Home \\ Introduction
\\ Vine's Views \\ Media \\ USOE \\ EU-Speak
\\ Pro-EU \\ Middle
East \\ Jerusalem
\\ Bibleography \\ Domania \\ Fundamental Concerns \\ Politik \\ Updates
-
- |
Bar code and the Beast Israeli president wants his country to join EU This story was printed from www.arabia.com, News channel. March 11, 2001, 12:16 PM BERLIN (AFP English) Israeli President Moshe Katsav is firmly in favor of his country joining the European Union, he said in an interview in the Sunday edition of Bild newspaper. "We already work closely with the EU and I hope that this cooperation will be deepened. Yes, I would like Israel to be a member of the European Union," Katsav told Bild am Sonntag. "We are a democratic state and we are economically and technologically at the European level. I hope there will be no resistance to our membership," he added. In the interview, the Israeli head of state claimed the idea that the Palestinians are the victims of Israeli racism was allegedly the reverse of the truth. "The Palestinians are not the victims but the culprits," he said. Katsav said Israel was "ready to make painful compromises" in order to reach peace with the Palestinians. "But one must realize that Israel has not been in such danger as it is today for nearly 30 years."
Russian Bear and the Beast By Andrei Zolotov Moscow, 8 March 2001 Ecumenical News International Daily News Service ENI-01-0094 The Russian Orthodox Church is facing one of its biggest crises since it was freed from the restrictions of Soviet life a decade ago - the refusal of many church members to accept the government tax identification numbers known as INN. Critics describe the bar codes on application forms for the ID numbers as a sign of the Antichrist referred to in the Book of Revelation. The problem, which has caused widespread consternation and even the threat of a church schism, has forced the church's head, Patriarch Alexei II, to address his flock in an unprecedented pastoral message, which was signed on 4 March and will be read in churches on Sunday, 11 March. The message, written after two days of discussion late last month by theologians and bishops in the church's Theological Commission, stops short of condemning the anti-INN movement as heretical, though some had hoped the patriarch would do this. The patriarch stated instead that acceptance or refusal to accept the tax number "is a citizen's free choice, but in no way is it a doctrinal matter". But he made it clear that laymen and clergymen who urged people not to accept the INN were undermining the unity of the church. "With all sincerity, love and pastoral care I would like to tell you: you have nothing to fear," the patriarch said in message, released by the Moscow Patriarchate on 5 March. "If anyone, even the most eloquent person, continues to sow in your hearts false fears and doubts, do not believe him. Believe the church in its wisdom." Russia's INN problem began about two years ago when the government began introducing the tax identification. The application form included a bar code which, as is required by international regulations, has three pairs of thin parallel stripes, and between the three pairs various lines and spaces which signify numbers easily read by a scanner. These three pairs of stripes, which bear no meaning and simply separate the parts of the code, look similar to the combinations of stripes used to mark the number six in the bar code system. This has prompted some critics to adopt the view of some fundamentalist Christians abroad who claim that computerised codes are based on the number 666, referred to in the biblical Book of Revelation (13: 17-18) as the "name of the beast". The "666" critics claim that the Antichrist described in the Book of Revelation seeks to dominate the world through the global computerised control of individuals who will have computer chips implanted in their hands. The critics claim that the tax IDs which "replace" Russian citizens' names with a number are the first step in this "satanic" process. In Greece, a largely Orthodox country, Christians have protested against the introduction of European passports with magnetic strips. And now in Russia, where theories about the threat of a Western "global government" abound, fears of the bar code have found fertile ground. "People are not speaking against the tax number," one of the leading critics of INN, Konstantin Gordeyev, told the Theological Commission last month. "They are simply afraid that by taking one step [accepting INN], they will be gradually involved in this global information mechanism, and they will not be able to stop." The church's hierarchy has been overwhelmed by the growth of opposition to INN. "It has spread so fast, we were caught off guard," a prominent bishop, who asked not to be named, told ENI. In March last year the Russian Orthodox Church's synod issued a statement warning church members of the risk of seeing conspiracies in the numbers, but also calling on the government to find an alternative system to monitor taxpayers. But the statement had little effect. The opposition movement has grown rapdily, despite changes in the application form made after the Tax Ministry held negotiations with the Moscow Patriarchate. Valentina Kazakova, head of the Tax Ministry's section which keeps records of taxpayers, told ENI that about 1 per cent of Russians had so far refused to accept the number. As the percentage of regular churchgoers is estimated at between 2 and 4 per cent of the population, this is a significant proportion of practising Orthodox Christians. Speakers at last month's meeting of the Theological Commission said that the Moscow Patriarchate, Tax Ministry, State Duma and presidential administration had been flooded with petitions protesting against the tax IDs. They warned that if Patriarch Alexei and the synod gave their blessing to the "number of the beast", they would be accused of betraying Orthodoxy. Rallies against the tax ID have been held in cities across Russia. Some parishes also refuse to buy bottles of wine bearing a bar code because they are afraid to use the wine at Eucharist. Some priests who accept the INN are being ostracised by their parishioners. The opposition to INN is particularly strong in monasteries, where many monks harbour what are called "apocalyptic fears". Some monks at Russia's biggest monastery, Holy Trinity Saint Sergius Lavra, 50 kilometres from Moscow, have threatened to leave if the church's leaders accept INN. "The Holy Scriptures are the highest authority for us," a monk, who declined to give his name, told ENI. "We have the right and the duty to disobey the hierarchy if it detracts from Orthodoxy." Archimandrite Tikhon Shevkunov, superior of a Moscow monastery and a leading Orthodox publisher, said that the anti-INN problem was a sign of the "sickness" of some sections of society. But he stressed that it reflected, though in a perverted form, Orthodox fears of globalisation and the levelling out of cultures and individuals. Speaking to ENI, a prominent Orthodox missionary, Deacon Andrei Kurayev, blamed the problem on a "natural penchant for magic among the Russian people". After last month's meeting the Theological Commission stressed that the reaction to INN highlighted flaws in the church's educational and publishing activities. Many observers agree. The fast growth of the Russian Orthodox Church in the decade since the end of communism has created a huge demand for priests in new parishes. As a result, many uneducated men have been ordained, and some of them have spread a doomsday mentality. Patriarch Alexei said this week that the fear of INN had, like the fear of the ecumenical movement, been encouraged by those who wanted to push the Russian Orthodox Church into isolation. In his message to be read on Sunday, the Russian Patriarch reminds Christians that neither salvation nor spiritual death can occur simply "for some external reason, without our personal participation". But he promised that the church would continue to monitor technological developments which could hinder individual freedom. All articles (c) Ecumenical News International Reproduction permitted only by media subscribers and provided ENI is acknowledged as the source. Ecumenical News International, PO Box 2100, CH - 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland Tel: (41-22) 791 6087/6515; Fax: (41-22) 788 7244 Email: eni@eni.ch
Euro-court outlaws criticism of EU By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil liberties. The EU's top court found that the European Commission was entitled to sack Bernard Connolly, a British economist dismissed in 1995 for writing a critique of European monetary integration entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe. The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order to "protect the rights of others" and punish individuals who "damaged the institution's image and reputation". The case has wider implications for free speech that could extend to EU citizens who do not work for the Brussels bureaucracy. The court called the Connolly book "aggressive, derogatory and insulting", taking particular umbrage at the author's suggestion that Economic and Monetary Union was a threat to democracy, freedom and "ultimately peace". However, it dropped an argument put forward three months ago by the advocate-general, Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, which implied that Mr Connolly's criticism of the EU was akin to extreme blasphemy, and therefore not protected speech. Mr Connolly, who has been told to pay the European Commission's legal costs, said the proceedings did not amount to a fair hearing. He said: "We're back to the Star Chamber and Acts of Attainder: the rights of defendants are not respected or guaranteed in any way; the offence of seditious libel has been resurrected." Mr Colomer wrote in his opinion last November that a landmark British case on free speech had "no foundation or relevance" in European law, suggesting that the European Court was unwilling to give much consideration to British legal tradition. Mr Connolly now intends to take his case to Europe's other court, the non-EU European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg
Currency and euro-army http://www.no-euro.com info@no-euro.com Newsletter dated 23 February 2001 1 March 2001 Research has explained the difficulties caused by the introduction of a single currency, States to became an optimal currency area, by Hugh Rockoff, explains that in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, during periods of economic difficulty, "the Floating exchange rates could have protected individual regions in difficulty by reducing their prices and attracting investment and capital. The report argues that the dollar only began to operate properly in the 1930s when the American government started to use the tax system to move very large sums of money into depressed areas. * The euro lobby likes to claim that America is an example of a successful single currency. But this report reminds us that America, unlike Eurozone, is one country. It has the means to make the dollar work: a common language, mobility of labour, and a federal system to transfer resources. * As Otmar Issing, Chief Economist of the European Central Bank, has said: "There is no example in history of a lasting monetary union that was not linked to one state." 5. More fears raised about planned European defence force * During his American visit, Tony Blair assured President Bush that the European Rapid Reaction Force (RRF) will not undermine NATO. However the French government immediately said that the European force must be able to plan operations independently of NATO. A spokeswoman for President Jacques Chirac said: "The position remains the same there must be autonomous planning."(24 February 2000). *American concern. Interviewed in the Daily Mail on Friday 23 February, former US defence secretary Caspar Weinberger said that the RRF "inevitably weakens NATO There is no way that it could not when you have a certain number of troops committed by various European member countries and you give them a new set of tasks." Visiting Europe on Wednesday 27 February, Secretary of State Colin Powell emphasised the importance of NATO: "The United States supports and welcomes the creation of a European defence facility, and believes that as long as it avoids duplication measures and has some kind of joint planning arrangements with NATO that it will actually enhance and strengthen the alliance's capabilities." On Tuesday 27 February, two members of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, Senators Joseph Biden and Gordon Smith warned that differences on National Missile Defence and RRF could threaten the future of NATO. For further information visit www.no-euro.com or contact Andrew Haldenby:
info@no-euro.com Bush backs Euro-army by Trevor Kavanagh, The Sun, February 24, 2001 President Bush last night dramatically BACKED controversial plans for a European Army.He insisted the new forced would make NATO stronger. In a statement from the Camp David talks, he said: "The US welcomes the European Union's defence policy to make Europe a stronger, more capable partner in determining and managing crisis. Mr Bush's support was an attempt to silence critics inside his own administration who fear the European Army could signal the end of NATO. The two leaders appeared to have reached a deal over the planned EU rapid reaction force. Mr Bush promised his support for the force in return for Mr Blair's backing for the controversial National Missile Defence system. The President said the Prime Minister had reassured him that the EU Army would not harm NATO. Mr Blair also told him he welcomed discussions on the NMDS. Earlier the Prime Minister had assured Dick Cheney that the EU Army, if handled properly, would strengthen and not weaken NATO. Mr Cheney replied that provided the plans did not undermine NATO and boosted European military capabilities, they would not pose a problem. A British official said: "The Prime Minister emphasized that NATO was, is and will remain the cornerstone of our defence policy." President Bush had earlier appeared to have sabotaged the EU force when he named one of Britain's stronger critics as US security chief. Under Secretary John Bolton is America's most outspoken opponent of a European army free from US influence or NATO control. Mr Bolton, who becomes Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and National Security Affairs, has publicly branded the EU army "a dagger pointed at NATO's heart". He warned recently: "We'd have to pose the stark question to Britain: are you with us or with them." He warned that America would sever all intelligence links with Britain if the plan went ahead - rather than share them with France. He added: "If the cost to the US of British payment of its EU dues in shared intelligence really began to mount, there is every prospect that the flow of information eastward would decrease dramatically." And in adjacent commentary Kavanagh states . . . In return for Mr Blair throwing in his full weight behind the Star War's programme, Mr Bush is prepared to put up with the Euro-army - which many members of his administration are against. Posturing Foreign Secretary Robin Cook claimed he laid such fears to rest during his triumphant recent visit to Washington. But we noW know that America will not continue feeding high quality satellite intelligence to the UK is it means sharing it with a French-dominated EU army. It would be unthinkable if the United States simply pulled out and left the squabbling EU to get on with defending its own backyard. Web editor's comment: Whatever the rhetoric, the Euro-army is slowly taking shape. Remember, the last great Euro-unifier, Hitler began with a couple of bi-planes and a few crackpots. Who would have thought that other evil empire (USSR) would have ended in a whimper, and all empire's finally end - even the USA. The Treaty of Rome's Euro-army is on the way, Mr President. Interestingly enough Mr Bush even knows which toothpaste Mr Blair uses. An article on the same page states: And joking about the things he and Mr Blair have in common, Mr Bush said "We both use Colgate toothpaste". Stunned Mr Blair could only mutter: "How does he know that?" George W was making it quite clear that the CIA even knows what toothpaste Blair uses, so he better come clean over the role Britain plans to play in the formation of the Euro-army. Europe prepares for war European Foundation Intelligence Digest No 113 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:40:56 -0000 From: Euro.foundation@e-f.org.uk - euro.foundation@e-f.org.uk] Published by The European Foundation, 61, Pall Mall, London SW1Y 5HZ, tel 020 7930 7319 The Digest is available free by e-mail from euro-foundation@f.org.uk As US and British planes bomb Baghdad, a former German admiral has laid out the reasons why Nato and the European Union are putting themselves on a war footing. In a long article entitled "Who are our enemies?" Vice-Admiral Ulrich Weisser has explained the so-called threats which Europe and Nato now face. The text is little more than standard Nato thinking but it has the merit of being clear and the piquancy of being in German. The admiral explains that the threats are not what they used to be in the Cold War: Germany is surrounded by peaceful and friendly neighbours and there is no threat to her territory. But this, he says, should not be confused with the situation "on the external borders of Nato" as if Nato were a state. Nor is the"strategic triangle of the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Middle East" free of dangers, which extend even to Africa. "The threats of yesterday," he says, "have been replaced by a multiplicity of risks which have a different quality." In the foreground are "ethnic, religious and nationalist rivalries" which can lead to "the collapse of state order". This, he concludes, is a "danger" with which Nato and the EU must deal. "It is not the main task of the German army to be stationed in places but instead to be ready for action, bereit zum Einsatz." He then recites the usual litany of Nato/US problems, from Iraq to Syria and the Middle East "peace process", all of which are dangerous. Then there are the dangers of "unpredictable regimes", "organised crime" and of "cyber-terrorism" attacking the world economic information system. In short, there is a whole ghouls gallery of horrors. Germany, he explains, is at particular risk because it is "a leading industrial and exporting nation and thus extremely dependent on the outside world andinterlinked with the international community." Military force, to put it bluntly, must protect Germany's interests as an exporter, but also must ensure freedom of movement for trade and the supply of raw materials. To be sure, all these problems cannot be solved by armed intervention which is why "conflict prevention" is required. "But for the cases when disputes within states and conflicts between states break out in regions which touch America's and Europe's vital interests, then the necessary instruments must be available to be able to intervene. "Crises which might spread to epidemic proportions must be stamped out in the place where they arise. The EU cannot afford strategic solidarity." Appropriately enough, the article is illustrated with numerous pictures of Luftwaffe bombers and a frightening photograph of a masked soldier who apparently belongs to the kind of "Special Units" which Europe will deploy in order to promote stability. German secret services: war in Central Asia According to a report drawn up by the Bundesnachrichtendienst, the German equivalent of MI6, Russia is in danger of being de-stabilised. Crises on Russia's southern flank, in the Caucasus and Central Asia, could, says the BND, lead to very serious conflict. In Chechnya, for instance, the Russians were not, according to the BND,succeeding in suppressing the secessionist forces and there are still 44,000 Russian troops there. But Central Asia is also a potential flash-point, since attacks by "2,000 3,000 Islamic extremists" are expected in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzia and Tadjikistan early this year. The plan of these "extremists" is to create an independent caliphate statecovering some of the territory of these three countries and supported by the Afghan Taliban. Russia, the BND says, would as the Ordnungsmacht in the region, not be able to stand by and watch this happen and thus Moscow would get drawn in to any such conflict. The troops which Russia already has in Central Asia would not be sufficient to fight any such war. If there were such a war this summer, says the BND, it would be a very serious one. The area is mountainous which would prevent the use of tanks and restrict military operations tthe light infantry. The German government is therefore watching the situation carefully, not least because "German interests are involved". Moreover, the region is one of the centres of the drug trade, for heroin is cultivated in Central Asia and Afghanistan. [Die Welt, 15th February 2001] Moscow suggests missile shield The Russian defence minister has given Lord Robertson, the Secretary-General of Nato, a plan for a non-strategic missile defence system for the whole of Europe. He said that the Russian proposal differed from the American National Missile Defence plan in that it would be regional and used only for specific threats. At a meeting with the Chairman of the State Duma's Defence Committee, Dmitri Rogosin, the question of Russia itself joining Nato was discussed. George Robertson himself said that he was convinced that this was a possibility. Rogosin said, "Instead of Nato going Eastwards,maybe Russia should go West." [Handelsblatt, 20th February2001] The suggestion that Russia should offer Europe a missile defence shield had in fact been publicly floated in the week prior to Lord Robertson's visit to Moscow. General Leonid Ivashov, the head of the Russian Defence Ministry's international co-operation department, announced in Moscow last week that details of the missile shield plan would be handed over to Nato during Robertson's visit. The general said that Russia's plans for "a special mobile, non-strategic missile defence force" could be deployed near a potential aggressor. It would, he said, be cheaper and simpler to build than the American system. Moreover, the deployment of a mobile system would be a move of last resort, to be used only if political and diplomatic efforts had failed to defuse the threat. General Ivashov dismissed as "fairy tales" Washington's suggestion that its National Missile Defence force was to protect the US against missile attacks from "rogue states" like North Korea or Iran. "If the US builds an NMD this will be above all against the strategic arsenals of Russia and China," he said, adding that the US offer of deploying its missile umbrella over Europe was aimed at draining European states financially to prevent them from pursuing their own defence programmes such as by setting up an armed force separate from Nato. The General also denied reports that Russia had moved tactical nuclear weapons to Kaliningrad but did not rule out this option if Nato grants membership to the Baltic states. "We regard the further eastward advance of Nato as a threat to our security," he said. "In this case, even Nato's tactical weapons will become strategic as far as we are concerned. We reserve the right to take adequate steps to protect our national security if Nato pushes further to the East." [The Hindu, 17th February 2001] Russian officials have made it very clear on a number of occasions that they regard the admission of the Baltic states to Nato as a military threat against which they have said they will take military action. [RFE Newsline, 19th February 2001] Fischer in the dock As suggested the last Digest, the German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, is to be investigated for perjury. The public prosecutor in Frankfurt has confirmed that an investigation will be opened into whether he deliberately gave false information to the court during his appearance as a witness in the trial of his old friend, the terrorist Hans-Joachim Klein. Klein has been subsequently sentenced to nine years imprisonment for triple murder and hostage-taking at the OPEC summit in Vienna in 1975. The investigation turns on whether Mr. Fischer deliberately misled the court when he said that he had never shared a house with theterrorist Margrit Schiller: in reality, he had. [Die Welt16th February 2001] Further controversy has been aroused because, contrary to another of Fischer's statements, it has now been revealed that he attended a PLO conference in Algeria in 1969. Mr Fischer had denied having visited any Arab countries at this time. Many German politicians feel that it is impossible for a man to be foreign minister who in the 1960s worked with an organisation then dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel. Mr. Fischer's PLO connection is interesting because the OPEC attack for which Klein has been convicted was also organised by a Palestinian group, just as other German terrorist attacks in this period were specifically anti-Israeli. The opposition Christian Democrats have naturally sought to make as much political capital out of this as possible. The Chairman of the Bavarian Christian Social Union, the Bavarian prime minister, Edmund Stoiber, has said the opposition should consider setting up a committee to investigate Fischer's violent past. Stoiber said that if it turned out that Fischer had supported PLO terrorism in 1969 then his position as Foreign Minister would be untenable. This has led in turn to allegations that the judicial investigations against Fischer are themselves politically motivated, a charge not without foundation since the regional government of Hessen, which controls prosecutions, is Christian Democrat. [Süddeutsche Zeitung, 20th February 2001] On Tuesday, the deputy leader of the Christian Democrat group in the Bundestag, Wolfgang Bosbach, said that such a committee would probably be set up, either in Frankfurt or Berlin. [Handelsblatt, 21st February 2001]
Euro-army and political union By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent The Daily Telegraph - 15 February 2001 THE idea of a pan-European economic and political union with its own defence force was conceived by SS officers, according to documents released today to the Public Record Office in Kew. Maj Gen Ellersiek and Brig Mueller, Hitler's chief of staff during the Battle of the Bulge, came up with the idea as a means of keeping Nazism alive following the expected Allied victory in the Second World War. By March 1946, Ellersiek was in charge of an underground political party called Organisation Suddeutschland. It believed in the establishment of a fully-armed United Europe, Ellersiek told a British intelligence official masquerading as a Foreign Office representative. "What was important was that Britain should realise that if Europe was to survive, we should all think 'as Europeans'," the ex-SS man was quoted as saying. The party's manifesto called for "a pan-Europe as a balance between Russia and the USA". Although the European nations would remain "independent", finance and defence matters would be decided centrally. The good which was in Nazism still lives in the German heart," Ellersiek said. His party offered "a new revolution for Germany which will set the pattern for Europe. This revolution is to be the work of the new elite, the German prototype of the future rulers of Europe . . . which has emerged purified from Nazism and the trials of war." The British official noted that German generals seemed likely to be in charge. "Germany must lead this New Europe with the co-operation of Britain," he quoted Ellersiek as saying, adding his own view that: "So little else of Britain is mentioned that it is evident she is to be the junior partner." The proposed European force has echoes of the current attempts to form European Rapid Reaction Force, controlled byGen Rainer Schuwirth of Germany. Gen Sir Charles Guthrie, Britain's Chief of the Defence Staff, has implicitly criticised the Germans for not backing their promised contributions with cash, leaving much of the manpower and equipment to be provided by the UK. Editor's comment - this theme lies at the root of the re-formed Roman Empire, the dream of enslaving its nations again comes a jackboot step closer.
Let's be a superstate, says Prodi The Sun February 14, 2001 Euro boss Romano Prodi called last night for a new political battle to turn Europe into a global superpower. Mr Prodi claimed voters would back the campaign - despite polls showing continuing antagonism towards Brussels. The European Commission president said people want "a world trading power and not just a trading bloc." Speaking in Strasbourg, he said: "We need no holds barred constitutional debate on the fundamental nature of the UnioN. I trust the judgement of our citizens and their elected representatives. This brings us to the matter - to the fundamental question that I want publicly discussed.For example, are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power? In other words, not just a trading bloc, but a political entity?" Mr Prodi called for the debate as a new poll showed British voters will reject the single currency even if Premier Tony Blair launches a campaign to join up. The survey - for ITN's Powerhouse programme - suggest an all-out battle would persuade only one in ten wavering voters to back the euro.That would boost support from 39 to 42 per cent - not enough to win a YES vote. Editor's comment - what will happen is that Brussels will promise lower mortgages, lower interest rates, more money pumped into the UK - in other words a giant financial carrot, in the same way that former a former British government sold council houses. There is no such thing as a free euro!
Britain and Europe are like an old couple who can't stop bickering. Is it time to consider a divorce? By John Redwood Extracts from The Sun February 14, 2001 Tory Eurosceptic John Redwood has written a book, Stars And Strife, about future conflicts between the US and the EU. Here Redwood, MP for Wokingham, Herks, spells out why he thinks Britain must resist being drawn into the battle. "The EU is picking a series of rows with the United States. They almost came to blows at the environment summit. The plan for a European Army under Brussels' control is a dagger pointed at the heart of NATO. They want the euro to topple the dollar.We would be crazy to be dragged into these fights. Britain and Europe are like an old married couple who do nothing but row. . . .They want a Euro army under European control. Mr Blair knows this would drive a wedge between us and our American allies. They want to let Brussels tax us. Tony Blair says 'No' but has already allowed Brussels to gain some control. . . . Our partners want a European passport, a foreign policy, an army, a currency, a common economic policy and much else that would create a new country - a place called Europe. . . .When we joined Europe it was sold to us as a trading club. No one here said it was going to make most of the rules and govern our lives. It is like joining a cricket club, only to discover that the other members want to switch to synchronised swimming. . . " Editor's comment - yes, synchronised 'swimming' with our hands tied behind our backs, a harpoon to our heads and no bathing trunks! General Powell green light to euro-army UPI, February 6, 2001 . Published by The European Foundation, 61, Pall Mall, London SW1Y 5HZ, tel 020 7930 7319. The Digest is available free by e-mail from euro.foundation@e-f.org. The new US Secretary of State, General Colin Powell, said on Tuesday that the United States would have no objections to a proposed 60,000-strong European Union army. In a press conference with the British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, he said: "I can tell you that within the Bush Administration the President and I and Secretary Rumsfeld and Dr. Rice and others think we have a very good understanding of what the European Security and Defence Initiative is all about: an effort on the part of our European friends to increase their capability for rapid reaction in Europe and wherever else the need might arise. "And we support that goal. We have had conversations with our friends to satisfy us that it will always be within the context of NATO and that there will be added capabilities coming online for these new responsibilities. "And I have heard nothing in my conversations today with Robin that would suggest we won't be able to achieve a common understanding on these issues, firmly anchored in NATO without duplicating things, which would not be wise, but at the same time giving our European friends the support they need to develop this program, develop this rapid reaction capability in a way that they can act when it isn't completely appropriate or not the right thing for NATO to do, or for one reason or other the US is unable or feels it best not to participate. "So I think all of this is complementary and we can work through the modalities of this in the months ahead without any great difficulty." He went on, "I think if we approach the European Security and Defence Initiative in the way that Robin and I have discussed, with an understanding that it is firmly imbedded in NATO and we're not duplicating planning capabilities and that we're adding to the overall capacity of both NATO and the EU countries, then there's no reason to see this as destabilizing NATO in any way. In fact, I think it is our common belief that it will strengthen NATO." Powell distanced himself from reports, which Powell implied were based on a misunderstanding, that Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said the euro-army would de-stabilise NATO. Robin Cook, in his own comments, stressed "that the agreement that we've reached at Nice on European security clearly sets out, first of all, a European operation will only occur where NATO as a whole has decided not to act. "Secondly, it will be limited to peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention. The text clearly says that territorial defence is a matter for NATO for those countries that are members of NATO. Thirdly, all the NATO members in Europe who are not in the European Union would have the right to participate in such an operation. "And fourthly, we want any European-led operation to draw on the operational planning capacity of NATO in order to make sure we're fully anchored in NATO. "Now, if we both work on those objectives we can produce an increased capacity which will strengthen NATO and make for fairer burden-sharing."
The truth about Euro-army threat to Nato Commentary by Trevor Kavanagh Sun Political Editor. December 6, 2000 We expect double-crossing Robin Cook to tell porkies. It's the only way he can hang onto his job as Foreign Secretary. And we'd be disappointed if his deputy Keith Vaz - the slippery Vaz - did not set out deliberately to mislead us each time he opened his mouth. After all, he opposed the infamous Maastricht Treaty - and called for a referendum so that Britain could dump it. But we tend to believe Tony Blair, who says he is an "honest kind of guy", when he promises there are no plans for a European army. Indeed, in a recent poll, half the nation backed plans for a 60,000 strong EU Rapid Reaction Force under orders from Brussels - so long as it did not undermine NATO. There were no plans for a standing army, Mr Blair told us. Now we have the truth - from EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels. They want to leave Britain out of a fast-track operation which would give Europe its own defence force - separate from NATO. The move, which caught Robin Cook with his pants down, sparked instant consternation in the White House. American defence secretary William Cohen warned it could be the end of NATO, the cornerstone of European defence for 50 years. "Too many questions remain unanswered," he told NATO defence ministers in Brussels yesterday. NATO could become a relic of the past. That's not something that the US desires." But he warned the 19 NATO member states to keep an eye open for the "warning flags." He added: "If we have a competing institution that would be inconsistent with military effectiveness, NATO could be weakened." As the Sun warned when the row exploded last month, America is deeply suspicious of French moves to drive a wedge between Brussels and Washington. US defence chiefs have accused French officers of leaking secret bombing plans to Milosevic regime during the battle to save Kosovo. They believe it was a tip-off from a French informer that led to the spectacular downing of a Stealth bomber over Belgrade. And they vow they will severe exchanges of vital intelligence with Britain if there is any chance of it falling into French hands. Mr Blair and the faithful Mr Cook denied all this. They insisted there was no plan to build a rival to NATO, despite German admissions that the new Rapid Reaction Force would be able to strike deep into hostile territory up to 2,500 miles from Brussels. Now we know the truth. France, Germany and Italy have pulled a flanker on Britain under which countries who have signed up to the euro would be able to set up their own military operations. At an explosive meeting in Brussels last Sunday, Mr Cook vowed to block any move in a new treaty at the EU summit in Nice, which starts tomorrow. The bust-up is a bitter blow for ministers who believed one poll suggesting the public supported a European army. Last night a new ICM survey revealed the truth- 56 per cent oppose any move that puts British troops under orders from Brussels. Only 30 per cent increase. Tory defence spokesman Iain Duncan Smith said: "Tony Blair cannot dupe the British public when national security is at stake." Editor's comment: Right on Trevor, the wolves in sheeps clothing can't pull the wool over your eyes!
US Secretaries for State and Defence: Rapid Reaction Force must not undermine NATO From: "no-euro.com" February 8,2001 For further information visit www.no-euro.com or contact Andrew Haldenby: info@no-euro.com Colin Powell, the new American Secretary of State, and Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State for Defense, this week repeated that the EU Rapid Reaction Force must not undermine NATO. Speaking on Saturday 3 February, Mr Rumsfeld said that he was a "little worried" by proposals by the Rapid Reaction Force. He said: "Actions that could reduce NATO's effectiveness by confusing duplication or perturbing the transatlantic link would not be positive." Speaking after a meeting with Robin Cook on Tuesday 6 February, Colin Powell emphasised that the Rapid Reaction Force must not develop a separate command or planning structure. He said: "If we approach the European security and defence initiative in the way Robin and I have discussed, with an understanding it is firmly embedded in NATO and not duplicating NATO planning capabilities there's no reason to see this as destabilising NATO in any way." What Blair has really given us by Trevor Kavanagh, The Sun., December 12, 2000 Tony Blair last night put on a brave face after signing up to more bureaucracy, greater secrecy and dodgier decision making in Brussels. He claimed victory overt taxes, welfare and defence - but put his name to a treaty which failed his own acid tests of accountability and openness. And as her returned exhausted form a five day marathon summit in Nice, the PM told the commons "We cannot do business like this in the future" Tory leader William Hague said Europe had been allowed to run away with more power. He declared"This agreement represents major steps to a European superstate. Britain has signed away the veto in 213 new areas and granted European institutions the opportunity to impose further integration in the future." OUR LOSSES *The European army marches on, with only token accountability to NATO. *Far from becoming streamlined, transparent and accountable, the European Union, is increasingly bureaucratic, secretive and remote. The Facts By Robin Cook, British Foreign Secretary The Mirror November 22, 2000 We are used to hearing myth and fantasy about Europe from the Tories. But their comments about the so-called EU army in the last few days have been downright dishonest. Common sense should tell us this plan is about building a strong Britain in a safer Europe.The only reason this is a controversial issue at all is that anti-Europeans' knee-jerk hostility to anything to do with the EU. The Government will not let the anti-Europeans pursue their secret agenda to pull Britain out of the EU.We will keep giving the British people the facts until there is a fair debate about Europe in this country. The British people deserve facts, not myths, about Europe So here are the facts. Fact I: There will NOT be an EU Army. We have pledged soldiers and equipment to a rapid reaction capability which can be used only if Britain decides it is in our national interest. Fact 2: British squaddies will go into action ONLY when the British Prime Minister says so. And when they do so they will be wearing British uniforms and serving under the British flag. They will NOT be taking orders in French, Swedish, Dutch or any other foreign language. Fact 3: The EU is NOT taking over NATO's role. Nato is and will remain responsible for Britain's territorial defence. The EU forces will go into action if NATO decides it doesn't want to be involved in a peace-keeping or humanitarian operation. Fact 4: The Americans SUPPORT it. Madelaine Albright said this week that the EU plan is "a strongly positive development we wholly support". And the American ambassador to the EU said, "it will help to strengthen NATO." Fact 5: British squaddies have been serving alongside our European allies for year in NATO and UN operations from Beirut to Kosovo. Editor's comments: Methinks she doth protest too much! NATO: IS IT THE END? France and Germany want to scrap key ties with our US allies by George Pascoe-Watson, Sun deputy political editor December 2000 The decision to create a European army which could doom NATo was under attack on all fronts last night. Politicians and military experts said the EU Rapid Reaction Force was sure to weaken the alliance. One American expert has even suggested it is part of a French-German plan to push American forces out. Under the deal 20,000 British servicemen and women will be committed to the EU force - so that 12,5000 can be deployed at any one time. The mini-army will include 18 Royal Navy ships and at least 72 RAF planes. Like Britain, Germany and France are contributing the same number of soldiers. The entire force will involve 60,000 soldiers, sailors, and aircraftmen, at least 300 aircraft and a battlefleet of 73 ships. Squaddies would wear EU symbols alongside their own regimental insignia.
EU'RE IN THE ARMY NOW Fears as PM backs new force by Trevor Kavanagh, The Sun, November 21, 2000 The world's most powerful military alliance was at risk last night as Tony Blair signed Britain up to a European Army.The special relationship between London and Washington is almost a century old. But experts warned the EU's new 60,000 strong rapid reaction force could mark the end of NATO - Europe's defence shield since World War Two. American's worst fears were realised when Germany unveiled plans for "peace keeping missions" within a 2,500 miles radius of Brussels - including Africa, Russia and the Middle East. The announcement was accompanied by an official map showing the EU HQ as the command post of an area encompassing Moscow, Cairo, Jerusalem and Damascus. Editor's comment: The Euro-army will certainly deployed in the Middle East, today's Roman Empire builders have their eyes on the sweetest cherry of them all - The Promised Land - and no Arab or Jew will be allowed to stand in their way.
Brussels blast at heart of NATO Daily Mail, November 21, 2000 . . . But Tony Blair hit back furiously last night at what he called 'the most exaggerated scaremongering nonsense.' As he flew to Moscow for talks with Russian president Vladimir Putin, he insisted: "It's not a conflict force, it's a peace-keeping and humanitarian force. "It is only a force when NATO doesn't want to be engaged. It is complementary. The idea that this is running in a different direction to NATO is just a scare. "The idea of some European army marching under the Brussels Commission with Romano Prodi at its head, directing the troops, this is just the usual scare story.' . . . but Tory defence spokesman Iain Duncan Smith said it was clear voters could not trust Mr Blair and his government. He said: "They are telling the British people one thing while others in Europe are being told a different story about the European Union with superpower ambitions - and now with an army to match." . . . reports in Bonn said Germany wanted it to operate with a 2,500 miles radius of Brussels, which take sin Moscow, Israel, Baghdad and large parts of North Africa. Downing Street said last night that the new force could be deployed only if all 15 EU members states voted in favour. Even after deployment was approved, each country would be free to decided whether it would send troops. "The British prime minister will continue to decided when and how British troops are deployed," said the spokesman. It'll work but we must be careful by Lt Gen Sir Roderick Cordy-Simpson, Mirror Military Adviser Although I have no objection to the principal of a European-commanded army, I do have some misgivings.The big worry is that this new beast will need big financial commitments to be of any use. Or are we just saying that because we have a European Union, we must have a European military force?
Operations could stretch from by Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor, The Times, November 21, 2000 The European Union's new military force could be in heavy demand in conflicts stretching form the Balkans and Eastern Europe to Africa and the Middle East. . . . North Africa and the Middle East, arguably the least stable regions on Europe's border, are other areas of concern. Any destabilisation in North Africa leads to an increase of refugees in Spain, Fran and Italy and it is in Europe's interest that the region is stable. The Middle East offers bigger challenges. Although the US has traditionally dominated the region, a European force, which has create sympathy in the Arab world, could help to keep the peace, as many European troops do already under UN command in South Lebanon. EU picks German to lead 'forerunner of a new Euro-army' from Alan Hall in Berlin, Daily Mail, November 17, 2000 A German general born shortly after the end of the Second World War is to command a new EU rapid reaction force which could be the forerunner of a European army. Lieutenant General Rainer Schuwirth was chosen by the 15 EU states in their interim military committee in Brussels. But last night, there were questions about the wisdom of appointing a soldier form a country which has not earmarked on any military action for more than half a century. Born in Regensberg in July 1945 - a southern city heavily bombed during the war, General Schuworth joined the German army as a professional soldier in 1964. The military record, if any, of his father was not known last night. The German army, sensitive to the country's Nazi past and the record of the Reich military - declined to comment on his family background. Last year, it emerged that the German commander in Kosovo was the son of a high-ranking Nazi official with links to Operation Reinhard - the effort to exterminate Jews prior to the construction of the death camps. The EU plans to establish a force capable of deploying 60,000 tropes to crisis zones up to 2,500 miles away at short notice. Britain could be asked to provide between 10,000 and 20,000 troops. Critics claims the force is simply the first step towards the creation of a European Army, politically controlled from Brussels. Red face over Prodi call for a Euro Army by Paul Eastham, Daily Mail, 2000 Tony Blair faced deep embarrassment last night after the man he chose as EU President demanded the power to order British troops to fight for Brussels. Romano Prodi, who was sworn in only last week declared that he now ran the Government of Europe - and Europe needed its own army. The 59 year old former Italian Premier added that without an armed force at its disposal to respond to crises such as Kosovo, the Commission risked being 'marginalised in world history.' Mr Prodi argued the idea was in line with the Commission's role in forging a common foreign policy. "I don't think there is a foreign policy without defence.' he said. Mr Prodi said the army would be set up in a similar fashion to the single currency, with countries deciding whether they wanted to contribute. But it would be 'pretty meaningless' without Britain, he declared. Shadow defence secretary John Maples demanded Mr Blair slap down Mr Prodi. "The single currency,a single fiscal policy and a joint armed force constitutes a state.
ROMANO EMPEROR Brussels boss wants to control our taxes and armed forces by Trevor Kavanagh, The Sun, 2000, articles appears with cartoon of a Roman arena with Prodi giving the thumbs down to gladiator Tony Blair. EU chief Romano Prodi last night sensationally set out his vision of Europe as a new Roman Empire - with himself as Emperor. He wants to make Tony Blair and fellow national leaders surrender control of ALL key decisions taken by individual parliaments. And he plans to rob states of their veto against ANY decision on vital matters such as tax and armed forces that has been approved by an EU majority. The Brussels boss also intends to hands more power to the European Parliament and the unelected commissioners. The spectacular power grab is spelled out in a shock report published yesterday. The report, ordered by European commission president Mr Prodi, was written by a team known as the 'Three wise men' who include Labour ex-minister Lord Simon. And it came out only days after Mr Prodi announced :"For the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire we have the opportunity to unite Europe." . . . federalist Mr Prodi is expected to back the report, which paves the way for up to a dozen more countries to join the 15 national European Union. Anticipating a storm of protest Belgium's ex-PM Jean-Luc Dehaene, the chairman of the report team, said: "Let's not have a war of religion. Let's try to advance Europe" Shadow foreign minister John Maples said"This is nothing less than a blueprint for a superstate. So only days after Tony Blair claimed no one wants a federal superstate, one of his own former ministers has proposed precisely that." Editor's comment: The use of the headline ROMANO EMPEROR even startled me! Without reading Mr Vine's enlightning book the Sun's sub-editors had hit the nail on the head, nobody could accuse them of being fundamentalist Christians with crazy ideas about the EU turning into a modern Roman Empire, headed by an Emperor!
Superstate is not our target - Santer 'Not a USA but a federal Europe of nations' by Victor Smart Political Editor, The European 13-19 Feb 1998 Jacques Santer, the European Commission presidents, has rejected the cherished vision of a united states of Europe, arguing that the continent's precious national diversity must be fostered. In an exclusive interview with The European, Santer declared that a European identity should not be foisted on citizens in place of their national identity. And he argued that European Union integration was no being pursued on wholly federalist lines, but rather was "a quite new model" somewhere between a simple partnership of states and a full-blown united states of Europe. Nonetheless, the Commission president was adamant that all EU goals of a vanguard group of states driving integration forward. Speaking as the mid-point of his five-year term approaches, Santer sought to reassure people that Europe has within its grasp two historic opportunities. The first is completion of the single market, now given a highly symbolic deadline of 1 January 1999, the date when monetary union is due to come into existence. The second is the EU's opportunity early in the next decade to embrace the east and central European states dominated by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Santer said: "We have created a single market but it does not yet function as a single market. We have to improve that, to deepen the market, for the sake of our industry's competitiveness. We want the remaining fields of the single market to be achieved on 1 January 1999. "That will means there is a clear parallel with the first entry by currencies into monetary union and the completion of the single market." . . . Asked what his message for the new millennium would be, Santer said" Simply that we should build a very strong Europe which is both an international and economic power, but can also play a part in world affairs. Editor's comment: Words may change, but the direction is the same, a united empire, a united states of Europe, a superstate with its own army.
Armageddon is ready for the final conflict from John Passmore in Armageddon, E.Standard, February 13, 1991. They are making gasmasks cases in Armageddon now.The place where the world is supposed to end should be making jewellery and serving tea to tourists, but then in the Middle East at the moment nothing is quite as it should be. Armageddon really exists. It is not some vague and portentous concept which comes with compulsory fire and brimstone. In fact, it is a hill about an hour's drive north of Tel Aviv and if St John the Divine had been able to think of anywhere else to set Revelation Chapter 16 verse 16, then it would be just another ancient ruin on the tourist map of Israel. But armies have been fighting over this hill, which overlooks the main road from Egypt to the North, since Pharoah Thuit Mose III beat the King of Kadesh in 1468 BC. They went on fighting over it through the time of Canaan and the Philistines, from the Romans right up to the Israelies and the Arab Legion in 1948. King Solomon built the city of Megiddo there in 10 BC. In Hebrew the Hill of Megiddo translates as Har Megiddon.In 1949 the Israeli settlers promptly called their new home Kibbutz Megiddo. The visitor today learns from a plaque: "Right here before you and around you, man's most important conflict will take place in the last of days - the greatest and final war. "In the New Testament, St John predicts that the decisive battle between the forces of good and evil to end all destruction and persecution will take place at Megiddo - or, in its other name, Armageddon." Usually, 150,000 tourists flock here every year to buy jewellery and trinkets bearing the eight-Century Megiddo Seal, showing a lion and the inscription 'Belonging to Chema, servant of Jeroboam.' But there are no tourists at Armageddon now and in the kibbutz Gady Bar-Ner has had to find other work for half his staff. The kibbutz is currently being saved by its small plastics factory. Usually this makes box files, but two weeks ago Mr Bar-Ner identified a new market. "The cardboard boxes supplied with the government's gas masks will not last through the war. People need something stronger," he said "It seemed to us that we could make them out of plastic board and we have had a good success. Already we have sold 120,000." He is not much impressed by the much-vaunted efficiency of the Patriot missiles."This war has been going for nearly one month and still we have Scud missiles coming down on us. "This is not right. The Americans should have dealt with this by now. I know from my own army service that Israel could do it.We had the same problem at the beginning of the Yom Kippur War when Syria fired missiles at us. Within one day there were almost no more missiles - and we did not have satellites to help us find them." If Saddam does manage to drag Israel into the war, then the 90 families on the Kibbutz Megiddo, at least, will be prepared for the escalation that must follow. They live, after all, in the shadow of 6000 years of violent history - and with the prospect of hosting the real 'Mother of Battles' at the end of time. Editor's comment: Nothing changes!
Stop Euro political union say September 1990 Movement towards European political union should be halted until serious consideration has been given to the scope of the Community's powers and the need for checks and balances within institutions, the Institute of Directors warns in a document on European political union. The IOD says there should be not further amendment to the Treaty of Rome or new powers for the European Parliament without serious constitutional debate. "What we are saying in this document is stop and consider where it is we want to end up," said Dr Ann Robinson, head of the IOD Policy Unit and author of the document. "If the European states are to grow closer together successfully there must be considered discussion. "If we are serious about political union we need a formal constitution, agreed by all the nation states, which is both robust and flexible enough to permit changes necessitated by the internal and external economic and political pressures which may arise over the years. "We will not get this if politicians and commentators continue to suggest random, uncoordinated steps with no coherent and openly understood aim behind them." The IOD stresses the fundamental questions which must be addressed in the political union debate, in particular between a 'Federal United States of Europe' and a 'Unitary United States of Europe'. Above all, it says, the scope and powers of the proposed union must be defined. Britain sides with NATO The Times , February 22, 1969 A French scheme to replace the Common Market with a wider European economic grouping independent of NATO and the United States was disclosed in London last night. The new grouping would have a four-power council - Britain, France, Italy and West Germany. Britain, however, is believed to be cool to the idea, rejecting the inner council suggestion and the dissociation from NATO. The plan was understood to have been outlined by General de Gaulle himself during a luncheon on February 4 with Christopher Soames, the British Ambassador in Paris, but authoritative French sources last night denied that the general made any such suggestion. General de Gaulle's ideas went so far beyond what had been orthodox European diplomatic thinking in the last few years that, after this long talk with Mr Soames record of their discussion was put into an agreed form, the test of which was approved by the British Embassy and by the President's own office. There are some indications that the general would have liked to keep these ideas private between France and Britain in the early stages. Britain's view, however, has been that the vital interests of other European countries and of NATO allies are affected, and therefore it was the British duty to keep other nations informed. It has been doing this through normal diplomatic channels. The lunch with Mr Soames had been proposed by the general himself. He argued that European thinking was deeply affected by the pro-American feelings of all the countries in Europe, and of Britain. France was the only country which had taken up a totally independent position, and this was notably not the case for West Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and Britain. The essential point of a European entity was that it should have an independent standpoint in world terms. General De Gaulle was not convinced that Britain would accept this view. Once Europe was truly independent there would be no need for NATO, which had what the general saw as American dominance and an American command structure. Mr Soames reported General de Gaulle's new proposals to the Government, and at a meeting with M Debre on February 12 put Britain's reaction. It is believed that he said then that the general's idea were significant, but emphasised that Britain would have to inform its partners in the Western European Union, because their vital interests and security were involved. Britain rejected the thesis that Europe would be independent of NATO, and Britain maintained its position on seeking entry into the EEC. Britain was willing to have discussions with General de Gaulle, but on these basic assumptions, and provided that Britain's partners in the alliance were kept informed. On the present evidence, Britain would disagree fundamentally with General de Gaulle's thinking on the future of NATO, on the european relationship with the United States, and on the need for a four power directorate in Europe. Britain's case rests on the Atlantic alliance and cohesion in Europe. Editor's comment: If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. European pigsty The Guardian 1989 Rome today is a surprisingly squalid place, a dirty city full of litter, beggars and hard drugs. Paris has down and outs sleeping across the Metro grattings, or on the boulevards, a chalked appeal for help scrawled beside them. There is squalor even in rich Munich, the wrappings from fast-food stores tangling in your feet. In Amsterdam or Madrid, London or Lisbon, the distinctive aroma of modern Europe is tale urine in a public place. We are building a Euro pig-sty. Editor's comment: Indeed! Britain sides with NATO The Times , February 22, 1969 A French scheme to replace the Common Market with a wider European economic grouping independent of NATO and the United States was disclosed in London last night. The new grouping would have a four-power council - Britain, France, Italy and West Germany. Britain, however, is believed to be cool to the idea, rejecting the inner council suggestion and the dissociation from NATO. The plan was understood to have been outlined by General de Gaulle himself during a luncheon on February 4 with Christopher Soames, the British Ambassador in Paris, but authoritative French sources last night denied that the general made any such suggestion. General de Gaulle's ideas went so far beyond what had been orthodox European diplomatic thinking in the last few years that, after this long talk with Mr Soames record of their discussion was put into an agreed form, the test of which was approved by the British Embassy and by the President's own office. There are some indications that the general would have liked to keep these ideas private between France and Britain in the early stages. Britain's view, however, has been that the vital interests of other European countries and of NATO allies are affected, and therefore it was the British duty to keep other nations informed. It has been doing this through normal diplomatic channels. The lunch with Mr Soames had been proposed by the general himself. He argued that European thinking was deeply affected by the pro-American feelings of all the countries in Europe, and of Britain. France was the only country which had taken up a totally independent position, and this was notably not the case for West Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and Britain. The essential point of a European entity was that it should have an independent standpoint in world terms. General De Gaulle was not convinced that Britain would accept this view. Once Europe was truly independent there would be no need for NATO, which had what the general saw as American dominance and an American command structure. Mr Soames reported General de Gaulle's new proposals to the Government, and at a meeting with M Debre on February 12 put Britain's reaction. It is believed that he said then that the general's idea were significant, but emphasised that Britain would have to inform its partners in the Western European Union, because their vital interests and security were involved. Britain rejected the thesis that Europe would be independent of NATO, and Britain maintained its position on seeking entry into the EEC. Britain was willing to have discussions with General de Gaulle, but on these basic assumptions, and provided that Britain's partners in the alliance were kept informed. On the present evidence, Britain would disagree fundamentally with General de Gaulle's thinking on the future of NATO, on the european relationship with the United States, and on the need for a four power directorate in Europe. Britain's case rests on the Atlantic alliance and cohesion in Europe. |