Bilderberg controls NATO.
https://web.archive.org/web/20171128151124/https://washingtonsblog.com/2017/06/interesting-alternative-view-u-s-foreign-policies.html https://archive.ph/uLX9f
“AN INTERESTING ALTERNATIVE VIEW OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICIES”
13 March 2025, original version 12 June 2017, Eric Zuesse’s selections from interconnected studies by the great investigative journalist Thierry Meyssan into the U.S. empire’s power-structure:
This is about how the U.S. empire operates — not only the U.S. Government, but also its colonies. The article is around 14,000 words, or the equivalent of 56 typical book-pages.
For many years, I have been reading — but not yet citing as documentation for my own articles regarding U.S. international policies — the voltairenet news-site, which interprets events from a pro-Syrian-government, and pro-Russian-government, perspective.
The reason that I have not been linking to it is that it often ranges far afield from topics on which I am knowledgeable. However, I now feel sufficiently comfortable with Meyssan’s honesty and integrity, at least regarding the role that the periodic Bilderberg international meetings play in determining the international policies of the U.S. government (and of the governments that are allied with it), so as to post here, courtesy of his Voltairenet, a number of their important articles on and related to that topic (Bilderberg control). Concerning all matters about which I have high confidence as to what the truth is, I can see nothing that is false in any of these articles. [I have, however, added, in brackets, my own additions and updates to some of the allegations.] A good example is the important but little-known role that Jeffrey Feltman is alleged, in these articles, to play in shaping U.S. international policies. I know that it’s true. Here is why:
There is a well-known leaked telephone conversation, which was posted to youtube on 4 February 2014 in which Victoria Nuland, the Obama State Department official who ran U.S. policy regarding Ukraine, instructed the U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, that “Yats” or Arseniy Yatsenyuk, was to be the person whom the U.S. Ambassador must place in charge of running the Ukrainian government when the coup would be completed (which happened 18 days later [I correct that to 31 days later, because the phone-call was actually on 27 January 2014, not on 4 February 2014, which was the day it was posted online], and Yatsenyuk did indeed win that appointment [on February 27th, the final day of the coup]). (And here’s a video placing that phone-conversation into its appropriate broader historical perspective.) Few observers noted her reference there, in that conversation, to Jeffrey Feltman. But she said in the passage that became famous for her saying “F—k the EU”, this reference to Feltman:
“V.N.: I can’t remember if I told you this or if I only told Washington this: when I talked to Jeff Feltman this morning he had a new name for the UN guy – Robert Serry. I wrote you about it this morning.
G.P.: Yeah, I saw that.
V.N.: Ok. He’s gotten now both Serry and Ban ki-Moon to agree that Serry will come on Monday or Tuesday. That would be great I think to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, if you like, fuck the EU.”
Regarding the broader context in terms of which to understand that reference by her to Feltman specifically, I shall here be including a number of Meyssan’s artcles, including about not only Bilderberg and NATO and Ukraine, but also other issues, concerning countries that all NATO countries often deal with, such as in the Middle East: specifically Israel, Syria, and Lebanon. This will provide a good picture of NATO — the U.S. Government’s main military organization of its empire — behind the scenes:
——
http://www.voltairenet.org/article196617.html
“Confrontation at Bilderberg 2017”
by Thierry Meyssan, VOLTAIRE NETWORK | DAMASCUS (SYRIA) | 6 JUNE 2017
While President Trump seems to have sorted out his problems of interior authority — more or less — the conflict has now moved on to concern NATO. Washington is currently speaking against the manipulation of terrorism, while London has no intention of giving up such a useful tool for the extension of its influence. The Bilderberg Group, initially organised as a sounding board for the [NATO] Alliance, has just been the stage for a difficult debate between the partisans and the adversaries of imperialism in the Middle East.
There exist no photographs of the meeting of the Bilderberg Group, whose work is confidential. Security for the meeting is not handled by the FBI, nor the Virginia police force, but by a private militia organised by NATO.
The Bilderberg Group was created in 1954 by the CIA and MI6 in order to support the Atlantic Alliance. It was intended to gather personalities from the economic and media sectors with political and military leaders in order to sensitize civil society to the «Red peril». Far from being a place for decision-making, this very exclusive club has historically been a forum where the elders had to juggle with their fidelity to London and Washington, and the younger members were expected to show that they could be trusted with the opposition to the Soviets [1].
It was during the annual reunion of 1979 that Bernard Lewis revealed to those present the rôle of the Muslim Brotherhood in the resistance to the Afghani Communist government. This Israëli-British-US Islamologist then proposed that the «War for Freedom» (sic) should be extended to all of Central Asia.
It was in 2008, in other words two and a half years in advance, that Basma Kodmani (future spokewoman for the Syrian opposition) and Volker Perthes (future advisor to Jeffrey Feltman for the total and unconditional capitulation of Syria [2]) explained the interest of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in order to dominate the Middle East. They stressed the «moderation» of the Brotherhood faced with the West, and the contrast offered by the «extremist sovereignty» of Iran and Syria [3].
And it was in 2013 that the chairman of the German executive board, Ulrich Grillo, made a case for the organisation of a massive migration of 800,000 Syrian workers to German factories [4].
Bilderberg 2017
The Bilderberg Group has just held its 2017 meeting, from 1 to 4 June, in the United States. [NOTE: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt, announced, on 5 June, essentially a blockade against Qatar.] Contrary to habit, the 130 participants were not all defending the same project. Quite the opposite — following the speeches by Donald Trump at the Arabo-Islamic-US summit, and at NATO [5], the CIA and MI6 organised a first-day debate which opposed those who are partisans of the fight against Islamism and those who support it. The point was, obviously enough, either to find a compromise between the two camps, or to acknowledge the dissension without allowing it to destroy the initial objective of the Alliance — the fight against Russia [6].
On the anti-Islamism side (that is opposed not to the Muslim religion, but to political Islam as formulated by Sayyid Qutb), we noted the presence of General H. R. McMaster (President Trump’s National Security Advisor) and his expert Nadia Schadlow. McMaster is a recognised strategist whose theories have been verified on the battle-field. Above all, Schadlow has worked on the ways of transforming military victories into political successes. She is particularly interested in the restructuration of political movements in conquered countries. She should soon be publishing a new book about the struggle against Islamic radicalism.
On the pro-Islamism side, we note the presence, for the United States, of John Brennan (ex-Director of the CIA) and his ex-subordinates Avril Haines and David Cohen (financing of terrorism). For the United Kingdom, Sir John Sawers (ex-Director of MI6 and a long-time protector of the Brotherhood) and General Nicholas Houghton (ex-Chief of Staff, who prepared the land invasion of Syria). For France, General Benoît Puga (ex-Chief of Staff for the Elysée and commander of the Special Forces in Syria) and Bruno Tertrais (neo-conservative strategist for the Ministry of Defence). Finally, for the private sector, Henry Kravis (Director of the investment fund KKR, and unofficial treasurer for Daesh [ISIS]) and General David Petraeus (co-founder of Daesh).
And if this imbalance were not enough, the organisers had planned for the presence of experts capable of justifying the unjustifiable, like Professor Niall Fergusson (historian of British colonialism).
The possible reversal of alliances
It will take a little time before we know what was said during this meeting, and to understand the conclusions that were reached by the various attendees. However, we already know that London is pushing for a change of paradigm in the Middle East. If the model of the «Arab Spring» (reproduction of the «Arab Revolt of 1916» organised by Lawrence of Arabia in order to replace the Ottoman Empire by the British Empire) is abandoned, MI6 hopes to create a new agreement on the basis of political Islamism.
As a result, while Washington has renewed its alliance with Saudi Arabia, and has convinced it to break with the Brotherhood in exchange for 110 billion dollars worth of armament [7], London is pushing for an agreement between Iran, Qatar, Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood. If this project were to be realised, we would experience the abandon[ment] of the Sunni/Shiite conflict and the creation of a «croissant of political Islam» encompassing Teheran, Doha, Ankara, Idleb, Beyrouth and Gaza. This new distribution would enable the United Kingdom to maintain its influence in the region.
The only thing upon which the Allies seem to agree is the necessity of abandoning the principle of a jihadist state. Everyone admits that the devil has to be put back in his box. Which means getting rid of Daesh, even if some people keep working with Al-Qaïda. This is why, worried about its survival, the self-proclaimed Caliph has secretly transmitted an ultimatum to Downing Street and the Elysée.
Choosing sides
We shall see within the next few months if Saudi Arabia’s about-face is genuine. It would be good news for the Syrians, but bad news for the Yemenites (whom the Western world would then ignore). It would offer King Salman the possibility of stimulating the evolution of Wahhabism from a fanatical cult to a normal religion. Already, the sudden conflict which opposes Riyadh to Doha on the question of Iran is doubled by an argument about the possible kinship between the founder of the cult, Mohammed ben Abdelwahhab, and the Qatari Al-Thani dynasty — a claim which has enraged the Saudis.
The project of «political Islam» consists of uniting the Muslim Brotherhood and the Khomeinists. It would mean that Iran, and even Hezbollah, would have to substitute this problem for the fight against imperialism. If this were come to pass, it would most certainly lead to the withdrawal of Iran from Syria. The White House is taking this very seriously and is frantically preparing for it. In his speech in Riyadh, Donald Trump already designated Teheran as his new enemy, and has just nominated Michaël D’Andrea (who organised the assassination of Imad Mougniyeh in Damascus in 2008) as the representative for the Iranian section of the CIA [8].
Russia had already prepared for a potential new deal in the Middle East. Consequently, by supporting Syria, it pursued its ambition of gaining access to «warm waters», and by seeking rapprochement with its hereditary adversary, Turkey, of being able to navigate freely via the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus (indispensible for entering the Mediterranean). However, in the long term, political Islam could only cause it problems in the Caucasus.
As always when the players sort their cards, they all have to define their positions. The United Kingdom defends its Empire, France defends its ruling class, and the United States defends its people [? What does ‘its people’ mean here? If it means the American public, the assertion is false.]. In the Middle East, some people will fight for their community, others for their ideas. But things are not always so simple. Thus, Iran might follow the ideal of Imam Khomeiny, confusing the end and the means. What was in the beginning an anti-imperialist revolution led by the power of Islam could evolve into a simple affirmation of the political use of this religion.
The consequences for the rest of the world
MI6 and the CIA took a huge risk by inviting a non-Atlantist to the meeting of Bilderberg 2017. The Chinese ambassador, Cui Tiankai, who was scheduled to speak only on the fourth day of the seminar, was thus able to evaluate the positions of each member of NATO as from the first day.
On one hand, Beijing is counting on the collaboration of Donald Trump, the opening to the United States of its Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and the development of all its commercial routes. On the other, it is hoping that the Brexit will lead to an economic and financial alliance with London [9].
Ambassador Cui, who was the Director of the Centre of Political Research for the Chinese Ministry for Foreign Affairs, might possibly be satisfied with the simple destruction of Daesh. But he is not unaware that the people who organised the Caliphate in order to cut the «Silk Road» in Iraq and Syria, and then the war in Ukraine in order to cut the «new Silk Road», are preparing, preventatively, to open a third front in the Philippines and a fourth in Venezuela in order to cut off other communication projects.
From this point of view, China, which, like Russia, has an interest in supporting Donald Trump, if only to prevent terrorism in its own country, will be asking itself about the possible long-term consequences of British hegemony in the «croissant of political Islam».
—
[1] “What you don’t know about the Bilderberg-Group”, by Thierry Meyssan, Komsomolskaïa Pravda (Russia) , Voltaire Network, 9 May 2011.
[2] “Germany and the UNO against Syria”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Al-Watan (Syria) , Voltaire Network, 28 January 2016.
[3] Sous nos yeux. Du 11-Septembre à Donald Trump, Thierry Meyssan, Editions Demi-lune, 2017.
[4] “How the European Union is manipulating the Syrian refugees”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 2 May 2016.
[5] “Trump advances his pawns”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Al-Watan (Syria) , Voltaire Network, 30 May 2017.
[6] «La réunion 2017 du Groupe de Bilderberg», Réseau Voltaire, 1er juin 2017.
[7] “Donald Trump against jihadism”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Al-Watan (Syria) , Voltaire Network, 23 May 2017.
[8] “The CIA is preparing to take rather harsh measures against Iran”, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 5 June 2017.
[9] “The Brexit reshuffles world geopolitics”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 28 June 2016.
——
http://www.voltairenet.org/article169651.html
“What you don’t know about the Bilderberg-Group”
by Thierry Meyssan, VOLTAIRE NETWORK | MOSCOW (RUSSIA) | 9 MAY 2011
The idea that the Bilderberg Group is behind the creation of a mysterious future World Government has been spreading for years. Having had access to the archives of this very secret club, Thierry Meyssan shows that this belief leads in a false direction, serving to mask the true identity and function of the Group. In reality, the Bilderberg Group is a creation of NATO. It aims to influence key leaders on a global scale and, through them, to manipulate public opinion to get it to embrace the ideas and actions of the Northern Atlantic Alliance.
Every year since 1954, over one hundred of the most prominent personalities of Western Europe and North America meet — behind closed doors and under maximum security — within the Bilderberg Group. This exclusive seminar lasts for three days and almost nothing of the debates filters to the outside world.
Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, numerous journalists have taken an interest in this secretive, elitist organization. Certain authors have seen it as the beginning of a World Government, responsible for the major political, cultural, economic and military decisions of the second half of the twentieth century. This interpretation has also been voiced by Fidel Castro, but it has never been confirmed nor invalidated by any solid facts.
In order to find out what the Bilderberg Group is or isn’t, I searched for documents and first hand witnesses. I obtained access to all of its records for the period 1954-1966 and numerous later documents, and I was able to talk with a former participant that I’ve known for years. No other journalist to date, including the authors who have popularized today’s stereotypes, has had access to this wealth of internal documents of the Bilderberg Group.
Here’s what I discovered:
The first meeting
70 personalities from 12 different countries attended the first meeting of the Group. It was a three-day seminar, from May 29 to 31, 1954, near Arnhem (Netherlands). The guests were housed in two nearby hotels, but the debates were held in the Bilderberg Hotel, which gave the Group its name.
The invitations with a letterhead from the Soestdijk Palace are intriguing: “I earnestly request your presence at the informal International Conference, to be held in the Netherlands in late May. This conference wishes to explore a number of issues of great importance for Western civilization and is intended to stimulate mutual understanding and goodwill through a free exchange of views.” The invitations were signed by the Prince Consort of the Netherlands, Bernhard zur Lippe-Biesterfeld, and accompanied by several pages of administrative information concerning transportation and accommodation. At most, we learn that the delegates originated from the United States and 11 from Western Europe, and that 6 sessions of 3 hours each were scheduled.
Given the Nazi past of Prince Bernhard (who had served in the SS cavalry until his marriage in 1937 to Princess Juliana) and in the context of McCarthyism in the U.S., it’s clear that the “issues of great importance for Western civilization” revolved around the struggle against communism.
Once there, the anticipation of the guests was mitigated by the two chairmen: U.S. entrepreneur John S. Coleman and outgoing Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs Paul van Zeeland. The first was an active partisan of free trade and the second a supporter of the European Defense Community (EDC) [1]. Last but not least, at the far end of the table (see photo) sat Joseph Retinger, the intellectual influence behind the British. All this suggests that the Dutch and British monarchies sponsored this meeting to support the European Defense Community and the economic model of free-market capitalism against the anti-Americanism that the Communists and the Gaullists were promoting.
However, appearances are deceiving. The goal was not to campaign for the EDC, but to mobilize the elite for the Cold War.
His Royal Highness, Prince Bernhard, was chosen to convene this conference because his status as a prince consort would give it a Stately character without being formal. In fact, he was used to hide the real sponsor: an inter-governmental organization which intends to manipulate the governments of some of its Member States.
John S. Coleman was not yet the President of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, but he had already created the “Citizen’s Committee for a National Trade Policy” — CCNTP. According to him, absolute free trade, that is to say, the renunciation of all customs duties, would allow countries allied with the United States to increase their wealth and finance the European Defense Community (in other words, rearm Germany and integrate its potential military power within NATO).
However, the documents in our possession show that the CCNTP was a “Citizen’s” committee in name only. This is actually an initiative of Charles D. Jackson, the White House psychological warfare adviser. The operation was controlled in reality by William J. Donovan, the former commander of the OSS (the U.S. intelligence service during the war), now in charge of building the American branch of the new secret service of NATO, Gladio [2]. [And here’s a BBC documentary on Gladio.]
Paul van Zeeland was not only the promoter of the European Defense Community, but also a politician of great experience. At the Liberation, he chaired the Independent League for European Cooperation (ILAE) whose objective was to create a customs and monetary union. This organization was established by Joseph Retinger, mentioned earlier.
Specifically Retinger, who was acting as secretary for the Bilderberg conference, served during the war in the English secret services (OES) of General Colin Gubbins. A Polish adventurer, Retinger found himself advisor to the Sikorski government in exile in the United Kingdom. In London, he livened up the small world of governments in exile and compiled one of the best address books in newly liberated Europe.
His friend, Sir Gubbins, officially left the service and the SOE was disbanded. Retinger ran a small textile business, which served as a “cover”. In fact, alongside his counterpart Donovan, he was responsible for creating the English branch of Gladio. He participated in all of the preparatory meetings of the Bilderberg conference and was present among the guests, seated next to Charles D. Jackson.
Unknown to the participants, the secret services of NATO were, in fact, the organizing power behind the scenes. Bernhard, Coleman and Van Zeeland were used as fronts.
Contrary to the idea developed by the creative journalists who imagined the Bilderberg Group forging a secret World Government, this club of influential leaders is in reality a lobbying tool to promote NATO’s interests. It is in fact much more serious and dangerous, because it is NATO which aims to be the secret World Government — guaranteeing the international status quo and maintaining U.S. influence. [I have reported extensively on that.]
Moreover, the security of each subsequent meeting was not provided by the police of the host country, but by the soldiers of the NATO Alliance.
Among the ten speakers, there were two former Prime Ministers (Guy Mollet, France, Alcide de Gasperi, Italy), three officials of the Marshall Plan, the Cold War hawk Paul H. Nitze; and, above all, an extremely powerful banker (David Rockefeller).
According to the preparatory documents, approximately 20 people were in the inner circle. They knew more or less in detail those who were pulling the strings and preparing in advance their work. The smallest details were prepared beforehand and nothing was left to chance. On the other hand, the fifty other participants knew nothing of what was happening behind the scenes. They were chosen to influence their respective governments and public opinion in their countries. The seminar was organized to convince these leaders and incite them to diffuse the point of view of the NATO Alliance in their respective countries.
The debates didn’t address the major international problems, but rather analyzed the supposed ideological strategy of the Soviets and set out how it should be countered by the “free world”.
The first statements assessed the communist threat. The “conscious communists” are individuals who intended to put their homeland at the service of the Soviet Union in order to impose a collectivist world. They must be fought. But it was a difficult challenge because these “conscious communists” in Europe were embedded with a mass of Communist voters who knew nothing about their evil plans and followed them in hopes of improved social conditions.
Gradually, the rhetoric became more radical. The “free world” must oppose the “world communist conspiracy”, not only in a general way, but also by responding to specific questions concerning U.S. investments in Europe or on decolonization.
Finally, the speakers addressed the main problem which the Soviets, according to them, were exploiting to their advantage. For cultural and historical reasons, the political leaders of the “free world” used different arguments in the U.S. and in Europe, arguments that sometimes contradicted one another. The most emblematic cases are the purges organized by Senator McCarthy in the United States. They were essential to save democracy, but the method was perceived in Europe as a form of totalitarianism.
The final message was that no diplomatic negotiation, no compromise was possible with the “Reds”. The role of the Communists in Western Europe had be prevented at any cost, but it would take cunning: as they cannot just be arrested and shot. They should be neutralized discreetly, without their voters realizing what’s happening. In short, the ideology developed was that of NATO and Gladio. No one said that elections should be rigged or that moderates should be assassinated, but all participants agreed that to save the “free world”, that freedom should be put “in brackets”.
Although the proposed European Defense Community (EDC) was defeated three months later in the French Parliament under the attacks of the Communist deputies and the “nationalist extremists” (in other words, the partisans of de Gaulle), the Congress was nonetheless considered a success. Despite appearances, there was no intention to support the creation of the EDC or any other specific policy. The real goal was to spread the ideology of the ruling elite by influencing the opinion makers, who in turn would influence the rest of society. Objectively, the Western Europeans were less aware of the freedoms that they were being denied and increasingly aware of the freedoms that were not available to the people of Eastern Europe.
The Bilderberg Group becomes an organization
A second conference was held in Barbizon, France, from March 18th to 20th 1955.
The idea that the conferences would be held annually and that they required a permanent secretariat became increasingly evident. Prince Bernhard became less visible after he was caught influence peddling (Lockheed Martin scandal). He was replaced by the former British Prime Minister Alec Douglas Home (1977-80). The following Presidencies were held by former German Chancellor and President Walter Scheel (1981-85), former Governor of the Bank of England Eric Roll (1986-89), former NATO Secretary General Peter Carrington (1990-98), and finally the former vice-president of the European Commission Etienne Davignon (since 1999).
For many years the Chairman of the Bilderberg Group was assisted by two Secretary Generals, one for Europe and Canada (the vassal states) and one for the U.S. (the ruler), however, there has been only one Secretary General since 1999.
From one year to the next, the debates have been highly redundant. This is why the guests change regularly. But there is always a core group who prepares the conference in advance and the newcomers who are taught the atlanticist rhetoric in vogue.
Currently, the annual seminars bring together over 120 participants, including one third of the permanent core group members. They were selected by the Alliance based on their social network and their capacity to influence the rest of society, irrespective of their particular functions in society. Thus, they remain members of the core group even after changing their job.
Here is the exact list of the core group, including members of the Board of Directors, which serve as fronts for the guests, and the less visible members, in order to not scare away the newcomers.
Board of directors
Josef Ackermann: Swiss Banker, head of Deutsche Bank, Vice-Chairman of the Forum in Davos.
Roger C. Altman: U.S. Banker, a former campaign adviser to John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, Chairman of investment Bank Evercore Partners Inc.
Francisco Pinto Balsemão: Former Socialist Prime Minister of Portugal (1981-83), president and founder of the largest group of Portuguese television SIC. (T)
Fran Bernabè: Italian banker, current director of Telecom Italia. (T)
Henri de Castries: CEO of the French insurance-company AXA.
Juan Luis Cebrián: Director of the Spanish media and broadcasting group Prisa.
W. Edmund Clark: Canadian banker, CEO of Toronto-Dominion Bank Financial Group.
Kenneth Clarke: Former vice president of British American Tobacco (1998-2007), British minister of Justice, vice president of the European Movement UK.
George A. David: CEO of Coca-Cola.
Étienne Davignon: Belgian businessman, former vice president of the European Commission (1981-85), current vice president of Suez Tractebel.
Anders Eldrup: CEO of the Danish gass and oil corporation DONG Energy.
Thomas Enders: Director of Airbus.
Victor Halberstadt: Economy professor at the Dutch university of Leiden, business-consultant for various corporations such as Goldman Sachs and Daimler-Chrysler.
James A. Johnson: U.S. financier, he was a major contributor to the Democratic Party and an architect of the nomination of Barack Obama. He is vice-chairman of the investment bank Perseus.
John Kerr of Kinlochard: Former UK Ambassador to Washington, Vice President of oil group Royal Dutch Shell. (T)
Klaus Kleinfeld: German CEO of the U.S. aluminium giant, Alcoa.
Mustafa V. Koç: CEO of Koç Holding, the largest Turkish company.
Marie-Josée Drouin-Kravis: Economic columnist in print and broadcast media in Canada. Researcher at the very militaristic Hudson Institute. She is the third wife of Henry Kravis.
Jessica T. Mathews: Former Director of Global Affairs at the National Security Council of the United States. Current director of the Carnegie Foundation.
Thierry de Montbrial: Economist, founding director of the French Institute for International Relations (IFRI) and the World Policy Conference.
Mario Monti: Italian economist, former European commissioner for the protection of free-trade (1999-2005), co-founder of the Spinelli Group for European federalism.
Egil Myklebust: Former president of Norwegian employers, director of Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS).
Matthias Nass: Assistant director of the German Newspaper Die Zeit.
Jorma Ollila: Finnish businessman, former CEO of Nokia, current president of Royal Dutch Shell.
Richard N. Perle: Former Chair of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee at the Pentagon, He is a key leader of the Straussians (disciples of Leo Strauss) and as such, a major figure of neo-conservatism.
Heather Reisman: Canadian businesswoman, CEO of the Publishing Group Indigo-Chapters.
Rudolf Scholten: Former Austrian Finance Minister, Governor of the Central Bank.
Peter D. Sutherland: Former Irish EU Commissioner for competition, then director general of the World Trade Organization. Former director of British Petroleum, current chairman of Goldman Sachs International, former President of the European section of the Trilateral Commission, and Vice-President of the European Round Table of Industrialists, now honorary president of the European Movement – Ireland.
J. Martin Taylor: Former MP, CEO of the chemical and agribusiness giant Syngenta.
Peter A. Thiel: U.S. Businessman, CEO of PayPal, president of Clarium Capital Management and Facebook shareholder.
Daniel L. Vasella: CEO of the Swiss pharmaceutical group Novartis.
Jacob Wallenberg: Swedish banker, he is the director of many transnational companies.
Henry Kissinger is the main person responsible for invitations to the Bilderberg Group.
Members of the hidden core group
Carl Bildt: Former Liberal Prime Minister of Sweden (1991-94), former special envoy of the European Union and the UN in the Balkans (1995-97, 1999-2001), the current Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs. (T)
Oscar Bronner: CEO of the Austrian daily Der Standard.
Timothy C. Collins: American investor, director of the investment fund Ripplewood.
John Elkann: CEO of the Italian group Fiat Auto (his grandfather Gianni Agnelli was for forty years one of the leaders of the Bilderberg Group. He inherited the family fortune after the natural death of his grandfather Giovanni and the premature death of his uncle Edoardo. However, police sources were convinced that Edoardo was murdered after he converted to Shia Islam, so that the family fortune would remain within the Jewish branch of the family).
Martin S. Feldstein: Former economic adviser to Ronald Reagan (1982-84), the main professor who taught Lawrence Summers, who was the main economist in the Administrations of Bill Clinton, and is the current economic adviser to President Barack Obama. Feldstein was on George W. Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. He teaches at Harvard.
Henry A. Kissinger: Former national security adviser and U.S. Secretary of State, central figure of the U.S. military-industrial complex, current president of the consulting firm Kissinger Associates.
Henry R. Kravis: U.S. financier, investment fund manager KKR. He’s a major fundraiser for the Republican Party.
Neelie Kroes: Former liberal Dutch minister of Transport, European commissioner for competition, and current Commissioner of the digital society.
Bernardino Léon Gross: Spanish diplomat, Secretary General of the Presidency of the Socialist Government of Jose Luis Zapatero.
Frank McKenna: Former member of the Supervisory Commission Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Canada’s ambassador in Washington (2005-06), Vice-President of the Toronto-Dominion Bank.
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands: She is the daughter of Prince Bernhard.
George Osborne: British Minister of Finance. This neo-conservative is seen as a eurosceptic, meaning that he is opposed to the participation of the United Kingdom in the European Union, but he is a supporter of the organization on the continent within the Union.
Robert S. Prichard: Canadian economist, director of print and audiovisual Torstar.
David Rockefeller: The patriarch of a long line of Bankers. He’s the oldest member of the core group of Bilderbergers. He is also chairman of the Trilateral Commission, a similar organization incorporating Asian participants.
James D. Wolfensohn: Australian Banker who acquired U.S. citizenship to become President of the World Bank (1995-2005), now director of the consulting firm Wolfensohn & Co.
Robert B. Zoellick: American diplomat, U.S. diplomat, former U.S. Trade Representative (2001-05), current president of the World Bank.
The Bilderbergers don’t necessarily represent the companies or institutions in which they work. However, it is interesting to observe the diversity of their political and economic influence.
The Lobby of the most powerful military organization in the world
In recent years, the number of topics discussed at the annual conferences has increased to keep up with world events. But the subjects of discussion are not really important, because the discussions have no precise objectives in and of themselves. The conferences are merely a pretext to convey other messages. Unfortunately, we do not have access to the most recent preparatory documents and we can only speculate about the directives that NATO will try to disseminate through these leaders of opinion.
The reputation of the Bilderberg Group has led some authors to imagine that the Group nominates people to important positions. This is ridiculous and it obscures those who truly pull the strings behind the scenes within the Atlantic Alliance.
For example, during the last U.S. presidential elections, it was reported that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton disappeared on June 6, 2008, in order to negotiate an end to their rivalry. In reality, they participated in the annual conference of the Bilderberg Group in Chantilly, Virginia (USA). The following day, Mrs. Clinton announced that she was retiring from the race. Some authors concluded that the decision was taken during the Bilderberg meeting. The logic is faulty, since the decision was already a foregone conclusion three days before, given the number of votes for Senator Obama at the Democratic Party’s nominating committee.
According to our sources, something else happened. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton concluded a financial and political agreement. Senator Obama bailed out his rival financially and offered her a position in his administration (Clinton refused the vice-presidency and instead chose the State Department) in exchange for her active support during the campaign against McCain. Then, the two leaders were presented by James A. Johnson to the Bilderberg Conference, where they assured the participants that they would work together. Barack Obama had already been NATO’s candidate for a long time. Mr. Obama and his family have always worked for the CIA and the Pentagon. [3] [and this] Moreover, the initial funds for his campaign were provided by the Crown of England, via a businessman named Nadhmi Auchi. [See, e.g.: this and this and this.] In presenting the Black Senator to the Bilderbergers, the Atlantic Alliance was, in fact, organizing public relations at the international level for the future president of the United States.
Similarly, it was reported that the Bilderberg Group held an impromptu dinner outside of the Conference on November 14th, 2009 at the Chateau de Val Duchesse, owned by the King of Belgium. The former Prime Minister of Belgium, Herman van Rompuy, delivered a speech. Five days later he was elected president of the European Council. Once again, some authors wrongly concluded that the Bilderberg Group had been the “kingmaker”.
In reality, the President of the European Union could not be chosen outside of the NATO circles, and it should be remembered that the European Union itself was the result of several secret clauses in the Marshall Plan. In addition, this choice must be endorsed by the Member States. This type of decision requires lengthy negotiations and is obviously not taken during an informal dinner with friends.
Also according to our source, the Bilderberg Group President, Etienne Davignon, convened this special dinner to introduce Van Rompuy to his influential relays. These contacts were all the more necessary since the first person to occupy the new post of President of the European Council was totally unknown outside of his own country. During the meal, Mr. Van Rompuy outlined his program for creating a European tax to directly fund the institutions of the Union without going through the Member States. The role of the Bilderbergers was to proclaim far and wide, that they know Herman von Rompuy and testify to his qualities to chair the Union.
The reality of the Bilderberg Group is less romantic than some authors have imagined. The incredible deployment of military force to ensure security during the meetings is not so much intended to protect, but rather to impress those who participate. It does not display their power, but instead shows that the only real power in the West is NATO. Everyone has the “choice” to either support NATO and be supported by it… or fight it and be relentlessly crushed.
In addition, although the Bilderberg Group developed an anti-communist rhetoric when it was created, it was not oriented against the USSR and is not today oriented against Russia. It follows the strategy of the Alliance which is not a pact against Moscow, but rather the defence — and possibly the extension — of Washington’s zone of influence. [But, after 24 February 1990 it became specifically a “pact against Moscow” — his statement became false after that time.] At its inception, NATO had hoped to integrate the Soviet Union, which would have implied a commitment from Moscow not to challenge the division of the world stemming from the Conferences of Potsdam and Yalta. Recently the Alliance met with President Dmitry Medvedev at the Lisbon Summit and proposed that Russia join the group. [This article was published on 9 May 2011, and Obama kept up the lie until he became re-elected in November 2012, but, as I have noted, it was only a lie from him, and he already had detailed plans in place to go to war to conquer Russia, and we’ve seen the consequences in places such as Ukraine and Syria.] It was not intended to be a form of subservience, but recognition of the existing New World Order, in which all of Central and Eastern Europe now falls under the U.S. orbit. Russian membership would be a sort of peace treaty: Moscow would concede defeat in the Cold War and recognize the new division of the world. [Russia already ‘conceded’ defeat in the Cold War when in 1991 it ended the Soviet Union’s communism, its other republics, and its entire Warsaw Pact military alliance — but, on 24 February 1990, George H.W. Bush secretly committed the U.S. alliance and NATO to continue the Cold War on America’s side until Russia would iteslf be conquered by the U.S.]
In this case, the Bilderberg Group would invite Russian personalities to its annual meetings. Bilderberg would not ask these personalities to influence public opinion in Russia in order to Americanise them, but to convince them to renounce their dreams of past greatness and glory.
Source
Translated from French by Michael McGee.
[1] The EDC is a project aimed at creating a European army within NATO. It was rejected by Parliament in 1954 at the instigation of the French Gaullists and the Communist Party. It was not until 2010-11 that this project began to take form under the Franco-British partnership within NATO and during the War on Libya.
[2] “NATO’s secret armies“, by Daniele Ganser. This work is published in serial form on Voltairenet.org in French.
[3] “The Story of Obama: All in the Company” (Part I and II), by Wayne Madsen, Voltaire Network, 20 August 2010.
——
http://www.voltairenet.org/article190102.html
“Germany and the UNO against Syria”
by Thierry Meyssan, VOLTAIRE NETWORK | DAMASCUS (SYRIA) | 28 JANUARY 2016
The neo-conservatives and liberal hawks who have been preparing the war against Syria since 2001 have been relying on several states from the UNO and the Gulf Co-operation Council. While we know about the role played by General David Petraeus in launching and pursuing the war until today, two personalities — Jeffrey Feltman (number 2 at the UNO) and Volker Perthes (Director of the main German think tank) — have remained in the shadows. Together, with the support of Berlin, they have been using and are still manipulating the United Nations in order to destroy Syria.
In 2005, when Jeffrey Feltman — then the US ambassador in Beirut — supervised the assassination of Rafic Hariri, he relied on support from Germany, both for the assassination itself (Berlin supplied the weapon) [1], and for the UNO Commission charged with accusing Presidents el-Assad and Lahoud (prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, police commissioner Gerhard Lehmann and their team). The international campaign against the two Presidents was notably led by the German political analyst Volker Perthes [2].
Volker Perthes studied in Damascus, Syria, in 1986 and 1987, funded by a German research grant. He then went on to pursue a career as professor of political science in Germany, with the exception of the period between 1991 and 1993, during which he taught at the American University of Beirut. Since 2005, he has been the Director of the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), the main German public think tank, which employs more than 130 specialists, half of whom are university professors.
However, when Feltman organised the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006, he implicated only the United States, hoping that once Hezbollah was beaten, Syria would come to its rescue in Beirut, which would provide an excuse for US intervention. Finally, Berlin sent only its marines to participate in the United Nations Forces (Finul).
During the annual meeting of the Bilderberg Group, between the 5th and the 8th June 2008 — five years before the war — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave a presentation which underlined the necessity of overthrowing the Syrian government. She was accompanied in this task by the Director of the Arab Reform Initiative [3], Bassma Kodmani (future founder of the Syrian National Council), and the Director of the SWP, Volker Perthes. The Bilderberg Group is a NATO initiative, and NATO directly handles security for these meetings [4].
According to a cable revealed by Wikileaks, Volker Perthes advised Ms. Rice concerning Iran. He believed that it would be dangerous to launch a military operation which could have unpredictable regional consequences — it was, however, more efficient to sabotage its economy. Volker Perthes’ advice was followed, in 2010, with the destruction of the software of Iranian nuclear plants by the Stuxnet virus [5].
In March 2011, Volker Perthes published an opinion column in the New York Times mocking President el-Assad’s speech to the People’s Chamber, during which the President had denounced a «conspiracy» against Syria [6]. According to Perthes, the «revolution» was under way in Syria, and el-Assad had to go.
In the summer of 2011, the German government managed the breakthrough of the Muslim Brotherhood in Tunisia and Egypt. It noted that at the CIA’s demand, it hosted the international coordination of the Brotherhood in Aix-la-Chapelle. Berlin thus decided to support the Brotherhood everywhere they attained power, with the exception of Hamas in Palestine, in order to avoid annoying Israël. Under the influence of Volker Perthes, the German Minister for Foreign Affairs — at that time, Guido Westerwelle — persuaded himself that the Brotherhood was not «Islamist», but «guided by Islam». He created a discussion forum with the « moderate Islamist movements” (sic), and a Task Force for Syria. As for Perthes, he organised a reception at the Ministry in July for a delegation from the Syrian opposition, led by Brother Radwan Ziadeh.
Speech by Ahmet Davutoğlu during the closed Tusiad-Stratfor conference, 6th October 2011.
On the 6th October 2011, on the proposition of the State Department, Volker Perthes took part in the closed conference organised by the Turkish Industry & Business Association (Tusiad) and the private US intelligence company Stratfor in order to study Turkey’s energy options, and also the possible responses of eight other countries, including Germany [7]. Present at the meeting were the ten top Turkish fortunes and Taner Yıldız — the Minister for Energy — the man who was supposed to help the Erdoğan family organise the funding of the war with oil stolen by Daesh.
In January 2012, Jeffrey Feltman — then State Department director for the Near East — asked Volker Perthes to direct the «The Day After» programme, which was tasked with putting together the next régime in Syria. These meetings were held over a six-month period and resulted specifically in a report which was made public after the Geneva Conference.
«The Day After» mobilised 45 members of the Syrian opposition, including Bassma Kodmani and the Muslim Brothhood. It was financed by the US Institute of Peace, the equivalent of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), but is under the authority of the Department of Defense. Also solicited were Germany, France, Norway, Holland and Switzerland.
«The Day After» drew up the first draft of the plan for the total and unconditional capitulation of Syria, which became the obsession of the United Nations once Jeffrey Feltman was nominated Director of Political Affairs for the United Nations, in July 2012.
At his official swearing-in as the number 2 of UNO, the 2nd July 2012, Jeffrey D. Feltman takes the oath before General Secretary Ban Ki-moon. As of that date, the Organisation, which is supposed to promote peace, has been under the control of the «liberal hawks».
Here are the principles of the Perthes-Feltman plan
the sovereignty of the Syrian People will be abolished;
the Constitution will be repealed;
the President will be relieved of his functions (but a vice-President will remain in charge of formal functions);
the People’s Assembly will be dissolved;
at least 120 leaders will be considered guilty and banned from any political function, then judged and condemned by an international Tribunal;
the Direction of Military Intelligence, the Direction of Political Security and the Direction of General Security will be dismantled and dissolved;
“political” prisoners will be freed and anti-terrorist procedures will be repealed;
the Hezbollah and the Guardians of the Revolution will be made to withdraw; then, and only then, will the international community fight terrorism [8]
At the same time, Volker Perthes organised the «Working Group on Economic Recovery and Development» for the «Friends of Syria». In June 2012, under the co-presidency of Germany and the United Arab Emirates, this group distributed to the member states of the «Friends of Syria» concessions for the exploitation of Syrian gas, which could be claimed in return for their support for the overthrow of Assad’s régime [9].
Volker Perthes also organised the “Working Group on Transition Planning” for the Arab League.
Finally, he set up the “Syrian Transition Support Network” in Istanbul.
As from the Geneva Conference (30th June 2012) and the meeting of the «Friends of Syria» in Paris (6th July 2012), we can find no more public traces of Volker Perthes’ role, apart from his publications, which are aimed at maintaining Germany’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood. Germany is maintaining its policy, and after the abdication of the Emir of Qatar and the powerful rise of Saudi Arabia, nominated Boris Ruge — the director for Syria in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs — as its ambassador to Riyadh.
In January 2015, Chancellor Angela Merkel demonstrated for tolerance and against terrorism, arm in arm with Aiman Mazyek, the General Secretary of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany. In reality, he is one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood.
In the summer of 2015, during his visit to Damascus, the Syrian government asked Staffan De Mistura for an explanation concerning the Perthes-Feltman Plan, of which he had only just been made aware. Highly embarrassed, the special envoy of the General Secretary of the UNO confirmed that these documents did not engage him, and promised to take no notice of them. It seems that Moscow had threatened to make them public at the Security Council during the presence of the heads of state at the opening of the General Assembly in September 2015. However, the documents were not divulged — their revelation would have questioned the very existence of the United Nations Organisation. During the same period, Berlin once again made contact with Damascus, but the Syrians were unable to determine whether this secret initiative was a reflection of a new policy by Chancellor Merkel, or one more attempt at infiltration.
However, at the same time, Volker Perthes was nominated by Staffan De Mistura and his superior Jeffrey Feltman [10] as a «peace negotiator» (sic) for the next meeting in Geneva. He will be tasked with meeting alternatively with the delegation from the Syrian opposition and the delegation from the Syrian Arab Republic. [I have elsewhere exposed the scandal of those ‘peace negotiations’, in which the Sauds selected the delegation that was ‘negotiating’ with Assad on behalf of ‘the rebels’.]
For the last three years, in violation of their own Charter, the United Nations, far from doing anything at all to help restore peace to Syria, and without presenting the slightest evidence, accuse the Syrian Arab Republic of having put down a revolution, of using chemical weapons against its own population, of the massive practice of torture, and of starving its people. Above all, it is dragging its feet on any peace initiative, leaving time for NATO and the Gulf Co-operation Council to pilot the overthrow of the régime by foreign mercenaries, in this instance the terrorist organisations al-Qaïda and Daesh.
Keep in mind:
Since 2005, the group assigned to preparing the war in Syria is being piloted by the US diplomat Jeffrey Feltman, assisted by the German academic Volker Perthes.
In 2005, Feltman organised the assassination of Rafic Hariri (because the security of Lebanon was handled by Syria); in 2006, he organised Israel’s war against Lebanon (because Hezbollah was then armed by Syria); in 2011, he directed the 4th generation war from the State Department; since 2012, from the United Nations, for which he has become the number 2, he has been working to make the war last long enough for the jihadist groups to achieve victory.
Perthes associated himself with Feltman and the private group Stratfor in order to influence German policy in the Near East. In 2008, he presented the project for régime change in Damascus to the Bilderberg Group. In 2011, he convinced Merkel’s government to support the Muslim Brotherhood during the «Arab Spring». In 2012, he presided a work group tasked with preparing the new régime, then drew up a plan for the total and unconditional capitulation of Syria. Today, he is the UNO director for the Geneva peace negotiations.
Translation
Source
Attached documents
The Day After Project, August 2012
(PDF – 1.1 Mb)
The Day After. Supporting a Democratic Transition in Syria, Usip & SWP, August 2012.
(PDF – 135.3 kb)
[1] According to the United Nations, Rafic Hariri was assassinated by an explosive charge hidden in a van. However, this is impossible, considering the damage caused at the crime scene and especially considering the wounds caused to the victims. I demonstrated that the attack could only have been perpetrated by means of a new weapon which only Germany possessed at that time. In response to my work, the Special Tribune for Lebanon realised an extremely expensive reconstitution of the attack, using a French military base where the crime scene was entirely reconstructed. However, the Tribunal has never made public the results of this reconstitution, and persists in supporting the absurd thesis of a booby-trapped van. “Revelations on Rafik Hariri’s assassination”, by Thierry Meyssan, Оdnako (Russia) , Voltaire Network, 29 November 2010.
[2] For example : «Syria: It’s all over, but it could be messy», Volker Perthes, International Herald Tribune, October 5, 2005, p. 6.
[3] The Arab Reform Initiative is a work group uniting experts from several think tanks and universities. It is an initiative by Henry Siegman (ex-director of the American Jewish Congress) in the name of the US/Middle East Project (USMEP) which works to promote Arab personalities favorable to Tel-Aviv.
[4] “What you don’t know about the Bilderberg-Group”, by Thierry Meyssan, Komsomolskaïa Pravda , Voltaire Network, 9 May 2011.
[5] “WikiLeaks: US advised to sabotage Iran nuclear sites by German thinktank”, Josh Halliday, The Guardian, September 18, 2011.
[6] “Is Assad Capable of Reform?”, Volker Perthes, The New York Times, March 30, 2011.
[7] «Küresel Enerji Stratejileri Simülasyonu: Türkiye’nin Gelecek 10 Yılı», Tusaid, 6 Ekim 2011.
[8] “Draft Geneva Communique Implementation Framework”, “Confidence Building Measures”, “Essential Principles”, “Representativness and Inclusivity”, “The Preparatory Phase”, “The Transitional Governing Body”, “The Joint Military Council and Ceasefire Bodies”, “The Invitation to the International Community to Help Combat Terrorist Organizations”, “The Syrian National Council and Legislative Powers during the Transition”, “Transitional Justice”, “Local Governance”, “Preservation and Reform of State Institutions”, “Explanatory Memorandum”, “Key Principles revealed during Consultations with Syrian Stake-holders”, “Thematic Groups”, documents and annexes presented by Jeffrey Feltman, non-published.
[9] “The “Friends of Syria” divvy up Syrian economy before conquest”, by German Foreign Policy, Voltaire Network, 30 June 2012.
[10] The Italian Staffan De Mistura is Feltman’s deputy, tasked with directing affairs concerning Syrie. He succeed the Algerian Lakhdar Brahimi, who, incidentally, was one of Bassma Kodmani employers at the Arab Reform Initiative. “The Brahimi Plan”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Michele Stoddard, Information Clearing House (USA) , Voltaire Network, 29 August 2012.
——
http://www.voltairenet.org/article174837.html
“The ‘Friends of Syria’ divvy up Syrian economy before conquest”
by German Foreign Policy, VOLTAIRE NETWORK | BERLIN (GERMANY) | 30 JUNE 2012
Proving that the West’s Syrian preoccupations have nothing to do with expressed noble motives of democracy and civilian welfare, the Conference of Friends (sic) of the Syrian People is preparing a plan to pillage the economy upon occupation. In grand colonial tradition, a Working Group, co-presided by the Emirates and Germany, is studying how to share the spoils after Syria is vanquished. NATO and the GCC are “counting their chickens before they’re hatched”.
Self-Empowered
Late last week, a multinational “Working Group,” co-chaired by Germany, met for the first time in Abu Dhabi, with the aim of launching urgent economic measures for immediately following the overthrow of the Assad regime. The “Working Group on Economic Recovery and Development of the Friends of the Syrian People” was established April 1 in Istanbul by the “Group of Friends of the Syrian People,” an alliance of western and pro-western countries, which support the Syrian opposition in the civil war and are cooperating mainly with the exiled Syrian National Council (SNC). The UN Security Council has neither legitimized the “Group of Friends of the Syrian People” nor this “Working Group on Economic Recovery and Development of the Friends of the Syrian People,” which has empowered itself to serve as a “central forum” for launching necessary economic measures. [1]
Germany in Charge
According to German diplomat, Clemens von Goetze, who, along with a colleague from the United Arab Emirates, had co-chaired the meeting last week, the “Working Group” not only has plans for emergency aid for the immediate aftermath of the regime change, but he finds “it is a good time already to start now for a long-term perspective of the country once change comes in Syria.” [2] The Marshall Plan, implemented by the United States after World War II, to provide the material foundation for the establishment of the Western alliance, serves as a model. The “Working Group” set up several sub-committees along the lines of special issues. The member countries have officially agreed on an international division of labor, with Germany in charge of “economic policy and reform.” According to reports, the explicit goal is a “long term strategy” [3] for the transition “from a centralized economy to a market economy.” The “Working Group” will set up a secretariat, with Germany and the United Arab Emirates each providing 600,000 Euros. It will be headed by Gunnar Wälzholz, of Germany, who had been the director of the Afghanistan branch of the German Development Bank (KFW).
Clemens von Goetze, Director of the Central Administration of the German Foreign Affairs Ministry, and former Director of the German Bank for Reconstruction in Afghanistan, is co-piloting the working group for the pillage of the Syrian economy.
Carrot and Stick
According to a participant at last week’s meeting, the measures to be taken under German management will also include short-term goals. The economic projects are aimed at “attracting the silent sectors in Syria which did not completely join or which are still hesitant in supporting the revolt.” [4] These projects are therefore a sort of counterpart to the economic sanctions, which are also aimed at inciting entrepreneurs, loyal to the regime, to change sides — under pressure rather than through incentive. Thus, the “Working Group” has declared that the sanctions can be lifted “as soon as their objectives have been achieved” — i.e. after Assad’s overthrow, which would be facilitated if interested business circles would change sides. [5]
Consequences of Liberalization
For years, Berlin has been promoting the privatization of the Syrian economy, now being conferred to the “Working Group” — for an extended period in close cooperation with Assad’s regime. In 2006, the German development organization GTZ (today GIZ) had initiated a special program entitled “Supporting economic reform in Syria.” According to its description, “in 2000, the Syrian Government decided to switch to a social market economy,” but “the institutions involved do not have sufficient knowledge,” which is why the GTZ has to aid the government. [6] The reform’s “expected impact on income and employment will improve the lives of the Syrian population,” continues the GTZ – an prognosis that simply did not materialize. Quite to the contrary: the liberalization of the Syrian economy had “harmful effects” on the local manufacturing trade, as the International Crisis Group confirmed last year. For example in Duma, a suburb of Damascus, the residence or numerous artisans, who, facing ruin by the liberalization, renounced their loyalty to the regime. [7] In fact, today Duma is considered a hotbed of protest. Last January, the insurgents briefly took complete control of the town.
Ossama al-Kadl has long been a cadre of British Gas, then international economic consultant. He specializes in the application of Sun Tsu’s laws of war to the conquest of markets. Even though he has never been politically militant and he has never opposed Baas, he was recently propelled to become a member of the Syrian National Council because of his competencies. He is tasked with elaborating a strategy for an accelerated pillaging of his native country, as soon as the Arab Syrian Republic is toppled.
Visions
The SNC’s “National Economic Vision” was presented in Abu Dhabi to the German led “Working Group” by Osama Kadi, executive director of SNC’s Finance and Economic Affairs Bureau. This vision indicates that the liberalization would provide a higher living standard only “in the long run.” A reliable framework for foreign investments must first be established, the productivity of Syrian workers must be increased, the establishment of industries, accelerated, the bank sector, reformed and new foreign business deals, sought. The “Marshall Syrian Recovery Plan,” which should be implemented as soon as possible, could attract more direct investments from the West. The “Working Group’s” German led “secretariat” will assist in the implementation of the plan, following Assad’s overthrow and a regime change in Damascus.
As in Kosovo
The SNC, which is working in close cooperation with the West within the framework of the “Working Group” and whose staff members are willful candidates for future leadership positions, is heavily contested within the opposition. Secular oriented opponents of the regime are resolutely protesting the predominance of the Muslim Brotherhood in the SNC. Large sectors of the Syrian opposition are resenting the fact that leading SNC members are openly calling for western military intervention. For example, the National Coordination Committee (NCC), an alliance of oppositional forces inside Syria strictly opposes western military operations. The West hardly takes notice of the NCC. Radwan Ziadeh, the SNC’s “Director of Foreign Relations,” who, like SNC’s economic specialist Osama Kadi, works for the Washington based Syrian Center for Political and Strategic Studies, has repeatedly pronounced himself in favor of Kosovo-style operations. “Kosovo shows how the west can intervene in Syria,” declared Ziadeh, who had already visited Berlin’s foreign ministry in July 2011, in the Financial Times last February. [8] Soon afterwards he explained that the Free Syrian Army militia plays the same role, as the KLA had in Kosovo. [9] Syrian oppositional forces recently visited Kosovo for instructions on KLA operations in 1999. (german-foreign-policy.com reported [10]. The “Houla massacre,” to extend the metaphor, could take on the significance of the “Racak massacre” in early 1999. [11] Soon after the “Racak massacre,” evidence was uncovered pointing toward it having been a provocation to furnish a casus belli. It has never been credibly invalidated, but this did not hamper NATO’s military intervention.
Source: German Foreign Policy
Part of the text was translated from French by Roger Lagassé.
[1] Chairman’s Conclusions. Second Conference of The Group of Friends of the Syrian People, Istanbul, 1/4/2012.
[2] Donors Mull Marshall Plan for Post-Conflict Syria; www.naharnet.com 25/5/2012.
[3] Assad verbreitet Zuversicht; www.faz.net 24/5/2012.
[4] KfW (Bank for reconstruction) was created by the Anglo-American Occupying Authority in Germany in 1948. It was tasked with transforming the Nationalist-socialist economy to a market economy and with the execution of the Marshall Plan. Actually, KfW is presided fully by the German Ministers of the Economy and Finance, Philipp Rösler and Wolfgang Schäuble.
[5] Donors Mull Marshall Plan for Post-Conflict Syria ; www.naharnet.com 25/5/2012.
[6] Chairmen’s Conclusions of the International Meeting of the Working Group on Economic Recovery and Development of the Group of Friends of the Syrian People, Abu Dhabi, 24/5/2012.
[7] Unterstützung der syrischen Wirtschaftsreform; www.gtz.de
[8] Popular Protest in North Africa and the Middle East (VI) : The Syrian People’s Slow Motion Revolution ; International Crisis Group Middle East/North Africa Report No 108, 6/7/2011.
[9] Kosovo shows how the West can intervene in Syria; www.ft.com 14/2/2012.
[10] Radwan Ziadeh: Have We Learned Nothing From the Nineties? Syria is the Balkans All Over Again; www.tnr.com 22/3/2012.
[11] “Russia warns against training Syrian rebels in Kosovo”, Voltaire Network, 15 May 2012.
——
https://web.archive.org/web/20171213185630/http://www.voltairenet.org/article167553.html
“Revelations on Rafik Hariri’s assassination”
by Thierry Meyssan, 29 November 2010
While western media have announced that indictments against Hezbollah will be issued shortly by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, it is the entire UN investigation that Russian magazine Odnako is calling into question. Thierry Meyssan posits that the weapon used to assassinate former Prime Minister Rafik Hairiri was supplied by Germany. Former German prosecutor and first commissioner in charge of the UN probe, Detlev Mehlis, seemingly doctored evidence to cover up his country’s involvement. These revelations embarrass the Tribunal and reverse the tide in Lebanon.
All the conflicts rocking the Middle East today crystallize around the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL). Peace hinges on it, and so does war. For some, the STL should bring about the dissolution of the Hezbollah, quell the Resistance and establish a Pax Americana. Others consider that the STL is flouting the law and subverting the truth to ensure the takeover of a new colonial order in the region.
The Tribunal was created on 30 May 2007, pursuant to UN Security Council resolution 1757, to prosecute the alleged sponsors of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s assassination. In the political context at that time, this implied nothing more and nothing less than bringing to trial serving Presidents Bashar el-Assad of Syria and Emile Lahoud of Lebanon, not exactly favourites of the neo-conservatives. However, the charges were not pursued since they were based on flimsy evidence planted by false witnesses. With no accused left, the Tribunal could easily have disappeared in the meanders of bureaucracy were it not for a turn of events that catapulted it back into the epicenter of the turbulent Middle East political scene.
On 23 May 2009, Atlanticist journalist Erick Follath disclosed on Der Spiegel Online that the prosecutor was poised to indict new suspects: certain Hezbollah military leaders. For the past 18 months, Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s secretary-general, has been proclaiming his party’s innocence. He maintains that the real aim of the proceedings is to decapitate the Resistance and clear the region for the Israeli army. For its part, the U.S. administration in a sudden surge of righteousness pledged that no one would be allowed to shun international Justice.
In any event, the indictment - which all believe to be imminent - against Shia leaders for the assassination of a Sunni leader is of such a nature as to spark off a fitna, namely a Muslim civil war, plummeting the region into new depths of bloodshed and violence.
During his 15 and 16 November official visit to Moscow, Saad Hariri - current Lebanese Prime Minister and son of the deceased - reiterated that the political exploitation of the Tribunal exposes his country to the risk of a new conflagration. President Medvedev retorted that Russia wants Justice to be served and reproves any attempt to discredit, weaken or delay the Tribunal’s proceedings. This position of principle arises from the confidence that the Kremlin decided to place in the STL. But it risks being severely eroded by Odnako’s revelations.
Indeed, we deemed it desirable to delve into the circumstances of Rafik Hariri’s assassination. The data we unearthed has opened a new avenue, making one wonder why it had never been explored until now. In the course of our lengthy investigation, we encountered a great number of actors, too many no doubt, so that the news of our work spread quickly, alarming those for whom the assassination trail implicating the armed Lebanese Resistance represents a real godsent. Aiming to intimidate us, the Jerusalem Post on 18 October launched a preventive attack through a piece referring to our work. In a purely libelous vein, it accuses the author of this article of having received 1 million dollars from Iran to exonerate Hezbollah.
Getting down to facts, Rafik Hariri’s convoy was attacked in Beirut on 14 February 2005. Twenty-three people were killed and one hundred injured. A preliminary report commissioned by the Security Council calls attention to the unprofessional conduct of the Lebanese magistrates and police. To redress the situation, the SC assigned its own investigators, providing them with the important means that Lebanon was unable to offer. From the outset of the investigation, it was generally accepted that the attack had been perpetrated by a suicide bomber driving a van packed with explosives.
Having been established to compensate for the Lebanese lack of professionalism, one would have expected the United Nations mission to scrupulously observe the classical criminal procedures. Not so! The crime scene - on the basis of the topography still intact as well as the photos and video footage shot on that day - was not examined in detail. The victims were not exhumed and no autopsies were performed. For a long time, no attempt was made to ascertain the modus operandi. After discarding the hypothesis of a bomb buried in the ground, the investigators espoused the one involving the van withough bothering to verify it.
And yet, this version is implausible: looking at the crime scene, anyone can easily observe the very large and deep crater that a surface explosion could not have dug out. Faced with the adamancy of the Swiss experts who refused to endorse the official version, on 19 October the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) recreated the crime scene behind closed doors. It didn’t take place in Lebanon, nor in the Netherlands which is the seat of the STL, but in France, one of the countries funding the Tribunal. The buildings surrounding the crime scene were reconstructed and earth was brought in from Beirut. The convoy was reconstituted, including the armoured vehicle. The aim was to demonstrate that the height of the concrete buildings had confined the explosion, making it possible for the blast to produce the crater. The results of this costly experiment have never been divulged.
When looking at the photos and videos taken immediately after the attack, the first most striking feature is the blaze. Car parts and various types of objects are burning all around. Then, the bodies of the victims: they are charred on one side and intact on the other. An astonishing phenomenon which bears no resemblance to what is normally caused by conventional explosives. The theory that the van was transporting a mix of RDX, PETN and TNT does not account for the damages occurred.
What is more, from the photos showing Rafik Hariri’s corpse one can observe that his solid gold wristwatch has melted, whereas the collar of his luxury shirt still hugs his neck in pristine condition.
So, what really happened?
The explosion generated a blast of an exceptionally intense heat and exceptionally brief duration. Thus, the flesh exposed to the blast was instantly carbonized, while the body underneath was not burnt.
High-density objects (such as the gold watch) absorbed the heat and were destroyed. Conversely, low-density objects (like the delicate fabric of Hariri’s shirtcollar) didn’t have enough time to absorb the heat and were unaffected.
Rafik Hariri’s remains.
Moreover, the videos show that a number of limbs were severed by the explosion. Oddly, the cuts are clean, as if made on clay statues. There is no sign of shattered or jutting bones, nor of any torn flesh. The reason is that the explosion sucked up all the oxygen and dehydrated the bodies, rendering them friable. In the hours that followed, several on-the-spot witnesses complained of breathing ailments. Wrongfully, the authorities interpreted them as a psychosomatic reaction following their psychological trauma.
Such observations constitute the abc of any criminal inquiry. They should have been the starting point, yet they do not figure in any of the reports submitted by the "professional experts" to the Security Council.
When we asked a number of military experts what kind of explosives would be capable of generating such damage, they mentioned a new type of weapon which has been developed over several decades and is featured in reports appearing in scientific journals. The combination of nuclear and nonotechnology science can trigger an explosion the exact strength of which can be regulated and controlled. The weapon is set up to destroy everything within a given perimeter, down to the nearest centimeter.
Always according to the same military specialists, this weapon can also produce other types of effects: it exerts a very strong pressure on the area of the explosion. The minute it stops, the heaviest objects are propelled upwards. Accordingly, cars were sent flying through the air.
There is one unequivocal fact: this weapon is equipped with a nano-quantity of enriched uranium, emanating radiations which are quantifiable. Now, it just so happens that one of the passengers in Rafik Hariri’s armoured car survived the explosion. Former Minister Bassel Fleyhan was taken to a topnotch French military hospital for treatment. The doctors were astounded to discover that he had been in contact with enriched uranium. But no one linked this to the attack.
Technically speaking, the weapon is shaped like a small missile, a few tens of centimeters long. It must be fired from a drone. Actually, several witnesses assured they had heard an aircraft flying over the scene of the crime. The investigators asked the United States and Israel, whose surveillance satellites are permanently switched on, to provide them with the pertinent images. On the day of the attack, the United States had deployed AWACS aircraft over Lebanon. The live feeds could help to establish the presence of a drone and even to determine its flight path. But Washington and Tel Aviv - which indefatigably urge all parties to cooperate with the STL - turned down the request.
Hezbollah intercepted and released videos from Israeli drones surveying Rafik Hariri’s movements and the scene of the crime.
At a press conference held on 10 August 2010, Hassan Nasrallah showed a video which, according to him, was shot by Israeli military drones and intercepted by his organisation. All of Rafik Hariri’s movements had been registered for months, until the final day when all the surveillance converged on the bend in the road where the attack was staged. Thus, Tel-Aviv had been surveying the area prior to the assassination. Which is not to say, as Mr Nasrallah himself points out, that they were the authors of the crime.
So, who fired the missile?
This is where things get complicated. According to the military experts, in 2005, Germany was the only country which had a handle on this new technology. It is, therefore, Berlin which supplied and set up the crime weapon.
Hence, it is easy to understand why former Berlin Attorney General Detlev Mehlis - a very controversial figure within his own profession - was eager to preside the UN Investigation Commission. He is, in fact, notoriously linked to the German and U.S. secret services. Assigned in 1986 to shed light on the attack against the La Belle disco in Berlin, he diligently covered up all Israeli and U.S. fingerprints to falsely accuse Libya and justify the bombing of Mouammar Khadafi’s palace by the U.S. Air Force. In the early 2000s, Mr Mehlis was lavishly paid for his stint as researcher at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (think-tank linked to AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby) and at the Rand Corporation (think-tank attached to the U.S. military industrial complex). All elements which cast a shadow over his impartiality in the Rafik Hariri affair and should have sufficed to have him taken off the case.
Mehlis was seconded by Commissioner Gerhard Lehmann, who is also a well-known German and U.S. secret services agent. He was formally identified by a witness as having taken part in the programme run by the Bush Administration in Europe, involving the abduction, detention and torture of prisoners in "black holes". His name is mentioned in the ad hoc Report by the Council of Europe. Notwithstanding, he managed to dodge all judicial proceedings on the strength of a strong though unlikely alibi provided by his colleagues in the German police.
Mehlis and Lehmann propagated the theory of the explosives-laden suicide van to deflect the investigation from the German weapon that was used to commit the crime.
Various earth samples were taken from the scene of the crime. They were first mixed, then divided into three jars that were sent to three different laboratories. In the first two no trace of explosives was found. The third jar was kept by Mehlis and Lehmann, who personally sent it to the third laboratory. Here, remnants of explosives were detected. In principle, if the decision is made to resort to three judiciary experts, in case of disagreement it is the majority opinion that prevails. No way! Mehlis and Lehmann violated the protocols. They deemed that theirs was the only reliable sample and embarked the Security Council on a false trail.
The profoundly flawed character of the Mehlis-Lehmann investigations has amply been proven. Their successors acknowledged as much sotto voce and declared entire sections of proceedings nul and void.
Amidst their manipulations, the most famous one relates to the false witnesses. Five individuals purported to have seen the preparations for the attack and incriminated Presidents Bashar el-Assad and Emile Lahoud. While these allegations were fueling the drums of war, their lawyers exposed the lies and the prosecution backed down.
Detlev Mehlis, President of the UN Investigation Commission violated all the rules of the criminal procedure, fabricated evidence and used false witnesses to exonerate Germany and accuse Syria.
Based on these false testimonies, Detlev Mehlis arrested - in the name of the international community - four Lebanese generals and had them incarcerated for four years. Pushing his way with his cow-boys into private homes, without a warrant from the Lebanese authorities, he also detained for questioning members of their entourage. With his assistants - who spoke Hebrew to each other - he manipulated the families. Thus, on behalf of the international community, he showed the wife of one of the generals a doctored picture to prove that her husband had not only obscured his implication in the murder, but was also two-timing her.
Concurrently, he tried the same maneuver on the son of the "suspect"’, but in this case to convince him that his mother was a woman of loose morals, a situation which had plunged his desperate father into a murderous folly. The aim was to induce a family crime of honour, thereby tarnishing the image of respected and respectable people.
Even more incredible is Lehmann’s proposition to libertate one of the four imprisoned generals in exchange for his false testimony against a Syrian leader.
Moreover, German journalist Jürgen Cain Külbel highlighted a disturbing detail: it would have been impossible to trigger the explosion by remote control or by marking the target without first disactivating the powerful interference system built into Rafik Hariri’s convoy. A system among the most sophisticated in the world, manufactured in ... Israel.
Külbel was approached by a well-known pro-Palestinian advocate, Professor Said Dudin, to promote his book. However, the outrageous declarations frequently made by Dudin served to torpedo it instead. Külbel, a former East German criminal police officer, was quick to find out that Dudin had a long-standing reputation for being a CIA mole within the German left-wing. The journalist published a number of old East-German reports attesting to this fact and was sentenced and briefly imprisoned for illicit dissemination of documents; meantime, Dudin was settling into the German Embassy in Beirut for the purpose of infiltrating the families of the four generals.
Overlooked in the Middle East, Germany’s role in this region is worth spotlighting. After Israel’s war of aggression against Lebanon in the Summer of 2006, Chancellor Angela Merkel deployed a very large contingent to join the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). The 2 400 soldiers from Germany control the maritime infrastructure to prevent arms supplies from reaching the Resistance via the Mediterranean. On that occasion, Ms Merkel declared that the mission of the German army was to protect Israel. A wind of rebellion arose among the officers. By the hundreds, they sent letters to remind her that they had enlisted to defend their homeland not a foreign country, be it an ally.
An unprecedented development took place on 17 March 2008 and 18 January 2010, when the German and Israeli governments held a joint Council of Ministers meeting where various programmes were adopted, especially in the defense sector. At this stage, there shouldn’t be too many secrets left between the Tsahal and the Bundeswehr.
The investigation conducted by Detlev Mehlis is both steeped in ridicule as regards the false witnesses, and tainted with the illegal detention of the four generals. To the extent that the UN Human Rights Council’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention formally and firmly condemned this excess of power.
This being said, the opprobrium that befalls Mr Mehlis’ work should not reflect on the Special Tribunal for Lebanon which is in no way responsible for his manipulations. But here, again, things get complicated. The credibility of the STL rests on its ability to curb, in the first place, all those who attempted to mask the truth and falsely accused Presidents Bachar el-Assad and Emile Lahoud, with the intention of provoking a war.
Now, it transpires that the Tribunal refuses to try the false witnesses, giving the impression that it is covering up the manipulations under Mehlis’ watch and is in fact pursuing the similar political objectifs (this time against the Hezbollah, and perhaps against others in future). Even worse, the Tribunal will not hand over to Jamil Sayyed (one of the four generals illegally detained) the minutes of his accusers’ hearings, thereby barring him from requesting compensation and making it look as if it condones four years of arbitrary detention.
In more prosaic terms, the Tribunal is shirking its responsabilities. On the one hand, it must judge the false witnesses to thwart further manipulations and to make plain its impartiality; on the other hand it refuses to undertake a "clean-up" operation which might force it to arrest Prosecutor Mehlis. However, Odnako’s revelations on the German lead render this posture untenable. All the more since it’s already too late: General Jamil Sayyed filed a complaint in Syria and a Syrian examining magistrate has already indicted Detlev Mehlis, Commissioner Gerahrd Lehmann plus the five false witnesses. One can imagine the commotion at the STL should Syria decide to call on Interpol to have them arrested.
Just as the Mehlis commission was supposed to compensate for the lack of professionalism on the part of the Lebanese forces of law and order, the STL should equally have ensured the impartiality that the Lebanese courts may have been short of. But things are far off target, which raises the question of the Tribunal’s legitimacy.
Kofi Annan didn’t want the Lebanon Tribunal to exert international jurisdiction, but to function as a national Lebanese tribunal with an international character. It would have been subjected to Lebanese law while half of its members would have been nationals of other countries. The plan did not materialize because the negotiations came to a sudden end. More precisely, an agreement was reached with the Lebanese government presided at the time by Fouad Siniora, the former authorised representative of the Hariri estate, but it was never ratified either by Parliament or by the president of the Republic. Hence, the agreement was endorsed unilaterally by the UN Security Council (Resolution 1757 of 30 May 2007). The end result is a hybrid and fragile entity.
As pointed out by Kofi Annan, this Tribunal is not analogous to any other so far created within the purview of the United Nations. "It is neither a subsidiary organ of the UN, nor a component of the Lebanese judiciary system"; it is simply "a conventional organ" sitting between the executive authority of the Lebanese government and the UN. Judging by the international rule of separation of powers and independence of the judiciary, the STL cannot be regarded as a genuine tribunal, but rather as a joint disciplinary commission within the executive frameworks of the UN and the Lebanese Government. Whatever decision it may make will inevitably be coated with suspicion.
Worse still, any Lebanese government can terminate it since, not having been ratified, the related agreement was binding only on the previous government. As a result, the present Lebanese coalition government has become a battlefield between partisans and foes of the Tribunal. In an attempt to maintain governmental stability, week after week Lebanese President Michel Sleimane has been dissuading the Council of Ministers from taking a vote on any issue linked with the STL. This embargo cannot hold out forever.
Bad news coming in pairs, suspicions have now extended to the President of the STL, Antonio Cassese. This reputable international jurist was President of the International Criminal Tribunal For the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). He happens to be a ardent supporter of the Jewish colonialisation of Palestine. A personal friend of Elie Wiesel, Cassese received and accepted an honorary award, presented by Wiesel himself. He should normally have withdrawn and resigned when Hassan Nasrallah disclosed that Israeli drones had been reconnoitering the crime scene as well as the victim’s movements for months.
According to the President of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, Antonio Cassese, the armed resistance in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan should be tried for "terrorism".
Worst of all, Judge Cassesse personifies an interpretation of international law that causes division in the Middle East. Although his official curriculum vitae obscures it, he took part in the 2005 negotiations between member states of the European Union and those bordering the Mediterranean Sea ("Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean"). His definition of terrorism blocked the discussions. According to him, terrorism is exclusively the act of individuals or private groups, never states. It follows that a struggle against an occupying army would not be considered as "resistance" but as "terrorism". In the local context, this juridical view is consistent with a colonial framework and disqualifies the STL.
The methods of the Special Tribunal do not differ from those applied by the Mehlis Commission. STL investigators collected mass files on Lebanese students, social security recipients and subscribers of public utility services. On 27 October, in the absence of the Lebanese judges, they even tried to snatch medical records from a gynecological clinic frequented by the wives of Hezbollah members. It is obvious that these probes have no link whatsoever with the Rafik Hariri assassination. Everything leads the Lebanese to believe that the information is actually earmarked for Israel, of which, in their eyes, the TSL is merely an offshoot.
All these problems had clearly been foreseen by President Putin when, in 2007, he had vainly made a pitch for a different wording of the STL founding resolution. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin had denounced the "juridical loopholes" of the system. He deplored that the Security Council should threaten to resort to force (Chapter VII) to achieve unilaterally the creation of this "conventional organ". He had emphasised that while the Tribunal should be working towards the reconciliation of the Lebanese people, it was devised in such a way as to divide them even more. Finally, Russia - as China - refused to endorse Resolution 1757.
The truth ultimately seeps through. The Israeli drone videos released by the Hezbollah expose Israel’s involvement in the crime preparations. The facts revealed by Odnako point to the use of a sophisticated German weapon. The puzzle is nearly complete.
——
In closing, I would add only that most of the participants in the Bilderberg meetings are not principals but agents — not the actual aristocrats but instead the agents whom particular aristocrats trust the most, to represent their interests in these matters. Although some of the attendees are billionaires who might be representing only themselves there, most are instead agents. Furthermore, when Prince Bernhard, who was so important in the founding of the organization, became himself exposed as an agent for Lockheed Corporation, it might also be noted that Lockheed Martin Corporation is today the world’s largest military contractor; so, their long-term business-plan has succeeded brilliantly; NATO has served magnificently as the marketing arm for such companies.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Wow, no comment on the most comprehensive report ? Thanks Eric for the extraordinary dive into the crimes od Agela Merkel, Jeffery Feldman, ...