Cette page s’adressant à notre audience européenne est exceptionnellement en anglais.
An independent NATO could replace the US as supreme guarantor of peace.
The EU could become the Tax Haven for business and entrepreneurs only, thus financing NATO with recovered proceeds of tax evasion, and setting free the Very Long Term Investments (30-100 Yr.) palliating climate change, threats on ecosystems, cyberterrorism and psycho-warfare.
In June 2016, the people of
the United Kingdom (UK) have voted to let their government negotiate Brexit, i.
e. Britain exit from the European Union (EU). Formal negotiations are about to
begin. Within two years, probably a bit more, the UK will no more be a member
of the EU. Unless Euripides’ Law[i] plays
Within the UK, the people of
Ireland and Northern Ireland are the first to face unforeseen and critical
consequences: Will the Good Friday Agreement (1998) become obsolete? With this
agreement, the EU managed erasing the border artificially separating them. This
formally ended a state of conflict punctuated by war and terrorism which, in
practice, prevailed since Elizabeth the First… It means that the Irish people
have a case to finally unite, and stay in the EU where they already belong,
while keeping with the UK any trade and other agreements. A similar request
from Scotland will probably follow. The scenario now in progress could end with
the termination of a three-centuries-old union of kingdoms which, formally,
never ceased to consider themselves as sovereign nations. Probable? No. But no
Two weeks ago, Donald Trump, President
of the United States, confirmed his previous statements during meetings in Europe and the Middle East: Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) should consider with
a grain of salt the United States’ readiness to apply the One for All, All for
One Rule which inspired the North Atlantic Treaty.
The EU immediately reacted
by backing Angela Merkel’s statement: From
now on, we Europeans are on our own.
A week later, Trump announced the Clichexit
scenario (for Climate Change Exit): his government will step out of the Paris
Agreement signed by 195 countries last year to jointly address Climate Change.
Within days, a joint declaration signed by Germany, France and Italy reminded
that this agreement cannot be renegotiated. Theresa May, the UK’s Prime
Minister, remained silent. Sometimes a silence deserves to be heard.
The nations who signed the
North Atlantic Treaty on April 4, 1949 were in a special state of mind. They took
it as self-evident that the Free World does exist; that it consists of all
nations accepting the Rule of Law, Universal Suffrage as source of sovereignty,
and Separation of Powers; that they all understood that the Free World must make itself safe from all totalitarian threats; and they accepted
to contribute to it through financial and military resources, while avoiding
armed conflicts to settle their own disputes.
And so they did.
Pax Americana was a huge success for
In 1949, the United States constituted
by far the biggest economy, industry, agriculture and scientific capability. It
was the richest and most developed nation. It was an overwhelming military
power with the then unique advantage of nuclear armament. It was also perceived
as a legitimate moral leader in virtue of its role in World War 2 and of the
tremendous help it was providing through the Marshall Plan. It was implicit
that the U. S. Government was the guarantor underwriting this defense
capability, and the leader in all strategic decisions and in political
relations with the United Nations. This all the more that, at that time, the Berlin
Air Bridge feeding that city despite a Soviet blockade reminded all that the USSR,
led by Josef Stalin himself, represented the obvious threat to the Free World
surviving the war; and that nations in continental Europe, having been the
causes, the originators and the crucial site of two world wars, had lost all credibility.
It was a tremendous success:
Considering that between 1910 and 1950 about one hundred million people died of
consequences and repercussions of two world wars plus a few others, Pax Americana allowed for several
decades a level of peace and prosperity unknown until now, especially in
Europe. Whatever we may have been thinking of the United States’ leaders, corporations,
successive Heads of State, and underlying motivations, we can feel some
gratitude for the American people, who contributed to the Free World’s defense
through the loss of a few hundred thousand lives and their taxes, without
always understanding why they were paying (for they were not rich, that is a
legend, see picture), and why they were risking their skins. They are present
in Europe through various military graveyards which we should always treat with
With or without Donald Trump, the game is over.
The European Union must from
now on learn to count on its own resources for its security. Which, after all,
was bound to happen sooner or later, Trump or no Trump. Why should one single
nation bear such a burden; a nation which enjoys no overwhelming power anymore
today, and in which political divisions are growing to the point that some are
considering an impeachment of its President, and at least one State,
California, the strongest in population and GDP, is openly talking of a
Let us think of the future.
American field farmers during the Great Depression.
Many of them were good for the draft in 1942...
attempt here a sketch of the scenario we could consider today for Europe,
facing all its NATO allies, and appraising those of the world’s twelve key
powers with whom we must work for peace while facing potential disagreements
and disputes, and the chaotic hornets' nest called the Arab World. We
think that these will be Brazil, China, Egypt,
India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Japan, Mexico, North Korea, Russia and Turkey (alphabetic
We should keep NATO alive, (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty) simply taking act of the U. S. reconsidering
from now on its ability and willingness to play the guarantor of last resource
in case of immediate threat. This doesn’t mean at all that the US might step
out of the alliance. Actually the occasion is right for us Europeans to pay a
tribute to John (Jack) D. Hickerson who, according to history, drafted the treaty
almost single handed within two weeks. He certainly didn’t expect that his text
would last that long. His statue somewhere could serve as reminder of this
The EU immediately reacted by backing Angela Merkel’s statement: From now on, we Europeans are on our own.
A week later, Trump announced the Clichexit scenario (for Climate Change Exit): his government will step out of the Paris Agreement signed by 195 countries last year to jointly address Climate Change. Within days, a joint declaration signed by Germany, France and Italy reminded that this agreement cannot be renegotiated. Theresa May, the UK’s Prime Minister, remained silent. Sometimes a silence deserves to be heard.
|American field farmers during the Great Depression.|
Many of them were good for the draft in 1942...
We attempt here a sketch of the scenario we could consider today for Europe, facing all its NATO allies, and appraising those of the world’s twelve key powers with whom we must work for peace while facing potential disagreements and disputes, and the chaotic hornets' nest called the Arab World. We think that these will be Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Japan, Mexico, North Korea, Russia and Turkey (alphabetic order).
1949. The Air Bidge to rescue Berliners despite a Soviet blockade
demonstrated beyond doubts the U. S.'s moral leadership
as well as military preeminence
|The direct cost to Al Qaeda of the 9/11 attack was far less than $ 50,000.|
This was possible because it was a suicide mission inspired by transcendental motives.
Reconsider NATO’s missions and needs using more
of the Apollo XI planning tools and less of the next quarterly forecast favored
We suggest that NATO’s needs
in resources be reconsidered using long term strategic planning and
implementation rather than Stockholders’ Value Enhancement (SVE) and the three universal
scenarios of Global Financialization: Low salary costs, low salary costs, and…
low salary costs, aiming at no other goals than “looking-good” quarterly reports
and nanosecond speculation. About Financialization see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization
We suggest that NATO’s future
weaponry definition be revised to take into account today’s new forms of
aggression, and other major dangers, which may require completely different
armament or no armament at all: population change with special attention to
causes inciting sudden migration, climate change, possible destruction of
ecosystems, control and piracy of information, psycho-manipulation by ideology
propaganda using social networks, and surprise terrorist action killing and
maiming at random innocent children, women and seniors, through coaching of
Let us, in the jails of many
countries, identify and liaise with tomorrow’s Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu
NATO’s policy statement should emphasize that
NATO is more interested in contributing to world peace, and in eradicating war and
violence as a way to settle dispute never mind the circumstances, than in
defending European interests, or specific interests of any of its members.
|Muhammad Mossadegh, Iran's Prime Minister|
elected by a legitimate parliament, 1951-53