The Brexit reshuffles world geopolitics
by Thierry Meyssan  /  Translated by Pete Kimberley  /  28 June 2016

“No-one seems to comprehend the consequences of the British decision to leave the European Union. Those commentators who interpret party politics, and who forfeited their understanding of international challenges a long time ago, have been concentrating on the elements of an absurd campaign – on one side, the adversaries of uncontrolled immigration, and on the other, the “bogeymen” who have been threatening the United Kingdom with the direst of torments. But the stakes of this decision have nothing to do with these themes. The discrepancy between reality and the discourse of the political media illustrates the disease from which the Western elite is really suffering – their incompetence.

While the veil is being ripped apart before our eyes, our elites do not understand the situation any better than the Communist Party of Soviet Russia could see the consequences of the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 – the dissolution of the USSR in December 1991, then the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon) and the Warsaw Pact six months later, followed by the attempts to dismantle Russia itself, in which it almost lost Chechnya. In identical fashion, we will soon be witnessing the dissolution of the European Union, then NATO, and unless they pay close attention, the dismantling of the United States.

What interests are behind the Brexit?
Contrary to the boastful claims of Nigel Farage, UKIP was not the originator of the referendum it has just won. The decision was imposed on David Cameron by the members of the Conservative Party. For them, London’s policy must be a pragmatic adaptation to the evolution of the world. This “nation of shop-keepers”, as Napoleon qualified it, observes that the United States are no longer either the world’s prime economy or its major military power. There is therefore no further reason to hang on as their privileged partner.

Just as Margaret Thatcher never hesitated to destroy British industry in order to transform her country into an international financial centre, in the same way the Conservatives did not hesitate to open the door for the independence of Scotland and Northern Ireland – and thus the loss of North Sea oil – in order to transform the City into the primary off shore financial centre for the yuan. The Brexit campaign was largely supported by the Gentry and Buckingham Palace, who mobilised the popular Press to call for a return to independence.

Contrary to the interpretations published in the European Press, the departure of the British from the EU will not happen slowly, because the EU will collapse faster than the time necessary for the bureaucratic negotiations concerning their withdrawal. The Comecon states did not have to negociate their exit, because the Comecon had ceased to function as soon as the centrifugal movement began. The member states of the EU who hang on, desperately trying to save whatever remains of the Union, will fail in their adaptation to this new distribution, and run the risk of experiencing the painful convulsions of the first few years of the new Russia – a vertiginous drop in the standard of living and life expectancy.

There is an urgent need to reform the institutions in order to save the hundred thousand civil servants, elected officials and European collaborators who will inevitably lose their jobs, and the national elites who are also tributary to the system. All of them wrongly believe that the Brexit has opened a breach into which the Euro-sceptics will plunge.

But the Brexit is only a response to the decline of the United States. The Pentagon, which is currently preparing the NATO summit in Warsaw, has not yet understood that it is no longer in a position to browbeat its allies into increasing their Defence budget and backing up their military adventures. Washington’s domination of the world is over. We are moving into a new era.

The fall of the Soviet bloc was first of all the death of a certain vision of the world. The Soviets and their allies wanted to build a united society in which as many things as possible were to be considered common property. They succeeded in creating a Titanic bureaucracy and a grim bouquet of comatose leaders. The Berlin Wall was not destroyed by anti-communists, but by a coalition of the Communist Youth and the Lutheran Churches. Their intention was to refound the Communist ideal, but liberated from the Soviet yoke, the political police and the bureaucracy. They were betrayed by their elites, who, after having long served the interests of the Soviets, did an eager about-face and rushed to serve the interests of the United States.

The most passionate of Brexit voters are attempting to regain their national sovereignty, and make the leaders of Western Europe pay for the arrogance they showed in imposing the Treaty of Lisbon after the popular rejection of the European Constitution (2004-07). They too may be disappointed by what comes next. The Brexit marks the end of the ideological domination of the United States, that of the dime-store democracy celebrated as the “Four Freedoms”.

In his address on the State of the Union in 1941, President Roosevelt defined them as (1) Freedom of Speech and expression, (2) the Freedom of all people to honour their God in the way they choose, (3) Freedom from need, (4) Freedom from Fear [of foreign aggression]. If the English are going to return to their traditions, continental Europeans are going to revisit the questions posed by the French and Russian revolutions concerning the legitimacy of power, and shake up their institutions at the risk of sparking a new Franco-German conflict.

The Brexit also marks the end of the military-economic domination of the US, since NATO and the EU are simply the two sides of a single coin – even if the construction of their Foreign Policy and Common Security took longer to implement than that of free exchange. Recently, I was writing a note on this policy in terms of the situation in Syria. I examined all the internal documents of the EU, both public and unpublished, and arrived at the conclusion that they had been written without any knowledge of the reality on the ground, but from notes taken by the German Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was himself reproducing the instructions of the US State Department.

A few years earlier, I had to do the same job for another state, and had arrived at a similar conclusion (except that in this other case, the intermediary was not the German, but the French government). Currently, the French trade unions are rejecting the project for a law on Labour which has been drawn up by the Valls government on the basis of a report by the European Union, which itself was inspired by instructions from the US State Department. While the mobilisation of the CGT (General Confederation of Labour) has enabled the French people to discover the role of the EU in this affair, they still have not grasped the EU-USA connection.

They have understood that by inverting the standards and placing company agreements above branch agreements, the government was in fact questioning the preeminence of the Law over the contract – but they do not know about the strategy of Joseph Korbel and his two children, his natural daughter, the Democrat Madeleine Albright, and his adopted daughter, the Republican Condoleezza Rice. Professor Korbel assured that in order to dominate the world, all Washington needed to do was impose a re-writing of international relations in Anglo-Saxon legal terms. Indeed, by placing the contract above the Law, Anglo-Saxon legalese privileges, in the long term, the rich and powerful over the poor and needy.

It is probable that the French, the Dutch, the Danes and others will try to detach themselves from the EU. For that, they will have to confront their ruling class. Though the duration of this combat is unforseeable, its issue leaves no doubt. In any case, in the period of upheaval which is coming, the French workers will be difficult to handle, unlike their English counterparts, who are currently disorganised.

Prime Minister David Cameron played the summer holiday card in order to postpone his resignation until October. His successor, probably Boris Johnson, therefore has the time to prepare the change which can be implemented as soon as he arrives at Downing Street. The United Kingdom will not wait for its definitive exit from the EU to develop its own policy – to begin with, dissociating itself from the sanctions levied against Russia and Syria.

Contrary to what the European Press claims, the City of London is not directly concerned by the Brexit. Because of its particular status as an independent state placed under the authority of the Crown, it has never been part of the European Union. Of course, it will no longer be able to shelter the head offices of certain companies which will retreat back into the Union, but on the contrary, it will be able to use the sovereignty of London to develop the yuan market. Already in April, it obtained the necessary privileges by signing an agreement with the Central Bank of China. Besides which, it may develop its activities as a fiscal paradise for Europeans.

While the Brexit will temporarily disorganise the British economy while it waits for a new set of rules, it is probable that the United Kingdom – or at least England – will reorganise rapidly for its own greater profit. We’ll have to wait and see if the creators of this earthquake will have the wisdom to share its rewards with their people. The Brexit is a return to national sovereignty, but it does not guarantee popular sovereignty. The international landscape may evolve in many different ways according to the coming reactions. But even if things turn out badly for some people, it’s always better to adhere to reality, as the British have done, rather than clinging to a dream until it shatters.”

The new British Foreign Policy
by Thierry Meyssan  /  Translated by Pete Kimberley  /  4 July 2016

“The United States remain uncertain of their capacity to convince the European Union to participate actively in NATO, and the will of the United Kingdom to pursue the military alliance that they have been building together since 1941 for the purpose of dominating the world. Because despite the allegations of the European leaders, the Brexit does not isolate the United Kingdom, but enables it to turn to the Commonwealth and to create links with China and Russia.

The United States and the United Kingdom had planned to push the members of the Union to announce the increase of their military budget to 2% of their GDP during the Alliance summit in Warsaw (8 and 9 July). Besides this, there were plans for the adoption of a strategy for deploying forces at the Russian border, including the creation of a joint NATO–EU logistical unit which would enable the collective use of helicopters, ships, drones and satellites.

Until now, the United Kingdom was the most important contributor of the Union in matters of Defence, providing close to 15% of the EU defence budget. Apart from this, it was in charge of Operation Atalanta for the protection of maritime transports off the coast of the Horn of Africa, and had made its ships available in the Mediterranean. And finally, it was planned that the UK would furnish troops for the constitution of EU combat groups. With the Brexit, all these engagements are now null and void.

For Washington, the question is now whether London will or will not accept to increase its direct investment in NATO, of which it is already the second most important contributor, to compensate for the part it played in the EU – but without gaining any particular advantage by doing so. Although Michael Fallon, the current British Minister of Defence, has promised not to weaken the common efforts of NATO and the EU, no-one can see why London would agree to place new troops under foreign command.

As a result, and above all, Washington is questioning the will of London to pursue the military alliance that it has been building with the Crown since 1941. Of course, we should not rule out the possibility that the Brexit may be a British trick enabling them to renegotiate their “special relation” with the Americans to their advantage. However, it is much more probable that London hopes to extend its relations to Beijing and Moscow without necessarily forgoing the advantages of its entente with Washington.

The Anglo-Saxon secret agencies
During the Second World War, and even before they joined the war, the United States concluded a pact with the United Kingdom which was clearly laid out in the specifics of the Atlantic Charter [1]. It called for the two countries to unite in order to guarantee freedom of maritime circulation and the extension of free trade. This alliance was implemented by the “Five Eyes” agreement, which currently serves as the basis for the cooperation between 17 Intelligence agencies from 5 different states (the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as three other members of the Commonwealth – Australia, Canada and New Zealand).

The documents revealed by Edward Snowden attest that the Echelon network in its current form constitutes «a supranational Intelligence agency which is independent of the laws of its own member states». So the Five Eyes have been able to spy on personalities like the Secretary General of the UNO and the German Chancellor, and at the same time, carry out mass surveillance on their own citizens. In identical fashion, in 1948, the United States and the United Kingdom founded a second supranational agency, the Office of Special Projects, which commanded the “stay-behind” networks of the UNO, known today by the name of Gladio. Professor Daniele Ganser has shown that this Bureau has organised a number of coups d’etat and terrorist operations in Europe [2].

If at first we thought that the “strategy of tension” was aimed at preventing the accession to power of Communist governments in Europe by democratic means, it soon became clear that it was aimed mainly at feeding the phobia of Communism, and thus justifying Anglo-Saxon military protectionism. Newly-declassified documents have shown that this mechanism exists outside Europe and operates in the Arab world [3].

Finally, in 1982, the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia created a third supranational agency, whose pseudo NGO’s – the National Endowment for Democracy and its four subsidiaries – ACILS, CIPE, NDI and IRI – form the visible part [4]. It specialises in the organisation of coups d’etat camouflaged as “revolutions”. Although there exists an impressive quantity of literature concerning these three programmes, we know absolutely nothing about the supranational agencies which control them.

The “special relationship”
The United States, who proclaimed their independence by separating from the Crown, only became reconciled with the United Kingdom at the end of the 19th century (the Great Rapprochement). The two states allied for the Spanish war in Cuba, and then for the exploitation of their colonial trading posts in China – in other words, when Washington discovered its imperialist vocation. In 1902, a trans-Atlantic club was formed in order to affirm their refound friendship, The Pilgrims Society. It is traditionally presided by the English monarch.

The reconciliation was sealed in 1917 with the common project for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine [5], and the United States entered the war alongside the United Kingdom. Since then, the two states have shared various military means, including, later on, the atomic bomb.

However, when the Commonwealth was created, Washington refused to be part of it, considering itself to be London’s equal. Despite a few disagreements during the British attacks on Egypt (Suez Canal) or against Argentina (the Falklands war), or again during the US attacks on Grenada, the two powers have always offered each other strong support.

The Crown financed the beginning of Barack Obama’s electoral campaign in 2008, by pouring in generous contributions via the Iraqi-British arms dealer Nadhmi Auchi. During his first term, a large number of the new President’s direct collaborators were secretly members of the Pilgrims’ Society, of which the US section was then presided by Timothy Geithner.

But President Obama progressively moved away from the group, giving the Crown the impression that it was not being paid in return. Things worsened with the sharp words published in The Atlantic against David Cameron [6] – and the visit of the Obama couple to Queen Elizabeth II for her birthday did little to heal any wounds.

“Eton asked 13-year-old boys competing for a 2011 scholarship to pretend to be Prime Minister and justify the army shooting 25 protesters dead as a “necessary and moral” decision

The Commonwealth
By disengaging from the European Union, and moving away from the United States, the United Kingdom has not isolated itself by any means, but can once again play it’s master card – the Commonwealth. It has been completely overlooked that in 1936, Winston Churchill launched the idea of incorporating the present states of the European Union into the Commonwealth.

His proposition was hindered by the rise of danger and the World War. It was only after the allied Victory that this same Churchill launched the idea of the “United States of Europe” [7] and convened the Conference of the European Movement in The Hague [8].

The Commonwealth is an organisation of 53 member states whose only politics are founded on basic English values – racial equality, the rule of law, human rights in the face of National Interest. However, it suggests that its members develop business and sports skills. Besides this, it shares its experts in all sectors. Queen Elizabeth II, who is the sovereign of 16 of the member states, is the Head of the Commonwealth (an elective rather than a hereditary title).

From London’s point of view, it is the United States who have violated the “special relation” by giving in to the immoderation (hubris) of a unipolar world, and conducting their own foreign and financial policies by themselves – and this, at a time when they are no longer the prime economic power in the world nor the prime conventional military power. From this point on, it is in the interest of the United Kingdom to cease from placing all its eggs in one basket – to conserve the common instruments it shares with Washington while relying on the Commonwealth and weaving new relations with Beijing and Moscow, either directly, or else via the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). And specifically, on the day of the Brexit, the SCO accepted the adhesion of two members of the Commonwealth, India and Pakistan, while it had never included Commonwealth states before [9].

While we know nothing of the contacts that the United Kingdom must have already made with Russia, we may note its rapprochement with China. Last March, the London Stock Exchange, which manages the exchanges of the City and Milan, revealed its project of fusion with the Deutsche Börse, which manages the Stock Exchange of Frankfort, the clearing house for Clearstream and Eurex. It was planned that the two companies should decide on the operation just after the Brexit referendum.

This announcement is all the more astonishing in that European regulations formally prohibit such an operation, which is the equivalent of creating a dominant position. The decision thus supposed that the two companies were anticipating the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union. Furthermore, the London Stock Exchange announced an agreement with the China Foreign Exchange Trade System (CFETS), and, in June, became the primary Stock Exchange in the world to rate Chinese treasury bonds. All the elements were in place to transform the City into a Chinese Trojan Horse in the European Union, to the detriment of US supremacy.”

[1] “The Atlantic Charter”, by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Voltaire Network, 14 August 1941.
[2] Nato’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, Daniele Ganser, Cass, London, 2004.
[3] America’s Great Game: The CIA’s Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East, Hugh Wilford, Basic Books, 2013.
[4] “The networks of “democratic” interference”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 22 January 2004; « Национальный фонд демократии — игровая площадка ЦРУ] », Тьерри Мейсан,Однако (Российская Федерация) , Сеть Вольтер, 6 октября 2010.

[5] “Who is the Enemy?”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, 4 August 2014.
[6] “The Obama Doctrine”, by Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic (USA) ,Voltaire Network, 10 March 2016.
[7] “Winston Churchill speaking in Zurich on the United States of Europe”, by Winston Churchill, Voltaire Network, 19 September 1946.
[8] « Histoire secrète de l’Union européenne », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 28 juin 2004.
[9] “Brexit coincides with India’s and Pakistan’s entry into the SCO”, by Alfredo Jalife-Rahme, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, La Jornada (Mexico) , Voltaire Network, 2 July 2016.



Leave a Reply