Saturday, 26 April 2014

"Never Under Estimate the Power of The Dark Side Mr.Secretary (re: John Kerry & The Ukraine -with examples of Margaret Thatcher's European policies refs: etc. and Mr.Ron Paul-)"

Coming from a Secretary of State whose president has just blundered his parochial attitudes all over the media by claiming that The Kosovans had been given the opportunity of expressing their rights of self-determination by "Onclo Samo" (sorry "The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation"), following the coup against the authority of The United Nations which "N.A.T.O.'s" involvement in the region represented  John Kerry's remarks about "Russia Today" sound like very sour grapes indeed!
 This observer has never witnessed major powers behaving in a more; gauche, puerile, juvenile or arrogant fashion than that represented by the imperious strutting of The U.S State Dept. in the streets of Kiev which occurred just prior to the recent overthrow of Ukraine's previous government.
 Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande (Margaret Thatcher expanded Europe to Russia's border deliberately one hardly expects that David Cameron will "see the wood for the trees", quote: "
Margaret Thatcher is seen today as having been staunchly Euro-sceptic and to have been hostile to the European ‘project’. Her Bruges speech in 1988 is widely cited as having articulated a vision for Europe that was incompatible with what other Member States wanted, notably the statement that ‘we have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.’ This is widely interpreted to be anti-federalist and hostile to the centralisation of power promoted by Jacques Delors, the then President of the European Commission.
 Yet a dispassionate assessment of her relations with the European Union reveals a much more nuanced picture. Even in the Bruges speech, she repeatedly stresses the importance for Europe of ‘trying to speak with one voice’ and argued that ‘Europe is stronger’ when it works together in areas such as trade or defence. In a sentence that anticipated the demise of Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe, she also reminds her audience, to ‘look on Warsaw, Prague and Budapest as great European cities’.
Certainly, in the end, it was Europe that led directly to her downfall in November 1990. She had been increasingly at odds with senior members of her government over the direction UK policy should take towards monetary integration. A running battle between her own economic adviser, Alan Walters, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson over exchange rate policy culminated in both resigning in October 1989. The UK subsequently joined the EU’s exchange rate mechanism in October 1990, a decision that she was reported to have been unable to resist, partly because her political stock had fallen as a result of opposition to her plans for a poll tax.

Barely a month later, she returned from a European summit meeting in Madrid that had been discussing plans for monetary union and made what became one of her most iconic speeches in the House of Commons. ‘No, no, no’, she said, to the visible dismay of Geoffrey Howe, the deputy Prime Minister, and one of her most senior and previously loyal supporters. He then also resigned and made what was one of the most devastating resignation speeches, which precipitated Thatcher’s fall from power.
Yet there is considerable irony in the fact that the European Union of today has been substantially shaped by Mrs Thatcher’s policies. It is, first, easily forgotten that she was a minister in the government that took the UK into Europe in 1973, and that she subsequently campaigned on the ‘yes’ side in the referendum held in 1975 to validate UK membership of the then European Economic Community.
The Thatcher government was, moreover, one of the leading supporters of the single European market that was progressively put in place from the mid-1980s. Indeed, the European Commissioner who led the programme to complete the internal market, Lord Cockfield, was a Thatcher appointee who clearly shared her views on the importance of market principles. It could be that one of her most enduring legacies is the unwavering support for the single market as the cornerstone of European integration, despite the turmoil of recent years, and the wave of market-orientated  reforms across the continent.
It has become part of the Thatcher myth that she never quite understood what she had signed up for in the Single European Act of 1986, and did not foresee the regulatory measures that would be imposed by ‘Brussels’ on an unsuspecting Britain. In his contribution to the valedictory debate in the House of Commons last week, Sir Tony Baldry M.P. commented that ‘while Margaret had succeeded in making the single market work much better, she was no longer able as easily to threaten to exercise a UK veto, and I think in time she found that very frustrating’. Maybe so, but it is hard to believe that someone so meticulous in her work would make such a blunder. One of her former private secretaries once told the story of her running down the stairs at 10 Downing Street, waving a copy of the Act, saying ‘I’ve read it; I’ve read every word’.
Similarly, the fact that the EU enlarged to bring in ten countries from central and eastern Europe, with another (Croatia) due to join later this year, is at least in part a result of the approach the Thatcher government took to confronting the Soviet Union and ending the cold war. It is no coincidence that some of the warmest eulogies for Mrs Thatcher last week came from ordinary citizens in countries like Poland. Paradoxically, she (along with Fran├žois Mitterrand, the French President), resisted the unification of Germany, and comments following her death from the then German leader, Helmut Kohl, testify to the friction this caused.
Indeed, there is no doubt that Mrs Thatcher made life difficult in many ways for her fellow European leaders, often blocking what others regarded as necessary changes. From a UK perspective, she secured a considerable success in renegotiating the European budget to secure ‘my money back’ in 1984 through a rebate. But the outcome has been that EU budget negotiations are now one of the most difficult of all, and that the EU budget is so resistant to reform that it does not fulfil an effective role in European economic governance.
Domestically, in the years that followed her ‘political assassination’, the schism over Europe haunted the Conservative party, although it remained in government until 1997. Political disputes over Europe continued to divide the government of Thatcher’s successor, John Major, who was once memorably described by Norman Lamont, the Chancellor who presided over Britain’s ejection from the exchange rate mechanism in September 1992, as ‘being in office but not in power’.
Even today, much of the debate on Britain’s place in Europe is influenced by the Thatcher legacy and many now either fear or hope that the forces she unleashed will lead to Britain leaving the EU. Yet both sides overlook a key sentence in the Bruges speech: ‘Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community.’
This article was - by Ian Begg-, first published in the ‘European Observation’ c" Go to: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/04/17/margaret-thatcher-relationship-with-europe-euroscepticism-figurehead-iain-begg/ , one might argue that both she and Reagan were some of the few politicians who then understood the true nature of "The International" yet unfortunately not the consequences of it's failure, quote: "For young Europeans, it must be difficult to imagine the routine deprivation that existed behind the Iron Curtain when Margaret Thatcher came to power. As a refugee in London during the Eighties, I had to smuggle necessities to my family in Poland: toothpaste, shampoo, washing powder and, hidden in the parcels, miniature editions of books that were banned there. Occasionally, these were found and confiscated – including, in 1984, a copy of Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Mrs Thatcher’s role in changing all this cannot be overstated. For those behind the Iron Curtain, she was a member of the anti-communist “Holy Trinity” – consisting of John Paul II, Ronald Reagan and herself – who altered the fate of the West, and consequently the fate of those outside it.
She did in the West what Solidarity did in the East. Solidarity was a workers’ movement against the communist state, which exposed the illegitimacy of the Communist Party’s claim to represent the working class. Mrs Thatcher similarly turned the tide: until she entered the fray, it was assumed that capitalism was ultimately going to converge with communism – and that a bigger and bigger role for the state was inevitable. She put an end to that. By rejuvenating Britain, she made the strongest possible case against the model of the command economy in both its hard and soft forms*.
What inspired us Poles most was that, with Reagan and John Paul II, she was a deeply moral politician. We greatly admired her clear-headedness with regards to the rights and wrongs of the Cold War. Mrs Thatcher believed in the justice and morality of a free society. And not just the evil but also the anthropological mistakenness of communism. She had it right, in other words, that people were willing to work hard on behalf of their family and their country – as long as the fruits of their labour were left as much as possible to themselves. This was the direct opposite of what we were taught under communism, namely that only an enforced altruism could build a prosperous society.
I believe that her visit to Poland in 1988 was an important factor behind the Communist Party’s decision to start negotiations with the Solidarity opposition. Preceded by Malcolm Rifkind – another figure we remember fondly – she travelled to Gdansk to meet Lech Walesa, which established him immediately as an alternative leader, even while General Jaruzelski’s military junta remained in charge. By all accounts, Mrs Thatcher gave Walesa sensible advice about the need to prepare for government.
A strong foreign affairs posture was, it hardly needs saying, central to her outlook. I will never forget visiting her as deputy defence minister in 1992, when our government was trying to force the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Poland. She gave me a hugely helpful handwritten note of support, which I keep framed on my wall.
Mrs Thatcher was much more realistic about Europe while in office than she subsequently – and regrettably – became in retirement. As PM, she signed up to the Single European Act and it was under her that the single market was conceived by the UK, one of the keystones of Europe’s success today.
But she then advised Poland not to join the EU – advice which, I must say, we were happy to ignore. In her retirement she stuck rigidly to the idea of British exceptionalism. This was unfortunate, because Europe is too important to be left to the Left. Europe needs principled leadership and a Thatcherite message of living within your means, of competition, and of a strong posture towards the outside world. If Mrs Thatcher had become the president of the European Commission, she could have converted Europe and might have become a convert. Europe wouldn’t have to deal with such deep indebtedness and might be on the way to becoming a superpower. What she never understood was that the Commission is actually a force for Thatcherism – for responsible budgets, for smashing national monopolies, and for opening up markets.
Whatever her critics might say, however, Mrs Thatcher also got the big picture right. She stood on the side of the angels in the Cold War and provided leadership for as long as the Soviet Union needed to be challenged. She also had the wisdom to recognise that Mikhail Gorbachev had the potential to achieve historic change.
Mrs Thatcher was a symbol of universal values: toughness in adversity, self-reliance, success through hard work. She will be remembered as an iconic figure of what we used to call the West. We in the former Eastern Europe, meanwhile, will continue to remember her with gratitude as someone who hastened the day when we joined the family of democratic nations." by Radek Sikorski, go to:  http://www.neweasterneurope.eu/interviews/670-margaret-thatcher-and-the-collapse-of-communism
), should determinedly and immediately intervene to "take Europe's foot off the gas" with regard to The Ukraine's integration into "The Wider European Adventure", however this will prove impossible without their embrace of the notion of an Eastern European Union to provide a "buffer" between Russia and The West (amongst other things and surely only a "first amongst equals" with regard to the other -now very pressing-, reasons why there should be two European socio-political, cultural and economic communities), but in order that such a union might come into being the parasite which is N.A.T.O must be removed from The European body politic (and hence -of course-, the international). Also see: http://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/breaking-silence-reprise-re-ukraine.html

*This "strongest possible case" was only misguided in that it was "the strongest" (we need a standard deviation).

..and Sopie Shevardnadzes' interview with former U.S congressman Ron Paul.. , quote: "Sophie Shevardnadze: Veteran US congressman Mr. Ron Paul is with us today. Mr. Paul, it’s great to have you on our show. I’m going to start with the latest news: NATO suspended all practical cooperation with Russia, military and civilian activities. Now, how’s that going to help resolve the crisis?
Ron Paul: Well, it won’t. It’s going to make it worse, it’s just pestering and interfering…one thing is that my goal has always been to have cooperation and diplomacy rather than antagonism and talking back at each other, and sanctions; they don’t do any good at all! So, I’ve always been more on the optimistic side since the Cold War ended, because we were trading more, and talking more, and traveling more with Russia and China and different places in the world. So, to me, if you trade with people, you do better. So any time you suspend anything like that, it’s negative. So I’m sorry to hear that and certainly I don’t think it’s going to do any good to improve the relationship; it will just encourage both sides to keep going at each other." Go to http://rt.com/shows/sophieco/sanctions-war-ron-paul-769/ for full transcript.

UPDATE...

Quote: "Ukraine's President Once Agent for U.S State Dept.
  
Is he still working for his former masters in Washington, DC?

Two diplomatic messages from the WikiLeaks Public Library on U.S. Diplomacy indicate that newly elected President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko was an agent for United States State Department. A confidential message from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev on April 29, 2006 mentions the newly elected Ukraine president twice.

" During an April 28 meeting with Ambassador, Our Ukraine (OU) insider Petro Poroshenko emphatically denied he was using his influence with the Prosecutor General to put pressure on Tymoshenko lieutenant Oleksandr."

" During an April 28 meeting with Ambassador, Our Ukraine (OU) insider Petro Poroshenko denied that he was behind Prosecutor General Oleksandr Medvedko's recent decision to issue an arrest warrant for Tymoshenko lieutenant Oleksandr Turchynov. " [to] question him about the alleged destruction of SBU [Ukraine intel] files on organized crime figure Seymon Mogilievich." [Russian Mafia Boss of Bosses] WikiLeaks Public Library of U.S. Diplomacy

The motivation for alleged destruction of files appeared in an embassy message from April 14, 2006.

"-- The files contained information about Tymoshenko's cooperation with Mogilievich when she ran United Energy Systems in the mid-late 1990s." WikiLeaks

Yulia Tymoshenko, an aspiring oligarch, is the darling of the both the Bush and Obama administrations for her role in the 2004 Orange Revolution that brought the first modern anti-Russian Ukraine government to power. She helped negotiate the natural gas deals between Ukraine and Russia.

Another mention of Poroshenko made it clear that the State Department saw the future value of Poroshenko's insider role.

"OU-insider Petro Poroshenko was in the running for the PM job." WikiLeaks

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with the current president in 2009 when he served as Ukraine Foreign Minister. The content of the meeting was described in a confidential message from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev on December 18, 2009:

[Speaking to Ukraine Foreign Minister Petro Poroshenko] "She [Secretary of State Clinton] emphasized that the United States envisioned multiple pathways to NATO membership." WikiLeaks

Since he was doing his work in secret, and he was "our insider," it follows that Poroshenko played the role of agent:" someone hired or recruited by an intelligence agency to do its bidding. The person to whom the agent reports -- the actual agency employee--is known as an operative." Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence, and Security

Poroshenko is a Ukrainian oligarch, one of the fifty or so wealthiest citizens who run the country. It is unlikely the president got cash for his services but highly likely that he extracted financial advantage as a result.

Amidst the chaos and ruin visited upon Ukraine, Poroshenko's recent election may mean a synchronization of U.S. - Ukraine policies regarding the eastern regions where citizens of Ukraine are subject to bombardment by land an air in their towns and cities" Go to: 

 http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ukraine-President-Once-Age-by-Michael-Collins-Agents_Petro-Poroshenko_Russia_State-Department-140609-372.html


1 comment:

  1. Ask yourselves just why it is (as Emily Maitlis pointed out during The BBC's European Election night broadcast), that it is The Poles who consistently produce the lowest "turn-outs" in The E.U for European Elections?

    ReplyDelete