consenting and mistreated vassals. For profoundly geostrategic and economic reasons, Euro-American rivalry is well-anchored and will remain so for a long time to come; which is not so much the fault of the Europeans, who, sadly, do lack pugnacity, but is rather due to America’s devouring ambitions and Washington’s duplicity.
In yet another piece of good news, the speakers unanimously adopted a measure advocated by a certain industrialist — that of applying the law of reciprocity to our relations with the USA:
What we need is a reprisal policy in response to American protectionism. We must protect our European markets in the same fashion that American ones are, no more, no less.
He also proposed subjecting all EU states to the obligation of implementing a European purchase preference in the armament field.
Such measures will indeed have to be extended to include all non-military sectors as well. Unfortunately, the policy applied by Brussels goes in any other direction but that, since, unlike the Americans, who preach free exchange for others without practicing it themselves, it has chosen to shatter the common customs barriers rather than to abide by the doctrine of self-centred economy (with liberalism applied within a large, protected space). Ultimately, however, the notion of European preference is indeed making headway in the techno-military field…
There is a further idea that was embraced unanimously: unlike what prejudicial expectations would have us believe, Europe has not, technologically speaking, been lagging behind the USA:
European research facilities are of an excellent quality, but in the absence of political will, our expenditure towards research and development is, compared to the US, outclassed by a ratio of 1 to 5, perhaps even a 1-to-10 ratio in certain segments. This attitude will eventually have fatal results, within as little as 5 to 15 years.
Indeed, American companies do enjoy massive research funding, and, unlike what we are witnessing in Europe, the government does not sacrifice its military budget, knowing all too well that the latter not only contributes to power growth, but also has an enormous technological impact on all cutting-edge civil industries. If Europe does not make an effort towards readjusting its research expenditures soon, especially in the military domain, it will rob itself of its own strategic independence.
A good example of this is epitomised by one of Europe’s rare strong-willed and courageous decisions: the funding of the Galileo satellite-positioning programme, rivalling the American GPS system that currently holds global monopoly. Washington has obviously done everything within its power to sink Galileo, or, at least, to Americanise it through purchase. Its endeavour has, thus far, only led to failure, particularly thanks to French obstinacy. Let us hope that Europe will manage to stand firm in this regard, for
… the Americans are currently developing a modernised version of their satellite-driven guiding device in order to prevent some people from using it. How would Europeans be able to guide their own smart bombs one day if Washington decided against it?
Taking into account our world’s growing dependence upon satellite guiding and positioning, America might additionally be able to paralyse a number of European military and public sectors.
As is apparent, an awakening has truly been taking place among our French industrialists, engineers and researchers. This, however, does not suffice. We must acquire the necessary funds and make an effort to finance our endeavours, especially when considering the fact that our European researchers and engineers, who are oftentimes superior to American ones, are being increasi
ngly enticed by the seductive conditions and enormous budgets available to them overseas. All that is necessary is for Europeans to simply invert their financial priorities (a plan that requires the successful implementation of an immense mental revolution and a massive moral liberation), which is a burning issue that the above-mentioned Summer University obviously failed to tackle. There are some troubling questions to be asked here: is it preferable to inject finances into research and development within the field of high-technology, or to spend an entire fortune on social assistantship, the fictional employment of ‘young people’, the annulment of debts and the utterly wasteful and unnecessary direct aid granted to various Third World potentates, etc.? Europe’s future will depend on what the urgent answer turns out to be. Our continent shall either be reduced to an impoverished economic zone that submits to the American will, or rise to become a genuine world power.
***
The ideologists behind Atlanticism lack any and all common sense and detest the mere idea of a ‘European power’.
Despite the seemingly coherent approach embraced by these intellectuals, their reasoning leads to ever-increasing sophism and analytical mistakes; this is simply due to the fact that their minds are ruled by an underlying passion and moral dogma, as is the case with those hysterical anti-Americans.
Let us consider the example of André Glucksmann, who authored the book entitled The West Against the West (Plon editions). He is right when remarking that the Occident is growing ever more divided and is now split into two halves: Europe (or at least a part of it) against America and its accomplices. He has, in fact, adopted the observation made by William Pfaff in his International Herald Tribune chronicles. Europeans are said to be failing in their assessment of the ‘war on terror’ and succumbing to a ‘secret longing for inaction’. Owing to their own idealism and fearfulness, they are considered to be sinking into pacifism, just like pre-Hitlerian democracies once did. What we are thought to be dealing with is an alleged conflict between ‘nihilism and civilisation’, as Europeans refuse to concede the fact that terrorism is striving to destroy the Occident. By contrast, Americans are considered to be fully aware of this, which supposedly makes their warmongering understandable.
This tragedy is here to stay. War is upon us and has never left our horizons. […] To achieve peace: such is the watchword of all civic and intellectual cowardliness.
In short, the basic expectation is for Europe to ally itself to the Bush doctrine.
Displaying a greater philosophical inclination, Glucksmann is making an attempt at polemology. And yet, his binary analysis is utterly flawed. Although he justly castigates pacifism, he basically fails to comprehend that rejecting American warmongering is not necessarily synonymous with pacifism or weakness. Not everyone who criticises the Bush doctrine is necessarily a pro-Palestinian Arabophile or a pacifistic Trotskyite. Completely blinded by his ‘Euro-American solidarity’, Glucksmann cannot see that the warmongering that pervades US neo-imperialism is just as nihilistic and pernicious as terroristic Islamism, the very same Islamism that it claims to struggle against while, in fact, reinforcing it. He cannot fathom the fact that those naïve neoconservatives, blinded by their oil greed and what they believe to be a profitable military occupation (in both Iraq and Afghanistan), have actually fallen straight into a trap set by the Islamists, as the American Gulliver was lured into a Middle-Eastern dead-end using a baiting tactic whose aim was to expand jihadist pretexts and fighting fronts.
Glucksmann has not grasped this age-old ploy, one that is already encountered in the Koran itself and consists in provoking the adversary, thus forcing him to react and come across as the actual aggressor in order to legitimise one’s own offensive. He cannot admit that Bush is the useful idiot serving the interests of all mujahideen and that his warmongering provides all Western Islamophiles with further arguments in support of the notion that ‘it is the West that is attacking and invading Islam’, which, in turn, allows Islam‘s secret mass invasion to pass unnoticed. The Bush doctrine has thus given the Islamic infiltration into our lands a huge helping hand.
Displaying an enormous flaw that has long typified Parisian intellectuals, Glucksmann’s reasoning is not based on facts as much as on ideas, abstract concepts and feelings. He ‘philosophises’, a verb that has now lost most of its meaning. In his lyricism on ‘civilisation’, not for an instant does he mention the ruthless economic, cultural and technological war that the USA has been waging against Europe, including its own European vassals.
What must also be pointed out at this stage is that since 1991, French intellectuals have only offered us mediocre political debates, regardless of whether they are pro- or anti-American. In both the US and Great Britain, the confrontation between the opponents and the supporters of neo-imperialism has been far more prolific. This is because it has not been soiled by ideological prejudice, which remains ever so similar to theological prejudgement.
***
Speaking of ideological prejudice, this is precisely what we encounter in Stephen Launay’s work entitled A War Within a War — An Essay on Western Disputes. His conception is founded upon the very same premise as Glucksmann’s, namely the Euro-American divide. Americans espouse the principle of ‘justified warfare’, while Europeans succumb to the utopianism of ‘perpetual peace’. These ideas mirror Kagan’s and are partially correct. However, being a profound intellectual with a greater fascination for vague philosophical explanations than for pragmatic and palpable reasons, the author fails to understand that European pacifism is rooted in economic causes, namely the refusal to invest into a genuine military-industrial complex. Just like Glucksmann, Launay does not advocate the founding of a ‘European power’. One can only agree with him regarding his refusal to acknowledge the existence of an Evil USA, yet one still feels that he drives the reader in the opposite direction, one that is equally stupid: that of viewing America as the embodiment of Good.
Launay approves of ‘American idealism’, which he believes to be fighting for human rights even on a militaristic level, distancing itself from ‘the hypocritical invocation of international legality’, a legality which, similarly to pacifism, only leads to the consolidation of tyrannical sovereignty. And this where his thoughts and analysis drift away from specific facts and sink deep into pure morals, as is always the case with those ‘philosophers’ who choose to interfere in politics or geopolitics and prefer ethical ‘pondering’ to accurate and comprehensible answers.
Let us now return, in this regard, to Glucksmann’s above-mentioned book and the topic of hyper-moralistic temptation, which diverts political analysis away from its intended purpose. Indeed, our ‘philosopher’ reproaches everyone who opposes the Bush doctrine for turning towards Russia, which is more or less demonised for being an autocratic power that contrasts with virtuous America. This is the very same America described by Tocqueville, whom the French credit with just about any conceivable words, just as they do with Nietzsche. Whatever the case, a Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis is thus perceived as being reprehensible. The author criticises the ‘tenacious Russian preference’ embraced by a chauvinistic and frustrated France, which ‘succumbs to a Tsar-like image in an effort to resist the cowboy figure’. Next in line, we have the following utterly ridiculous formula:
Down with the cowboy and his adventurism! [pro-Putin anti-Americanists are heard to cry] Long live the despot and his war in the Caucasus! Atlanticism is done for, the future shall be Eurasian.
This anti-Russian abhorrence and love for America is typical of such people, who, similarly to Glucksmann himself, were all Stalinists or Maoists in their days of youth, including Bernard-Henri Lévy.
In other words, it is for moral reasons (i.e. to save our very souls) that we are expected to turn to America (the embodiment of Good) and reject any and every odious power alliance with the Russian autocracy, in utter contempt of our own interests. Why? Because Putin, who has been the scourge of all Atlanticists since he began to ‘de-American
ise’ Russia’s economy and acknowledged his intention to guide his country towards regaining its independence, has been putting some order into the ranks of those oligarchic mobsters with friendly ties to American neoconservatives, the very same oligarchs that Richard Perle is always so eager to defend.
In his book, Glucksmann lowers his mask, revealing that he is not pro-European. What he is, above all else, is pro-American. He is basically the mirror reflection of hysterical anti-Americans. It is a Euro-Russian alliance that he fears most. No more realpolitik for these people. Philippe Tesson, Guy Sorman, Alain Madelin and Jean-François Revel are all on the same wavelength. This attitude of voluntary servitude completely disregards all objective considerations relating to the harmfulness of a Euro-American alliance, the increasing American attempts to sabotage our European economy, the lack of American respect for signed treaties, the ancient geostrategic reality of a Euro-American rivalry in which the US is always the aggressor, the threat of an erratic American foreign policy that is already playing the Islamic card against both Russia and Europe, and, in short, all past and current affairs.
The Atlanticists are trapped in a dream, just like those Islamophilic and hysterical anti-Americanists. They have proceeded to replace the observation of facts and the perception of their own European interests with dogma and prejudice, as a result of their reveries regarding an America that they are not even familiar with and which they never subject to analysis, idealising it in the same fashion that others demonise it. Seldom do they speak English, furthermore, and are only able to understand translated texts, meaning almost nothing at all. For some of them, the American dream has replaced Marxist reveries.
And yet, no one is asking them to hate America, a hatred which reflects an equally foolish mental state and has been taken to absurd levels by the extremists belonging to today’s’ ‘New’ Right, who are ever in league with the Ayatollahs. All that we ask of them is that they respond in a European manner, without showing any love towards an America which still scorns them, just as all powers despise collaborators. The Atlanticists are simply being cuckolded by their American mistress.
A Global Coup Page 28
