The European Union is obliged to participate in US wars

Thierry Meyssan
The Voltaire network

Since the Treaty of Maastricht, all the members of the European Union (including the neutral countries) have placed their defences under the suzerainty of NATO, which is directed exclusively by the United States. This is why, when the Pentagon delegates the economic headquarters of the countries it wishes to destroy to the US Department of the Treasury (USDT), all members of the European Union and NATO are obliged to apply US sanctions.

After having lost his majority in the House of Representatives during the mid-term elections, President Trump has found new allies in exchange for his discharge by prosecutor Mueller of the accusation of high treason [1]. He now supports the objectives of his generals. US imperialism is back [2].

In less than six months, the foundations of international relations have been « rebooted ». The war that Hillary Clinton promised to start has been declared, but not only by military force.

This transformation of the rules of the game, without equivalent since the end of the Second World War, immediately forced all actors to rethink their strategy, and therefore all the plans for alliance upon which they were based. Those who turn up late will pay for it.

Economic war has been declared

 

Wars will always be mortal and cruel, but for Donald Trump, who was a businessman before becoming President of the United States, it is best that they cost as little as possible. It is thus preferable to kill with economic means rather than by the use of arms. Given that the United States no longer share trade agreements with most of the countries they attack, the real « economic » cost of these wars (in the genuine sense of the term), is in effect supported by third-party countries rather than by the Pentagon.

Read more

Rogue State? – Britain Railing Against International Norms and Laws

truepublica.org.uk

Leaving aside Britain’s past, most particularly that of empire, the country is not just continually moving towards authoritarianism it is beginning to demonstrate all the early signs of a rogue state. These are strong words but the actual definition of a rogue state is – “a nation or state regarded as breaking international law and posing a threat to the security of other nations.” Examples such as the illegal invasion of Iraq, Syria and latterly Libya are very clear. Irrespective of the technicalities, they all broke the rules of International laws or norms. But other examples demonstrate how lawless Britain as a state really is.

Chagos

Here, an entire population were forcibly removed from their island homeland at British gunpoint to make way for a US Air Force nuclear base, the people were dumped destitute over a thousand miles away, their domestic animals gassed by the British army, their homes fired and then demolished. To achieve this, Britain maliciously threatened the Mauritian government into ceding the Chagos Islands as a condition of its Independence.

Recently, the International Court of Justice found that the British occupation of the Chagos Islands was unlawful by a majority of 13 to 1. Britain rejected this ruling.

Ex British ambassador Craig Murray wrote – “this represents a serious escalation in the UK’s rejection of multilateralism and international law and a move towards joining the US model of exceptionalism, standing outside the rule of international law. As such, it is arguably the most significant foreign policy development for generations. In the Iraq war, while Britain launched war without UN Security Council authority, it did so on a tenuous argument that it had Security Council authority from earlier resolutions. The UK was therefore not outright rejecting the international system. On Chagos it is now simply denying the authority of the International Court of Justice; this is utterly unprecedented.”

Read more

The ocean of lies on Venezuela recalls the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq

Blog Factory

There are clear and disturbing parallels between the events that led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the current frenzy promoting regime change in Venezuela. From the state actors to the massive disinformation campaign, Washington and its “coalition of the willing” appear to be following the same old imperialist formula.

The Canary spoke to activist journalists Mike Prysner and Fiona Edwards about the parallels between the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq and current events in Venezuela. Prysner was 19 years old when he was deployed to Iraq in March 2003. He is now an anti-war activist, producer and writer for The Empire Files, and co-host of the Eyes Left podcast. Edwards, meanwhile, is a national officer of Stop the War coalition (a central organising force against the Iraq invasion) and a writer on Latin America.

Read more

Eva Bartlett on Syria: myths, media lies, and realities. Imperialism on Trial, Birmingham

Eva K Bartlett

Eva Bartlett speaks about the Imperialist war on Syria, looking at myths and media lies around the war on Syria. This was one of several speeches at Imperialism on Trial, in Birmingham, the third night of the tour. Panel included: -former British Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford -Professor Peter Kuznick, co-author (w Oliver Stone) of the Untold History of the United States -Michael Pike, member of Veterans for Peace, poet.

Western intervention obstructs peace in Africa

Comment: Not exactly a new revelation but a good reminder of how modern corporatism operates in Africa.

-------------------------------

The Duran 

Western business interests create and maintain conflict in order to exploit African resources

It’s no secret that foreign interventions have been helping to create and stoke conflicts all over the over world, but most famously in the Middle East, as the US has armed and trained proxy forces known as ‘moderates’ to help overthrow the Assad regime in Syria. However, these sorts of activities are conducted in other nations and on other continents as well. In Africa, conflicts are often initiated and prolonged over economic interests tied to Africa’s natural resources. In a recent interview with Sophie Shevardnadze on RT’s Sophie & Co, a South African private military contractor delves into the topic and explains how and why Western interests are so interested in prolonging conflicts on the African continent.

RT reports:

The Western powers are interested in prolonging conflicts in Africa as they crave after the continent’s resources, a private military company founder told RT. Most African forces are “set up to fail” by foreign advisors, he added.

The Western nations see prolonged African wars and chaos as just a means to get their hand on the rich African resources, Eeben Barlow, the founder of Executive Outcomes, the South African firm that started a private soldier boom, told RT’s Sophie Shevardnadze. “As long as there is conflict on the go, certain deals can be struck with governments,” which allow foreign powers to “get hold on these resources for own use,” he said.

Read more

Modern imperialism goes on trial, and is found guilty

RT
Neil Clark

Imperialism – which today is usually referred to by the euphemism ‘liberal interventionism’ – went on Trial at the Waterside Theatre in Derry, Northern Ireland this week. 

Five passionate and well-informed speakers, who included the former British Ambassador to Syria Peter Ford, detailed the carnage and chaos that has been unleashed around the globe by the aggressive, warmongering policies of the US and its closest allies.

The event could have been called ‘War on Trial.’ It might have been called ‘Regime Change on Trial.’ Or ‘Economic Sanctions on Trial.’ But it was – thanks to organizer Gregory Sharkey – called ‘Imperialism on Trial’ and, as the first speaker, the writer and broadcaster John Wight declared, that in itself was highly significant. 

For the truth is the ‘I’ word is the elephant in the room in contemporary discourse. We’re not supposed to acknowledge its existence. Imperialism, according to the dominant Establishment narrative, ended when the European empires gave their colonies independence in the 1950s and 60s. In fact, the ‘old’ imperialism was only replaced by a new variant which is even more destructive, and certainly more dishonest. At least the British Empire admitted it was an empire.

Read more