Unite and Rule: EU As NATO's Auxiliary Economic Alliance

Authored by Nauman Sadiq via Oriental Review,

According to a recent infographic by New York Times, 79,000 US troops have currently been deployed in Europe out of 210,000 total US troops stationed all over the world, including 47,000 in Germany, 15,000 in Italy and 17,000 in the rest of Europe. By comparison, the number of US troops stationed in Afghanistan is only 8,400 which is regarded as an occupied country. Thus, Europe is nothing more than a backyard of corporate America.

Both NATO and EU were conceived during the Cold War to offset the influence of Soviet Union in Europe. Therefore, it is not a coincidence that the Soviet Union was dissolved in December 1991 and the Maastricht Treaty that consolidated the European Community and laid the foundations of the European Union was signed in February 1992.

The basic purpose of the EU has been nothing more than to lure the formerly communist states of the Eastern and Central Europe into the folds of the Western capitalist bloc by offering incentives and inducements, particularly in the form of agreements to abolish internal border checks between the EU member states, thus allowing the free movement of labor from the impoverished Eastern Europe to the prosperous countries of the Western Europe.

No wonder then, the neoliberal political establishments, and particularly the deep state of the US, are as freaked out about the outcome of Brexit as they were during the Ukrainian Crisis in November 2013, when Viktor Yanukovych suspended the preparations for the implementation of an association agreement with the European Union and tried to take Ukraine back into the folds of the Russian sphere of influence by accepting billions of dollars of loan package offered by Vladimir Putin to Ukraine.

In this regard, the founding of the EU has been similar to the case of Japan and South Korea in the Far East where 45,000 and 28,500 US troops have currently been deployed, respectively, according to the aforementioned infographic.

After the Second World War, when Japan was about to fall in the hands of geographically-adjacent Soviet Union, the Truman Administration authorized the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to subjugate Japan and also to send a signal to the leaders of the Soviet Union, which had not developed their nuclear program at the time, to desist from encroaching upon Japan in the east and West Germany in Europe.

Then, during the Cold War, American entrepreneurs invested heavily in the economies of Japan and South Korea and made them model industrialized nations to forestall the expansion of communism in the Far East.

Similarly, after the Second World War, Washington embarked on the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe with an economic assistance of $13 billion, equivalent to hundreds of billions of dollars in the current dollar value. Since then, Washington has maintained its military and economic dominance over Western Europe.

Notwithstanding, there is an essential stipulation in the European Union’s charter of union according to which the developing economies of Europe that joined the EU allowed free movement of goods (free trade) only on the reciprocal condition that the developed countries would allow free movement of labor.

What’s obvious in this stipulation is the fact that the free movement of goods, services and capital only benefits the countries that have a strong manufacturing base, and the free movement of people only favors the developing economies where labor is cheap.

Now, when the international financial institutions, like the IMF and WTO, promote free trade by exhorting the developing countries all over the world to reduce tariffs and subsidies without the reciprocal free movement of labor, whose interests do such institutions try to protect? Obviously, they try to protect the interests of their biggest donors by shares, i.e. the developed countries.

Regardless, while joining the EU, Britain compromised on the rights of its working class in order to protect the interests of its bankers and industrialists, because free trade with the rest of the EU countries spurred British exports.

The British working classes overwhelmingly voted in the favor of Brexit because after Britain’s entry into the EU and when the agreements on abolishing internal border checks between the EU member states became effective, the cheaper labor force from the Eastern and Central Europe flooded the markets of Western Europe; and consequently, the wages of native British workers dropped and it also became difficult for them to find jobs, because foreigners were willing to do the same job for lesser pays.

Hence, raising the level of unemployment among the British workers and consequent discontentment with the EU. The subsequent lifting of restrictions on the Romanians and Bulgarians to work in the European Union in January 2014 further exacerbated the problem and consequently, the majority of the British electorate voted in a June 2016 referendum to opt out of the EU.

The biggest incentive for the British working class to vote for Brexit has been that the East European workers will have to leave Britain after its exit from the EU, and the jobs will once again become available with better wages to the native British workforce.

Although the EU’s labor provisions ensure adequate wages and safeguard the rights of workers, but the British working class chose to quit the EU on the basis of demand and supply of labor. With East European workers out of the country, the supply of labor will reduce hence increasing the demand. The native British workforce can then renegotiate better terms and conditions from the owners of industries and businesses, and it will also ensure ready availability of jobs.

Regardless, instead of lamenting the abysmal failure of globalization and neoliberal economic policies, we need to ask a simple question that why do workers choose to leave their homes and hearths, and families and friends in their native countries and opt to work in a foreign country? They obviously do it for better wages.

In that case, however, instead of offering band aid solutions, we need to revise the prevailing global economic order and formulate prudent and far-reaching economic and trade policies that can reduce the imbalance of wealth distribution between the developed and developing nations, hence reducing the incentive for immigrant workers to seek employment in the developed countries.

Free movement of workers only benefits a small number of individuals and families, because the majority of workforce is left behind to rot in their native developing countries where economy is not doing as well as in the developed world, thanks to the neoliberal economic policies. A comprehensive reform of the global economic and trade policies, on the other hand, will benefit everyone, except the bankers, industrialists and the beneficiaries of the existing neoliberal world order.

More to the point, the promotion of free trade by the mainstream neoliberal media has been the norm in the last several decades, but the implementation of agreements to abolish internal border controls between the EU member states has been an unprecedented exception.

Free trade benefits the industrialized nations of the EU, particularly Germany and to some extent the rest of the developed economies of the Western Europe; but the free movement of labor benefits the cheaper workforce of the impoverished Eastern and Central Europe.

The developed economies of the Western Europe would never have acceded to the condition of free movement of labor that goes against their economic interests; but the political establishment of the US, which is the hub of corporate power and wields enormous influence in the Western capitalist bloc, must have persuaded the unwilling states of the Western Europe to yield to the condition against their national interests, in order to wean away the formerly communist states of the Eastern and Central Europe from the Russian influence.

Had there been any merit to the founding of the EU, the Western Europe would have promptly accepted Turkey’s request to join the EU. But they kept delaying the issue of Turkish membership to the EU for decades, because with a population of 78 million, Turkey is one of the most populous countries in Eurasia.

Millions of Turks working in Germany have already become a burden on the welfare economy of their host country. Turkey’s accession to the EU would have opened the floodgates of immigrant workers seeking employment in the Western Europe.

Moreover, Turkey is already a member of the NATO and a longstanding and reliable partner of the Western powers; while the limited offer to join the EU, as I have already described, serves as an inducement to the formerly communist states of the Eastern and Central Europe to forswear their allegiance to Russia and to become the strategic allies of the Western powers.

Thus, all the grandstanding and moral posturing of unity and equality of opportunity aside, the hopelessly neoliberal institution, the EU, in effect, is nothing more than the civilian counterpart of the Western military alliance against the erstwhile Soviet Union, the NATO, that employs a much more subtle and insidious tactic of economic warfare to win over political allies and to isolate the adversaries that dare to sidestep from the global trade and economic policy as laid down by the Western capitalist bloc.

Finally, the fabled divide-and-rule policy that has been deployed by imperialist powers to weaken resistance movements against imperialism in their former colonies is a historically proven fact, but at the same time, neocolonial powers also use unite-and-rule strategy to create friendly alliances and to institute a centralized command and control structure in order to buttress the global neocolonial world order.


Ghordius Fri, 07/14/2017 - 05:10 Permalink

I get... aggressive, when I read this:"The basic purpose of the EU has been nothing more than to lure the formerly communist states of the Eastern and Central Europe into the folds of the Western capitalist bloc by offering incentives and inducements, particularly in the form of agreements to abolish internal border checks between the EU member states, thus allowing the free movement of labor from the impoverished Eastern Europe to the prosperous countries of the Western Europe "how can you support such a narrative?we did not, most emphatically not even think about the formerly communist countries in the Warsaw Pact, when we started the generation-long work to build what can be summarized by all those "EU" thingsTHEY WERE ELSEWHERE. In a different... world, the "Second World". BEHIND AN IRON CURTAIN, REMEMBER?now painting all our efforts as specifically targeted to our recently re-surfaced Eastern Cousins... sheesh, there is only one word for that

HowdyDoody Ghordius Fri, 07/14/2017 - 06:34 Permalink

The North American Terrorist Organisation has just released a video glorifying the 'Forest Brothers' - a group opposing the Soviets during and immediately after WW II. These 'Brothers' were actually Baltic (Lithuanian and Latvian) Nazis. Just as the Ukrainian Nazis outdid the SS in their barbarity, the Baltic Nazis outdid the Ukrainians. So NATO is effectively whitewashing WW II crimes against Jews, a criminal act in Germany.


The film commemorates a supposed mass battle. Latvian historians have revealed the truth. The 'epic' battle lasted 3 hours, and the Baltic Nazi losses were 9 killed (7 Latvian and 2 Lithuanian) and 18 captured (8 Latvians, 7 Lithuanians). The Soviet losses were 5 dead and wounded.


Maybe NATO is actually the Nazi American Terrorist Organisation?

Here is a photo essay of the NATO forces in Europe. Nothing to see here. Just a load of guys having a good time in Yurp.


In reply to by Ghordius

Ghordius HowdyDoody Fri, 07/14/2017 - 06:40 Permalink

I have a different view on all thatwhat I see is an obsession with all things related to WW2. by people that have spent too much time looking at endless documentaries like on History Channelup to the point of the question: which Nazis were better/worse at barbarism? the answer is so simple: Ebonian Nazis, of course, followed by Narnian Nazis, except if lions, which are always good and lion-hearted

In reply to by HowdyDoody

SoDamnMad HowdyDoody Fri, 07/14/2017 - 06:58 Permalink

Hey HowdytrollDoddy.  Yeah the Russians are completely freaking out about this film. I saw the interview with an old former member of the so called "Forest brothers" and he said the group numbered something like 40.   About the size of a small branch of Putin's biker gang.  I've seen bigger groups of bikers our on California roads who were better armed and fiecer fighters than these forest patisan fighters.  So I don't understand why Russia has it's panties in a wad.  But if you want to be incensed , how about the Katlyn Forest Massacre. Now that was against a country that was your ally in the Great Patriotic War.

In reply to by HowdyDoody

Ghordius Rubicon Fri, 07/14/2017 - 06:49 Permalink

far from me to put all this in those simple termsregardless, the EU is one thing, NATO is a different one, and the very first proof of this is in the different membershipswhat am I, a "globalist", striving to "make the world..." whatever?nope. the EU is regional affair, with one continent's name in it, not something with "world" or "global" in ityes, it is intensely focused on commerce. among ourselves and together vs othersyes, the other club, with 19 members, the eurozone, is focused on control of "money", i.e. currency and bankingagain, it's about our affairs. and... all clubs with a door, for sovereign members wishing to exit the clubs, instead of co-operatingtake away the "globalism" stuff, and you get... sovereign nation stateswhich are, to each other, peers or hegemons or clients or vassals, friends or enemies or just neighbours, allied or not, etc.I prefer our 27 to be peers, friends and allies

In reply to by Rubicon

Rubicon Ghordius Fri, 07/14/2017 - 07:16 Permalink

Re: NATO, I think it is fair to say that if a non-member is attacked and it is strategically important to the continuation of commerce (and currency) NATO will pitch up fairly quickly. Re: the Euro, the intent is to expand its use. That it is not, indicates that even the EU realise that this is one step too far for some countries. But the intent remains. Re: "Sovereignty", it and the EU are at polar opposites, as the EU's resistance to Brexit it proving.    

In reply to by Ghordius

Ghordius Rubicon Fri, 07/14/2017 - 07:26 Permalink

rubicon, which expansion of the EUR? and which countries might think this is "a step too far"?go back to the basics, for a moment. we produce, we export slightly more then what we importmeanwhile, we don't have oil, we don't have natgas. we have to import that energy, and some other resourcesfrom the KSA, or Iran, or Qatar, or Russia, or the US, it does not matter, we need some of that stuffthe US of A, it can dream autarkic dreams. we can't afford this luxuryso... what exactly are we doing that irks you, or others?

In reply to by Rubicon

Ghordius Rubicon Fri, 07/14/2017 - 07:34 Permalink

""Sovereignty", it and the EU are at polar opposites, as the EU's resistance to Brexit it proving. "what "resistance", exactly?the UK, in my book, never lost it's sovereignty. it just shared some (frankly minor) aspects of itthe "proof in the pudding" of that is Brexit itselfmeanwhile, what the EU negotiating team is doing is just this: pointing out that the exiting agreement is complex, detailed, and that they have to go through point for point, item for itemthere are 30 agencies that are shared. EURATOM among them. the mastermind of the "Leave Campaign" is utterly berserk, at the moment, because he sees leaving EURATOM as the most daft thing that other Brexiter ever even contemplated, an utter bizzarre misunderstanding of what he meant, by "Leave"on Twitter, he, a Brit Leaver, is calling them, Brit Leaver Ministers (in his full caps) "MORONS"but if the UK wants to stay in EURATOM... well, it has to share and pay. or would you see a different arrangement as more fair?

In reply to by Rubicon

Rubicon Ghordius Fri, 07/14/2017 - 07:56 Permalink

Whether it is in your book or not an upper echelon of government passing law above and beyond the control of the electorate undermines a countries sovereignty. That they didn't listen to Cameron resulted in Brexit... That they didn't secure the rights of expats before the negotiations began, as requested by the Bristish (elected) government...

In reply to by Ghordius

Ghordius Rubicon Fri, 07/14/2017 - 07:19 Permalink

now, because you got me "in a frenzy", let's ask a slightly different question: "how to make europe a free and fair thing?"on one side, it entails the sovereign nations to regard themselves as peers, friends and alliesbut what is a Nation? it's not the same as a Nation-Statea Nation is what you get born into. Bavarians, Venetians, Basques, Flames, Vallons, Hessians, Catalonians, Lombards, Francs, Westphalians, those are all Nations, european Nations, and not all have their own NSnevertheless, the scope is still to have them all to regard each others as peers, friends and alliesthe estranged wife of Nigel Farage is a German, his children are Germans. he is the archetypical EnglishmanI don't see a problem in Nigel regarding his children as such, even if belonging to a different Nationso yes, I don't see a problem in an Englishman regarding all German children as the children of a kindred, friendly NationI don't see a problem in europeans regarding other europeans as... extended familyup to our other cousins, the Russianshow to manage all this... is less relevant than the scope

In reply to by Rubicon

Byte Me Ghordius Fri, 07/14/2017 - 06:54 Permalink

Yes, but this twit-author cocks his argument with

"After the Second World War, when Japan was about to fall in the hands of geographically-adjacent Soviet Union, the Truman Administration authorized the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to subjugate Japan and also to send a signal to the leaders of the Soviet Union, which had not developed their nuclear program at the time, to desist from encroaching upon Japan in the east and West Germany in Europe."

Utter BS.There WAS no "West Germany" at the time because there was no "East Germany". Just occupied areas (which of course were mostly rubble)

In reply to by Ghordius

ArgentoFisico Ghordius Fri, 07/14/2017 - 07:35 Permalink

Ghordius, your point is kind of a detail. EU was created with the help (if not more) of the US exactly to counter the soviet union and contain it in the countries conquered liberated by the US in the 40s. When the wall fell NATO (and EU) took the opportunity to expand east .. and the plan is still the same today, conquer/neutraliaze Russia

In reply to by Ghordius

Ghordius ArgentoFisico Fri, 07/14/2017 - 07:46 Permalink

details.... matterexample: I belong to those who were screaming against the eastward expansion of both NATO and EUI pointed to the UK and the UK pushing too hardmy point of view only started to be listened at when President Bush started to promise his full support, as if it was his gift to give, to Turkeynow, the same UK that pushed hard for eastward expansion... wants to Brexitmeh. who is friendlier to Russia? the UK or... the EU27? the UK... or France, Italy and Germany?who talks, in peace talks, with Russia and Ukraine at the same table? it's France and Germanywho talks about having more sanctions on Russia? the US and the UK. who told them to get lost? France, Italy and Germanywho talks about having sanctions on German and Russian companies building an undersea pipeline? the US Congresswho talks about delivering US LNG to Poland? the USagain: details.... matter

In reply to by ArgentoFisico

Joe A Ghordius Fri, 07/14/2017 - 08:16 Permalink

When the Iron Curtain fell, it struck many actually as a surprise. Suddenly, there were these countries in the East longing to cast off the socialist/communist stranglehold on everything in their societies. Western Europe had to hurry to get them into the fold. For most countries in Eastern Europe this was relatively easy, except for Yugoslavia. That country got the "special treatment" as a thanks for being a buffer against the Warsaw Pact. The European Community at that time tried everything to avoid war there. The Americans barged in and blew up the place (contrary to what a lot of people here at ZH think) because America and NATO didn't want to wait too long.The EU raced to get Bulgaria, Romania, Poland and the Baltic states into the EU in order to consolidate its borders (waiting to add Ukraine to its list). Many of these were actually not ready to join. They were also allowed to keep their corrupt elites that simply took off their communist/socialist hats and replaced them with a socio-democrat or even liberal-democrat hat.The EU (or EC at the time) acted upon a situation that it was confronted with once of a sudden. Nobody had really counted on this to happen so soon. In the case of the Western Balkans, the EU got distracted by the financial crisis, the security crisis and the migrant crisis. The two last ones actually happening via the Balkans. The void was filled by Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the fundamentalists, China and the US. The EU's foreign chief got a wake up call a few months ago. The irony is, that as a promise of EU accession of the WB to the EU, the EU is now reestablishing a mini Yugoslavia with the Serbs and the Albanians as the biggest protagonists. This, in order to recapture the WB. Just like in the old Yugoslavia you again have two countries and peoples who cannot really stand each other. The EU dropped the ball with the WB. Key is to keep the fundamentalists and the Russians out or else the EU will lose the WB.

In reply to by Ghordius

Thoresen Fri, 07/14/2017 - 05:25 Permalink

In the UK you have the complex interaction of benefits, the minimum wage, migrant workers, and industrial blue collar jobs (soon to followed by most white collar) going overseas.
Correcting any one of these impacts all the others.

Ghordius Fri, 07/14/2017 - 06:01 Permalink

now, what is more mobile, land, capital or labour?I think we can all agree that land does not move. so the UK, once Brexited, will stay there where it is, including the ownership of that land, which involves industrial and residential assets, with their mortgages and loansnext comes labour, which has been more mobile (again) in the last decades. best seen in both skilled labour of the white collar kind, technical/engineering and others and non-skilled labour, including fruit-pickers in Englandand then comes capital, which is often mistaken for fundingwhat is capital, nowadays? an industrial plant, like the industries that were taken whole by the Soviets and re-established in the SU, after the war? if yes, it's a kind of decaying capital, which, without efforts to keep it up, loses it's value over timeso I posit here that capital is entrepreneurship and technology. both extremely mobileof which I see a dearth, in the UK, and an excess, on the continentso... no, I have difficulties with this vision of British labour being better off, by Brexitto put it simply, "give me the labourers in an environment where capital can work it's magic, and capital will work it's magic on them"it's not an instantaneous "magic", but it's a "magic" neverthelessof course there are counters to that. including perhaps a different price for RE, and so housing, in the UK. we'll see

Caught_Fish Ghordius Fri, 07/14/2017 - 06:40 Permalink

Hi Ghordius,a question for you. How do you see the implication of Brexit on the Calais area?My one of my British brother in laws was over there recently and commented on the flow of low duty cigs and alcohol back to the UK. The police were booking vans due to being overweight. After Brexit the impact on both sides of the "Chunnel" might be significant.This is only a minor consequence of separation, do you see more occurring and in what areas?Regards

In reply to by Ghordius

Ghordius Caught_Fish Fri, 07/14/2017 - 07:00 Permalink

it's an excellent question, but I can only speculate. customs, nowadays, depend heavely on IT systemsif the UK wants to drop out of the EU Customs Union, it needs excellent IT systems for that, if it wants all to function welland... it might take a while to set them up, and there is a learning curve there, tooso yes. "significant" is probably "in the cards". we'll know all more in a few months

In reply to by Caught_Fish

Ghordius Caught_Fish Fri, 07/14/2017 - 07:39 Permalink

absolutely. Turkey is in the EU Customs Union, toothe definition of what Brexit means... is in the hands of the British Government, and ultimately in the British Parliament(even while the definition of which pieces fit together, and which price they have, is in the hands of the EU27)we are still in the act of discovering what the UK really means, by Brexit

In reply to by Caught_Fish

webmatex Fri, 07/14/2017 - 06:06 Permalink

The article sounds cynical but is actually factually correct.Some subtle undertones embedded in there, and when it comes to Nato its not our affair, they have plotted, schemed and conspired each step of the crooked route for us to follow, like corraled sheep.End NATO.

Mike Masr Fri, 07/14/2017 - 08:16 Permalink

Nobody in Western Europe needs anything produced in the Ukraine. Why pay good money for shoddy Ukrainian products that are made better by Western countries. The only people that bought their shit was Russia and now they don't need or want it either. Russia now has China.Ukraine today is a banana republic run by a corrupt, Banderist, junta regime put in power by the US in a bloody regime change coup. They relentlesly shell and murder innocent civilians in the east because they speak Russian. The Kiev regimes only income, if you can call it that, comes from IMF loans and promises of aid from foreign countries.  

BritBob Fri, 07/14/2017 - 08:43 Permalink

Spending on NATO – Percentage of GDP 2016 - United States, 3.61%. Greece, 2.38%. Britain, 2.21%. Estonia, 2.16%. Poland, 2%. France, 1.78%. Turkey, 1.56%. Norway, 1.54%. Lithuania, 1.49%. Romania, 1.48%. Latvia, 1.45%. Portugal, 1.38%. Bulgaria, 1.35%. Croatia, 1.23%. Albania, 1.21%. Germany, 1.19%. Denmark, 1.17%. Netherlands, 1.17%. (NATO Stats published by CNN 18 July 2016)

Glyndwr will return Fri, 07/14/2017 - 10:21 Permalink

While the article is partly true re; jobs, you will find in the UK that people voted as much to eliminate inward immigration from OUTSIDE the EU.Basically Merkel made Brexit happen by opening the floodgates. And those refugees existed in the first place because at Hillary's behest we bombed Libya and supported the US regime change plans in the ME.We would rather be poor and British than supposedly rich and "diverse". The Poles etc were always mostly going home once they had enough to buy a house back home because, guess what, they have seen what is happening to the UK and they also have this strange idea of loving their own country.