The regionalisation of Europe could be diverted from its initial goal in order to destabilise national institutions. It could therefore be a way to disintegrate European nation-states, thereby paving the way for the American domination of Europe. Pierre Hillard analyses the following element of the Wolfowitz doctrine: how to transform the dream of European unity into a nightmare of widespread Balkanisation.
The means to construct the EU depend on the interpretation of European unity and the role that the EU will play in the world. After having supervised the creation of the EU in order to stabilise Western Europe and remove it from Soviet influence, the US is today pushing for its geographic expansion and its political dilution. The EU could therefore absorb Russia and reduce member states to a multitude of regions, thereby creating a huge free-trade zone, protected by the US military.
Contrary to popular belief, this project is promoted by various groups within the EU, as the official map below demonstrates.
This map was drafted by the Assembly of European Regions in 2002, created in 1985 by the French, the Portuguese and the Spanish. In 1987, under German leadership, the institution became more federalist, regionalist and ethnically focused. Its work is coordinated with other European bodies, such as the Committee of the Regions, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR). The main advantage of this document is that it reveals the hidden meaning of the current process of regionalisation.
The map extends beyond the current EU to include Turkey and parts of Eurasia. All Central European states, the Baltic states, Ukraine and Russia – with an eastern border extending to Siberia – the Caucasus states and Turkey are already integrated into the European – or, more accurately, the Euro-Atlantic project.
EU membership is no longer the means to achieve European unity. On the contrary, it would seem to be a device to disintegrate Europe, thereby assuring the peaceful triumph of the American superpower in accordance with the classic ‘divide and rule’ strategy.
Regionalisation, presented as a means of bringing citizens closer to the centres where political decisions are made on their behalf, would appear to be nothing other than a ruse to prevent the emergence of a European superpower, in keeping with the application of the ‘Wolfowitz doctrine’. (1)
Not long before his departure from the White House, president Clinton presented the American vision of Europe in a speech which extolled the virtues of the transatlantic market *. He also very clearly emphasised that “European unity really is producing something new under the sun — common institutions that are bigger than the nation-state, and at the same time, a devolution of democratic authority downward. Scotland and Wales have their own parliaments. This week, Northern Ireland, where my family has its roots, restored its new government. Europe is alive with the sound of ancient place names being spoken again — Catalonia, Piedmont, Lombardy, Silesia, Transylvania, Uthenia — not in the name of separatism, but in the spirit of healthy pride and heritage. National sovereignty is being enriched by lively local voices making Europe safer for diversity…” (2)
American sympathy for this form of regionalisation is explained by the fact that political power is transferred from nation-states to regions. The ‘region state’ now enjoys ever increasing political autonomy in areas such as government, law and order, the banking system, the postal service and even education (which is increasingly becoming a regional education system, despite what the authorities may claim).
But the important point to note is that the link between these regional political bodies and the national government is severed, as they are led to deal directly with Brussels. This can only fill the American government with joy because, via their numerous and very influential lobby groups in Brussels, they can directly secure contracts with Lombardy, Alsace, Catalonia, and other such regions. We can very easily guess who will come out the winner in a trade negotiation between the American superpower and a small regional authority in Europe.
The US presented to the German government its programme for securing total control over Europe; the EU will be extended eastwards, together with NATO.
According to an article in the German Financial Times, published on 24 October 2002, the plan for a “free and unified Europe” consists of the following stages. Following the integration of the ten states in 2004 (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Cyprus and Malta), negotiations for the accession of Ukraine to the EU will begin in 2004, followed by those for Serbia in 2005, while the possible EU membership of Croatia and Albania will be discussed in 2007. The German Financial Times adds that the Balkan states and Ukraine should be fully integrated into the Euro-Atlantic institutions by 2010.
At the very least we know the target dates for the American plans. In this plan for the fragmentation of Europe into regions, to the detriment of nation-states, Germany, working in direct liaison with the Brussels-based financial lobby groups, plays a decisive role. Indeed, Recommendation 34 (1997) of The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities subjects Europe to the same institutional concepts that the British and the Americans had imposed on Germany following the Postdam Conference (11 July – 2 August 1945) and during the ‘Bizonia’ Allied occupation (2 December 1946).
At the time, the functions given to the German federal states (Länders) aimed not only to restore rights, abolished by the Third Reich, but also to prevent Germany from achieving super power status. This plan had been approved by France which, to paraphrase Mauriac, loved Germany so much that it preferred to see several Germanies rather than just one. Furthermore, the American and the British secured these institutions through the sanctification of the German constitution and the creation of an independent constitutional court in the town of Karlsruhe.
But there is no longer any need for Europe to be dependent on the US, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact.
As for the German leadership, it is divided between two factions. On the one hand, there are those who dream of an independent Germany and who opposed German military involvement in the US-led war against Iraq. On the other hand, there are those who prefer to minimise risks by playing the role of deputy governor for the American empire; these are the same people who rushed to collaborate in the destruction of Yugoslavia and play an active role in the Kosovo conflict. These contradictions, then, could be resolved if the Germans were to shun American imperial control in order to regain national autonomy, in keeping with the ‘Iznogoud principle’ (“become the caliph and not a caliphate”). All depends on the ability of the Anglo-Saxons to persuade the German leadership to play their designated role in the New World Order. (3).
In any case the disintegration of Europe, as illustrated by the map, will be a temporary phase. Indeed, the emergence of regional groupings is the preliminary phase before national borders are re-shaped according to economic and ethnic criteria. Within the context of ‘interregionality’, numerous regional groupings are possible. For instance, in the Basque country, the French and the Spanish authorities could form a regional group. Likewise, Alsace could merge with Baden.
Indeed, with the view to the creation of a vast transatlantic free-trade zone, the Brussels technocrats have already embarked upon a process of regional restructuring in order to create economic groups as stipulated by the official texts. Interreg IIIB (which covers transnational cooperation) federates all programmes involving national, regional and local authorities and other socio-economic players.
The aim is to promote regional integration not only within the 15 member states but also beyond this group, including neighbouring countries and potential EU member states, in order to promote sustainable and balanced development of the Union. Particular attention is given to insular regions and the outermost regions (OMR). (4).
This geopolitical and social revolution in Europe has now attained ‘critical mass’ with the conferment of a legal personality to the EU. While this may appear to be the accomplishment of the dream of a unified Europe, it in fact conceals a number of factors which, under certain circumstances and left uncontrolled, could lead to the nightmare of wide-spread Balkanisation.
*See Adrien Abuzit, Transatlantic Market: When Conspiracy Theory becomes Reality https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/transatlantic-market-when-conspiracy-theory-becomes-reality/
(1) Cf. Defense Policy Guidance for the Fiscal Years 1994-1999, US Department of Defense, 18 February 1992. Extracts were published in The New York Times on 8 March 1992.
(3) See the maps for the 13 programmes : INTERREG IIIB 2000-2006, Les politiques structurelles et les territoires de l’Europe, Coopération sans frontières, Commission européenne, 2002.
(4) Ibid., p. 8.
Article Translated from French
The original author was Pierre Hillard
Source: Réseau Voltaire