Strange Allies - NATO, Atlantic Union, and Economic Socialism

Steve Montgomery & Steve Farrell
Wednesday, Oct. 31, 2001

Read previous articles in our series "Strange Allies":

Part 1. Politically Correct Butchers of the Twentieth Century
Part 2. Russia: Bear Trap Alliance?
Part 3. Russia - Ally of U.S. or bin Laden?
Part 4. A Model Potemkin Village
Part 5. Out of the Rubble: The New Soviet Union
Part 6. Looking the Other Way?
Part 7. Tough Questions For Those at the Helm
Part 8. Exploit a Tragedy! Empower the U.N.!
Part 9. New World Order - Full Steam Ahead
Part 10. U.N. and NATO: New World Order Partners
Part 11. Korea: Precedent for Afghanistan?
Part 12. Afghanistan - Echoes of Vietnam

Shakespeare wrote: "there's small choice in rotten apples." When it comes to America´s War on terrorism - President Bush has come to the battlefield armed with a crate full of rotten apples, and a bushel full of false alternatives.

Not unlike his poor, nearly inexplicable decision to turn to terrorist sponsors: Russia, China, a host of Middle Eastern thug states, and the United Nations as "allies" in the War on Terrorism - and not unlike his homefront defense solution of police state mechanisms, socialist bailouts, and Keynesian cash infusions - President Bush adds to the rot by asking NATO to honor our "defense alliance" by patrolling America´s skies.

As a result, 5 NATO AWACS (spy planes), 189 crew members and staff from 13 nations are, as most many know by now, stationed at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma - busy night and day, patrolling our skies and eavesdropping, not just on our enemies, but in the process, on all of us, doing a job that if it needed to be done at all, should have been accomplished by any of our own 33 AWACS and pre-existing Air Traffic Control primary radar systems. No, this is not a job for foreigners who hold no loyalty to this country, to its values, and who are in fact in bed with communists in eastern Europe, and the narco/communist terrorists in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Why should we trust these people?

Yet, even if we could, the greater concern is the precedent being set, a precedent that moved forward with nearly no opposition, a precedent which spits on the Declaration of Independence and stomps on the graves of our Founding Fathers - all in the interest of "guaranteed security" - the precedent of establishing a foothold for foreign standing armies on American soil.

Equally disturbing is the fact that this is but a part of a larger, peculiar pattern that mars the Bush Administration´s decision to turn a defensive war into an offensive maneuver for the new world order, to turn a defense of the homeland into an assault on constitutional rights and capitalism.

Deploying NATO troops on American soil - like the Bush Administration's earlier decision to give the UN Article 7 enforcement powers over all 189 member states, mandating that they join in the war on terrorism, as per the pro-Communist, pro-terrorist United Nations dictates, fits right into the pattern.

Our last look at NATO, pointed out that NATO was never merely a "defense alliance," nor was the intent of its creators to check communism or to check the anti-American veto of the Soviet Union in the United Nations, as is often claimed. NATO was and is an "instrument of change" which legally binds NATO and its members to the United Nations as part of a larger plan to "[advance] on . . . four fronts . . . [the] economic . . . military . . . political . . . and social" integration of the following:

1. Europe, west and east (Western Europe is nearly accomplished).

2. Europe with North America

3. The World

Some new this was the goal from day one.

In August of 1949, former Under Secretary of State J. Reuben Clark Jr., perhaps the top constitutional and international law scholar of the 20th Century, warned that our signature committing us to NATO forsook Washington's foreign policy to "never entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe," and the Monroe Doctrine's policy to "never . . . suffer Europe to intermeddle with cis-Atlantic affairs." Especially disturbing was that this "military alliance" contained "economic and political provisions" which beckoned international interference in the "domestic policies" of nations.

Clark cited NATO Articles 2 and 3.

Politically, Article 2 requires the parties to "contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded."

Some might call that political agenda innocent, or in our best interest. Clark didn't. He knew that European and American interpretations of liberty were and are on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Europe, for instance, accepts the lex regia perspective on rights which asserts that rights proceed from the state, and thus, can be abridged by the state. Whereas the United States adopts the natural law perspective which proclaims rights proceed from God; that governments exist solely to protect those God-given rights; and that the power to abridge such rights, does not exist. In the former the state is sovereign, in the latter, the individual under God.

Again, Europe's judicial system operates under the Napoleonic Code which embraces the principle "guilty until proven innocent" while we assert that one is "innocent until proven guilty." Thus, the Napoleonic Code encourages unlimited governmental powers in legal cases, while the latter, checks that power.

These are not trivial differences. Clark wondered which standard of liberty would be the measuring stick by which free institutions would be "strengthened" within or without NATO.

The answers were in the treaty itself.

NATO members are committed, say articles 2 and 3:

• To "[promote] conditions of stability" - suggesting planned not free economies.
• To promote "well-being" and "mutual [economic] aid" - implying the communist principle of the forced redistribution of the wealth (the U.S. taxpayer has always paid the lions share of NATO's defense bills, and likewise pumped billions into Europe, including communist states, under NATO's sister, the Marshall Plan)
• To "eliminate conflict in their international economic policies" - alluding to "free" trade (if empowering socialist minded Leviathans such as the European Economic Community (ECC), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have anything to do with free trade, or the right of sovereign nations to pursue their interests as they see fit (a national right, ever the more necessary in times of war or danger)
• To engage in "economic collaboration" - portending full economic and political union under one government, to be preceded by a step by step joint economic activities.
• To establish a European-wide military force on a "continuous" basis - which "spells great standing armies [that] have always meant war and the loss of liberty." Consistent with Clark's insights, shortly after NATO became law, the US set up standing armies in Europe - even though Europe was not under attack as supposedly required by the Treaty - a precedent which has now come home to roost with NATO sending her first troops here to the United States.

Was Clark right on all of the above? Is this what NATO's proponents truly wanted? Consider the following proxy interview. The quotes are real.

Question: 'Do the American people have a sovereign/constitutional right to check NATO's involvement in foreign wars via Congress?'

Answer, Walter Mills: "By its very origin and nature the pact . . . recognizes the limits placed by practical politics upon the theoretic and mystic freedom of Congress to declare, or refuse to go to war."

Question: 'Is that what President Truman, one of NATO's chief advocates, believed?

Answer, Montgomery and Farrell: "Yes, within months, President Truman, cited the North Atlantic Treaty as authority to make war on sovereign Korea without the consent of Congress - a new revolutionary precedent."

Question: 'Was the North Atlantic Treaties provision for a "continuous" build up of NATO's military forces, designed to cause constant war and a perpetuation of foreign standing armies worldwide?'

Answer, President Harry Truman: "The rearmament of the Allies must be planned, not wholly or even primarily to fight a major defensive war against the Soviet Union . . . but to deal effectively with the possibility of a series of limited wars, such as that in Korea, on a continuing basis.

"Political commitment to defend certain areas of Europe and the North Atlantic are insufficient. There must be a review of United States commitments in the Middle East and Asia." Or in other words: an unlimited, imperialistic, military objective for the UN's child, NATO.

Question: 'Was it the intent of NATO to retain individual sovereign military forces, who would respond together only when under attack?'

Answer, Henry Cabot Lodger Jr.:

"[No!] This [North Atlantic Pact] means helping the development of a Western European armed force . . . a uniforce . . . with headquarter at Fountainebleau in France."

Question: 'Was it the intent of NATO, as the propagandists have claimed, to buy Europe time, as each nation individually picked themselves up and rebuilt their military forces, so as to be capable to stand on their own two feet?

Answer, Secretary of State, Dean Acheson:

"The most important action of the council...[was] the recommendation....[to create] balanced collective forces, rather than the duplication by each nation in large or small way of what every other nation was doing."

"[This] demonstrates that each country will rely on every other member of the community, and that the community will look to each country to contribute what it is best able to contribute to the common defense in accordance to a common plan."

Or in simplified form, says Montgomery and Farrell: "Nation A provides the tanks, Nation B the fighter jets, nation C the navy, nation D the spy satellites - with the goal being that no one nation has the complete program, and thus, each nation is dependent, (read) forever dependent upon membership in, and allegiance to the alliance. Thus, the intent of this aspect of NATO was to subvert the sovereignty of every single free state in Europe and the America's, on defense issues. Is that clear enough?"

Question: 'Could it be that is why NATO AWACS are now stationed in the United States, to teach Americans what Europeans have already learned, that we can't go at it alone?

Montgomery & Farrell answer: "Precisely."

Question: 'Is that why, even as we fight a dangerous war on terrorism against opponents who have access to weapons of mass destruction, we hear rumblings from the Bush Administration about further cuts in our nuclear and biological war arsenals?'

Answer, Montgomery & Farrell: "You had better believe it, and you had better lodge a protest with your congressmen."

Question to all members of the panel: 'So, if you all are saying that the goal of NATO was to force military interdependence/dependence upon all NATO members, insuring that they forsake their national sovereignty at least in a military sense - than as night follows day, can we assume that NATO has a much broader, sovereignty destroying agenda at heart?

Answer, for in behalf of the group, from Former Secretary of State Acheson:

"If we put this principle into practice, it follows that the members of the Atlantic community will have to intensify their practice of developing common policies on the major problems of common concern in the field of foreign affairs, and that they develop even closer and more cohesive economic policies."

Question: What kind of economic objectives do you see arising out of this alliance?

Answer, Secretary Acheson:

"A cooperative approach to the cost of defense;" an effort to "maintain and improve standards of living;" an effort to "provide essential assistance to other (non-NATO) free nations of the world in their development." Indeed, the mission of NATO is "to advance the welfare [of the entire human race]."

Comment, Montgomery & Farrell: "Welcome to utopia! Who devised NATO anyway, Karl Marx, or was it the Council of Foreign Relations? We forgot, they think so much alike."

Question: Decades later, has this sovereignty destroying agenda of NATO been altered?

On July 5, 1990, NATO Secretary General, Manfred Worner outlined NATO's top four goals

First . . . We must bring the military situation rapidly into line with the new political realities of Europe. A. A quickly advancing European Union. B. The "fall" of communism.

And how will this "defense" alliance, and nothing more than a "defense" alliance, bring itself into line with the above new political realities?

1. NATO wants a "continuing the process of arms control." That is, to disarm itself to prevent a nuclear holocaust against its old enemy, an enemy NATO says no longer exists, but which in fact, is still cheating on every treaty, still modernizing, and has a numerical advantage in every category of nuclear weapons.

   Advantage: communism

2. NATO "will play a central role" in "helping to erect a new European architecture that binds all our nations together."

   Advantage: The new world order

3. NATO "will set out our concrete proposals for giving the CSCE a more prominent role as the genesis of this new order," and "to ensure the participation of non-EU Allies in EU-led operations," with the additional goal of forging a firmer merger between the EU and NATO so as "to establish permanent relationships between the two organizations." That is, NATO wants the "ex" communist nations of Russia and the Old Warsaw Pact to rise to a position of substantial power in the decision making process of how the European Union and NATO evolve into one nation. The CSCE (now OSCE) is an "advisory" body which consists of non-NATO "ex" Warsaw Pact states (who work with full fledged NATO states).

   Advantage: Stalin - Europe gets sacked after all - without a shot. Russia emerges to a role of prominence, it has always held behind the scenes, in shaping the new world order.

4. "Now that Europe is . . . more integrated it can provide for an even closer and more successful transatlantic partnership."

   Advantage: Every country, every international body, and every anti-American cabal (the CFR and Trilateral Commission included) who hates the United States, hates her Constitution, hates her Bill of Rights, and thrives on finding ways to subvert her sovereignty.

In other words - NATO goals haven't changed - and like it or not - subverting sovereignty, subverting capitalism, subverting the US Constitution and her Bill of Rights was and is the goal of NATO's founders and current advocates.

NATO's Socialist Sister - The Marshall Plan

Though NATO had economic, leftist elements built into its Charter, its agenda, and its goals - consistent with it parent, the United Nations Charter, one does not see the big picture of NATO unless one also looks at it in connection with its "virgin" sister the Marshall Plan.

The Marshall Plan, like NATO was sold to America under the guise of "scaring the hell out of [us]" about communism, when in fact, it leaned in favor of communism, and would achieve its socialist/communist agenda by striving, once again, not to strengthen individual nations, but by unsuring none of them could stand alone in the world again.

Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger in his 1972 book "American Foreign Policy" made this startling point:

"European Unity is a reality. The United State welcomes and supports it in all its dimensions, political as well as economic. We believe it must be made irreversible and that it must strengthen Trans-Atlantic ties." He added: "European unity, in our view, is not contradictory to Atlantic unity."

How did the Marshall Plan fit into this?

"[In forging both sides of the Atlantic into one government], "military arrangements are not enough," also, "political cooperation [must be] established which links each partner with the survival of the others."

"A new generation habituated to cooperative efforts," he said, was the key.

The Results

Finally, not only did the planners and promoters of NATO see this as a regional, and an eventual world subversion of sovereignty under a socialist system, but the economic results were as forecast, socialistic.

In "How Can Europe Survive," noted free market economist Professor Hans Sennholz, in a piercing critique of the coming European Union, disclosed that from the close of World War II through 1953 the United States government poured more than $43 billion dollars through the Marshall Plan, and other "reconstruction" programs, into Europe. These were, he stated, "a windfall for socialism." For along with the money, came not pressures to "abolish controls and return to sounder principles of government," but rather to establish controls and centralization at every turn.

Professor Michael J. Hogan, in his work "The Marshall Plan," concurred with Sennholz: "Through American aid . . . Marshall Planners tried to underwrite industrial modernization projects, promote Keynesian strategies of aggregate economic management [Keynes was a Fabian socialist], [and] . . . encourage progressive tax policies (the communist graduated income tax), low-cost housing programs [communist forced wealth redistribution], and other measures of economic and social reform [more socialism and rejection of religious values]."

The 50 year goal of creating a European Union has been completed. Europe is drenched in socialism. In 1999 NATO engaged in its first offensive war in Kosovo, siding with the Osama bin Laden financed Maoist drug lords of the KLA (disarming their enemies and handing them millions in aid). Since September 11th, 2001 the European Union has aggressively thrown down all objections to a new aggressive centralization of power in the EU - calling such objections "pro-terrorist." And now in America, under the same cover of fighting terrorists - the terrorists our CIA and Russia created - we invite NATO to come full circle and begin the integration of the United States more fully into the new world order - a new world order which will feature terrorist sponsor, mass murderer Russia as a chief decision maker.

We are told by the Bush Administration, the Establishment Media, and the CFR cabal that we can't fight our enemies alone. We had better. Look what the false "collective security" bill of goods did for Europe. On January 25, 2001, NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson, called NATO, in protest, "a subcontractor of the UN." And that's the point. How soon till Mr. Bush's fascination for the new world order his father and grandfather worshipped at, will make the United States a subcontractor as well?

We support Ron Paul's H.R. 1146 - the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2001 - and Congressman Paul's persistent calls to get NATO and the UN out of this war and out of this country. You ought to too! Contact your Congressmen and ask them to be co-sponsors. Contact your Senators, and President and ask them for their support. Visit the folks at getusout.org and get involved!

Contact Steve & Steve at StiffRightJab@aol.com

Please return to the top of this article to link to previous articles in the series.
Note to our readers: If you are interested in a footnoted version of this article, please contact us.