EU-US Relations: The Total Failure of the Militarization of U.S. Foreign Policy and the consequences for the EU - by RM

The fall of the Soviet Union handed the U.S. a unique opportunity, as the surviving superpower, to lead the world toward a period of greater cooperation and conflict resolution through the use of diplomacy, global organization, and international law. This great opportunity to change US foreign policy doctrine was completely squandered by successive US presidents, who chose "the stick above the carrot" and consequently making the world a more dangerous place today.

The differences between the foreign policies of the EU, based on cooperation, trade , the environment,and Human Rights, and that of the United States became especially aparent during the Trump Administration, when Europe started staking out separate, clashing positions, on everything, from telecommunications to energy. The EU and US both issued sharp disagreements on the basic building blocks of foreign relations—namely, how the international system should work. French President Emmanuel Macron seized the spotlight, and sent the hearts of European federalists aflutter, by calling for “a European way” while raising the possibility of a French-led European nuclear deterrent, a precondition for any true independence from the United States.

If opinion polls are to go by, we are already separated. Nowhere is this felt more acutely than in Germany, the most important country in Europe. In January, Pew Research released a poll showing that 57 percent of Germans hold an outright unfavorable view of the United States. A few months earlier, in September, the European Council on Foreign Relations reported that 70 percent of Germans want their country to remain neutral in any conflict between Moscow and Washington.

For some European, Anglo-Saxon capitalism is seen as ruthless and rootless, mowing down the social order in the service of individual greed. For others, the United States’ dominance of the West breeds resentment, especially in an era of globalization, when even the slightest shocks from across the Atlantic hit the EU's bottom line or derail its diplomacy.

With the US Biden Administration in charge soon, the overall relationship between the two Transatlanic Super Power partners certainly will get off to a better start, but the US administration must certainly not expect that the status quo is re-established. Take note America, your former "lap dog" now considers itself an independent partner with its own voice.

EU-Digest

Saudi Arabia - US involvement - US foreign policy: US Drones and the Khashoggi Murder - by Michael J. Brenner

In Washington, there is not much mystery about Mohammed bin-Salman’s (=MBS) behavior. He is an ego-maniac, somewhat unhinged. He is drunk with power and accustomed to torture and kill at whim.

His campaign of annihilation against the Houthis of Yemen indicates the depths of his depravity and the scope of his ambition.

So, too, did his imprisoning of 400 wealthy Saudis in the Riyadh Ritz Carlton where they were physically abused until they coughed up their riches for his personal use (e.g., spending $500 million for a mislabeled “Leonardo” painting). MBS thus presents a good imitation of Caligula and Nero.

So, too, did his kidnapping and physical abuse of the Prime Minister of Lebanon (Saad Hariri) – who owed MBS money and, therefore, political fealty.

In these ruthless ventures, he has been encouraged by the American government. The Saudi bombing of Yemen to smithereens, literally, could not happen physically without the active participation of the Pentagon.

The U.S. military flies the refueling planes without which MBS’s air force could not reach their targets in Yemen on two-way missions. It also provides the detailed electronic Intelligence critical to the mission.

Never mind that U.S. military personnel sit in the very command rooms from which the operations are conducted. In addition, Washington provides unqualified diplomatic cover and justification.

This is not only the Trump Administrations doing, but this Yemen “policy” was inaugurated by Barack Obama and was then continued by Trump. In legal terms, we — the United States — are an accessory before, during and after the fact of MBS’ crimes in Yemen.

The United States’s main responsibility lies in helping instill MBS’s deep sense of impunity. In addition, we encouraged the Saudi alliance with Israel. This gave MBS further confidence that active lobbying in Washington and the media would insulate him from any retribution.

Hence, feeling that he protected all his relevant flanks properly, he is now furious that some people in the West (not including the White House) are making such a fuss over the pedestrian act of whacking an annoying critic.

Furthermore, from the Saudi crown prince’s perspective, the United States has set the relevant precedent for the assassination of political enemies. Witness the US program of drone killings in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Mali, Chad and a number of other countries.

It is hard to deny that, via its drone strike “policy,” the U.S. government has gone a long way toward establishing the de facto legitimacy of extra-judicial murder as a standard combat tactic.

In the United States, this approach is accepted as such. Since targeted assassination involves no U.S. casualties, it makes the prosecution of war more palatable to the U.S. public. That is why is now an integral part of the playbook.

The chain of “command” is as follows: The Israelis inaugurated it. We Americans refined it and extended it. MBS now emulates us. Count on others to follow it.

Of course, the level of inhibition varies from leader and by target. America’s singular influence in setting global “fashions” means that the inhibition will weaken most everywhere and the range of individuals targeted will widen.

The tactic of knocking-off the enemy’s chief has deep historical roots. In the age of kings and emperors, it was tempting to think of decapitating the opposition.

The public reaction in the United States to Khashoggi’s grisly murder reveals some singular features of the prevailing attitude toward morality in foreign policy:

Despite Trump’s rhetorical pullback, the United States has committed to a strategy of global dominance – by means violent as well as peaceable. 

Americans remain wedded to the belief that they are a moral people following the course of righteousness in the world. “When conquer we must, for our cause it is just; let this be our motto: In God is our trust.” 

This unthinking mental universe has permitted the US so far to perpetuate many myths about their  place in the world. But eventually, they must look at the dark truth: The America that so many people around the globe looked to for guidance in seeking enlightened political truth has become the model and inspiration for those who seek to evade it.

Read more: US Drones and the Khashoggi Murder - The Globalist

USA - Shithole: Trump’s 'Shithole Countries' Comments: What He Meant - by Ryan Teague Beckwith and Maya Rhodan

President Donald Trump’s “shithole countries” comments ricocheted around the world, spurring criticism from U.S. allies, rebuttals from Americans with roots in those countries and condemnation from some in his own party.

Lost in the furor over his “shithole” comment is the argument that Trump was making at the time.

The White House held the meeting to discuss a bipartisan immigration deal that would help undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children who got relief under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program, foreign nationals who fled manmade and natural disasters and received temporary protected status (TPS) in the U.S. and immigrants seeking to come to the U.S. through a diversity lottery.

That’s a lot to unpack, so we’ll walk through these one at a time. But here’s the short version: If you are upset about Trump calling African nations “shithole countries” and disparaging Haitians, you probably won’t like what he was proposing either.

Note EU-Digest: The new Yorker wrote: "President Trump’s credibility as a world leader has been, to borrow his vulgarity, shot to shit. With one word—just the latest in a string of slurs about other nations and peoples—he has demolished his ability to be taken seriously on the global stage. “There is no other word one can use but ‘racist,’ ” the spokesman for the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights, Rupert Colville, said at a briefing in Geneva. “You cannot dismiss entire countries and continents as ‘shitholes,’ whose entire populations, who are not white, are therefore not welcome.”

We can not agree more: Donald Trump is a disgrace for America. 

Read more: Trump’s 'Shithole Countries' Comments: What He Meant | Time

NATO: President Trump makes 180 degrees turn on NATO:, says 'It's no longer obsolete' - by Ryan Struyk

Results of 16 years of Disastrous Middle East Foreign Policy

 When somebody says one thing, does another, and possibly thinks something else, all that you’re going to wind up with is problems.

President Donald Trump reversed course on his view of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on Wednesday, saying the organization is "no longer obsolete" after months of bashing the defense alliance as no longer relevant during his campaign. 

"I said it was obsolete. It's no longer obsolete," Trump said in a joint press conference with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the White House. 

"The secretary general and I had a productive discussion about what more NATO can do in the fight against terrorism," Trump said. "I complained about that a long time ago, and they made a change and now they do fight terrorism. 

"... Every generation strives to adopt the NATO alliance to meet the challenges of their times, and on my visit to Brussels this spring, which I look very much forward to, we will work together to do the same," Trump continued, calling for NATO to support Iraq to fight ISIS. "We must not be trapped by the tired thinking that so many have, but apply new solutions to face new circumstances." 

Trump also reiterated that countries in NATO ought to allocate 2 percent of their GDP of military spending, a frequent rallying cry during his presidential campaign last year. Only five of the 28 member states currently do so, including the U.S. 

Trump said that NATO was obsolete as recently as this January in an interview with The Times of London. “I said a long time ago that NATO had problems. No. 1, it was obsolete because it was designed many, many years ago. No. 2, the countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to pay," Trump said in January. "I took such heat when I said NATO was obsolete. It’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror. I took a lot of heat for two days. And then they started saying Trump is right." 

Note EU-Digest:  - When somebody says one thing, does another, and possibly thinks something else, all that you’re going to wind up with is problems. 

Let us be honest these problems are the direct result of how President Trump's Administration has been conducting its day to day business on just about every given issue during Trump's Presidency so far.

Hopefully the EU does not fall for this self-serving nonsense of the Trump Administration. 

It should make clear to the US Administration, that as a result of US failed Middle East Policies during the past two decades, which included NATO EU nations involvement in the equation, the EU is now saddled up with millions of refugees and ISIS terrorism. 

Business can not be conducted as usual because it has not worked. 

The reality is that the EU needs a more effective and mature relationship with the US, which includes having an independent foreign policy and military defense force. It is as simple as that. 

Read more: President Trump on NATO: 'It's no longer obsolete' - ABC News

Fiction or Reality?: Trump's first day at the Oval Office - First briefing by the CIA, Pentagon, FBI

US Presidential Election 2016

Trump: We must destroy ISIS immediately.

CIA: We cannot do that, sir. We created them along with Turkey, Saudi, Qatar and others. 
Trump: The Democrats created them.

CIA: We created ISIS, sir. You need them or else you would lose funding from the natural gas lobby.Trump: Stop funding Pakistan. Let India deal with them.

CIA: We can't do that.  Modi will cut Balochistan out of Pak.Trump: I don't care.

CIA: India will have peace in Kashmir. They will stop buying our weapons. They will become a superpower. We have to fund Pakistan to keep India busy in Kashmir.Trump: But you have to destroy the Taliban.

CIA: Sir, we can't do that. We created the Taliban to keep Russia in check during the 80s. Now they are keeping Pakistan busy and away from their nukes. 

Trump: We have to destroy terror sponsoring regimes in the Middle East. Let us start with the Saudis.

Pentagon: Sir, we can't do that. We created those regimes because we wanted their oil. We can't have democracy there, otherwise their people will get that oil - and we cannot let their people own it.Trump: Then, let us invade Iran.

Pentagon: We cannot do that either, sir.Trump: Why not? THEY ARE OUR NEW "FRIENDS" ...

CIA: We are talking to them, sir.Trump: What? Why?

CIA: We want our stealth drone back. If we attack them, Russia will obliterate us as they did to our buddy ISIS in Syria. Besides we need Iran to keep Israel in check.

Trump: Then let us invade Iraq again.

CIA: Sir, our friends (ISIS) are already occupying 1/3rd of Iraq.Trump: Why not the whole of Iraq?

CIA: We need the Shi'ite gov't of Iraq to keep ISIS in check.Trump: I am banning Muslims from entering US.

FBI: We can't do that.Trump: Why not?

FBI: Then our own population will become fearless.Trump: I am deporting all illegal immigrants to south of the border.

Border patrol: You can't do that, sir.Trump: Why not?

Border patrol: If they're gone, who will build the wall?Trump: I am banning H1Bs.

USCIS: You cannot do that.Trump: Why?

Chief of staff: If you do so we'll have to outsource White House operations to Bangalore. Which is in India.Trump: What  the hell should I do???

CIA: Just enjoy the White House, sir! We will take care of the rest!!!

God bless America! 

Final note: "What if Hillary Clinton becomes President - Don't worry, she already knows all this from previous briefings as a member of the Presidential Cabinet".

EU-Digest

The Bruxelles Tragedy: US failed Middle East policy indrectly responsible for Brussels terror attacks - by Claire Bernish

Brussels Landmark Statue "Manneke Pis" says it all

Before the bodies had been counted. Before the injuries had been assessed. Before any group claimed responsibility for perpetrating the attacks in the Belgian capitol Brussels, the lazy condemned the entire religion of Islam.

This blame, meted out to a religion whose tenets expressly forbid killing innocents — “it is as if he had slain mankind entirely” — lacks fundamental logic. Worse, it lacks precision.

Without precision and studied consideration of the conditions which culminated in these acts of terrorism, one Bruxelles Landmark Statueguarantee can be cemented: future attacks.

Why? Because humans have an unironic penchant for neglecting lessons from past mistakes — and an unfaltering blindfold as if their present actions exist in a vacuum. Indeed, blaming an entire religion for the actions of a few falsely claiming they follow its teachings might be precisely what the ignominious war machine of U.S. imperialism needs. In fact, modern-day terrorism exists because of the actions of a specific religion — and it isn’t Islam.

Imperialism, and its roots planted firmly in statism, inarguably create, foster, and perpetuate terrorism at an alarming rate. An active military campaign and overarching surveillance program ostensibly embarked upon to demolish terrorism — anywhere on the planet — instead manufacture terrorism at an increasingly rapid rate.

This cyclical structure isn’t difficult to comprehend, yet it somehow escapes those eager to scapegoat blame on the undeserving — because xenophobia.

For years, the United States military and its over-inflated budget have bombed the hell out of predominantly Muslim countries — doing a bang-up job of mostly missing intended targets, instead killing civilian non-combatants more than of the time by some estimates. U.S. foreign policy’s relentless hammer created the staggering refugee crisis as civilians — either having their homes destroyed by bombing or from justifiable fear it could happen — by the millions feel they have no choice but to escape.

Worse still, the U.S.’ vying for natural resources — oil, opium, rare earth metals, and more — have caused a complex juggernaut of proxy wars with sometimes contradictory aims. This wrangling to exploit countrysides in otherwise peaceful countries stands as classic imperialist dogma: they have it, the U.S. government wants it, and the military is promptly deployed to make it happen.

Largely downplayed in this cycle are countless corporations pulling the strings — directly driving hegemonic foreign policy.

Would we need to invade Afghanistan for its insanely profitable opium crops without Big Pharma? Doubtful. Would we need to partner with Saudi Arabia — not only a notorious human rights abuser, but one of the most despised countries in the Middle East — were it not for its enormous stores of oil? No way.

Would Syria be the quagmire it has become if it weren’t geostrategically integral for a proposed oil pipeline? Nope.

War has been called ‘endless’ for justifiable reasons — but it wouldn’t be so without imperialism driving its existence. Violence is its tool. But endless violence isn’t without consequences.

Terrorism holds undeniable responsibility for the attacks in Brussels, but it didn’t manifest because of Islam.

Blaming Islam is the lazy way out of holding those ultimately responsible for its rise — and secures its perpetuation. But it doesn’t mean Islam is to blame.

Note EU-Digest: as has been mentioned many times before  - the EU, in addition to numerous other urgent changes it needs to make to avoid self-destruction, must establish it's own Middle East foreign policy based on economic development and trade, and completely "divorce" itself from the many years of failed US Middle East policies.

Read also: America Should Take Responsibility for the Brussels Terror Attacks

Europe’s multi-layered hypocrisy on refugees or "Kettle (US) calling the Pot (EU) black" ? - by Anne Applebaum

Picking apart the layers of irony and hypocrisy that surround the European refugee crisis is like peeling an onion without a knife. At a train station in southern Moravia, Czech police pulled 200 refugees off a train and marked numbers on their arms. On its eastern border, Hungary is building a barbed-wire fence to keep out refugees, remarkably like the barbed wire “iron curtain” that once marked its western border. Choose whatever image you want — ships full of Jews being sent back to Nazi Europe, refugees furtively negotiating with smugglers at a bar in Casablanca — and it now has a modern twist.

Sun, a British tabloid, has spent a decade railing against immigrants of all kinds. Not long ago, it told the British prime minister to “Draw a Red Line on Immigration — Or Else.” Now, after the publication of photographs of a dead Syrian toddler washed up on a Turkish beach, it wants him to “Deal With the Worst Crisis Facing Europe Since WW2.”

 Having just declared that there was no point in accepting “more and more refugees,” poor David Cameron has now declared that, actually, Britain would accept more and more refugees. His aides hurriedly explained that “he had not seen the photographs” when he made the original statement.

More layers of hypocrisy: Although the photographs are indeed terrible, they aren’t actually telling us anything new. Refugees have been crossing the Mediterranean for months. Hundreds have died. Also, if we are disturbed by a dead child on a beach, why aren’t we disturbed by another dead child in a bombed-out house in Aleppo, Syria? What’s the distinction?

Even now, almost all of the slogans being bandied about as “solutions” are based on false assumptions. Nations should accept real refugees but not economic migrants? For one, it’s rarely easy to tell the difference. More to the point, the number of potentially “legitimate” refugees is staggeringly high.

As of July, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees had registered more than 4 million Syrian refugees, of whom well over a million are in Turkey and 1.5 million are in Lebanon, a country of only 4.8 million people. That’s not counting Iraqis, Libyans, Afghans and others who have equally suffered political or religious persecution, or even the millions of displaced Syrians still in Syria. Exactly how many of them will Europe take.

Note EU-Digest : A typical case of "the kettle calling the pot black". No one writes or talks about the fact that this whole migrant drama is the result of  a totally defunct US Middle East policy, in which they dragged, or better even, forced Europe to follow ". If only Europe had some independent political leaders with the courage to tell the US to "go and take a hike." Unfortunately most of our European politicians are not looking out for Europe where it counts. 

Also click here for additional information on the above issue.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-crisis-on-europes-shores/2015/09/04/2fb38864-5319-11e5-933e-7d06c647a395_story.html

Ukraine: While Middle East is falling apart US now storing heavy weapons and tanks in Eastern Europe

Some 200 years ago Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz said "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means."  It still holds truth today.

And...as we all know, politics are very much influenced by the corporate lobby and interest groups.

In the case of the US, the military industrial complex plays a major role in the political decision procress.

Even though the extravagant US military budget was cut according to The Wall Street Journal over the past four years from $721 billion, to "just" $560 billion -- It still provides a huge market for the Pentagon's new weapons systems, and a lot of revenue "up for grabs" by the defense contractors.

If you look, however, at the track record  of the US military, which was sent into war by the political establishment, the results, overall have been dismal.

Just this 21st century alone, the US, assisted by a "coalition of the willing" (some have called them willing  "lap dogs"), fought three wars, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

What these wars had in common is that each time, the US and their "allies"  scored what they thought was a stunning victory -- they quickly also found out that victory was a brief mirage on the road to defeat.

Today's results of the disastrous US Middle East  policy, which goes way back in time, is really starting to "bear fruit",  specially when we watch the recent boatloads of Middle Eastern and North African refugees arriving on the shores of Europe.

When former US President George W. Bush announced in 2003, on the US aircraft carrier SS Abraham Lincoln, that the combat operations in Iraq were over, while he proudly stood under a  "Mission accomplished" banner, he could not have been more wrong, specially if we look at the aftermath of that war today.

As someone said at the time of the Bush victory announcement, "confidence is the feeling you have before you fully understand the situation."

And here we go again, as the US announced on Saturday, June 13, that it plans to store heavy military equipment in the Baltics and Eastern European nations to "reassure allies made uneasy by Russian intervention in Ukraine, and to deter further aggression", a senior U.S. official said.

Several questions arise? What is the EU Commission and Parliament saying about this. Are they just sitting back and letting the US steam-role them into another military escapade?

Isn't it time Europe starts to do some serious thinking about the fact that always blindly "following the leader" is maybe not the right way to go forward? Or, that the real issue at stake in Europe is the Ukraine crisis and the future of America’s role as Europe’s security guarantor.


EU-Digest