The European Union always was an American project. It was Washington that drove European integration in the late 1940s, and funded it covertly under the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations. – Telegraph
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is telling the truth again, or at least part of it, in this most recent column of his. But we find ourselves disagreeing with him on some important points.
More on that in a minute.
The initial cause of the column is supposedly Pritchard’s disbelief regarding euro-skeptics who were shocked by Barack Obama’s recent statements (made in England) opposing Brexit.
Obama went so far as to warn those who might be sympathetic to Brexit that the preference of the US was to negotiate with the EU when it came to matters of economy and state.
A country set free by Brexit would be seen by the US as an afterthought, or so he basically implied.
Obama’s statements caused quite a stir. The idea was that the US stood for freedom and individual as opposed to communal rights. Obama made it clear this was a misunderstanding.
Pritchard spends the rest of the column explaining how the US power structure really works and why the US is responsible for the European Union.
He points out that the the Schuman Declaration that gradually led to the initial European Community was “cooked up” by the US Secretary of State Dean Acheson at a meeting in Foggy Bottom.
Pritchard also draws on now-declassified documents from State Department archives “showing that US intelligence funded the European movement secretly for decades, and worked aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into the project.”
As this newspaper first reported when the treasure became available, one memorandum dated July 26, 1950, reveals a campaign to promote a full-fledged European parliament.
It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the Central Inteligence Agency. The key CIA front was the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE), chaired by Donovan.
Pritchard finds all of this secretive but little of it reprehensible. He believes the US acted “astutely” given the reality of the Cold War of the time.
Interestingly he cites a memo dated June 11, 1965 that “instructs the vice-president of the European Community to pursue monetary union by stealth.”
We’ve pointed out many times that the EU’s monetary union was designed to generate momentum for a deeper political union. But a memo from June 1965 shows the discipline and longevity of the initial strategy.
Pritchard’s argument flows naturally into insights regarding the stance that Brexit supporters ought to be taking regarding an exit.
According to Pritchard, given the time and effort that the US in particular has invested in building the EU, “the awful truth for the Leave campaign is that the governing establishment of the entire Western world views Brexit as strategic vandalism.”
In his view, Brexit supporters should be emphasizing a larger military budget and should seek a powerful partnership with France to create a non-EU security alliance.
Unless Brexit supporters quickly come to understand that leave-taking will involve building a modern state – a kind of mini-EU in some respects – the movement will fail.
“You can quarrel with Europe, or you can quarrel with the US,” Pritchard finishes, “but it is courting fate to quarrel with the whole democratic world at the same time.”
However, Pritchard has left out some powerful players. Chief among them, London’s City and its financiers. This is the group to which we here at DB attribute the EU in its formative years and even today.
He claims that the EU is a US and even CIA invention. But intelligence agencies were initially private and thus were the creation of monied banking interests that wanted real insights from abroad.
Top intelligence operatives “follow the money” when it comes to their reporting lines. And the real money and most powerful influences have resided in London for centuries.
According to Pritchard, the EU was conceived of as a counterweight to the Soviet Union and civilian twin of the military NATO. But at a more fundamental level, the EU experiment is actually just one more advance in creating an evermore connected and inter-dependent world.
Globalist mercantilism is an authoritarian curse that removes choices from people’s lives and substitutes regulation. It is funded and driven by central banking – and by financiers – not by NATO.
Monopoly central banking was basically founded in London and to a large degree London financial “City” remains its seat of power.
We need to understand this power and its processes if we are to counteract it as a society and as individuals. If we do not wish to live under globalist regimes, we need to combat manifestations of faux internationalism in our societies and in our personal lives.
And we need to identify where the trend is coming from. We need to understand who is driving it. It is being driven by powerful financial interests. And those interests have always resided in the City.
Conclusion: What can we learn from the misunderstandings of Brexit supporters? That clarity is necessary when it comes to identifying the foes of freedom. Pritchard’s article, as informative as it is, unfortunately does us few favors in this regard.