The role of the CIA in the Construction of the European Union
In the aftermath of the Brexit, pro-Europeans and Eurosceptics alike are questioning the future of the European Union. Will Britain’s departure from the EU trigger a domino effect? If so, the Euro, which is supposed to be a single currency, would automatically disappear.
The international financial oligarchy seems to be in a panic. George Soros declared, or threatened rather, that Britain would be ruined if it left the EU. Let’s not forget that this Jewish American speculator became extremely rich by speculating against the pound in 1992. Indeed, the FTSE fell as soon as the results of the referendum were announced. Did he have plan B ready in case the EU collapsed?
Will the Brexit allow Europeans to free themselves from the international financial oligarchy which controls the Continent via the Brussels politburo?
On the 19th September 2000, the Daily Telegraph journalist, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, wrote an article based on information from a declassified American government document revealing that it was the CIA which set up and directed the European federalist movement during the 50s and 60s:
…America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA…. Washington’s main tool for shaping the European agenda was the American Committee for a United Europe, created in 1948. The chairman was Donovan, ostensibly a private lawyer by then.
The vice-chairman was Allen Dulles, the CIA director in the Fifties. The board included Walter Bedell Smith, the CIA’s first director, and a roster of ex-OSS figures and officials who moved in and out of the CIA. The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the movement’s funds.
The European Youth Campaign, an arm of the European Movement, was wholly funded and controlled by Washington. The Belgian director, Baron Boel, received monthly payments into a special account. When the head of the European Movement, Polish-born Joseph Retinger, bridled at this degree of American control and tried to raise money in Europe, he was quickly reprimanded.
The leaders of the European Movement – Retinger, the visionary Robert Schuman and the former Belgian prime minister Paul-Henri Spaak – were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors. The US role was handled as a covert operation. ACUE’s funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government.
The Americans had not only founded and financed what was later to become the EU but they also created the Euro. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard writes:
A memo from the European section, dated June 11, 1965, advises the vice-president of the European Economic Community, Robert Marjolin, to pursue monetary union by stealth. It recommends suppressing debate until the point at which “adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable”.
The aim of the European project is to politically disable Europe and to prevent all form of political independence in domestic and foreign policy, thereby placing Europe under American control.
Indeed, NATO, which is the military and geopolitical counterpart to the EU, is used to make European countries fight American imperialist wars, at their own expense, and implement the US policy of containement to the detriment of Russia.
This is an extremely dangerous policy which will transform Europe into battlefied in a NATO war against Russia.
Similarly, the creation of the Euro aimed to weaken, if not destroy, the European economy, by favouring the German economy.
There was a spectacular increase in German exports following the adoption of the Euro in 2002, owing to the fact that the Euro was tailor-made for the Germany economy and the Euro Zone. The effect of the German economy, along with the global system of free-trade, has accelerated the destruction of European industry, especially the manufacturing industries of Italy and France (French exports nose-dived from 2002 onwards).
There is no shortage of evidence proving the implementation of this far-reaching American strategy aiming to dominate Europe. In 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the very influential American geopolitical strategist who wrote The Grand Chessboard, a book in which he precisely outlines the American strategy of domination, states:
The central issue for America is how to construct a Europe that is based on the Franco-German connection, a Europe that is viable, that remains linked to the United States, and that widens the scope of the cooperative democratic international system on which the effective exercise of American global primacy so much depends. Hence, it is not a matter of making a choice between France and Germany. Without either France or Germany, there will be no Europe. Three broad conclusions emerge from the foregoing discussion:
- American engagement in the cause of European unification is needed to compensate for the internal crisis of morale and purpose that has been sapping European vitality, to overcome the widespread European suspicion that ultimately America does not favor genuine European unity, and to infuse into the European undertaking the needed dose of democratic fervour. That requires a clear-cut American commitment to the eventual acceptance of Europe as America’s global partner.
- In the short run, tactical opposition to French policy and support for German leadership is justified; in the longer run, European unity will have to involve a more distinctive European political and military identity if a genuine Europe is actually to become reality. That requires some progressive accommodation to the French view regarding the distribution of power within transatlantic institutions.
- Neither France nor Germany is sufficiently strong to construct Europe on its own or to resolve with Russia the ambiguities inherent in the definition of Europe’s geographic scope. That requires energetic, focused, and determined American involvement, particularly with the Germans, in defining Europe’s scope and hence also in coping with such sensitive—especially to Russia—issues as the eventual status within the European system of the Baltic republics and Ukraine.
The aggressive attitude of European leaders towards Russia during the Ukrainian crisis reflects this geopolitical strategy of the Americans and their use of NATO and the European Union as a means to expand their hegemony.
Brzezinski states this quite openly when he recommends that Ukraine be removed from the Russian geopolitical zone of influence in order to weaken Russia:
Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.
Brexit will not have any direct consequences on the UK, because Britain was only partially involved. Indeed, it had not adopted the Euro and was not party to the Schengen agreement. As Pierre Hillard puts it “the UK was already benefitting from a disguised Brexit with special rights in the EU and is now merely making its separation from the EU official” (see: https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/brexit-victorious-what-now/)
The oligarchs and the Europhiles, following orders, are publically stating their fear that Brexit could trigger a domino effect. If major EU states, such as France or Italy, were to leave the EU and the Euro, both the European project and the single currency would collapse.
But, according to Pierre Hillard, an expert on European regionalisation, any disintegration of the EU triggered by Brexit could, by following an alternative route to world government, lead to “the creation of a world currency, the Phoenix – planned for 2018, according to the Economist – and the creation of seven mega-regions of the United States, as revealed by the New York Times.”
Moreover, the number one financial backer of UKIP is no other than the Jewish millionaire Richard Desmond, owner of The Daily Express, OK Magazine and various pornographic TV channels. We should note that he had donated funds to the Labour Party, then to the Conservative Party before finally backing UKIP. Last year, Richard Desmond declared, somewhat cryptically, that he was in favour of an EU referendum but that he did not whether he would vote for or against Brexit.
In the aftermath of Brexit, our political leaders, following the example of Manuel Valls, tell us that “it is now time to be worthy of our founding fathers, to build a new Europe.”
Optimists claim that the collapse of the EU and the Euro will be beneficial, an historical opportunity for European nations to escape the domination of the financial markets, to shake off the dictatorship of lobby groups (especially the banking lobby) which control the Brussels politburo.
Indeed, this really is an historical opportunity. But those in favour of a return to sovereignty and national currencies need to be seriously organised and prepared in order to seize the opportunity before them.
If this crisis had been triggered by a branch of the international oligarchy in order to move on to the next stage of their programme, it has, in doing this, dropped its guard. So now’s the time to strike. But given that European nationalist movements are divided, infiltrated by hostile elements and lack a solid ideology and a political programme, it is highly likely that they will let events get the better of them…
Ambrose-Evans Pritchard, The Daily Telegraph, “Euro Federalists Financed by US Spy Chiefs” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html
Pierre Hillard, Brexit Victorious. And now what? https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/brexit-victorious-what-now/
Zbigniew Brzezinski (1997), The Grand Chessboard, pp 46, 71,72
Article Translated from French
The original author was Youssef Hindi, author and historian.