Truth in Media Global Watch Bulletins
logolittle.jpg (9114 bytes)

TiM GW Bulletin 98/7-2

July 3, 1998

A "Feudal" Europe to Emerge as Antithesis to EU, euro, Y2K, Islam?

Current U.S. Euro Policy Destroying Own Creations

Will Cyprus Be Next Flash Point after Kosovo?


The way the French see U.S.-Albright foreign policy: albright.jpg (10260 bytes)

PHOENIX - "What is the U.S. government's most important strategic ally in Europe?", this writer asked several TV or press interviewers in a role reversal during the interviews he gave while traveling in Europe last month. The Serbian media hosts or reporters would typically reply with Germany or Britain. "Turkey!", was TiM's answer to our own question. Raised eyebrows, shock, or other visible signs of disbelief on the part of the hosts, were the invariable reactions.

But after hearing our explanation about Turkey's pivotal geopolitical role - bringing NATO to the soft southern underbelly of Russia; and helping project Islam into Europe along the Islamic "Green Interstate," an ethnic highway stretching form Bihac in western Bosnia, to Karachi in Pakistan, and acting as a U.S.-built bridge between Islam and Israel - the penny seemed to drop.russia-2.jpg (83846 bytes)

"But what about America's western European allies?" some hosts/reporters would ask.

"The term 'America's western European allies' is one of the greatest oxymorons I've ever heard. For, the U.S. European policy is virtually destroying these so-called 'allies,' while benefiting the most the U.S.-based multinational corporations. What's even more fascinating is that the U.S. has managed to dupe the western European governments into committing a geopolitical hara-kiri, while acting against their nations' interests. Which only goes to show us that 'demo farce' is as alive and well in Europe, as in America. None of these 'democratically elected' governments are really acting on behalf of the people which 'elected' them."

After a short pause to allow the host and the audience to recover from the initial shock, and absorb this evidently startling information, this writer would typically add:

"If it makes you feel any better, calling the Clinton administration and our congressional leaders the 'U.S. government' is also an oxymoron. They are as un-American as the European Union leaders are un-German, un-British or un-Italian. Just look at the collusion between the Republican leaders and the Clinton administration, for example, when it comes to most global trade issues. All of them, just as the European governments, primarily work for the benefit of Big Business, not that of the Main Street taxpayers who sent them to Washington, or Brussels, or wherever. And whose money they are using to bail out Wall Street bankers from time to time."

"You said something earlier about the U.S. European policy virtually destroying Europe. Would you elaborate on that? How is that being done?" some interviewers asked.

"Sure. It's a four-pronged thrust. The first weapon of choice is the 'EU;' the second is the 'euro;' the third is the 'Y2K,' though the U.S. cannot claim credit for that; the fourth, as I've already pointed out, is Turkey." Whereupon the interviews typically continued with a more detailed discussion of each of the four elements.

The European integration, first economic, then political, is clearly being pushed by the New World Order's elite for the benefit of the MULTINATIONAL, not national or regional companies. Just look at the Euro-assault launched by the big Wall Street bankers, and the retreat into which they are forcing their European competitors. Since 1992, the year the NWO elite forced Europe to open its markets to foreign competition, Wall Street banks have consistently dominated Europe's mergers and acquisitions. In 1996, for example, the U.S. banks accounted for two-thirds of all M&A deals, with Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and Merrill Lynch, leading the pack, according to a July 13, 1997 New York Times report.

What responsible national government would allow foreigners to take over its financial services sector if it were truly taking care of its nation's interests? What if the roles were reversed, and the European or the Japanese bankers were to attempt to dominate the U.S. financial markets? And even though the foreigners never came even close to doing it, remember how quickly "Japan bashers" and protectionists emerged in that supposed "capital of free trade" (Washington, DC) in the 1980s, when it seemed that Japan's economy could do no wrong? And how quickly the "voluntary" import quotas were slapped on the Japanese auto-makers?

Furthermore, notwithstanding the 1991 Maastricht Treaty, and the globalist elite's ramming the "EU" down the European voters' throats, the Old Continent's electorate have clearly rejected the idea of pan-Europeanism, even as they voted for a pan-European government. It was a supreme irony that most representatives elected to the European Parliament in June 1994, for example, came from various European NATIONALIST parties. And even in Germany, where the Helmut Kohl government has acted as a virtual State Department proxy on almost any issue, and, as such, became the bulwark of the European integration, there has been a voter backlash, with nationalist opposition gaining political ground in recent years.

Another tangible element of the "EU" being used as a tool of European destruction is the tremendous bureaucracy which it entails. Not only does the "EU" put a significant additional tax burden on the European taxpayers - over and above the costs of their national governments, but it also saps the European countries creative and intellectual capital. Instead of using such human talent to compete with U.S. or Japanese based competitors, Europe's best and the brightest brains are being deployed on unproductive and wasteful administrative matters. In the end, the "EU" might as well stand for "Europe Undone."

Exactly the same argument can be made about NWO's second tool of Euro-destruction - the conversion of national currencies to "euro." There is no doubt that the "euro" certainly represents a great benefit to the hordes of the U.S. and European consulting, computer services, legal and accounting firms engaged in the conversion projects. Kind of as the Harvard-inspired Jeffrey Sachs-Gaidar-Chubais "reforms" in Russia in 1992-1994 represented an enormous enrichment opportunity for the few at the expense of many (see "Russia's 'Privatization:' Financial Crime of the Century?" - TiM GW Bulletin 98/3-8, 3/24/98).

The "euro" also unquestionably means added costs of doing business for all European companies - big or small. And all this busy work will naturally add to the already high tax burdens of the European taxpayers. But while the "euro" costs are predictable and quantifiable, it is unclear what, if any, benefits will accrue - either to the individual taxpayers, or to the European companies, especially the small businesses which are the backbone of most national economies.

The third element of the Euro-destruction is the "Y2K" problem, the so-called Millennium Bug. The "Y2K," of course, afflicts all of the industrialized world, not only Europe. But both Europe and Japan, two major competitors of the U.S.-based multinationals, are at least nine to 12 months behind the U.S. in addressing this issue, according to a recent CIA study.

wpe27.jpg (62093 bytes)












Now, nine to 12 months may not sound like much in some industries where changes are measured in years or even decades. But this is quite a setback for Europe in the high-tech world of ever shortening product cycles.

Rick Thoman, for example, a former IBM executive who is now the CEO of Xerox, told this writer in a 1995 conversation that in the PC business, "speed to market is absolutely critical." He attributed a relative weight of 60% of this single element's impact on a product's success and profitability. "As much as 50% of the gross profit can be lost if a product is only three months late," Thoman said. Which is not surprising considering that the PC product cycles have become 12-15 months. And given that the Internet has now even further shrunk the "Web year" from a normal 12-month period to about 90 days.

Now take all three Euro-destruction elements together - the build-up of the "EU" bureaucracy, the "euro" and the "Y2K" - and consider that they are all happening SIMULTANEOUSLY, and you may begin to realize that their aggregate negative impact is likely to be several times greater than the sum of the parts.

As to the fourth prong of the NWO's anti-European policy, we've already explained earlier why Turkey is so important to the U.S. globalist elite, and why the Clinton administration has been pushing so hard for this country's admission to the EU. Enter the dual assignment of Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. ambassador-designate to the United Nations, who has been acting recently both as the Balkans and the Cyprus mediator, while ostensibly working for a Wall Street firm. This diplomat, who had earned the epithet of a "Balkan bully" by badgering the Serbs into major concessions to the Bosnian Muslim and Croats at Dayton in November 1995, has been trying to do the same to the Greeks in their dispute with Turkey over Cyprus.

"Holbrooke may very well have stirred up Greek nationalism to a boiling point," wrote Ted Karakostas, a Massachusetts-based Greek-American, in his recent letter to the TiM editor. Indeed, Holbrooke was booed in Athens on June 26, even as he received an honorary law degree from an American-funded university in the Greek capital.

The latest Greco-Turkish dispute started in January 1996, when Turkey made a claim on an islet called Imia. During the standoff between Athens and Ankara, the Greeks placed their flag on the islet affirming this was a part of Greece. The western media seemed baffled that two NATO "allies" would risk war over a small islet inhabited by six goats, Mr. Karakostas noted. "But the issue was much more serious than that," he said. "It was about territorial expansion on the part of Turkey."

Holbrooke placed enormous pressure on the Greek prime minister, Costas Simitis, asking him to order the removal of the Greek flag from Imia. Simitis eventually caved in. The Turkish government gloated, while in Athens the prime minister suffered the wrath even from his own ruling Socialist Party, not to mention from the Greek media, and virtually all opposition parties. Holbrooke's appeasement of Turkey led to further Turkish claims on several other Greek islets (with Greek inhabitants on them). "His role in the Imia affair destroyed his credibility in Greece," Mr. Karakostas concludes.

But it has done much more harm than that. When Holbrooke took sides in a conflict by supporting Turkey against Greece, as he had done earlier by backing the Bosnian Muslims and Croats against the Serbs, and is now doing it again by siding with Kosovo Albanians against the Serbs, this U.S. diplomat wasn't representing Holbrooke; he was executing the U.S. government's policy. Which means, that the Clinton administration, not just Holbrooke, has now lost credibility in Athens and the ability to act an honest broker in any future disputes.

Worse than that, just as the Clinton foreign policy team compromised our national interests when they tacitly acquiesced to the Iran-Croatia-Bosnia arms shipments in 1994 (see "Do As I Say, Not As I Do," and/or "Ayatollah Klintonmeini," TiM Bulletin 96-04, Apr/96), Holbrooke's and Richard Gelbard's recent overtures to the Iranian-backed and supplied Kosovo Liberation Army are helping Iran project its influence deeper into Europe.

"Is this a mere coincidence, or is there another round of tacit cooperation between Washington and Tehran?", asked the Defense & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy journal in its Apr-May 1998 issue. "The recent discovery of the Sarajevo (Muslim government)-supported (assassination) plots against the Pope, and (its) sponsorship of Islamic terrorism in the heart of Western Europe (Milan, Italy), has led several European countries to rethink their Bosnian policies."

"Hence, why must the West repeat its (Bosnia) mistakes in Kosovo?" asked this influential Virginia-based foreign policy and intelligence affairs journal.

Furthermore, coupled with the U.S. government's simultaneous push for NATO's eastward expansion, the U.S. European policy has annoyed Russia, and allowed this nuclear power to project again its influence into the Mediterranean, increasing the risk of a wider confrontation.

"No sooner was the ink dry on his column," this writer said in my May 17 Washington Times column, 'Rekindling NATO to Fuel Cold War II,' "when Russia confirmed that it would deliver this summer $200 million-worth of S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Cyprus, the U.S. objections to it notwithstanding. The missiles have sufficient range to strike at the aircraft over Turkey, not just around Cyprus."

"So as the U.S. is rattling its sabers in the northeast, Russia is quietly driving a wedge between the two NATO members in the southeast of Europe. A new war between Greece and Turkey, which some pundits think is inevitable in the next few years, may be the start of NATO's unraveling, as its members line up between either Turkey or Greece (the U.S. behind Turkey; most Europeans behind Greece). In other words, the current U.S. European policy is self-destructive, and may end up being suicidal."

A senior Russian diplomat confirmed to the TiM editor during his last month's European trip that the Cyprus missiles sale and installation will proceed this August notwithstanding the State Department's loud objections to it.

And so, what goes around; comes around. What we have in the making here is a new geopolitical "axis" consisting of Russia, Greece, Syria, Iraq, and maybe even Iran. And possibly most of the Christian Europe. On the opposite side, we see the U.S., Turkey, Israel and maybe also Iran.

Which thrusts Iran, the pariah state which has been exporting terrorism around the world in its fight against the Great Satan - America, and its local enemy - Israel, into a role of a geopolitical kingmaker, especially considering its ties with China regarding the missile technology. Is that why Madeleine Albright has been kow-towing to Iranian ayatollahs recently, notwithstanding her Jewishness, while her boss (Clinton) has been wagging his tail to the Chinese communists? (see "Caspian Sea Oil: The Matchmaker," TiM GW Bulletin 98/1-7, 1/12/98)

However this shakes out, the bottom line of the NWO globalists' incessant meddling in the European affairs is bound to be a split within, followed by an eventual death, of NATO. Which by itself would not be a bad outcome for either the American or European taxpayers, if that's all that gets killed. But a possibility of another Greco-Turkish conflict igniting a "World War I"-style confrontation between the great powers, along the above geopolitical lines, and of engulfing all of Europe in it, sends shivers down one's spine.

The end result may be that such a conflict may lead to loss of millions of lives again, and forever doom the U.S. influence on the Old Continent, just as the World War I did it for the Austro-Hungarian empire.

"So what kind of Europe do you see emerging from all this?" one TV interviewer asked.

"A feudal one. Not in terms of the tools of production, of course. 'Feudal' - in a sense that nation-states will break up into smaller, more manageable regional statelets, mostly along the ethnic lines. If the NWO 'thesis' is a centrally integrated Europe, and it is; then the 'antithesis' resulting from a popular backlash against this top-down idea will be a disintegration of the EU."

russbear.gif (13292 bytes) If this prediction comes to pass, it may be a realization of an old European idea - so "out there" - that even its author called it "Eurotopia" (see "Taming the Russian Bear: Is 'Partnership for Peace' a Modern Day Version of the 'Drang Nach Osten' Strategy?" - TiM GW Bulletin 95-06).

Yet, "if the above analysis proves accurate," we wrote over three years ago, "it would probably spell the end of the world as we know it. But not the end of the world. For, did you ever observe what happens after a fire or an avalanche had wreaked havoc in a forest? What follows is - life! And it is a life richer and fuller than the one which the cataclysm had destroyed."

And more peaceful, as far as an NWO-free Europe is concerned. Just as its Renaissance period was.

P.S. The statements quoted cited in the above article are not necessarily transcripts of any single interview. Rather, they are this writer's recollection of conversations which took place during several different media interviews. As such, this report represents a "composite interview" which does present an accurate overall picture of the topics discussed.


The following is an excerpt from our April 1995 article, "Taming the Russian Bear: Is 'Partnership for Peace' a Modern Day Version of the 'Drang Nach Osten' Strategy?" (see TiM GW Bulletin 95-06):

Taming the Russian Bear

PHOENIX, Apr. 16 - Napoleon tried it. It didn’t work. Bismarck eventually also gave up on the idea. The German Kaiser and the Hapsburg emperor, as well as later Adolf Hitler, provoked two world wars in this century pursuing the "Drang Nach Osten" ("Eastward Push") goal. Having caused the suffering by millions of people, including their own, they also failed.

russia.gif (6207 bytes) Yet, kicking Russia out of Europe is still the objective of the current U.S. developed, and Washington-Berlin executed strategy, thinly veiled under the "Partnership for Peace" slogan. It’s just that the modern version of the "Drang Nach Osten" power play isn’t a frontal assault - a mistake most of Russia’s adversaries had made in the past. It’s more akin to an "end around play," to borrow a football jargon. The "world’s only superpower" and its junior partner are using dollars and marks respectively, instead of bullets and bombs, to achieve the same goal - projecting their power deep into the soft underbelly of the former Russian empire. Already, no less than 18 former Russian dominions, have turned into American/ German minions.

They have succumbed to the temptation of easy access to American or German aid and/or loans. In other words, they have been bought. The local politicians’ cover story for domestic consumption is that it was all done in pursuit of democracy and higher material living standards.

The preceding leaves the Serbs as the only non-vassal nation left in this part of the world. Their fierce determination to maintain their own sovereignty at all cost has infuriated the New World masters. Which is why the Serbs have been demonized beyond belief in the West, especially in the U.S. and Germany. And why this small nation of 10 million has been hit with the toughest sanctions in history. [...]

United States of Europe?

"So is there a way out of our current foreign policy quagmire in Europe? Is there also a solution to increased strife world over? Yes, there is, if you ask Prof. A.H. Heineken, of the Amsterdam-based 'Stichting voor de Historische Wetenshap' (Historical Research Institute). Dusting off some old political ideas, and then polishing them up to fit the present situation, Prof. Heineken proposed a 'United States of Europe.'

wpe13.jpg (29786 bytes)According to his plan, Europe’s 350 million inhabitants would live in 75 independent states, each with a population of about five to 10 million.

Why the five-to-10 million limit?

'Because where the population exceeds 10 million, there is a manifest case for decentralization,' concluded the British Prof. C. Northcote Parkinson, in a 1970 report. In other words, it’s a matter of efficiency of government. 'A state of 30 to 50 million is hopelessly inefficient,' Prof. Heineken concurred.

But both Heineken and Parkinson drew upon the ideas of an Austrian sociologist. Leopold Kohr expressed similar thoughts in his book, 'The Breakdown of Nations,' published in 1957. That’s right - 1957, not 1975! He wrote that, 'it is always bigness, and only bigness, which is the problem of existence - social, as well as physical.'

Kohr concluded that the only solution must lie in cutting down of the substances and organisms which have outgrown their natural limits.

Without realizing the foregoing, this writer also argued in a 1991 report that bigness in business has become a liability rather than an advantage. And he compared a successful modern services business enterprise to an amoeba - which splits up before becoming too big (and, therefore, inefficient).

So, why has Europe been so slow to adopt a good thing? One might speculate that it’s because Europeans are wedded to traditions, and are slow to change. After all, the region has not earned its nick-name, the 'Old Continent' for nothing, has it?

But that would be a rather shallow explanation. Prof. Heineken points out that the German or Italian states, for example, never existed before the second half of the 19th century. In other words, they are younger than even the U.S.! Furthermore, at the time of the French revolution (1789), the majority of the population did not even speak French, and was 'not able to sing the ‘Marseillaise,’ the newly-minted national anthem,' argues Prof. Heineken. It was only at the end of the 19th century that the French peasants became 'Frenchmen.'

In other words, the whole notion of statehood and nationality is an industrial era invention. It is not natural! And it cannot last forever in its present form.

Yet, the main reason that the Heineken proposal won’t work is because it runs against another law of nature - the survival of the fittest, which Charles Darwin so eloquently explained - also in the last century.  [...]

So, Heineken’s ideas are not perfect. To his credit, even the author called them 'a Eurotopia?' (i.e., a European utopia... But there is no question that such a Europe, with its borders modified in blood or otherwise to correct some of the above anomalies would be a safer place than is the current 'Old Continent.' 'It may be wiser to accept these developments (toward decentralization and independence) than to work against them,' suggested Prof. Heineken.

From 'Eurotopia' to Reality

So what would it take to make it a reality? In three words, it would be a 'World War III.' Just as the United Nations idea emerged from the ruins of the World War II, it would take an event of cataclysmic proportion, such as another world war, to force the formerly dominant species to cede some power to the weaker ones. And, as Darwin would have probably agreed, they would do it out of fear, not as a charity gesture.

If the above analysis proves accurate, it would probably spell the end of the world as we know it. But not the end of the world. For, did you ever observe what happens after a fire or an avalanche had wreaked havoc in a forest? What follows is - life! And it is a life richer and fuller than the one which the cataclysm had destroyed."

logolittle.jpg (9114 bytes)

Also, check out... "The Coming EU-US Clash?", "Northern Ireland: A War of the Hooligans", "U.S. European Policy Destroying Own Creations", "Austrian Men Do Dishes; Shakespeare Condemned in Arizona", "US Senate Picks Up the NATO Hot Potato", "Russia Is Still the Bogey No. 1"

Or Djurdjevic's CHRONICLES and WASHINGTON TIMES columns: "A Bear in Sheep's Clothing", and "Rekindling NATO to Fuel Cold War..."