"Who, Whom?" becomes "EU, EUM?" The EU and the Nature of Power

Since I wrote my original commentary on the MH17 atrocity, a lot of people have contested my view that the European Union is an expansionist power, which has gobbled up large numbers of small countries. They have also contested my view that the EU is the aggressor in Ukraine.

 

Here are some samples of their points. My replies follow, marked *** and shown in bold,

 

My old friend Edward Lucas, of the Economist, tweeted ‘I am arguing w[ith] @ClarkeMicah who says EU "gobbled" CEE countries. I say no coercion -- they wanted to join’.

 

***And this of course is where the fun begins. What is coercion in the modern world?

 

Ostensibly, each new EU nation joins happily of its own free will. But how true is this? It is often an elite decision. even where it is not, how fair are the state-sponsored plebiscites in which it is sometimes approved? Britain, relatively rich, powerful and independent, was finagled into EU membership with shameless lies and a wholly unbalanced post-facto referendum. So how much less free must it be in poorer, weaker nations? 

What choice did these tiny, often bankrupt countries really have as they stumbled, blinking, out of their Soviet prison camp? Where else but from the EU did they hope to get markets, investment or subsidy, even though the price was often bitter and high?

 

Poland, much-touted as a big success, is now a dependency of Germany whose young people must go abroad in legions to find work. We hear little about the effects of EU rules on these countries, though I recall some years ago riots in Warsaw, as coalminers from the Polish south protested against the destruction of their jobs.

 

And then of course there is the hard, unavoidable fact about EU membership. Countries which accept it place themselves under the EU’s Supreme Court in Luxembourg, so sacrificing an independent legal  system, a key attribute of a sovereign nation; they place themselves under the EU Commission in Brussels, so sacrificing the direction of much of their domestic, trade defence and foreign policy; in most cases they sacrifice their currencies, so ceding control of their fiscal policy; and they abolish their frontiers with all EU neighbours.

 

Lenin’s simple question about power ‘Who Whom?’ could perhaps be reworded as ‘Eu Eum?’. Can there be any doubt as to which way power flows in this relationship? Does any truly free and independent nation *willingly* give up so much control over its destiny? Of course not. They all did it (including Britain) because their elites believed, or knew, that they had no real alternative.

 

By the way, the riveting and brilliant chapters on the Brest-Litovsk Treaty in Adam Tooze’s majestic work ‘The Deluge’ are full of keys and clues to modern Europe, which show how and why ‘self-determination’ became Germany’s principal weapon against Russia.

 

P.108 ‘At Brest it was the Germans as much as the Soviets who sought (in 1918) to craft a modern peace in the East , based on the new standards of legitimacy, or at least it was the German Foreign Secretary Richard von Kuehlmann and his backers in the Reichstag majority who did. Quite deliberately they sought to seize the initiative by establishing a liberal order in the east to replace the autocratic empire of the Tsar’.

 

P.109;’Brest gave birth to the precursors to the Baltic states in their modern form, an independent Ukraine and a Transcaucasian Republic’

 

Adding ‘Of course, in 1918 all of these polities fell willy-nilly under the ‘protection’ of Imperial Germany’.

 

(I’ll say they did, PH).

 

‘Since 1991, all of these creations of the ‘Brest-Litovsk moment’, and more, of the family of nations have come to be regarded as legitimate members of the family of nations. Now as then Poland and the Baltic states look to protectors in the West. Today they are keen members of an American-dominated NATO and the European Union, in which Germany is the dominant force’.

 

I don’t think I’m doing Professor Tooze any disservice by quoting his analysis. I rather suspect (I’m only a third of the way though his superb, original book) he favours the new arrangement.

 

I’ll bung in a couple of other extracts :(P.113) ‘ Since the publication of Friedrich Naumann’s much-misunderstood book on the vision of a unified Mitteleuropa in October 1915, there had been a lively discussion of a zone of German hegemony in central Europe, based on some kind of federative imperialism….

 

‘…once Tsarist power collapsed in 1917 and America entered the war, it was obvious to the more intelligent strategic thinkers in Germany that there was no better means with which to dynamite the Tsarist empire than for Berlin to espouse the demand for self-determination’.

 

Do you see the trick here. ‘Federative imperialism’ , in a  ‘zone of German hegemony’ arises out of the break-up of the Russian empire, dressed up as self-determination. Sound familiar at all?

 

But none of this jolly,  progressive stuff would have mattered a bit in the 21st century if Germany had not gone to war against Russia in 1914. And after the USSR;s reversal of Brest-Litovsk in the 1920s, the issue would have died away had it not been for the second German assault on Russian domination of the region, in 1941. This failed in 1945, but Russia was not able to sustain her victory (thanks to the mad economics of Communism) and the wound reopened in 1990. It is still open.

 

My own view is that Germany’s two violent attempts to dominate the European continent continue to influence all those affected, directly or indirectly, and that the EU is itself a mechanism to institutionalise that influence - fear and apprehension, terror of having to go through it again,  into non-violent channels. The threat, however, remains - implicit most of the time but occasionally explicit.

 

The best evidence of this came from Helmut Kohl, the modern Bismarck, in a speech at Louvain/Leuven in February 1996.

 

I quote Sarah Helm’s report from the ‘Independent’ because both reporter and newspaper are impeccable ornaments of the establishment, not wild secessionists such as I am:

 

The report is datelined Brussels, 3rd February 1996

 

‘Chancellor Helmut Kohl yesterday warned in the most strident terms that a retreat from further political integration in Europe could plunge the continent into new "nationalist" wars in the next century.

 

 

 

‘In language intended to challenge the rise of Euro-scepticism - no longer a merely British phenomenon - the German leader proclaimed: "The policy of European integration is in reality a question of war and peace in the 21st century." Beseeching his European partners to take far-reaching decisions on further EU integration at the Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC) in March, he said: "If we suffer a set-back now on the road to Europe it will take considerably longer than one generation before we are given such an opportunity again." Mr Kohl said he was not advocating a "superstate". But he added: "We have no desire to return to the nation state of old. It cannot solve the great problems of the 21st century. Nationalism has brought great suffering to our continent." Recalling his friendship with Francois Mitterrand, who died last month, he said that the former French president shared his view that "nationalism is war".

 

 

 

‘Mr Kohl's warnings were clearly directed in part at Britain, where the Government has been fuelling fears of further integration and questioning the timetable for the creation of a European single currency.

 

 

 

‘"If individual partners are not prepared, or able, to participate in certain steps towards integration," he said, "the others should not be denied the opportunity to move forward and develop increased co-operation in which all partners are welcome to take part." This was a renewed plea for the Franco-German proposals for a "hard-core" Europe of federally-minded countries which would relegate Britain to a Euro-sceptic periphery.

 

‘Mr Kohl has frequently argued that strengthening the EU is essential if German power is to be contained. His fear is that a dominant Germany, unshackled by common European rules, would fuel nationalism among its neighbours, putting Europe back on the road to the wars which disfigured the first half of this century.

 

 

 

‘The Chancellor made it clear that, despite warnings of the imminent collapse of the plans for European Monetary Union, he believes that the single currency remains the linchpin of the next phase of European integration. He called for "considerable efforts on everybody's part to achieve a major step forward". He also restated his conviction that enlarging the EU to take in new members from the East was crucial to Europe's future.

 

 

 

‘Mr Kohl emphasised that the IGC reform process should be used to restructure European institutions for greater power-sharing in the next century. He set out four areas in which Germany wants to see progress: a strengthening of the EU's foreign and security policy; more pooling of powers in criminal justice; greater openness in decision-making and more power for the European Parliament.

 

 

 

‘Acknowledging that warnings of further war were not popular, the Chancellor said: "My warnings may contain an unpleasant truth. [But] if there is no momentum for continued integration this will not only lead to standstill but also to retrogression.” '

 

He said it. And alert readers will note that he got his way. The crazed scheme for EU currency union was adopted, and is still ruining lives all over our mighty continent (though the tragedy is by no means over yet).

 

I am amazed at the way in which so many people think that power can only be exerted through troops, tanks and bombs. Diplomacy can be, and often is, the extension of warfare by other means. It is often forgotten that most of Hitler’s early successes were achieved by menace rather than force. The redrawing of Europe’s borders at Versailles was an exercise in polite violence, with people driven hither and thither, empires dismantled and borders shifted, on the basis of fear that the whole thing would have to be begun again.

 

And it was varied and frustrated by threats of violence from the Czech and the Turks, among others.

 

Edward is in a  bit of cleft stick here. The Saarland voted willingly to rejoin Germany, in 1935, long aftr Hitler came to power, in a fairly conducted plebiscite. Did power play no part, even if it was popular? Sudeten Germans, and Austrians, likewise gaily welcomed their accession to the Reich. Was power not involved? And if popular willigness to be oart of the EU means the nation invilved has not been gobbled up, then Edward presumably applauds and sympathizes with Crimea's indubitably popular absorption into the Russian Federation? Or does he? I rather think he believes Mr Putin has gobbled it up, whether it was popular or not. 

 

Power is frequently exerted by engineering the overthrow of governments one does not like. Britain and the USA  did this to Iran quite recently, in a putsch which is documented in detail and not disputed.

 

American interference is not limited to the Middle East. On March 12 2003, then president George W.Bush made a contemptuous threat to topple the Tory leader, Iain Duncan Smith, having misunderstood British politics so badly that he thought IDS might oppose British participation in the Iraq War. The President also though IDS was called ‘Iain Duncan Baker’

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160439/Campbells-diaries-tell-Bush-threatened-rid-Iain-Duncan-Smith-failed-Blair-Iraq.html

 

 

The USSR did it in Czechoslovakia in 1948, engineering a Communist putsch. Many believe that the KGB was also behind the eventual fall of Communism in Prague 41 years later. And let’s not get started on the Caribbean and Latin America.

 

The USSR continued to hold a veto over Cabinet appointments in (neutral) Finland until the end of the Cold War. EU members attempted to force Jorg Haider’s ‘Freedom Party’ out of the Austrian governing coalition in 2000, which, whatever you think of Herr Haider (and I thought he was appalling) , is not a gesture of confidence in sovereign democracy. The attempt also backfired, probably because it was so blatant and public.

 

 

I haven’t noticed *any* of my critics even mentioning one key part of my Monday article, the quotation from Matthew Omolesky’s (pro’Maidan’) article in the ‘American Spectator, in which Mr Omolesky says: ‘‘Some might take issue with the rather grandiose claim that Europe cannot endure without Ukraine, but the European Union has long had designs on it. Brussels funnelled some 389 million Euros to Ukraine between 2011 and 2013 alone and distributions were made to a host of civil-society NGOs…

...The 2014 protests, touched off by Yanukovych’s rejection of a European Union association deal, constitute the natural and immediate consequence of groundwork undertaken in Brussels, much to the Kremlin’s chagrin’.

 

Now, if this is true, is it not intervention?

 

 

 

‘Elaine’, asked to explain why it is ‘absurd’ to say the EU began the conflict, replied: ‘To summarize why I don't think he (PH) has made his case (a rather different thing form it being ‘absurd’ to say this, but never mind) :

 

‘Ukraine is an independent country, so it really doesn't matter how Russia views Ukraine, the point is they have the right to self-determination.

 

***This is just assertion.  As so often explained here (was ‘Elaine’ away?), Ukraine does not have an economy healthy enough to assert true sovereignty. Nor does it possess true integrity as a linguistic cultural or political whole.

 

‘Elaine’ ‘The EU, so far has only signed a free trade agreement with Ukraine, as they have with many other countries’.

 

***  *Only* a free trade agreement?  Sigh. Again, I must ask her to pay attention. Michel Mosbacher, a supporter of the Euromaidan, is clearly quoted in my article as saying : ‘‘The critics are right that the Association Agreement is much more than a free-trade agreement. In Article Seven it commits Ukraine to "promote gradual convergence in the area of foreign and security policy". Article Ten of the agreement provides for "increasing the participation of Ukraine in EU-led civilian and military crisis management operations" and exploring the potential of military-technological cooperation.’

 

It is mere politeness for her to at least acknowledge this, when claiming my position is absurd, rather than totally ignoring it. If she hasn’t read the article properly, then she really has no business commenting on it at all, let alone using such words as ‘absurd’.

 

 

‘Elaine’ adds: ‘ If they eventually become part of the EU, that is their right as an independent country.’

 

***The legitimate leader of Ukraine decided *not* to sign the agreement. That was also *his* right. As has been discussed here, its implications for Ukraine’s already disastrous economy were quite alarming, and were accompanied by rather minor offers of aid.  But he was then overthrown unconstitutionally by a violent mob.  Is that their ‘right’?  If so, does she apply such rules to her own home country? I hope she will tell her neighbours that she favours mob rule.

 

‘Elaine’ again: ’If this bothers Mr. Putin then maybe he should consider why Europe and the EU is more appealing to Ukraine’

 

***What does she mean ‘More appealing to Ukraine’? The legitimate, democratically-elected  President of Ukraine decided that Russia’s offer more appealing to his country. He was then lawlessly overthrown, by foreign-backed mobs. Once again, does ‘Elaine’ favour this method of changing government for her own country?

 

 

‘Elaine’ again: ‘ but going into a neighbouring country and fomenting a civil war is a bully response. And this is where it becomes clear who threw the first punch.’

 

***Indeed it does. As soon as President Yanukovych rejected the association agreement, hostile mobs began to gather in Kiev, egged on by EU and US politicians and western media. Even dogged believers in coincidence theory must be impressed by the fact that these mobs, allegedly outraged by Ukrainian corruption, have melted away since a pro-EU regime has been installed,. Does Elaine seriously believe that corruption has now come to an end in Ukraine? Or could the diminishing of the mob have another cause (see Mr Omolesky above)?

 

Brian Warner asked : ‘Mr Hitchens, you refer to the EU as an "expansionist power to rival China.....gulping down 16 countries since 1995". Doesn't the fact that all of these countries were desperate to join the EU, and did so out of their own free will, make your comparison with China pretty insulting to the people of, say, Tibet?’

 

***Nope. Why should I? My comparison was only with the expansion, and the fact that these countries had come under an alien authority. Post-modern empires may be politer than old fashioned ones, but they still tell you what to do. As I keep saying ‘Who, whom?’

 

‘Paul P’ in a long posting apparently intended to undermine my argument, quotes at length from Wikipedia. His extracts include: ‘Ukraine deputy premier Hryhoriy Nemyria said that the project is the way to modernise the country and that they welcome the Eastern Partnership policy, because it uses 'de facto' the same instruments as for EU candidates.’

 

***Which would rather seem to make my point, not that of Mr ‘P’

 

Mr ‘P’ then says : ‘(again quoting) ".....on 21 November 2013 a Ukrainian government decree suspended preparations for signing the agreement that was scheduled to be signed during a 28–29 November 2013 EU summit in Vilnius, and it was not signed. The decision to put off signing the association agreement led to the 2014 Ukrainian revolution."

 

***I love that ‘led to’. How did it ‘lead to’ this? We do not know, though it is the most interesting question in the whole discussion.  We do know that President Yanukovych’s decision to spurn the EU agreement was *followed* by violent, menacing demonstrations and mob sieges of government buildings until the President was forced from office. We know that those demonstrations received the open support of major figures form the US and EU. But I have seen no examination of the mechanisms by which this happened. We must assume that it was magic, or coincidence. Or that it was orchestrated by persons who desired this outcome. Nobody ever questions that the Kremlin has a hand in the pro-Russia demonstrations and other actions in eastern Ukraine. I don’t. It obviously does. Yet there is an extraordinary coyness among the pro-EU contributors here, who seem unable to conceive of the possibility that ‘their’ side might actually have organised what it did.

 

 

Mr ‘P’ then adds‘....which led to the 'war' which led to the downing of the Malaysian jet. The reader will note that there is no mention of EU tanks rolling into Ukraine by way of a "move into Ukraine", or EU fighter jets screaming across the border, or EU surface-to-air missiles being deployed by EU "aggressors". In a handful of punchy sentences, bereft of ventures into classical literature or the calling into play of a billion particulars of ancient history, would Mr Hitchens please explain how the EU "began the war in Ukraine"?’

 

*** I have repeatedly explained. But Mr ‘P’ stops his ears to what he does not wish to know. Backed by the USA,  It used the post-modern methods of ‘people power’ which long ago rendered tanks obsolete in such matters. Even if ( and we cannot be conclusive as nobody has even studied it) nobody organised or directed the Kiev demonstrators, even if no ‘civil society organisations’ received help, money and advice, even if the secret services of the EU and the US played no part whatever in the deploying or operation of these crowds (and I regard this is an unasked question rather than an unanswered one), the sympathetic presence among them  

Of Ms Nuland, Ms Ashton, Herr Westerwelle and Senator McCain is a clear and public endorsement and encouragement of what developed into an assault on the Ukrainian constitution. If he can’t see this obvious fact, it is because he does not want to.

 

Mr 'P' said in a later posting: ‘My amateur understanding of the laws and conventions applicable to warfare in the modern era can be illustrated by a simple instance. At one second before midnight before the day of an announced armistice following the prosecution of a declared war, one soldier shooting another soldier is an instance of duty being exercised. At one second after midnight the soldier will have murdered the other soldier. The point is that one cannot suddenly declare oneself a 'rebel' and then start killing people under the cover of 'warfare' in a 'war zone'. The so-called 'separatists' in Ukraine did precisely that.

 

And then (all these initials are getting a bit tiresome) Mr ‘Mike B’ joined in, addressing his remarks to Mr ‘P’ :  You are right to criticise Mr Hitchens's use of the term "the EU's move into Ukraine". It is inapposite and misleading. Russian troops entering Crimea was a "move into Ukraine". as is its undoubted deployment of military personnel into eastern Ukraine. Mr Hitchens began his article with a passage from "Alice in Wonderland". Perhaps he should consider this passage from "Alice Through the Looking Glass": "When *I* use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less”’

 

***If only it were so. But few wars are declared these days, and I’m not sure I can remember the last time one was. Did Britain declare war on Libya before bombing it, for instance?  

 

If Mr ‘B’ is truly familiar with the passage he quotes, he will know that Humpty Dumpty claimed that ‘glory’ meant ‘ a knock-down argument’. This is an obvious nonsense. But here we are simply talking about willingness to absorb and understand facts, and to understand modern political methods in a new world of electronic media.

 

Only someone determined to shut his mind against the truth would deny that the manipulation of crowds and the might of ‘people power’ has in recent years become a major weapon of politics, and one which can be ( and in my view has been) used to overthrow governments in contested territories. It was to guard himself against such an attempt in Moscow that Mr Putin developed his own mob, in the form of the ‘Nashi’ movement, of which I have no doubt Mr ‘P’ strongly disapproves because it is not his mob.  But its very existence rather proves my point.  Mr ‘B’ has neither provided a knock-down argument, nor covered himself in glory.