ROGUE AGENTS ...The Cercle and The 6I in the Private Cold War 1951-1991 pdf download
Another important American diplomatic source has been the wealth of declassified State Department cables from the Central Foreign Policy Files made available online by the National Archives and Records Administration. Although the cables only cover the period 1973-1978, they have provided much detail about several Cercle members and have revealed a hitherto unknown four-day Cercle meeting held in November 1977, coordinated by Jameson and attended by Pinay, Strauß, Sánchez Bella, senior Italian industrialists (no doubt including Pesenti), Portuguese putschist general Kaúlza de Arriaga, David Rockefeller, Kissinger, Brzezinski, US Defense Secretary Harold Brown, George Meany and Lane Kirkland of the AFL-CIO, and reportedly also attended by Treasury Secretary W. Michael Blumenthal and William Colby, who had retired the previous year as Director of Central Intelligence.
ESM, a coup d'état in 17 countries! below
Philip H. Gordon: Who is he?
Italy's Five Star Movement: who is funding it from abroad?
|European Union, EU|
|Russia Israeli mob top|
|Johannesburg Agenda top|
|EU Constitution top|
|The threat to a fistful of petrodollars By Liam Halligan (Filed: 23/04/2006)|
|From Russia, you might say, with love. This weekend, Alexei
Kudrin, Russia's finance minister, dropped a bombshell in
Washington. Attending the annual meetings of the World Bank and
International Monetary Fund, Kudrin
caused his American hosts discomfort by openly questioning the dollar's
pre-eminence as the world's "absolute" reserve currency.
The greenback's recent volatility and the yawning US trade deficit, "are definitely causing concern with regard to its reserve currency status," he said. "The international community can hardly be satisfied with this instability." Kudrin's intervention coincided with another meeting, also in Washington, of finance ministers and central bankers from the Group of Seven - which doesn't include Russia.
Top of the agenda: the effect of ever-rising oil prices on inflation and interest rates. G7 countries are worried the spiraling price of crude - which closed at $72.79 a barrel on Friday and which has now trebled in three years - could inflict real economic damage. The US Federal Reserve, in particular, has been forced to take drastic action - raising interest rates 15 times since June 2004 to keep inflation in check.
Given that fragility, it is significant that Kudrin is now wondering aloud if the long-standing dollar hegemony can last. For him to do so is to highlight that America is vulnerable should that status be lost. That's because Russia, with its awesome oil and gas reserves, could kick-start a challenge to the dollar's supremacy. Most nations stockpile their foreign exchange holdings in dollars. The US currency accounts for more than two thirds of all central bank reserves worldwide.
This reserve status means that the dollar is constantly in demand, whatever the underlying strength of the US economy. And now, with massive trade and budget deficits to finance, America is increasingly reliant on that status. The unprecedented weight of US liabilities means a threat to the dollar's dominance could result in a currency collapse, plunging the world's largest economy into recession.
That won't happen immediately. The dollar has sat astride the globe for some time now - in fact, for most of the last century. But this statement from Russia - a country of growing financial and strategic significance - still caused the dollar to slide. It also fuelled speculation that central banks could increasingly diversify their holdings away from dollars.
Kudrin's statement followed news that Sweden has cut its dollar holdings, from 37 per cent of central bank reserves to 20 per cent, with the euro's share rising to 50 per cent. Central banks in some Gulf states have also lately mooted a shift into the euro. Such sentiments helped push the dollar to a seven-month low against the single currency last week. But Russia's intervention will have raised eyebrows in Washington because the backbone of the dollar's reserve currency status - the main guarantee that status continues -is the fact that oil is traded in dollars. And that is something the likes of Kudrin can directly affect.
For historic reasons, the dollar remains the world's "petrocurrency" - the only currency for the settlement of oil contracts on world markets. That makes the EU and Russia dependent on it. But with central banks switching to euros, the logical next step would be for fuel-exporting countries to start quoting oil prices in euros too. The EU is Russia's main trading partner. More than two thirds of Russia's oil and gas is exported to the EU. That makes Russia a strong candidate to become the first major oil exporter to start trading in euros. Such a scenario, in recent years, has become theoretically possible. But now, with these latest comments, Kudrin has thrust that possibility into the open.
The G7 meeting was dominated, of course, by concern over Iran's nuclear programme. The threat of military action against Iran, itself a major crude exporter, is one reason oil prices are now testing record highs. It is worth noting that Tehran has ongoing plans to set up an oil trading exchange to compete with New York's NYMEX and with London's International Petroleum Exchange. In the light of Kudrin's comments, it is significant that the Iranians want to run their oil bourse in euros, not dollars. Were the Iranians to establish a Middle-East based euro-only oil exchange, the dollar's unique petrocurrency status could unravel. That, in turn, would threaten its broader dominance - which, given America's groaning twin deficit, could seriously hurt the US economy.
Some cite this as the real reason the US wants to attack Iran: to protect the dollar's unique position. I wouldn't go that far, but the prospect of a non-dollar oil exchange in Tehran is certainly an aggravating factor. The opening of Iran's new oil exchange has recently been delayed. But, having spoken with numerous officials in Tehran, and western consultants who've been working with the Iranians for several years, I think it will go ahead. The exchange entity has already been legally incorporated in Iran and a site purchased to house administrative and regulatory staff.
The reality is that as long as most of Opec's oil - read Saudi Arabia - is priced in dollars, the US currency will retain its hegemony. But the opening of an oil bourse in Tehran, which now looks likely, will signal at least tacit Saudi consent for euro-based oil trading. The US knows this, which is why it is nervous about the dollar's status being questioned. From the G7's fringe, Kudrin has now touched this raw nerve. This weekend's meetings have been dominated by questions of global financial imbalance - in particular, America's huge deficits.
Kudrin's missive comes as central bankers, and currency dealers, start to conclude the only way to resolve the massive US external deficit is a somewhat weaker US currency. As the IMF itself warned yesterday, a "substantial" dollar decline may be needed. One way to bring that about would be for the euro to enter the global oil trading system. This is unlikely to happen soon. It might not happen at all. But the idea is now not only realistic but firmly on the table in Washington. Perhaps not with love, but it was placed there by the Russians.
Liam Halligan is Economics Correspondent at Channel 4 News
Secrets Behind ‘State Secrets’:
Mafia-like 'Deep State' (and its Neocon Friends) Penetrated the American
by an internet researcher
filmmaker Mathieu Verboud is set to release a new documentary for European
television this fall, which will reveal important new insights into the
case of former FBI translator and president of the National
Security Whistleblower’s Coalition Sibel
Edmonds. Edmonds, a
Turkish-American whose wrongful termination lawsuit was suppressed by the
government’s invocation of the all-too-common
“state secrets privilege”, reported to her superiors espionage and
deliberate mistranslations on the part of fellow Turkish translator, Melek
Can Dickerson. It seems
Ms. Dickerson had relationships with targets of FBI
investigation working at the Turkish Embassy and the American
Turkish Council, a fact which meant that anything she translated was
likely to be false. However,
instead of receiving a promotion for bringing Ms. Dickerson’s’
espionage to the attention of her bosses, Edmonds was fired after she went
in frustration to the U.S. Senate. The
FBI refused to investigate Edmonds’ claims, at least in part, because
the contract linguist had discovered quite a messy scandal: the content
of the mistranslated documents revealed that some very powerful people in
the U.S. government, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert, were
connected to foreign organized crime.
Even worse, these foreign criminals connected to the high and
mighty in the U.S. were also connected internationally, through the heroin
trade and associated money laundering, to international terrorist
organizations like al Qaeda.
take a deep breath and take a step back: it’s not a pretty picture.
According to what we know so far from Sibel Edmonds’ many
interviews and from the groundbreaking story on her case from Vanity
Inconvenient Patriot” , Edmonds found that within the U.S. a nest of
Turkish spies, some working at the Turkish embassy, others affiliated with
namely the Assembly of Turkish American
Associations (ATAA), the American
Turkish Associations (ATA) and the
American Turkish Council (ATC), were involved in espionage, bribery,
illegal lobbying, drug trafficking and the infiltration of U.S nuclear
research labs. Separately, from
a former CIA Counterterrorism official, Phillip Giraldi, who himself
was once based in Turkey, we know that some arms sales meant for Turkey
and Israel were actually meant for resale to countries like China and
India- and perhaps even to international terrorists- using fake
end-user certificates. So
we have Turkish nationals at the Embassy and NGOs stealing U.S. secrets
for sale to the highest bidder, re-selling arms meant for Turkey, bringing
in drugs from Europe, and pouring money into bribes and lobbying
understand how these activities fit together- Americans must first
understand what Europeans call the Turkish ‘deep state’.
In 1996, a car
crash in a town called Susurluk revealed “link
between politics, organized crime and the bureaucracy” in Turkey.
As it turns out, its crippled economy in the 1990s meant Turkey had
become the European equivalent of Colombia- a state almost completely
dependent on the Turkish mafia and by extension, the Southwest Asian
Heroin trade. Which is where
the Turkish ‘deep state’ comes in- it becomes very difficult to
determine where the ‘government’ ends and the ‘mafia’ begins.
What we do know from Sibel Edmonds and other sources is this: Turkey’s
secular establishment, including the Turkish military and intelligence
services (MIT), as well as political parties associated with former
Prime Minister Tansu Ciller, appear to have been more connected to the
Turkish mafia than the Turkish Islamic Parties that Washington
abhors. Furthermore, it
appears from reading into some of Edmonds’ statements that the Turkish
mafia was partnered with Osama Bin Laden’s al Qaeda network in the drug
trade- meaning Turkey’s secular establishment was more connected to al
Qaeda- pre/9-11- than were the Islamists in Turkey.
Which is quite ironic, to say the least.
you think this story sounds too convoluted to be true, and you feel the
instinct to dismiss Edmonds’ claims, think again.
Every investigation into the whistleblower’s charges- from the
Senate Judiciary Committee to the Department
of Justice’s Inspector General Report, has found that Edmonds’
story is corroborated within the FBI, which means her translations, not
those of Melek Can Dickerson, were the correct
ones. This also means that
the aforementioned Turkish organizations, and certain Turkish diplomats, were
indeed under FBI
investigation. And all
this put together means that people like
Dennis Hastert probably were- and perhaps still are-
on the payroll of Turkish ‘deep state’ interests.
article published in the U.K. Guardian about the well-connected
Kurdish Baybasin clan also gives important backing to the former
translator’s story. The
article details how Europe’s
“Pablo Escobar”, Huseyin Baybasin, has “alleged that he
had received the assistance of Turkish embassies and consulates while
moving huge consignments of drugs around Europe, and that Turkish army
officers serving with NATO in Belgium were also involved." This
information, of course, dovetails most precisely with what Sibel Edmonds
has been hinting at for over 3 years now; that targets of FBI
investigations linked with the Turkish embassy and Turkish organizations
were involved in narcotics trafficking.
It is clear the Baybasin gang and the secular factions in Turkey
had a seemingly symbiotic relationship, with the government providing the
traffickers diplomatic passports and thus free reign to travel around the
world without fear of prosecution. Also
involved in the scandalous Turkish drug running are the very notorious, Pope-killing
Grey Wolves, a fascist organization connected to human rights abuses
for who else besides Hastert might have been on the payroll of Mr.
Baybasin and friends- we turn next to the Executive Branch.
interview with Chris Deliso of antiwar.com, Edmonds hinted at key
roles played by some powerful unelected officials-important
Neoconservatives like Marc
Grossman of the State Department, and Richard
Perle and Douglas
Feith, formerly of the Defense Department.
If we hit the rewind button and go back to a CBS
60 Minutes’ interview in October, 2002, we remember the ex-contract
linguist stated that Turkish targets of FBI
investigation had spies inside the U.S. State Department and at the
Pentagon in order to “obtain the United States military and intelligence
doesn’t take a genius to conclude that Grossman, Feith and Perle might
have been the persons to whom she was referring in 2002.
Furthermore, the language specialist has repeatedly stated in past
interviews that investigations into pre-9/11 terrorist financing
activities were blocked “per
State Department request”, leaving open the question whether it was
Mr. Grossman, then Undersecretary of State for European Affairs, who
actively hindered investigations into the Turkey-Bin Laden link.
and Feith are an interesting case in this hidden scandal.
Their consultancy, International
Advisors (IA), has done extensive work for the Republic of Turkey,
though it is questionable who
is paying the invoices. Ms.
Edmonds rhetorically asked the question of Phoenix radio personality
Charles Goyette in January 2006, “For what [were they paid]?
One could imagine, hypothetically, that passing state secrets might
be one “service” provided to the Turkish mafia/government by IA.
But would Perle and Feith have gone beyond that?
Would they have introduced the Turkish mafia types to Denny Hastert,
and counseled “deep state” interests in how to skirt U.S. campaign
finance laws? After all, the
Turks were reported to have made their initial payments from 1996-1998
through “unitemized (less than $200) contributions”, after which they
allegedly delivered suitcases of cash to the Speaker’s front door.
Someone had to teach them the intricacies of campaign finance law:
was it IA? What we do know is
that Perle was a key architect of the Israeli/Turkish alliance forged in
the late 90s, and that Edmonds case also is connected
to the AIPAC spy scandal- leaving lots of room for speculation on how
the rest of the story pans out.
As messy and
ugly as this, for lack of a better phrase, “Turkish DeepState Gate”
scandal appears, the consequences of continuing to do nothing about it- of
allowing the government’s outrageous use of ‘state secrets’ to
insure Dennis Hastert, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Marc Grossman and
others are never investigated, could be horrific.
Ms. Edmonds plans to take petitions
to the Senate Judiciary Committee in the coming months to finally force
full and open hearings on her case. She
will try to do the type of lobbying that does not involve foreign bribery
or ill-gotten gains. This
will be the simple type of petitioning guaranteed of every citizen in the
Constitution under the First Amendment, a long forgotten
portion of the Bill of Rights. Americans
aware of the situation can only hope, and do everything in their power to
insure, that Ms. Edmonds’ type of lobbying prevails.
Woodward, book, The War Within: A Secret White House
History 2006-2008, According to Simon & Schuster, Woodward's
book "takes readers deep inside the White House, the Pentagon,
the State Department, the intelligence agencies and the U.S.
military headquarters in Iraq. .... traces the
internal debates, tensions and critical turning points in the Iraq
War during an extraordinary two-year period" ...
release date: Sept 8, 2008, Robert "Bob"
Upshur Woodward, assistant managing editor, Washington Post,
investigative reporter, ... Carl Bernstein, search terms: uncover
Watergate, Nixon, resignation, 12 best-selling books, Pulitzer
Prize, served in the Navy as an aid to Chief of Naval Operations,
Moorer, met Mark Felt, FBI Assistant Director, deepthroat, inside
source on Watergate, book 'The Secret Man', DNC convention,
1972, wrote All the President's Men, Redford Hoffman movie, Ben
Bradlee, editor, reporting on 'Nixon dirty tricks, Woodward
interviewed Bush 43 four times, books: Bush at War, Plan of
Attack, State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III, with Dan Balz,
Camp David, Worldwide Attack Matrix, too close to Bush, Kerry,
involvement in Plame scandal: deposition to Fitzpatrick, told him
senior administration official leaked Plame identity to him in June
2003, November 2005 article revealed his special knowledge, casual,
offhand by Armitage, part of confidential conversation of a
'source', asked Libby questions about Armitage, interview on CNN
Larry King, junkyard dog prosecutor, consequences of Plame outing
not that great, Downie, inaccuracies, inconsistencies,
exaggerations, fabrications in books: John Dean and Ed Gray: Felt
not the only deepthroat, also Donald Santarelli. Brad DeLong: in Maestro
and The Agenda, The Choice, Clinton Whitewater
inconsistencies, abandon critical inquiry to maintain access to
high-profile actors, for glory, stenographer to the rich and
powerful, At the Eye of the Storm, see Maureen Dowd, and The
Brethren, and his sitting on information for publication of a
book, The Commanders ...Powell opposed Operation Desert
Storm, published after war voted for in Congress, and Veil
he did not reveal that William Casey knew of arms sales to the
Contras until after the investigations, and see Martin Dardis ...
Watergate burglars, and Committee to Re-elect the President, ...and
accused of fabricating deathbead interview with Casey, ... Reagan
called him a liar, for whatever that's worth, and other books: Wired,
Aug 19: buzz: likely to propel re-examination of the Iraq War into the headlines, for fall presidential campaign, Hadley encouraged participation, interviews with Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gates, ... publisher: Simon & Schuster, Amazon, Alice Mayhew, and see CBS, Viacom, 496 pages, 900,000, red, white, blue, gold cover, administration infighting, will be best seller, he'll be on 60 minutes, Sept 7, How does Woodward, Miller, Cheney, Libby fit with declassifying classified information to hype the war?.. Woodward was leaked Plame info in June 03, but sat on it for years, ... John Bolton, Marc Grossman are the neo-con links to Turkey, and Plame / Edmonds working on uncovering WMD proliferation, black market activities of Bushco.
Seymour Hersh, on Chain of Command NYTimes "We now have two major accounts of the road to war in Iraq, Hersh's ''Chain of Command'' and Bob Woodward's ''Plan of Attack.'' Hersh is the anti-Woodward. Woodward is official scribe to the inner sanctum, and his access -- to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell -- gives his account real authority, but at a price. In Woodward's world, everything is what the principals say it is. In Hersh's world, by contrast, nothing the policy elites say is true actually is.
SourceWatch Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus is "the top American military commander in Iraq, part of a broad revamping of the military team that will carry out the administration's new Iraq 'surge' strategy."  Petraeus replaced Gen. George W. Casey, Jr., who was confirmed February 6, 2007, by the U.S. Senate, as Army Chief of Staff. ... Petraeus, who has "served two previous tours in Iraq", "sees the need for additional troops in Baghdad." He "helped oversee the drafting of the military’s comprehensive new" Counterinsurgency Field Manual published December 2006.  ... On September 8, 2005, Lt. Gen. Petraeus left Iraq "after handing off command" of the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq, which he had commanded for 15 months.  He most recently served as Commander of the U.S. Army Combine Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. 
New York Sun Aug 26 ".... speculation is surging that it will portray the latest phase of the war in Iraq as a success, credited to the recently departed commander of forces there, General David Petraeus. ... one source familiar with an early draft said Mr. Woodward had extensive access to General Petraeus and his deputies, known in the military as the "Jedi Council." Mr. Woodward also interviewed the head of the Anbar Awakening, Sheik Ahmad al-Rishawi, who took over the Sunni Arab uprising against Al Qaeda in Iraq after his brother was assassinated last September."
Examiner "Woodward is also known for his Pulitzer Prize -winning reporting with fellow Washington Post writer Carl Bernstein . In the 1970s, they collaborated on the groundbreaking stories of the Watergate scandal that helped bring down Richard Nixon and on two best sellers about the Nixon administration, "All the President's Men" and "The Final Days." he can pry the facts from the most unlikely sources.
|Research: Operation Gladio top|
|ESM, a coup d'état in 17 countries! by Rudo de Ruijter 17 October 2011 Preliminary message to Parliamentarians.|
|What is special in this ESM-treaty? The Ministers of Finance get a
new part-time function as Governors of the ESM. The national parliaments
have no authority over their Minister of Finance, when the latter acts
as Governors of the ESM. The Governors freely dispose of the State's
Vaults. No veto-right has been foreseen for the national parliaments.
Ratifying this treaty is the death of the sovereign democracies of the
(And if you are not a Parliamentarian, make sure your Parliamentarians get this message, for otherwise they will give the key of democracy to the devil without even being aware of it!)
As indicated in the precedent article "ESM, the new European dictator" , the Ministers of Finance of the 17 euro-countries, on July 11th 2011, have signed a Treaty for the Establishment of the European Stability Mechanism. Its purpose it to make the citizens pay for the hundreds of billions of euros that are pumped into the rescue funds to save the euro and to get the national parliaments in a strangle hold.
The signature was not noticed by the international press. Many journalists still confuse this new ESM-treaty with its (illegal) predecessors, the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM) and the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF). De EFSF now has a lending capacity of 440 billion euros. (1.000 billion since 27 October 2011.) The ESM is without limit.
At the moment of writing this treaty still has to be ratified by the national parliaments in all 17 countries, except if such has already taken place silently here and there.
For a short introduction in the ESM-treaty you can view this 3.5 minutes video on YouTube:
ESM, a coup d'état in 17 countries!
If by coup d'état we understand a seizure of the real power and a limitation of the power of the democratically chosen parliament, then this ESM-treaty is a coup d'état in 17 countries simultaneously.
This is completely in line with the philosophy of the European Commission, which, according to its President Barroso, must be "the economic government of the Union, that defines the actions that governments have to execute." (28 Spetember 2011) 
The european Stability Mechanism (ESM) is not that much a mechanism, but rather a new administration of the European Union (EU). The reported goal is to supply loans (under strict conditions) to euro-countries, which cannot fulfil their financial obligations. It takes over the tasks of the aforementioned EFSF and EFSM. It is ruled by a Board of Governors. These are the 17 Ministers of Finance of the euro-countries within the EU.
The ESM treaty says in article 8, that this administration gets a social capital of 700 billion euros. Then, in article 10 it says that the Board of Governors may decide to change this amount and adapt article 8 accordingly. In article 9 it says the Board of Governors may claim unpaid social capital from the member countries at all times (to be paid within 7 days.) So in fact it says the ESM can claim money without limits from the member countries. The treaty does not foresee any right of veto for the national parliaments.
According to article 5.6 the Board of Governors must take the decisions above unanimously. So the entire board must vote "yes".
At first glance, it is very curious that the whole treaty stands or falls with the unanimity of the 17 Ministers of Finance of the euro-countries. When you see how many difficulties they have to overcome for an agreement to be reached over freeing up the loans already promised to Greece, you would not expect that the EU would build a treaty that starts from the view that this unanimity does exist or at least can be achieved.
The eurozone is a colourful reflexion of the diversity of Europe: the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Germany and France and also Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Malta, Greece, Austria, Slovakia, Slovenia and finally Estonia and Finland. The 17 Ministers form, in fact, a colourful company too. Each of them represents a country with different interests. And they expect unanimity from them? How is that possible?
To understand, we must look a bit further. It is true, in the ESM the 17 ministers vote on all important decisions, but there are still other people who are present at their meetings, officially as "observers". Wy would these ministers need observers? To check if they do what they are expected to do?
There are three observers: the member of the European Commission in charge of economic and monetary affairs, the President of the Euro Group (the informal club of the 17 Ministers of Finance) the President of the European Central Bank!  So, if we can't expect these 17 Ministers of Finance to be unanimous spontaneously, it must be the influence of these observers that achieves it. To understand which influence the European Commission and the ECB can exercise on our ministers, let's take a closer look.
Who are Ministers of Finance?
Well, generally, these are people who come and go. Most of the time they are appointed after the national parlementarian elections, that are initially followed by the bargaining of the coalition discussions and then by the tugging for filling in the most important portfolios, like the Interior Ministry, Economic Affairs and Finance. In the favorable case they have the capacities to lead a ministry. Such a person can lead the Ministry of Defense at one time and be appointed Minister of Education or Social Affairs some other time. Knowledge of matters is considered to be less relevant as managing capacities.
Economy is not Finance
This way, at the moment, we have in the Netherlands a Minister of Finance, Jan Kees de Jager, loaded to the brim with Economic diplomas, but who initially did not show he had any understanding of finance. One of his first ideas was to propose a law that should forbid people to call for a run on the bank. Jan Kees, banks have no money! For each euro the customers of ING (the biggest Dutch bank) have in their account, the bank only has 3 cents. You don't expect people to line up for so little? And furthermore, as long as the central bank does not want a bank to fall, the latter can easily survive a run on the bank with borrowed money.
Freshly appointed Ministers of Finance are, generally, extremely happy they have so much success in their career, but they arrive in a world they hardly know or don't know at all. That is the self-inportant little world of international financial institutions and the world of figures with an endless number of zeros. A little moment of inattention and you are mistaken by douzens of billions. (That happened to Dutch Prime Minister Rutte and Jan Kees de Jager when they informed Parliament after a European meeting about Greece.  ) These new ministers are an easy prey for the counsellors of the ECB and the IMF, who come to explain how things work and what a good Minister of Finance ought to do.
As far as these Ministers of Finance have a basic knowledge in economics, they should know that the whole euro-experiment is deemed to fail. That was already known at the start in 1970, but bankers and opinionated politicians pushed the shared currency forward. The point is that a unique currency can only work in a economically homogeneous area.    Here is why.
The prison of the fixed exchange rates
When consumers, in countries with less possibilities for productivity, prefer cheaper and better products from abroad, the external debt will increase. At the same time the internal productivity decreases. A country that has its own currency, can devaluate its currency then. That makes imported products more expensive for its own population and makes exported products cheaper for foreign purchasers. The debt will decrease and the productivity will increase again. Devaluations were very common before the euro started. The euro works as a fixed exchange rate. Less productive countries are like rats in a trap. They will never be able to get out of debts again. That is why, the chosen method to load still higher debts on these countries is strange and ill-disposed.
Long live the free capital market!
We should not forget these countries did not have big and insurmountable problems when they entered the euro-zone. Otherwise, they would not have been accepted. The problems arose, because with their admission in the eurozone, the free circulation of capital became a fact too. Banks from existing euro-countries came on a massive scale to supply cheap loans to the new euro-citizens. And because, with a same capital, banks are allowed to lend out twice as much for mortgages than for other types of loans, they mainly financed housing. However, the bankers forgot, that people don't need just a roof above their head, but they also need income to pay back the loans. So the bankers should have financed sufficient economic activities too. But that did not happen. This way, a first wave of new euro-citizens became indebted without possibilities to pay back their debts. The real estate market crashed. The entrepreneurs and their suppliers went broke, leaving behind a desolate scene of empty and unfinished housing quarters.
The problematic euro-rules
More over, countries were labelled "problem countries", exclusively because they could not meet the artificially set demands for the euro-zone anymore, that is to say a maximum budget deficit of 3% of their BIP and a maximum debt of 60% of the BIP.  Normally, it is not a problem for a country when the debt is twice as high, when, for instance, it is counterbalanced by possessions like in Greece. And a shortage on the budget of over 3% does not need to be a problem for a country either. In fact, the only problem was, that the set limits for the euro-zone turned out to be irrealistic and virtually no member country could meet them. You could also say, that those who had established these unfeasible exigences were dumbos, as well as the ministers who promised they would respect them. Anyway, it is a simple way to create a crisis.
Because nearly all countries had surpassed the set limits, it was important to divert the attention and point gaudily in the direction of the naughtiest boy in the classroom. For Greece, these officials even created a complete defamation campaign, in which lying Dutch politicians also cheerfully participated. Greece would have hidden its debt , and the Greeks were lazy and retired early etc.  Rapidly Greece came under attack and had to pay ever higher interest for its loans. Fortunately its euro-class friends wanted to help. Jan Kees even promised we would earn money on it.
Money is power
Once you have manoeuvered your vicyim into trouble - again, Greece did not have insurmountable problems when it became member of the eurozone - you can apply the politics of the carrot and the stick: "We will supply loans, but under condition that..." The IMF has half a century of experience with this kind of abuse of power and has applied this politic mischievously in many developing countries. First the country is overloaded with loans, so as it isn't even able to pay the interest. The loans are provided for specific projects. Most often they are executed by foreign companies. They receive the money from the loans. The country stays with the debts. Further more everything the country has of value is sold to foreign investors. And of course the government has to cut its expenses to the bones and the population must bleed, so they know the IMF has the power.
Seizure of power of the European Commission
Although, according to article 122.2 of the TFEU  the European Council can offer financial help to countries in difficulties (on proposal of the European Commission), the wolfs of the European Commission could not resist the temptation to establish their own IMF, or more exactly, a European brother, that would closely cooperate with the IMF.
They got it off the ground in May and June 2010, the EFSM and the EFSF. They have a temporary character and juridical defaults. The loan capacity of the EFSF has recently been increased to 1,000 billion euros (that represents 3,300 per euro-citizen) and its role has been extended to save the banks too.
Their successor is the ESM. It has been signed on 11 July 2011 and awaits ratification by the national parliaments. The ESM gets a permanent character and the power to claim unlimited money from the States' Vaults and lend it out at cost and risk of the eurocitizens. They are to start with a social capital of 700 billion (2100 per euro-citizen), but they are already speaking about an increase to 1.5 to 2 trillion that they think they will need.
Amendment of article 136
The ESM is based on an amendment of article 136 of the TFEU of 23 March 2011 , wich, in fact, contains an extension of the competences of the EU, since this amendment allows for the establishment of administrations that limit the power of national parliaments. And because this amendment is based on article 48.6 of the Treaty of Europe, this is an illegal construction.  In Brussels they don't care about that and, similarly, the national parliaments don't think the transgression of the democratic rules is that important. For the consequence would be, that the population would first have to vote about the extension of competences of Brussels. And that stupid population would surely vote against it!
The ESM gets the power to empty the States' Vaults without the Parliaments being able to stop them. Moreover the amendment - strictly according to its text - enables the establishment of all kinds of anti-democratic administrations, which under pretext to fight the instability in the eurozone can limit the effects of national legislation and can limit civil rights.
Shock and awe
Create a crisis and seize power. At the moment a country is totally disrupted, you can shape things the way you want. It is a violent scenario the advocates of the free market economy havave applied for decades in many countries like England, Poland, China, South-Africa, Russia and the US. I refer to one of the most reveiling books of our time: The Shock Doctrine of Naomie Klein (available in many languages, a must-read.)
Now it is Greece's turn. The defamation has done its work. The citizens in the other euro-countries hardly protest, and when they do, it is mainly because of the possible loss of their money, that their pension funds have invested there. But if they would think a little bit further, they would understand that they too are manoeuvered into debts by the rescue funds and can be the next victims tomorrow. That can happen from one day to the next, announced by a newspaper title like "ING may fail"...
In the meantime, in the panic of this manufactured crisis, parliaments accept urgency measures they did not even consider the day before. Now, with the money from the urgency funds banks must be saved too. In the Netherlands they agreed with that on 6 October 2011 (the Socialist Party voted against it), Slovakia was the last to agree with the EFSF-expansion on 13 October 2011, after using the issue to dismiss the government.
So now we have a vicious circle: the banks cause the problems, they may profit directly and indirectly from the loans of the emergency measures, and they may lend out still more recklessly, for possible losses will be paid by the euro-citizens.
Away with unanimous decision making
Back to the ESM. That treaty stands or falls with the unanimity of the 17 Ministers of Finance. The European Commission and the European Central bank are confident they have enough influence to get the 17 noses in the same direction.
Well, to be exact, 17 is not really necessary. A decision is also valid when not all ministers are present. Each minister represents a number of votes, related to the number of shares his country has in the ESM. (See annexe below this article.) When 2/3 of the ministers with 2/3 of the votes are present, a ballot can be held validly. And when ministers who are present for the vote, don't vote, that still counts as a unanimous decision. As long as nobody actually votes against it.
In theory, a hard headed minister of a small country could block the whole proces. (He must be very daring.) Barroso does not want that anymore. He wants all the European Treaties to be changed in order to abolish the unanimous decision making process. For the ESM that would mean that if Germany, France, Italy and a smaller country like the Netherlands agree with each other, the 13 other countries have nothing more to say. Long live the dictatorship in Brussels! Long live the EU!
We are already used to the fact that administrators and representatives of the people do not want to answer for their words and deeds. But at the ESM they exaggerate this to the extreme. The rules are set in a way, that everyone who works there can do or not do anything he likes, without having to answer for it to parliaments, administrations or judges! At the utmost a Minsiter of Finance can be replaced by another, who will immediately enjoy the same excessive privileges. A criminal could not wish a better den.
A final thought
The European Union has the free market economy as laid down principle. Meanwhile, almost everybody has understood that deregulation of banks, privatizations of infrastructures and the abolition of governmental functions lead to a harsh society, plagued by crises. These principles are outdated. The advocates of these principles will only be able to push them forward with violence. Greece won't be the last victime.
Repartition of the votes among the Governors of the ESM according to the numbers of shares the member coountries detain.
Subscriptions to the authorised capital stock
Number of shares
Capital subscription (EUR)
Kingdom of Belgium 243 397
24 339 700 000
Federal Republic of Germany 1 900 248
190 024 800 000
Republic of Estonia 13 020
1 302 000 000
Ireland 111 454
11 145 400 000
Hellenic Republic 197 169
19 716 900 000
Kingdom of Spain 833 259
83 325 900 000
French Republic 1 427 013
142 701 300 000
Italian Republic 1 253 959
125 395 900 000
Republic of Cyprus 13 734
1 373 400 000
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg 17 528
1 752 800 000
Malta 5 117
511 700 000
Kingdom of the Netherlands 400 190
40 019 000 000
Republic of Austria 194 838
19 483 800 000
Portuguese Republic 175 644
17 564 400 000
Republic of Slovenia 29 932
2 993 200 000
Slovak Republic 57 680
5 768 000 000
Republic of Finland 125 818
12 581 800 000
Total 7 000 000
700 000 000 000
Sources and references
 Barroso, 28 September 2011 http://euobserver.com/19/113760
 Officially, the European Central bank is not an organ of the European Union.* The ECB is the property of the central banks of the euro-countries. In turn, they are independent from the national governments in the sense that they do not take orders from them. They are ruled by a board of private persons. So the euro does not belong to the EU, neither to the national governments, but to a cartel of private bankers, the ECB in Franckfurt, the town of the Rothschild. The EU cannot give any order to the ECB, but inversily the ECB has power within the EU. It governs the European System of Central Banks (ESCB), which is an EU organ. The ECB, together with the central banks of the eurozone, are the members of this ESCB. How complicated do they have to make it to integrate a private company as an official organ with the power of an official organ?
 Vrijspreker 22 July 2011 *
The Dutch government and the European Commission contradict each other about the size of the new support package for Greece. According to the Ministry of Finance the amount is 109 billion euros, of which 50 billion will come from the banks and other financial institutions. According to the European Commission the governments contribute 109 billion euros and on top of it 50 billion will come from private institutions. The Dutch central bank doesn't know: "We too, we are very curious to know what has been decided", a spokesman of the DNB says. The European Central Bank refers to the European Commission.
 In the studies about optimum currency areas we can distinguish those focusing on the needed conditions and those from after 1970 (when politicians had decided they wanted a single currency in Europe) focusing on cost and benefits.
Roman Horvath and Lubos Komarek in “OPTIMUM CURRENCY AREA THEORY: AN APPROACH FOR THINKING ABOUT MONETARY INTEGRATION” (2002)
“It is possible to distinguish two major streams of the optimum currency area literature. The first stream tries to find the crucial economic characteristics to determine where the (illusionary) borders for exchange rates should be drawn (1960s-1970s). The second stream (1970s-till now) assumes that any single country fulfills completely the requirements to make it an optimal member of a monetary union. As a result, the second approach does not continue in the search for characteristics, identified as important for choosing the participants in an optimum currency area. This literature focuses on studying the costs and the benefits to a country intending to participate in a currency area.”
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/1539/1/WRAP_Horvath_twerp647.pdf , page 7.
Friedman put forward the advantages of flexible exchange rates between countries as follows: As it is commonly observed, the country’s prices and wages are relatively rigid and factors are immobile among the countries. As a result, under the negative demand or supply shock the only instrument to avoid higher inflation or unemployment is the change in the flexible exchange rate (that means appreciation or depreciation of the currency). This brings the economy back to the initial external and internal equilibrium. (...) Under the fixed exchange rate regime there would always be the unpleasant impact on unemployment or inflation.
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/1539/1/WRAP_Horvath_twerp647.pdf , page 8.
 Yrd. Doç. Dr. Hüseyin Mualla YÜCEOL, Mersin Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi, Maliye Bölümü, in “WHY THE EUROPEAN UNION IS NOT AN OPTIMAL CURRENCY AREA: THE LIMITS OF INTEGRATION”
Europe is not an optimal currency area. Although, On January 1, 1999, 11 EU countries initiated an EMU by adopting common currency, the euro, the EU does not appear to satisfy all of the criteria for an optimum currency area. Then, joining the EU is not identical with joining the euro for both old members and new members.
http://eab.ege.edu.tr/pdf/6_2/C6-S2-M6.pdf , page 66
 Paul de Grauwe, excerpts of speech
“With up to twenty-seven members instead of the present twelve, the challenge for ensuring a smooth functioning of the enlarged Eurozone will be daunting. The reason is that in such a large group the probability of what economists call ‘asymmetric shocks’ will increase significantly. This means that some countries may experience a boom and inflationary pressures while others experience deflationary forces. If too many asymmetric shocks occur, the ECB will be paralyzed, not knowing whether to increase or to reduce the interest rates. As a result, member countries will often feel frustrated with the ECB policies that do not (and cannot) take into account the different economic conditions of the individual member countries. This leads us to the question whether the enlarged EMU will, in fact, be an optimal currency area.” (...)
“If a country is hit by negative shocks brought about by agglomeration effects, the wage cuts necessary to deal with these shocks will inevitably be very large. To give an example: If Ford Motor were to close down a plant in Belgium and to invest in Poland instead, the wage cut of Belgian workers that would convince Ford Motor not to make this move would have to be 50% or more given that the wage not feasible, then flexibility dictates that the Belgian workers be willing to move.”
 These are the requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact.
 Nikolaos Salavrakos, Member of the European Parliament in "Is there a way out?"
 OECD statistics
 Article 122.2 of the Treaty on the Functioning odf the European Union:
"Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance to the Member State concerned. (...)"
 European Parliament resolution of 23 March 2011 on the draft European Council decision amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
 art 48.6 Treaty of the European Union
TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN STABILITYMECHANISM (ESM) http://consilium.europa.eu/media/1216793/esm%20treaty%20en.pdf
If you don't want to miss the next publication, then click here:
I would like to receive an email as soon as another article appears in English.
Please note that SPAMFIGHTER often sees my messages as SPAM. SPAMFIGHTER as political weapon? No, it is just the consequence of badly conceived principles of the program. If you subscribe to stay informed, please check your spamfolder regularly. And when you find messages from me there, please click UNBLOCK. I thank you very much in advance. - Rudo de Ruijter
|WMR Philip H. Gordon: Who is he? Whose interests does he serve?|
January 11-13, 2013 -- UPDATE 1x. Philip H. Gordon: Who is he? Whose
interests does he serve?
|WMR Italy's Five Star Movement: who is funding it from abroad?|
February 28-March 1, 2013 --
|Interactive 9/11, JFK & Holocaust Spreadsheet|
|Nazi Era Timeline|