Posted tagged ‘EU’

They just can’t help themselves: Predictably outrageous international reactions to Trump’s Jerusalem declaration

December 12, 2017

They just can’t help themselves: Predictably outrageous international reactions to Trump’s Jerusalem declaration | Anne’s Opinions, 11th December 2017


The Israeli flag flies over the Old City of Jerusalem

Just like the Palestinians and their supporters simply can’t help themselves but resort to violence whenever a political decision is not anti-Israel enough, similarly the UN, the EU, and many other countries, whether civilised or not, feel it incumbent upon them to condemn Israel or the US or both if an action or statement is undertaken from which Israel benefits.

The case of Donald Trump’s Jerusalem declaration was no exception. We could have written the script ourselves.

The UN convened an emergency discussion to “debate”, i.e. to condemn, Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital:

Washington’s move left it isolated as one after another fellow UN Security Council members — Russia, France, the UK, China, Egypt, Jordan and a host of others — condemned the announcement.

The debate unfolded at a largely symbolic emergency meeting of the council — no vote on a resolution was planned, as the US has veto power — two days after Trump reversed two decades of US policy on the holy city.

The meeting was convened by eight of the 14 non-US members of the council. It seemed a vivid show of the discord triggered by Trump’s announcement, which included plans to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Asked what he expected to come from the UN meeting, one diplomat said: “Nothing.” Another said the session would show US “isolation” on the issue.

That very attitude is the essence of what is wrong with the UN. They are all about empty declarations on the one hand, or about rejectionism – opposing the US and Israel almost automatically. This time it is the US in the hot seat, being isolated for its views. More often it is Israel in this position.

Palestinian envoy Riyad Mansour spoke of the “global consensus” against Washington’s recognition and said Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and ultimately move the US embassy there should be reconsidered and rescinded.

Palestinian envoy to the UN Riyad Mansour at the UN Security Council, December 8, 2017 (United Nations)

“There can be no just and lasting solution to the Palestine question without a just solution” to Jerusalem, he said, calling the city “the heart of Palestine.”

This is a flat-out lie. When Jerusalem was in the hands of “Palestine”, aka Jordan, during the years 1949-1967, the Jordanian Arabs (or Palestinians or whatever they want to call themselves) did absolutely zilch for Jerusalem besides emptying it of Jews in a horrific act of ethnic-cleansing never acknowledged by the world. They destroyed 58 synagogues and turned the Western Wall into a rubbish dump. They severely damaged and partially destroyed the ancient, 3,000 year old Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, using some gravestones for latrines. THIS is called “being the heart of Palestine”??? I hate to think what their brain looks like. Their mendaciousness is beneath contempt.

Even before the UN debate, individual countries also chided him for his recognition of reality. Sweden led the charge with the demand for the UN debate:

Replies came thick and fast, for example:

Turkey accused Trump of “putting the region in a ring of fire”. The only “ring of fire” is the one of their own making. Again: violence is a choice. The Turks don’t HAVE to whip up their streets into a frenzy. They could also call for calm and restraint. But pigs could also fly.

Erdogan had earlier threatened to sever diplomatic ties with Israel if the president recognized Jerusalem as the capital.

To be honest I did not realise that Turkey and Israel had renewed relations at all. Would it be such a great loss if Erdogan carried through on his threat? He is forever trying to hold Israel hostage to his tantrums. Maybe it’s time to call his bluff.

Theresa May at the debate in the Commons about Trump’s declaration

Britain said Trump’s declaration was “unhelpful”. The British would know all about being unhelpful in the Middle East, particularly during the infamous White Paper years of 1939-1948 when the doors of Palestine were shut to the fleeing Jews of Europe. Prime Minister Theresa May said:

‘Our position on the status of Jerusalem has been clear and long-standing: it should be determined in negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and Jerusalem should ultimately be the shared capital of the Israeli and Palestinian states.

As Arlene Kushner below remarks, the two parts of the above paragraph contradict each other. Either Jerusalem’s status should be determined in negotiations, or it should ultimately be a shared capital. But there is no point in negotiations if the “ultimate” solution is pre-determined. And if if it is OK to determine that the capital should be shared, it can equally be acceptable to pre-determine that it is the Israeli capital.

France’s Emanuel Macron urged Trump to desist from his declaration – to no avail evidently.

Even the US State Department itself has not caught up with the statements of its President, and is still not listing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital!

The United States still will not formally recognize Jerusalem as being located in Israel on official documents, maps, and passports, despite President Donald Trump’s announcement earlier this week that America is formally recognizing the holy city as Israel’s capital, according to State Department officials who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon about the matter.

Despite Trump’s declaration, which was formally codified on Wednesday into U.S. policy, the State Department is taking a more nuanced position on the matter, drawing some ire in Congress among pro-Israel lawmakers who accuse the State Department of undermining Trump’s efforts.

State Department officials this week had difficulty stating as fact that Jerusalem is located within Israel, instead trying to parse the issue as still subject to diplomatic negotiations.

State Department officials who spoke to the Free Beacon about the situation said that while it supports Trump’s declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, it is not yet at the point where it will list Jerusalem as part of Israel on passports, maps, and official documents. This means that official documents, such as passports, will not, at this point, list “Jerusalem, Israel” as a place that exists.

The State Department’s careful parsing of the issue has already drawn outrage on Capitol Hill, where some lawmakers are describing this as part of an effort to undermine the Trump White House’s clear-cut declaration on the matter.

Arlene Kushner sums up the situation excellently when she writes that the world is crazy:, making note of the pretzel-logic needed to explain the EU’s position: (last emphases are mine):

But look at the line-up that includes: France, Germany, Sweden, Italy and the UK, as well as the EU, Russia, etc. etc.

Incredibly, EU foreign policy chief Frederica Mogherini declared that the Trump declaration “has the potential to send us backward to even darker times than the ones we are already living in.”


There is an inherent lack of logic in the position routinely embraced by these nations and the EU: They insist that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is premature because this issue must be resolved via negotiations. And besides, they insist, Jerusalem must be the capital of both Israel and a Palestinian state.

That is to say, they have no trouble prematurely advancing a scenario that has not been determined via negotiations, as long as it is their scenario.

Thank goodness for the breath of fresh air that is US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley. She launched a blistering attack on the UN that was condemning the President, accusing it of causing more damage to Middle East peace than advancing it.

UN Watch brings us the full text of her speech:

“Thank you, Mr. President. The Jewish people are a patient people. Throughout three thousand years of civilization, foreign conquest, exile, and return, Jerusalem has remained their spiritual home. For nearly 70 years, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel, despite many attempts by others to deny that reality.

The American people are less patient. In 1948, the United States was the first nation to recognize the independent state of Israel. In 1995, the U.S. Congress declared that Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of Israel, and that the U.S. Embassy should be located in Jerusalem.

Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama all agreed with that position, but they did not act. They delayed, in the hopes that a peace process would produce results – results that never came.

For 22 years, the American people have overwhelmingly supported that position, and they have waited . . . and waited. This week, President Trump finally made the decision to no longer deny the will of the American people…

Israel, like all nations, has the right to determine its capital city. Jerusalem is the home of Israel’s parliament, president, prime minister, Supreme Court, and many of its ministries.

It is simple common sense that foreign embassies be located there. In virtually every country in the world, U.S. embassies are located in the host country’s capital city. Israel should be no different.

The United States took this step in full knowledge that it will raise questions and concerns. Our actions are intended to help advance the cause of peace. We must recognize that peace is advanced, not set back, when all parties are honest with each other. Our actions reflected an honest assessment of reality.

I understand the concern members have in calling this session. Change is hard. But we should never doubt what the truth can do. We should never doubt that when we face the truth, believe in the human spirit, and encourage each other, that peace can happen.

To those who have good faith concerns about the future of peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, let me again assure you that the President and this administration remain committed to the peace process.

To those who do not act in good faith – to any person, leader, country, or terrorist group that uses this week’s decision as a pretext for violence – you are only showing yourselves to be unfit partners of peace.
Finally, I will not let this moment pass without a comment about the United Nations itself. Over many years, the United Nations has outrageously been of the world’s foremost centers of hostility towards Israel.

The U.N. has done much more to damage the prospects for Middle East peace than to advance them. We will not be a party to that. The United States no longer stands by when Israel is unfairly attacked in the United Nations. And the United States will not be lectured to by countries that lack any credibility when it comes to treating both Israelis and Palestinians fairly.”

Once again, kol hakavod to Nikki Haley who is not afraid to speak truth to power and put the UN in its place. Let’s hope her words start to sink in and begin to have an effect.

Binyamin Netanyahu, on a trip to Paris, was not backwards in coming forward to counter French Prime Minister Emanuel Macron’s pleas to Trump to refrain from his declaration:

Prime Minister Netanyahu ridiculed continued opposition to President Trump’s declaration, and the ongoing refusal of most of the international community to acknowledge the reality that Jerusalem is and has been the Jewish capital city.

“There is an effort, continually, in UN forums – UNESCO, and elsewhere – to deny the millennial connection of the Jewish people to Jerusalem. And that’s absurd.”

“You can read it in a very fine book – it’s called the Bible,” Netanyahu said. “You can read it after the Bible. You can hear it in the history of Jewish communities throughout our diaspora – ‘Next year in Jerusalem’,” continued Netanyahu, referencing a phrase from the Passover Seder.

“Where else is the capital of Israel, but in Jerusalem? Where is our Knesset – our parliament? Where is our supreme court? The seat of our government? The Prime Minister’s Office? The President’s Office? It’s not in Beer Sheva, it’s not in Ashdod – these are wonderful cities, but its in Jerusalem.”

And there has been other positive fallout from Trump’s declaration. A few countries have expressed their interest in moving their embassies to Jerusaelm too:

The Phillipines sent a message to Israel:

Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte sent a message to Israel that he wanted to move his country’s embassy to the capital, Israel’s Kan public broadcaster reported Wednesday.

The Czech Republic too, always a good friend of Israel, is similarly weighing up an embassy move, and Hungary joined in:

The Czech Republic and Hungary have broken ranks with the European Union on President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the EuObserver reported this week. Czech president Milos Zeman on Thursday announced: “[Trump’s decision] makes me truly happy […] We may, sooner or later, follow the United States.”

Both countries refused to endorse the EU’s statement that was going to express “serious concern” on the part of the entire organization of states. As a result, the statement was issued only by the EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini.

Just imagine a day in the not too distant future when it will be simply a matter of course for countries to have their embassies in Jerusalem. They should be brave like the Czechs and Phillipines, and give it a go. I’m sure the sky will not fall in.

European Union – EU boss threatens to break up US in retaliation for Trump Brexit support

April 2, 2017

EUROPEAN Union boss Jean-Claude Juncker issued a jaw-dropping threat to the United States, saying he could campaign to break up the country in revenge for Donald Trump’s supportive comments about Brexit.

PUBLISHED: 02:14, Fri, Mar 31, 2017 | UPDATED: 12:47, Fri, Mar 31, 2017

Source: European Union – EU boss threatens to break up US in retaliation for Trump Brexit support | Politics | News |


EU boss Jean-Claude Juncker



Donald Trump has previously voiced support for Brexit

In an extraordinary speech the EU Commission president said he would push for Ohio and Texas to split from the rest of America if the Republican president does not change his tune and become more supportive of the EU.The remarks are diplomatic dynamite at a time when relations between Washington and Brussels are already strained over Europe’s meagre contributions to NATO and the US leader’s open preference for dealing with national governments.A spokesman for the bloc later said that the remarks were not meant to be taken literally, but also tellingly did not try to pass them off as humorous and insisted the EU chief was making a serious comparison.

They are by far the most outspoken intervention any senior EU figure has made about Mr Trump and are likely to dismay some European leaders who were hoping to seek a policy of rapprochement with their most important ally.Speaking at the centre-right European People Party’s (EPP) annual conference in Malta yesterday afternoon, the EU Commission boss did not hold back in his disdain for the White House chief’s eurosceptic views.

He said: “Brexit isn’t the end. A lot of people would like it that way, even people on another continent where the newly elected US President was happy that the Brexit was taking place and has asked other countries to do the same.“If he goes on like that I am going to promote the independence of Ohio and Austin, Texas in the US.”Mr Juncker’s comments did not appear to be made in jest and were delivered in a serious tone, although one journalist did report some “chuckles” in the audience and hinted the EU boss may have been joking. The remarks came in the middle of an angry speech in which the top eurocrat railed widely against critics of the EU Commission.

And reacting to the furore which followed them, EU Commission deputy chief spokesman Alexander Winterstein explained: “You will have seen that this is not the first time the President draws this analogy and I think he’s making a point that is as simple as it is valid.

“He does not suggest that certain states should secede from the United States and at the same time I think he considers it also not terribly appropriate for other heads of states to suggest that member states of the EU leave the EU. So I think that’s the comparison that he’s drawing.”

The outburst will be seen as totally inexplicable at a time when EU-US relations appeared to be on the mend, with Vice-President Mike Pence having completed a largely successful trip to Brussels and the commander-in-chief himself significantly softening his tone towards the EU project.

Mr Juncker did not criticise Britain at all during his speech, and only made reference to Brexit in relation to Mr Trump and the opportunities it presents for Europe to reform itself.

He told the audience in Malta: “Brexit isn’t the end of everything. We must consider it to be a new beginning, something that is stronger, something that is better.”

Speaking before him, EU Council president Donald Tusk was less reserved in his remarks about the UK vote as he tore into the populist politics which led to Brexit.The Polish eurocrat said the argument over sovereignty – epitomised by the Vote Leave slogan ‘take back control’ – was “a view that is both foolish and dangerous” and that the EU guaranteed countries’ strength of the world stage.He also accused populist politicians, such as the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders and France’s Marine Le Pen, of promoting “organised hatred” with their views on immigration.

EU Lawmakers Urge “Federal Union” For European States… Or Else

February 27, 2017

The leaders of the lower chambers of parliament of Germany, Italy, France, and Luxembourg have called for a European “Federal Union” in an open letter published in Italian newspaper La Stampa on Sunday.

Source: EU Lawmakers Urge “Federal Union” For European States… Or Else | Zero Hedge

The leaders of the lower chambers of parliament of Germany, Italy, France, and Luxembourg have called for a European “Federal Union” in an open letter published in Italian newspaper La Stampa on Sunday.

In the letter, four representatives of EU governments – Claude Bartolone of the French National Assembly, Laura Boldrini of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Norbert Lammert of the German Bundestag, and Mars Di Bartolomeo of the Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies – say that closer cooperation is essential for dealing with problems that no one EU state can tackle on its own, such as immigration, terrorism, and climate change. As RT notes, the letter’s authors also warn that the European integration project is currently more at risk than ever before, with high unemployment and immigration problems driving populist and nationalist movements. The EU must also come to grips with the fact that, last June, the United Kingdom decided to leave the union after holding a national referendum, aka Brexit, becoming the first member nation to opt out of the bloc.

In less than a month, on March 17 next, we Presidents of the national parliaments of the EU we will meet in Rome, how will the representatives of governments, for the sixtieth anniversary of the Treaty from which it began: our Union.

But it is plain for all that recurrence requires much more than just a historical commemoration. Birthday comes the most critical stage ever crossed by the European project. 

In such a situation we should not be paralyzed by fear, or by concerns related to the upcoming elections in some of our countries. We must act now, before it’s too late. And take the opportunity of the anniversary to return to the vision and the spirit of the Founding Fathers and relaunch the construction of Europe on foundations refurbished.

We are convinced that in the face of crisis, we need more Europe, although we have to face headwinds. We can not ignore the social impact that the disastrous economic and financial measures have had on tens of millions of families. We need to focus on growth and jobs that Europe can have no charm for young people if they do not offer them credible job prospects. We must have the courage to share sovereignty in many sectors in which the action of individual States is now totally ineffective and doomed to fail: from global warming to energy policies, from financial markets to the rules for immigration, tax evasion to the fight against terrorism.

Now is the moment to move towards closer political integration: Federal Union of States with large skills. We know that the prospect stirs up strong resistance, but the inaction of some can not be the paralysis of all. Those who believe in the European ideal is to be able to revive rather helplessly to its slow decline. And the United States who do not want to join immediately in that closer integration should be able to do it later. 

On Sunday, a number of EU states, including Germany, France and Italy, called for the UK to pay a hefty price as a “divorce settlement.”

The letter was published in the run-up to a meeting of parliamentary leaders in Rome on March 17 to mark the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community (EEC). The treaty’s signing by six countries– Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, West Germany and the Netherlands – in 1957 eventually paved the way for the Maastricht Treaty and the European Union in 1991.

In September of 2015, Lammert, Bartolone, Boldrini and di Bartolomeo also signed a declaration calling for deeper and faster European integration. However, greater European integration is being increasingly challenged by a number of Eurosceptic parties around the continent, including the Alternative for Germany, the National Front in France, and the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands. Upcoming elections could bring these parties closer to power.

According to the European Parliament’s chief Brexit negotiator, Guy Verhofstadt, the European Union must reform, or it risks disappearing under a barrage of internal and external attacks.

Sign Petition Trump EU is illegal!

February 1, 2017

Source: Sign Petition Trump EU is illegal!





This international petition will be presented on behalf of European citizens to US President D.J. Trump, with official evidence that will demonstrate the EU Institute has taken a coup at the sovereign European countries and gripped their power unelected. Sign this petition especially – as support -during the current elections in the Netherlands, France, Germany and Italy!


When US President D.J. Trump declares the EU Institution illegal, with no-authorization to negotiate on behalf of the European citizens, the EU Institute will be out of order so democracy and sovereignty can return to the people of Europe and their countries. Without cooperation with the US, the existence of the EU Institute will be finished. The EU Institute future negotiations will be finally finished if the people of Europe, USA, UK (BREXIT) and Russia will not recognize the EU institution as an authority! The European citizens saves itself a referendum – costing millions – and the triggering of EU Article 50 – is no longer necessary for an EU exit (exit time between 4 and 8 years) – with a big bailout of billions Euro’s!


1. The – unelected – EU Institute has taken a coup at the European States and claimed illegally their own State, by taken away the democracy and sovereignty of the countries of Europe and his citizens. European countries and citizens are being held hostage by these illegal EU power.


2. The – unelected -EU Institute denies the sovereignty and democracy of the European countries, the EU referendum results from France, Ireland, Denmark and the Netherlands have been ignored by the undemocratic, unelected EU Institute. The unelected EU Institute has no authority or power to act on behalf of European citizens and to introduce undemocratic laws.


3. Without authorization / consultation of the European citizens, the unelected EU Institute has introduced a policy decision in 2008 to counteract the aging of the European population, by 60 million migrants to pull Europe in 2050.


4. The – unelected – EU Institute is guilty by deliberately endangering the citizens of terrorist attacks. The safety and survival of European citizens & culture cannot be guaranteed.


5. The – unelected – EU Institute has no authorization from the European citizens to consent the order to finance the huge costs (tax money) of the asylum seekers that is current taken inside the European countries. Which is a huge economic & western cultural attack on the people of Europe and their countries.


6. The – unelected – EU bureaucrats illegally claim the tax revenue of the European citizens, the bureaucrats granted themselves huge salaries incl. a top pension scheme, without tax payments (tax evasion). The retirement age of the – unelected – EU bureaucrats is 50 years (€ 9000, – p.m.), while the retirement age for most European taxpayers is even has been increased to 67 years.


7. Many former EU Commissioners in addition to their pension (from 50 years) gets top positions and a huge salaries at banks or multinational corporations. Widespread corruption and conflicts of interest can therefore not be ruled out.


8. The – unelected – EU Institute take away the rights of free speech and press freedom by committing censorship and propaganda on the European citizens.


D. J. Trump is against Globalism (CETA, TTIP) and is preferring to work with sovereign countries. Nigel Farage (Brexit) is a good relationship of D. J. Trump, so let’s liberate Europe together and sign this petition!

Hated by those who hate Russia

January 31, 2017

Hated by those who hate Russia

by Iben Thranholm

Source: Hated by those who hate Russia | The Vineyard of the Saker

Recently Marie Krarup, a member of the Danish Parliament for the Danish People’s Party – contacted me to say that the EU task force East Stratcom has placed me on a list branding me as a pro-Russian propagandist and is accusing me of spreading Russian disinformation.

This organisation was set up in March 2015 by the European Council to implement an action plan on strategic communication to address what it labels ”Russia’s on-going disinformation campaigns”, allegedly aiming to destabilize European democracy. To this end, East StratCom ”publishes two public weekly newsletters to stay up to date with the latest disinformation stores and narratives”. Have a look at EastStratcoms website.

This was shocking news to me. Marie Krarup requested a consultation with Danish Minister for Foreign Affairs Anders Samuelsen. She found that the task force accusation violated my constitutional rights under Danish law to exercise freedom of speech, and found this to be stark evidence of the EU usurping undemocratic and totalitarian privilege to list commentators, pundits and journalists that criticize EU policies and EU leaders.

The minister disagreed. He stated that Iben Thranholm deserved her listing as a pro-Russian agent and should remain so listed. He indicated that I was hired by the Kremlin to destabilize Europe. Despite the consultation, this remains his position. No action has been taken to amend the list. No further comment has been offered on the case in the media.

The consequences may be dire. If the conflict with Russia escalates, the state will have the right to imprison me as an enemy of the state. Already now I have been branded a traitor and unpatriotic. Many opinion leaders and colleagues have composed and published an open letter criticizing the ministry. Social media have been brimming with support, but my government remains stubborn in its accusation that I am a Russian agent. This means that I am no longer protected by the state of which I am a national.

For the last couple of years, I have used Russian English-language media like RT op-ed section and Russia Insider for publishing my thoughts on the way the Western elites’ hatred of Christianity weakens and undermines Western culture.

My choice of non-Western media like RT as a platform is certainly not motivated by any payment from Putin. No, it is rooted in the fact that as a conservative Christian Catholic, my thoughts and views are simply increasingly difficult to get published in Europe.

For years now I have had to work as an independent journalist. No editor will take on the risk of employing a person who is open and outspoken about his or her Christian faith, let alone Catholic faith, the way I am. Christians are socially marginalized, derided, and viewed with suspicion if not actually as mentally disturbed. The few Christians left are either secularized – gone native by agreeing with the establishment – or have taken a vow of silence for fear of the political correctness storm troopers. They have no impact on European culture. Their salt has lost its power to keep society from putrefaction.

The article that landed me on the East Stratcom list dealt precisely with the way the elite abused arguments of Christian charity to abandon registration of the identity of who entered which country and for adopting a blanket open-border policy when the tsunami of refugees and immigrants flooded across Europe’s borders in 2015. Their hatred of Christianity certainly does not keep them from abusing arguments of Christian charity divorced from its context when it suits their own agenda.

Allow me to quote some passages from the article, entitled “Misguided Compassion Threatens to Become the Downfall of Europe”

Europe is like Judas, betraying its Christian tradition with the traitorous kiss of false compassion in order to obliterate the last vestige of Christian civilization in Europe. True charity always springs from a higher moral absolute, a clear distinction between right and wrong, good and evil. False charity offers compassion for the criminal and not the victim. No charity for the woman who is victimized by rape but pity for the perpetrator, the rapist. Such pity is a gross perversion.”

In spite of their use – or rather abuse – of “loving one’s neighbor”, politicians are devoid of the Christian basis for distinguishing good from evil. Our politicians promote the forces of evil and utterly abandon their victims. This is merely an extension of the policies of the West in the Middle East since the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Western politicians consistently identify evil as good, and good as evil. They unleash destructive forces to rampage unimpeded and oppress good wherever the West enters the scene with its military or economic warfare.”
The fierce hatred of the Western political elite for Christianity has robbed Europe of its moral compass. Using Christian arguments for waging war on Christianity and Christian culture is a vile demonic parody. From a spiritual perspective, it is clear that Europe has made an unholy alliance with islamism in order to annihilate its Christian civilisation. This diabolical scam wears a cloak of goodness and humanitarianism, but it is really a manifestation of moral decay and false altruism that threatens to bring about Die Untergang des Abendlandes, the end of Christian Europe”.

At the consultation in the parliamentary committee meeting, the minister alleged that my article contained lies and myths that fitted into a Kremlin narrative of the decline of the West, and that my arguments bore no relation to reality.

One may agree or disagree with this interpretation. The question is whether this makes me a Russian agent or an enemy of the state. The task force offers no proof of an agreement between the Kremlin and me. For the good reason that no such contract exists. It is an allegation, pure and simple. At the consultation, the minister refuses to take a position on the matter of principle involved in placing participants in the social debate on the list. He merely dismisses my statements as lies.

It is highly revealing that the task force pounces on this article on this subject, because it deals precisely with distinguishing between the truth and lies, and points out that the political elite has entirely lost its ability to distinguish between the truth and lies. This abandonment of truth is far and away the greatest threat to world peace in this day. Russia is not.

Today’s politics are entirely beyond the irrelevant left/right and red/blue paradigm.The real issue is truth v lies, good v evil, right v wrong.

The American election campaign blew this truth wide open. There was hardly any real policy debate, but reams of lies were revealed as masquerading as truth. In its wake, the unspeak designers launched the phenomenon of “fake news” in order to regain control of the narrative. The EU task force has also been set up for achieving a monopoly for the EU version of acceptable reality. The war on truth rages on after President Trump’s inauguration, and the presstitute media now intensify their campaign to brand Trump as a liar.

What irony that a very long epoch of relativism of values, during which the political elite and intellectuals decided that there is no truth, has now ended abruptly with a frenzied claim that truth is all that matters. What immense irony that those who taught young people that there is no truth now exalt themselves as truth tellers, and then hurls accusations of lying against any who does not toe the line of their pragmatic version of truth. The pinnacle of sad irony is that generations reared on the absence of truth from reality now clamor for truth. They have lost faith in the assumption that the media they trusted blindly are telling them the truth.

The media have been roundly exposed as liars. Yet the media claim that the exposure of their lies is a lie and that people who want the truth are lying. Those who tell the truth are blamed as liars, while the media adamantly maintain that they are the truth tellers. Confused? The world has moved from the usual conflicts in the realm of geopolitics and economics to moral and spiritual warfare. The world now witnesses an epic confrontation between the truth and lies, light and darkness, that was kept invisible for so long.  A spiritual war is raging between those who choose good and those who choose to call good what is evil.

Yet who is prepared and equipped for this epic battle of our day? Relativism of values has rendered many, if not most, completely without solid ground and the first idea of what is good and what is evil, utterly unable to recognize truth and defend themselves against lies. They have learned no rudiments on discerning because they have grown up with no spiritual foundation and no inkling of Christian truth. This is a big problem, as it is impossible to understand the world today if one has no spiritual eyes with which to see.

No one can fight for truth, which is spiritual without the ability to recognize truth and distinguish it from the lie. Without the spiritual understanding, no one has the weapons to fight against evil and lies. The chaotic struggle raging in journalism and social media today is a visible expression of this spiritual war.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn said that “godlessness is the first step to the Gulag”. When EU politicians adopt unconstitutional methods for listing political opponents or people who publish moral truth, they declare their godlessness before God and man, and wage war against Christianity and Christian culture. When the state and its ideology place themselves in God’s seat, all hell breaks loose. Democracy offers no guarantee: collectivism can exercise totalitarianism under democracy’s banner. The freedom of speech is now violated in Europe and there is now no freedom for journalists to speak the truth as they see it.

In the 1940s, George Orwell wrote “during times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” This is our precise position today. Journalists must therefore accept it as a badge of honor and courage when the establishment brands them as liars and pro-Russian propagandists, for this is the highest evidence that they are speaking the truth. They must see themselves as freedom fighters and find comfort and strength in the words of Christ in the Gospel: “truth will set you free.”

EU Funding to NGOs Active in Anti-Israel BDS Campaigns

January 23, 2017

EU Funding to NGOs Active in Anti-Israel BDS Campaigns

January 23, 2017

Source: EU Funding to NGOs Active in Anti-Israel BDS Campaigns » NGO Monitor

Executive Summary

  • Twenty-nine out of 100 EU grants administered through EU regional funding programs designated for Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza funnel funds to organizations that actively promote BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) – totaling €16.7 million out of €67.1 million (roughly 25%).
  • Forty-two out of 180 EU grantees in total support BDS – through participation in activities and events, signing of petitions and initiatives, and/or membership in explicit BDS platforms.
  • A number of organizations were funded through more than one EU grant, sometimes as part of the same program (“Double Dipping”).
  • The EU expressly opposes BDS. When confronted by evidence of funding for NGOs with agendas or values that contradict EU policy, the EU’s recurring response is that it “funds projects submitted by NGOs, in line with [the] EU’s fundamental principles and values, but not NGOs themselves.”
  • A grant titled “Performing Arts: A Pathway Towards Self Expression and Democracy” amply demonstrates this flawed logic. In 2014, during their participation in the EU’s Cultural Programme, all twelve beneficiaries of this grant initiated a group statement calling for a cultural and academic boycott of Israel.
  • Nine BDS-supporting organizations were the recipients of the EU’s Partnership for Peace Program- a program designated for joint projects involving Israeli as well as Palestinian organizations, meant to “build trust and understanding between societies in the region.”


The European Union (EU) is the single largest donor to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) active in the Arab-Israeli conflict, accounting for NIS 28.1 million in 2012-2014 to politicized Israeli NGOs alone.

Indeed, NGO funding is a central component of EU foreign policy, claiming to promote peace, cooperation, and human rights. In contrast to the stated objectives, the EU funds a number of highly biased and politicized NGOs that exploit the rhetoric of human rights to promote anti-Israel BDS (boycotts, divestment, and sanctions) and lawfare campaigns, inflammatory rhetoric, and activities that oppose a two-state framework.

Due to the highly complex and poorly coordinated nature of EU aid and to the lack of a consolidated database differentiating between NGOs and other types of organizations, it is impossible to determine the exact amount or proportions of EU funding to organizations that promote anti-Israel BDS.

However, NGO Monitor reviewed a number of EU regional funding programs designated for Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, and found that 29 out of 100 EU grants administered through the frameworks reviewed funnel funds to BDS organizations (€16.7 million out of €67.1 million – roughly 25%). 42 out of 180 EU grantees in total support BDS – either through participation in activities and events, signing of petitions and initiatives, and/or membership in explicit BDS platforms. Several organizations were the recipients of more than one grant. See below for an explanation of the methodology, numeral analysis of the findings, and list of relevant grants along with BDS activities of respective beneficiaries.

Grants in € to BDS supporting organizations

(based on reviewed grants with an end date after November 2015 in Israel, West Bank and Gaza)

Number of grants to BDS supporting organizations

(based on reviewed grants with an end date after November 2015 in Israel, West Bank and Gaza)

When confronted by evidence of funding for NGOs with agendas or values that contradict EU policy, the EU’s recurring response is that it “funds projects submitted by NGOs, in line with [the] EU’s fundamental principles and values, but not NGOs themselves.” This distinction is irrelevant, as project funding inevitably is used for overall organization and activity expenses. Because money is fungible, EU funding ostensibly allocated to specific projects also supports the NGO’s infrastructure including funding for staff, equipment, office space, publicity for the organization and its campaigns, and the significant costs of writing more grant applications, as well as allowing officials of these NGOs to travel and promote their agendas around the world. In several cases, EU funding comprises 50%, 60%, or even 75% of an NGO recipient’s entire budget. Moreover, many recipients feature the EU symbol on their publications and websites, bolstering their legitimacy and linking the EU with the broader political activities and campaigns of the NGOs – such as boycotts and the rejection of normalization.

A grant titled “Performing Arts: A Pathway Towards Self Expression and Democracy” (# 16 in the list of grants below) amply demonstrates this flawed logic. In 2014, during their participation in the EU’s Cultural Programme, all twelve beneficiaries of this grant initiated a group statement calling for a cultural and academic boycott of Israel. The group officially registered as the Palestinian Performing Arts Network in the Palestinian Ministry of Interior in February 2015, also during the members’ participation in the EU program. According to their website, which features their BDS statement, the EU and the Swedish consulate in Jerusalem are their sole donors.


The following is a list of 29 EU grants, whose beneficiaries include NGOs that participate in BDS campaigns against Israel. All grants have an end date after November 2015.

The grants were administered through a number of EU country-based programs: European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), European Partnership for Peace (PfP), Non-State Actors (NSA) program, East Jerusalem Programme, and Cultural Programme; for one additional grant (#7 in the list below), the funding program remains unclear (see Additional Information at the end of this document). The list does not include global thematic funding programs; humanitarian funding; country-specific funding to regions other than Israel, the West Bank and Gaza; or any form of indirect funding (for example, EU funds to a church or humanitarian aid group, that are then transferred to a political NGO). A full accounting of the proportion and extent of EU-funding to BDS-supporting beneficiaries is therefore not available.

Because many of the BDS-supporting organizations listed here are grant co-beneficiaries, and due to the absence of transparency, it is not possible to determine the exact amount of funding received by each organization. A number of organizations were funded through more than one EU grant, sometimes as part of the same program (see Double Dipping below).

Only beneficiaries whose support of BDS could be adequately demonstrated were included. Regardless of whether the NGOs openly declare or deny their support for BDS, all provide material support for BDS initiatives and efforts – either through participation in activities and events, signing of petitions and initiatives, and/or membership in explicit BDS platforms. NGOs whose materials are used to promote BDS but which do not explicitly endorse or participate in these activities are not included.


To view the complete list of grants in table form, click here.

The Paris Piece Conference

January 16, 2017

The Paris Piece Conference | Anne’s Opinions, 16th January 2017

A little piece of this, a little piece of that – until there’s no more Israel. Hence my title.– anneinpt)

Israeli Ministry for Foreign Affairs illustration: International representatives negotiating now among themselves on a text for Sunday’s #ParisConference. They Should instead push Abbas and the Palestinians to negotiate peace directly with Israel.

While the Paris Peace Piece Conference’s aims were ostensibly to bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinians, it was quite clear from the start that its only intention was to make Israel give up a piece of this and a piece of that (hence my title) in order to weaken it if not destroy it altogether.

The predictions, the declarations – both for and against – and the outcome, were precisely as expected. Binyamin Netanyahu panned the pointless parley as rigged: while the Palestinians of course welcomed it:

“The conference that is convening today in Paris is a pointless conference,” he told ministers at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday.

“It was coordinated by the French and the Palestinians and aims to force conditions on Israel that conflict with our national interests,” the prime minister said.

Netanyahu has previously claimed the talks were “rigged” against the Jewish state, insisting that direct bilateral talks between Jerusalem and Ramallah was the only way to negotiate a peace agreement.

At the Sunday cabinet meeting, Netanyahu reiterated his position that the Paris-sponsored initiative makes the prospect of peace more as it “hardens Palestinians conditions and keeps them from direct negotiations.”

“I have to say that this conference is among the last remnants of the world of yesterday,” Netanyahu said. “Tomorrow will look different, and that tomorrow is very close.”

Unlike Netanyahu, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has welcomed the bid to reaffirm global support for a two-state solution, and will meet French President Francois Hollande in the coming weeks to be briefed on the conference outcome, diplomats said last week.

Paris officials said that Netanyahu declined a similar invitation.

Likud MK and Deputy Minister Ayoub Kara described the conference in a perfectly snarky way:


The Paris Conference is an old age home collecting politicians on their way to their retirement from a political career as they step off the stage.

Europe needs to understand that Israel is a strong country that will not tolerate diktats.

Foreign ministers before the meeting in Paris REUTERS/Kamil Zihnioglu

Foreign ministers before the meeting in Paris REUTERS/Kamil Zihnioglu

Despite Israeli fears that the conference would lend backing to UNSC Resolution 2334, Israeli officials cheered the weakened declaration that ultimately issued forth:

Israeli officials on Sunday credited the efforts of the National Security Council and the Foreign Ministry for a “significant weakening” of the text of the final joint declaration issued by the participants of a peace conference in Paris.

The one-day summit came to a close on Sunday evening with a statement, backed by the 70 countries, calling on Israel and the Palestinians to restate their commitment to a peace settlement and to refrain from unilateral actions.

The statement urged both sides to “officially restate their commitment to the two-state solution” and disassociate from voices that reject that goal. It also called for them not to take one-sided actions that could preclude fruitful talks.

The Israeli officials were jubilant that “problematic passages” in a contentious recent UN Security Council resolution on the settlements were not included in the Paris document. Resolution 2334, passed on December 23, harshly condemned the settlement enterprise, declaring that it has “no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-state solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.”

Furthermore, the Israeli officials expressed satisfaction over the fact that no further action against Israeli settlements is planned at the Security Council. US Secretary of State John Kerry had promised as much to Prime Minister Netanyahu in a phone call from Paris earlier Sunday.

The ostensible success, the officials concluded, was the “result of harsh reactions” voiced by Israel against Resolution 2334.

Wrapping up the conference, French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault told reporters that the purpose of the meet was to convey a sense of urgency about the threat to the two-state solution.

The Elder of Ziyon quibbles with the Israeli jubilation, saying that while the declaration was better than the original draft, it is not much better:

The good part is that the paragraph about the June 1967 lines being sacrosanct is gone, along with the call to essentially boycott any Israeli person or entity beyond the Green Line. That is probably what Israel is happy about.

The bad part is that they took out the language saying that “solutions cannot be imposed” on the parties along with one of the two mentions insisting on direct negotiations. Also the follow-up conference added in the statement will again be more one-sided pressure on Israel.

So it is somewhat better than the draft but not a whole hell of a lot.

Interestingly, in another show of support for Israel, Britain questioned the purpose and the timing of the conference, and sent only a low-level representative to the conference:

Prime Minister Theresa May sent neither her foreign minister, Boris Johnson, nor her envoy to France to the parlay. Britain instead had observer status at the conference.

“We have particular reservations about an international conference intended to advance peace between the parties that does not involve them– indeed, which is taking place against the wishes of the Israelis– and which is taking place just days before the transition to a new American President when the US will be the ultimate guarantor of any agreement,” a Foreign Office statement read.

For some more commentary on the conference, The Elder of Ziyon links to a series of very interesting related articles.

The Jerusalem Post’s editorial “No tango in Paris” states:

Conferences in Paris will not bring peace. That will only come from negotiations. For peace to happen, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas needs to first come to Jerusalem and meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The problem is that Abbas is a known rejectionist. He rejected the peace deal offered to him by Ehud Olmert in 2008 and has since remained intransigent in his refusal to even meet Netanyahu.
While France might be sincere in its desire to see peace come to the Middle East, holding a conference is misguided. Unfortunately, the more the international community supports Abbas’s unilateral diplomatic delegitimization campaign, the more stubborn he will become in his refusal to sit down for real and sincere negotiations.
Our suggestion – cancel the meeting in Paris.

Unfortunately, that – they didn’t.

Since the conference participants were so concerned with international law, Brian of London at Israellycool recalled an earlier article that he had written in which he reveals that the conference actually ignores French law:

(Update: I discovered that I too had written, way back in April 2013, about the same French law!).

Quoting here from Israellycool:

Today in France 70 nations will come together in Paris and blindly ignore the legal ruling of a highly significant French court (Court of Appeal of Versailles) just a few years ago. They will most likely issue a statement which creates the impression that Israel’s activities in Judea and Samaria are illegal.

I wrote a couple of weeks ago that there hasn’t been a proper legal case to decide the legality of Jews living in the lands captured back from Jordan in ’67, specifically Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem. I was wrong! There was exactly such a case and, even though I’ve written about it, it has received almost no attention and been buried.

As we first reported here on Israellycool last week, a French court has confirmed some aspects of the legal situation regarding Israel and the hills of Judea and Samaria, especially around Jerusalem.

Now the larger news outlets have had time to think about this and get the opinion of greater legal minds than this humble blogger.

And the answer seems to be, it is a victory, but only if you didn’t know anything about international law and the specifics of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions.

Well I’d say that’s just about everyone on earth and doubly so for everyone who is deluded by BDS campaign lies!

Exactly as I noted then, the legacy media completely ignored this ruling or downplayed it because it didn’t fit their lethal narrative: Jews are illegal settlers in what was once their own land. Nobody in the hostile legacy media has referred to it since (try to google for it).

Jean-Patrick Grumberg (the original reporter I linked to back in 2013 on the story) has now re-published a more detailed account of the technicalities of the case which related to the building, in Jerusalem, of the light rail system which connects both predominantly Arab and Jewish neighbourhoods to the centre of Jerusalem.

This is how Jean-Patrick concludes his post (which also includes the entire court decision in French).

The Court of Appeal therefore sentenced the PLO (and Association France Palestine Solidarité AFPS who was co-appellant) to pay 30,000 euros ($32,000) to Alstom, 30,000 euros to Alstom Transport and 30,000 euros to Veolia Transport.

Neither the PLO nor the Palestinian Authority nor the AFPS appealed to the Supreme Court, therefore the judgment has become final.

This is the first time that a Court has legally destroyed all Palestinian legal claim that Israel’s occupation is illegal.

But don’t bother trying to confuse the “experts” with facts. Their minds are closed to any arguments that contradict their received wisdom.

In a similar fashion NGO Monitor exposes how the French are funding NGOs that sponsor BDS campaigns and which have ties to terror groups

An international peace summit, spearheaded by the French government, will be held on January 15, 2017, in Paris. In this report, NGO Monitor documents French government support of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that support discriminatory BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) campaigns against Israel and with alleged ties to terror groups. This type of financial support casts doubts on the ability of France to serve as an impartial host of a summit dedicated to peace.

The best part of the whole shindig? The support that Israel received outside of the conference. Col. Richard Kemp was at a rally of support, and you can watch him being interviewed on Israeli i24TV:

The demonstration of support for Israel itself, held outside the conference venue drew hundreds of people:

PARIS – Hundreds of people rallied in support of Israel outside of the Jewish state’s embassy in Paris on Sunday as foreign ministers from dozens of nations gathered for a Middle East peace parley in the French capital.

Pro-Israel rally outside the Paris Peace Conference

Pro-Israel rally outside the Paris Peace Conference

Among those present at the demonstration were Israeli and Jewish leaders, including Israel’s ambassador to France and the president of the French-Jewish umbrella organization CRIF.

CRIF President Francis Kalifat told The Jerusalem Post that upon learning of the scheduling of the Paris summit, “we scheduled our own rally, in support of Israel and in support of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.”

“More than that, we are here today to express our objection to the Paris Middle East Conference, which we consider an anti-Israeli tribunal, similar to the negative decisions adopted by UNESCO and the UNSC [United Nations Security Council],” he said.

Rally attendee Jean B., 25, said that “we are here today to tell our own president that Israel has already reached out to the Palestinians in peace. The Palestinians are trying to internationalize the conflict, instead of accepting Israel’s hand and begin unconditional talks.”

Another participant at the demonstration, identified as Elisabeth, a student at the Sorbonne, told the Post that “we are hoping that our leaders will hear an outcry and listen to it. I know that France wants to advance peace, but they are going about it the wrong way.”

Kol hakavod to all the attendees and supporters of Israel.

But seriously, as the British noted, what was the point of the whole exercise? I’ll give the last word to Prof. Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor:

Obama, EU leaders agree to keep anti-Russian sanctions over Ukraine

November 18, 2016

Obama, EU leaders agree to keep anti-Russian sanctions over Ukraine

Published time: 18 Nov, 2016 12:27 Edited time: 18 Nov, 2016 13:10

Source: Obama, EU leaders agree to keep anti-Russian sanctions over Ukraine — RT News

U.S. President Barack Obama, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Francois Hollande and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi meet at the chancellery in Berlin, Germany, November 18, 2016. © Kay Nietfeld / Reuters

US President Barack Obama and EU leaders have agreed to keep anti-Russian sanctions in place for a further year over the situation in Ukraine.

President Obama, who is on his final official visit to Europe, met with the leaders of Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the UK on Friday.

Among the main topics on the agenda were extending sanctions against Russia, cooperation within the framework of NATO, the rise of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Iraq and Syria, and possible new anti-Russian sanctions over Moscow’s actions in Syria.

The leaders agreed on the necessity of working collectively to move the transatlantic agenda forward, particularly on bringing stabilization to the Middle East and North Africa, as well as securing diplomatic resolution to the conflicts in Syria and eastern Ukraine,” the White House said in the statement.

READ MORE: Russian sanctions cost Italy €7bn and up to 200,000 jobs – Italian MP

“The leaders also affirmed the importance of continued cooperation through multilateral institutions, including NATO,” the White House added.

Sanctions won’t stop Russia from improving its dialogue and ties with other countries, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

We [Russia] have never initiated sanctions. These [sanctions] don’t prevent us from building dialogue and continuing the dialogue on matters that are of interest to us, to Russia,” Peskov said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and outgoing US President Obama are likely to talk informally on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific summit in the Peruvian capital of Lima, Peskov said on Friday.

“The two administrations have not agreed on any separate meetings, but we can assume that President Putin and President Obama will cross paths on the sidelines of the forum and will talk,” Peskov said.

READ MORE: EU’s dialogue with Russia should be ‘correct and pragmatic’ – Italian FM

Also on Friday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg gave a speech at an event hosted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF), where he said that Europe and the United States “are close economic and trade partners” and mentioned potential threats for the alliance.

“Russia, breaking international law. Turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East. The refugee and migration crisis. International terrorism. Hybrid warfare. And cyber-attacks,” said Stoltenberg, listing the perceived dangers.

Syrians will soon receive EU money deposited into ‘credit card’

September 30, 2016

It is a prominent part of the migration agreement between the EU and Turkey: European money for Syrian refugees that they get paid monthly on an electronic debit card.

From October 1 this should enter into force, but what should we imagine ?

By Tom Reijner

27 sep 2016

( translation from original Dutch article by JK  )

The utility is officially launched Monday by the Cypriot Commissioner Christos Stylianides (Humanitarian Aid).
‘Biggest EU aid project ever’

Not without any triumphalism: “Today we launch the largest and most comprehensive humanitarian project that the EU has ever supported. It will ensure that 1 million Syrian refugees have a kind of basic income, “said the Commissioner at a press conference. The project, according to him the “ultimate proof” how the EU is involved in solving the migration and refugee crisis. But what about this aid money system exactly work?

The debit cards – similar to a type of credit or prepaidpas – provided by the so-called Emergency Social Safety Net (ESSN). This is a special program of the EU for refugees and set up in collaboration with the World Food Programme of the United Nations, the Turkish authorities and the Turkish Red Crescent (the Islamic equivalent of the Red Cross).

In the words of the Commissioner “a system that combines the Turkish welfare of a humanitarian response.” The ESSN project has been allocated EUR 348 million, to be paid from the big pot of money (3 billion euros), which Ankara had pledged to help the refugees in their own country. Meanwhile, paid 652 million – though Erdogan complained bitterly that it is all not enough, and where the rest of the money actually remains.

It sounds like a fraud sensitive system

But not everyone will benefit from EU funds. Only the ‘most vulnerable’ among the more than 3 million Syrians in Turkey may make purchases “so they can feed their families.” Brussels hopes that therefore the local economy is supported, as they embark on fruit and vegetable markets. These people, who are outside the refugee camps, may decide that they spend the money. So they can keep “their dignity, and they are not condemned to begging on the streets.

It sounds like a fraud sensitive system. How do the EU officials assured that the money is well spent, and not in bags reaches of shady characters, whether or not within the Turkish government itself?

Namely, there is also cooperation with the Turkish Ministry of Family and Social Policy. The European Commission ensures strict control: “We will ensure that every euro is spent properly,” says Stylianides.

European Leaders Discuss Plan for European Army

September 14, 2016

European Leaders Discuss Plan for European Army “We are going to move towards an EU army much faster than people believe.”

by Soeren Kern

September 14, 2016 at 5:00 am

Source: European Leaders Discuss Plan for European Army

  • Critics say that the creation of a European army, a long-held goal of European federalists, would entail an unprecedented transfer of sovereignty from European nation states to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, the de facto capital of the EU.
  • Others say that efforts to move forward on European defense integration show that European leaders have learned little from Brexit, and are determined to continue their quest to build a European superstate regardless of opposition from large segments of the European public.
  • “Those of us who have always warned about Europe’s defense ambitions have always been told not to worry… We’re always told not to worry about the next integration and then it happens. We’ve been too often conned before and we must not be conned again.” — Liam Fox, former British defense secretary.
  • “[C]reation of EU defense structures, separate from NATO, will only lead to division between transatlantic partners at a time when solidarity is needed in the face of many difficult and dangerous threats to the democracies.” — Geoffrey Van Orden, UK Conservative Party defense spokesman.

European leaders are discussing “far-reaching proposals” to build a pan-European military, according to a French defense ministry document leaked to the German newspaper, the Süddeutsche Zeitung.

The efforts are part of plans to relaunch the European Union at celebrations in Rome next March marking the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Community.

The document confirms rumors that European officials are rushing ahead with defense integration now that Britain — the leading military power in Europe — will be exiting the 28-member European Union.

British leaders have repeatedly blocked efforts to create a European army because of concerns that it would undermine the NATO alliance, the primary defense structure in Europe since 1949.

Proponents of European defense integration argue that it is needed to counter growing security threats and would save billions of euros in duplication between countries.

Critics say that the creation of a European army, a long-held goal (see Appendix below) of European federalists, would entail an unprecedented transfer of sovereignty from European nation states to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, the de facto capital of the EU.

Others say that efforts to move forward on European defense integration show that European leaders have learned little from Brexit — the June 23 decision by British voters to leave the EU — and are determined to continue their quest to build a European superstate regardless of opposition from large segments of the European public.

The Süddeutsche Zeitung reported that it had obtained a copy of a six-page position paper, jointly written by French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and his German counterpart, Ursula von der Leyen. The document calls for the establishment of a “common and permanent” European military headquarters, as well as the creation of EU military structures, including an EU Logistics Command and an EU Medical Command.

The document calls on EU member states to integrate logistics and procurement, coordinate military R&D and synchronize policies in matters of financing and military planning. EU intelligence gathering would be improved through the use of European satellites; a common EU military academy would “promote a common esprit de corps.”

According to the newspaper, the document will be distributed to European leaders at an informal summit in Bratislava, Slovakia, on September 16. France and Germany will ask the leaders of the other EU member states not only to approve the measures, but also to “discuss a fast implementation.”

Specifically, France and Germany will for the first time activate Article 44 of the Lisbon Treaty (also known as the European Constitution). This clause allows certain EU member states “which are willing and have the necessary capability” to proceed with the “task” of defense integration, even if other EU member states disapprove.

According to Süddeutsche Zeitung:

“In the wake of the British referendum to leave the European Union, Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande have decided to demonstrate the EU’s strength and to push the remaining member states to show more unity. Especially in defense policy, many projects were put on hold because Britain vetoed them. Without London, the two EU founding states, France and Germany, hope for swift decisions.”

On September 8, Defense News reported that the creation of a European army was the central focus of an August 22 meeting between the leaders of France, Germany and Italy in Naples, where the three declared “the beginning of a new Europe.” That meeting was followed by a meeting of defense ministers from the three countries in Paris on September 5.

According to Defense News, Italy is lobbying France and Germany to “back a plan for European tax breaks and financing for joint European defense procurement and development programs, as part of a bid to build a European army.”

A confidential draft document circulated by Italy calls for “fiscal and financial incentives to support new EU cooperative programs for development and joint purchases of equipment and infrastructure supporting the EU’s Common Security and Defense Policy.”

In a September 8 interview with La Repubblica, the EU’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, called for the establishment of a permanent EU military headquarters in Brussels that would manage all current and future EU military operations. “This could become the nucleus around which a common European defense structure could be built,” she said.

Mogherini insisted that “we are not talking about a European army but about European defense: something we can really do, concretely, starting now.” She also stressed that EU defense policy would remain under the control of European governments rather than the European Commission, the powerful executive arm of the EU.

On September 7, however, The Times reported that Mogherini will present EU leaders attending the summit in Bratislava with a “road map” and a “timetable” for creating EU military structures, which are “the foundation of a European army.” According to newspaper, her plans for military structures able “to act autonomously” from NATO have led to fears that “the EU is seeking to rival the transatlantic alliance.”

The Times quoted Mogherini as saying she was taking advantage of the “political space” opened by the Brexit vote:

“It might sound a bit dramatic but we are at this turning point. We could relaunch our European project and make it more functional and powerful for our citizens and the rest of the world. Or we could diminish its intensity and power. We have the political space today to do things that were not really doable in previous years.”

On May 27, the Sunday Times reported that steps towards creating a European army were being kept secret from British voters until the day after the June 23 referendum:

“In an effort to avoid derailing the Prime Minister’s ‘Remain’ campaign, the policy plans will not be sent to national governments until the day after Britons vote. Until then, only a small group of EU political and security committee ambassadors, who must leave their electronic devices outside a sealed room, can read the proposal.”

On June 28, just days after the British referendum, Mogherini presented European leaders attending an EU summit in Brussels with the “EU Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy.” The document explicitly calls for European defense integration, and implicitly calls for the creation of a European army.

According to the document, the EU strategy “nurtures the ambition of strategic autonomy for the European Union.” It adds: “Gradual synchronization and mutual adaptation of national defense planning cycles and capability development can enhance strategic convergence between member states.”

In an interview with The Telegraph, Liam Fox, a former defense secretary who served under former Prime Minister David Cameron, said:

“Those of us who have always warned about Europe’s defense ambitions have always been told not to worry, but step-by-step that ever closer union is becoming a reality. We cannot afford to be conned in this referendum as we were conned in 1975.

“The best way to protect ourselves is to stay close to the US. The US defense budget is bigger than the next 11 countries in the world put together. Europe’s defense intentions are a dangerous fantasy and risk cutting us off from our closest and most powerful ally.

“We’re always told not to worry about the next integration and then it happens. We’ve been too often conned before and we must not be conned again.”

The Conservative Party’s defense spokesman, Geoffrey Van Orden, said the implications of the EU’s defense ambitions are worrying:

“We can all see that the EU might play a useful role in conflict prevention and in some civil aspects of crisis management. But its ambitions go beyond that. The EU motive is not to create additional military capability but to achieve defense integration as a key step on the road to a federal EU state.

“The US and indeed the UK are being misled if they imagine that such moves will enhance NATO — the key guarantor of our collective defense. On the contrary, creation of EU defense structures, separate from NATO, will only lead to division between transatlantic partners at a time when solidarity is needed in the face of many difficult and dangerous threats to the democracies.”

Mike Hookem, the defense spokesman of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), said his party had been warning about the dangers posed by the EU army concept for years:

“I’m pleased to see people are finally waking up. An EU army is not some Eurosceptic fantasy, there are many in Brussels hell-bent on making it happen.”

Soldiers from the Eurocorps on parade in Strasbourg, France, on January 31, 2013. Eurocorps is an intergovernmental military unit of approximately 1,000 soldiers from Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and Spain, stationed in Strasbourg. (Image: Claude Truong-Ngoc/Wikimedia Commons)

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.


Select quotes regarding a European army

European federalists have been calling for the creation of a European army in one form or another since 1950. Although a European army is still a long way away from becoming reality, the ultimate goal of European federalists is full defense integration leading to a European military under supranational control.

Since the Lisbon Treaty, which forms the constitutional basis of the European Union, entered into force in December 2009, the political momentum toward European defense integration has picked up steam. The drive toward European defense integration has accelerated during the Obama administration, which has often appeared indifferent to Europe and transatlantic relations. Another important obstacle to European defense integration was removed when Britons voted in June 2016 to exit the European Union.

What follows is a collection of quotes from senior European officials regarding a European army and integrated defense.

September 9. The EU’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, said:

“I believe a window of opportunity has been opened to give life to a European defense. I wanted to send the message that, despite the British exit, Europe can and must move forward with the process of integration. The prospect of Brexit offered an opportunity not to be slowed by the country that was always most determinedly opposed to the idea of pooling the instruments of defense.”

August 26. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a staunch critic of the EU’s migration policies, said a joint European army was needed to keep migrants out. At a news conference after a meeting between Central European member states and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Warsaw, Orbán said: “We should list the issue of security as a priority, and we should start setting up a common European army.”

August 22. Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka called for greater European military integration:

“Our experiences with the last migration wave have shown the importance of Europe’s internal borders. In the face of uncontrolled mass migration, even states in the center of Europe have realized that internal borders must be better controlled. Aside from better coordinated foreign and security policy, I also believe that in the long term, we will be unable to do without a joint European army.”

July 23. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said:

“The withdrawal of the British from the EU has led to a significant reduction in the continent’s military strength, and from a military policy perspective we must not remain in this defenseless position… A European army must protect the continent from two sides, from the East and from the South, in terms of protecting against terrorism and migration. Europe cannot even continue to exist without an alliance — a joint EU army.”

July 13. The German Defense Ministry released a white paper outlining the country’s future defense and security policies. The document calls for steps leading to the creation of an EU army, such as the integration of military capabilities and defense industries. “We are aiming to establish a permanent European civil-military operational headquarters in the medium term,” it says. The white paper also says that citizens of other EU countries could be allowed to serve in the German army. Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said:

“Britain has paralyzed the European Union on the issues of foreign and security policy. This cannot mean that the rest of Europe remain inactive, but rather we need to move forward on these big issues.”

June 28. French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault and German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier released a joint document titled “A Strong Europe in a World of Uncertainties.” It states:

“The security of EU member states is deeply interconnected, as these threats now affect the continent as a whole: any threat to one member state is also a threat to others. We therefore regard our security as one and indivisible. We consider the European Union and the European security order to be part of our core interests and will safeguard them in any circumstances.

“In this context, France and Germany recommit to a shared vision of Europe as a security union, based on solidarity and mutual assistance between member states in support of common security and defense policy. Providing security for Europe as well as contributing to peace and stability globally is at the heart of the European project.

“France and Germany will promote the EU as an independent and global actor able to leverage its unique array of expertise and tools, civilian and military, in order to defend and promote the interests of its citizens. France and Germany will promote integrated EU foreign and security policy bringing together all EU policy instruments.

“The EU should be able to plan and conduct civil and military operations more effectively, with the support of a permanent civil-military chain of command. The EU should be able to rely on employable high-readiness forces and provide common financing for its operations. Within the framework of the EU, member states willing to establish permanent structured cooperation in the field of defense or to push ahead to launch operations should be able to do so in a flexible manner. If needed, EU member states should consider establishing standing maritime forces or acquiring EU-owned capabilities in other key areas.”

June 26. In an interview with Welt am Sonntag, the Chairman of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Elmar Brok, called for the immediate creation of a joint military headquarters and for the eventual establishment of an EU army:

“We need a common military headquarters and a coalition of the willing in accordance with the permanent structural cooperation of the EU Treaty. An EU army could eventually arise from such a group. This could help to strengthen the role of Europeans in the security and defense policy, together better fulfill the responsibility of Europe in the world and also to achieve more synergies in defense spending.”

June 24. French President François Hollande said:

“Europe needs to be a sovereign power deciding its own future and promoting its model. France will therefore be leading efforts to ensure Europe focuses on the most important issues: the security and defense of our continent, to protect our borders and preserve peace in the face of threats.”

May 29. British Armed Forces Minister Penny Mordaunt said: “A centrally controlled army would be a massive step to the EU’s goal of full political integration, but it would be a very dangerous move.”

February 4. German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen confirmed an agreement to integrate some 800 German soldiers into the Dutch navy. While in Amsterdam, where she met with the Dutch Defense Minister, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, von der Leyen called the plan a “prime example for the building of a European defense union.”

December 15, 2015. The European Commission proposed creating a European Border and Coast Guard. The proposal, which was put forward in response to the ongoing European migrant crisis, called for a rapid reaction force of 1,500 officers who would be able to deploy even if a member state did not ask for its help.

October 15, 2015. The president of the European People’s Party (EPP), Joseph Daul, said: “We are going to move towards an EU army much faster than people believe.”

September 12, 2015. An unpublished position paper drawn up by Europe and Defence policy committees of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Party (CDU) was leaked to The Telegraph. The document sets out a detailed 10-point plan for military co-operation in Europe. It calls for “a permanent structured and coordinated cooperation of national armed forces in the medium term.” It adds:

“In the long run, this process should according to the present German coalition agreement lead also to a European Army subject to Parliamentarian control.

“In the framework of NATO, a uniform European pillar will be more valuable and efficient for the USA than with the present rag-rug characterized by a lack of joint European planning, procurement, and interoperability.”

June 15, 2015. Michel Barnier, Special Adviser on European Defence and Security Policy to European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, wrote:

“Member States are slow to accept that they need to go beyond a model where defense is a matter of strict national sovereignty…. It is time for a reckoning: traditional methods of cooperation have reached their limits and proved insufficient. European defense needs a paradigm change in line with the exponential increase in global threats and the volatility of our neighborhood. The past has shown that European defense does move ahead if and when there is political will.”

March 9, 2015. In an interview with Die Welt, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said the EU should establish its own army to show Russia it is serious about defending European values:

“Europe has lost a huge amount of respect. In foreign policy too, we are not taken seriously. A common European army would show the world that there will never again be war between EU countries. Such an army would help us to build a common foreign and security policy and allow Europe to meet its responsibilities in the world. With its own army, Europe could respond credibly to a threat to peace in a member country or in a neighboring country of the European Union.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said they support Juncker’s proposal for a European army. In an interview with Tagesspiegel, Steinmeier added:

“The long-term goal of a European army is a major policy objective and has been part of the Social Democratic Party’s (SPD) party program for many years. Given the new risks and threats to peace in Europe we now need, as a first step, a rapid adaptation and updating of the common European security strategy.”

March 8, 2015. In an interview with Deutschlandfunk radio, German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said:

“I think that the German army is ready, under certain circumstances, to be subordinated to the control of another nation. That is the goal, that in the European Union we step by step more firmly establish our cooperation, especially in security policy. This intertwining of armies with a view to having a European army is the future.”

May 15, 2014. Jean-Claude Juncker, the European People’s Party lead candidate for president of the next European Commission, wrote:

“I believe that we need to work on a stronger Europe when it comes to security and defense matters. Yes, Europe is chiefly a ‘soft power.’ But even the strongest soft powers cannot make do in the long run without at least some integrated defense capacities. The Treaty of Lisbon provides for the possibility, for those Member States who want to do so, to pool their defense capabilities in the form of a permanent structured cooperation.”

December 19, 2013. The speaker of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, called for the creation of a European army: “If we wish to defend our values and interests, if we wish to maintain the security of our citizens, then a majority of MEPs consider that we need a headquarters for civil and military missions in Brussels and deployable troops.”

November 15, 2009. In an interview with The Times, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said it is a “necessary objective to have a European army.” He added:

“Every country duplicates its forces, each of us puts armored cars, men, tanks, planes, into Afghanistan. If there were a European army, Italy could send planes, France could send tanks, Britain could send armored cars, and in this way we would optimize the use of our resources. Perhaps we won’t get there immediately, but that is the idea of a European army.”

May 6, 2008. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier called for the establishment of the European army “as soon as possible.” He said he had been in talks with his French counterpart to discuss “future structures” of a European army.

December 10-11, 1999. European officials meeting in Helsinki agreed to develop a European Rapid Reaction Force. Also known as the Helsinki Headline Goal, EU member states pledged that by 2003 they would be able to deploy a European military force of 60,000 troops within 60 days and for a period of potentially one year. This goal has never been met.

December 3-4, 1988. British Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac met at the French port city of Saint-Malo to discuss future EU defense integration. The summit declaration, which laid the political foundation for a common European defense policy, stated:

“The European Union needs to be in a position to play its full role on the international stage… The Union must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and a readiness to do so, in order to respond to international crises.”

October 24, 1950. The Pleven Plan, named after French Prime Minister René Pleven, was the first plan to create a unified European army. It proposed the “immediate creation of a European army tied to the political institutions of a united Europe.” It stated:

“A European army cannot be created simply by placing national military units side by side, since, in practice, this would merely mask a coalition of the old sort. Tasks that can be tackled only in common must be matched by common institutions. A united European army, made up of forces from the various European nations must, as far as possible, pool all of its human and material components under a single political and military European authority.”

The Pleven Plan was rejected by the French Parliament because it infringed on France’s national sovereignty.