Wednesday, July 11, 2012

European misfortune or orchestrated chaos?

Change seldom occurs by accident. More often than not there are tangible clues and signs which will give an indication of what lie ahead. In the world of politics, special advisors are tasked with foreseeing developments and anticipating consequences of polices and strategies made by politicians. These advisors are, at least in theory, better suited to gaze into the future and predict potential outcomes. It is their job to give feedback regarding the sustainability and likely results of these policies. This type of analysis takes place in most political organizations, and it certainly occurs within the EU, which is worth keeping in mind when trying to make sense of the seemingly unending string of failed strategies made by the organization in recent decades, and it is very important to remember when trying to decipher the unwillingness of the EU to correct its mistakes and re-adjust its political course.

If we accept that policies and political strategies made by the EU are well thought through and that they have been subjected to proper scrutiny within the organization, it is difficult to see that the current economic crisis in Europe has caught the top echelon of the organization by surprise. There are hundreds of political advisors employed by the EU who are tasked with giving advice and raise attention to potential problems that may arise as a result of flawed policies and it highly improbable that every single one of these advisors failed to foresee the political mess that has now befallen the continent. It’s also hard to accept that these experts got it so completely wrong when so many ordinary people all across Europe for years have been warning about the possibility of just such a scenario, which raises the question whether these advisors perhaps have understood all along how things would play out and that maybe everything has progressed according to plan, i.e. according to the wishes of those who pull the strings in the EU.

Even before the introduction of the Euro in 2002, there were many who warned about the possibility of a future economic collapse if the new currency ever were to see the light of day. Many also pointed out the dangers of tying strong economies such as the German one up against weaker economies in southern Europe, but unfortunately these warnings fell on deaf ears. The leadership of the EU went ahead and launched the new currency unperturbed by the dire predictions of its critics. The German mark which was one of the most stable currencies in the world was replaced with the Euro which drastically weakened the German economy by making it more susceptible to unwanted market fluctuations as the mechanisms of controlling the economy was taken out of the hands of the German authorities and left at the mercy of weaker economies within the union. Today we are able to see the folly of this move and we now know that those who criticised the tighter economic integration were right. It is obvious that the leadership of the EU were made aware of the risks involved with introducing the Euro and that risk assessments undertaken by the organization itself must have predicted such an outcome.

It is also hard to accept that the EU was oblivious to the financial acrobatics of the Greek authorities. And even if we accept that some within the hierarchy of the EU were kept in the dark, it’s ludicrous to suggest that all of them failed to see the potential catastrophic consequences that the Greek fiscal mismanagement would have for the rest of the EU. The truth is that the EU knowingly and fully aware of the dire consequences allowed Greece to run a ponzi scheme which has resulted in the collapse of the Greek economy and sent shock waves through the world financial markets. And Greece is by no means the only member country running such a ponzi scheme. Spain, Ireland, Italy and Portugal have also been exhibiting appalling fiscal responsibility almost on par with Greece. It is hard to comprehend that the EU was unaware of this, and it’s equally hard to understand why the organization failed to intervene. The fact that the EU decided to sit back and watch as the mega disaster gained momentum puts the organization in a very peculiar light indeed. One could of course argue that the financial grief that is currently plaguing Europe was caused by the collapse of the American real estate market which sent the world into a recession.  And this is partially true, but it is not the full story. The financial calamity in the US has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that many EU nations have been living beyond their means for decades. The bank collapses in the USA was triggered by the collapse of the domestic US real estate market which in essence was an American ponzi scheme, not all that different to the one the Greeks were allowed to operate for so many years and which the EU should have been able to protect itself against. There were certainly no lack of alarms being raised by economists and financial experts on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean in the lead up to this disaster.

So if we accept that the leadership of the EU knew about the unsustainability of the financial markets, and if we accept that they were more than capable of foreseeing the devastating results it would have on its members why didn’t they do anything about it? One possibility is that the current economic situation suits the EU just fine, and that it in fact is a prerequisite for implementing sweeping new changes which will propel the organization onto the next level and make it even stronger and more powerful. Since its inception the leadership of the EU has taken great steps to amass as much power as possible and over the years it has bequeathed itself ever wider and broader mandates and it is not unfair to suggest that it is in the process of transforming itself into a European version of the United States of America. But there is still a long way to go and it should be clear to everyone that the organization has now reached the critical stage where it can no longer charge ahead by means of normal democratic processes. The only way forward now is by using undemocratic means, which it has already shown that it is willing to do, as was clearly demonstrated in the Lisbon treaty travesty.

It’s not an impossibility that the EU’s next step is to try and force through new reforms and changes by giving itself dictatorial powers through calculated campaigns of temporary orchestrated financial chaos. Nor is it unthinkable that the organization will attempt to exploit the current financial mess in order to take another step towards creating a European super state. There have already been talks about establishing special EU committees which will have the power to control and reject national budgets of member states in order to resolve the current crisis and avert future ones. It is very doubtful that the EU would get away with such devious schemes under normal circumstances. And when we realize this it’s not that farfetched to theorize that the EU has helped facilitate the economic crisis and that it has played an active role in undermining the Greek economy, which of course can easily be repaired if the EU gets to control the national budgets of its member states. If we accept that one way of accumulating power and extending its mandate is by exploiting exceptional circumstances such as financial crises and conflicts, or the possibility of conflicts, it’s not unrealistic to suspect that the EU would be capable of taking advantage of skirmishes and unrest on its external borders as a way of boosting its own influence. And let’s not forget that such a scenario occurring within its borders would present the organization with a very compelling argument to introduce special legislation and possibly even get away with issuing marshal laws.

What constitutes external threats? Well the establishment of Islamic states run in accordance with Islamic Sharia law on Europe’s doorsteps is one example, which is eerie considering that the EU has helped pave the way for such regimes in North Africa through its involvement in overthrowing colonel Ghadaffi in Libya and former President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. The new Egyptian president, Mohammad Mursi is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood which is a radical Islamist political movement whose stated goal is to achieve world domination for Islam. The EU is also playing an active role in ousting the Assad regime in Syria which would pave the way for yet another Islamic state just beyond its borders. The possibility of having neighbours which could end up as miniature versions of the Islamic Republic of Iran is a scary scenario indeed and this could easily prompt the EU to implement new draconic laws.

Regardless one has to ask how the EU is able to justify its role in actively supporting hardcore Islamist in overthrowing secular regimes with a favourable attitude towards western interest. As it stands now the actions of the EU only gives rise to the thesis that the EU has assisted Islamists in order to increase its own influence in Europe.

Another scary scenario is civil unrest in the EU itself. Skirmishes in one or several EU member states could see the EU introduce new legislation and give itself dictatorial powers as a pretext to quell any assumed uprising or unrest. After WW2, if we look past the cold war and the civil war in FRY, Europe has been a very stable and safe continent which is mainly due to its homogenous populations and shared moral values. This is something that the EU has been working hard to undermine through the implementation of very liberal immigration and asylum laws which all member states are legally bound to follow. In fact this mission has been one of EU’s primary and most important goals and it has really picked up pace after the introduction of the Schengen treaty which saw the dismantling of national border checkpoints. Today it is possible to travel all the way from Greece in the south to the Scandinavian nations in the north without having to produce a passport or an ID card, which has significantly eased the free movement of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers in Europe. The treaty has been instrumental in fast tracking the multicultural European project which the EU has worked diligently to achieve. It is fair to assume that the leadership of the EU was made aware that this would happen when they introduced the treaty, and it has certainly laid the foundation for a divided continent in which serious ethnic conflicts has become a very real possibility. It has of course also presented the EU with an excuse to introduce new draconic laws in the event of ethnic motivated civil unrest.

When we take a look at all the facts and look at them in a truthful manner it’s not unreasonable to ask the question whether the EU is actively facilitating and exploiting volatile incidents both outside and inside its borders in order to drastically transform Europe. The changes that have occurred in the last decades suggest that this is the ultimate goal of the leadership of the organization. We have seen the introduction of the single currency, the introduction of the EU army, the introduction of the EU constitution and the introduction of an EU president. It is highly unlikely that the EU will succeed in moving forward, i.e. to integrate the continent even further by abolishing national parliaments, national armies, national languages etc. without taking on a more tyrannical form, and one way of achieving this is by using the strategy of conquer and divide.

When we examine the pieces of the massive puzzle that is the EU, the theory which is presented here is not all that farfetched. There could be some elements of truth to it, it could be dead on the money or it could be completely rubbish, but it is definitely not a theory taken out of thin air.  Whatever the truth, it is an undeniable fact that undemocratic nations are on the rise. In Asia, China is emerging as a new super power with imperialistic aspirations to match. Russia is another example and it shares a border with Europe. So does the Islamic world and it is not unrealistic that we will see the creation of radical Islamic empires in North Africa which will represent a serious threat to the national security of the EU nations. And there are no guarantees that the leadership of the EU intend for its member nations to remain democratic entities within the organization in the years to come. It’s not all that unrealistic to suspect that the EU will morph into a totalitarian European empire with an even more autocratic leadership in order to keep the Chinese and Russians at bay in the future. One thing that should be obvious to all is that the leadership of the EU are in many instances acting like little dictators.

No comments:

Post a Comment