Ron they never knew ye

Ronald Reagan would be crying now

 

by Don Hank

In the context of the current Syria crisis, I am seeing articles by “conservatives” suggesting that Ronald Reagan would have solved this by threatening the Russians or even shooting down Russian planes in Syria.

Conservatives (really Neocons if we are to be honest), I daresay you have forgotten who Ronald Reagan was and what made him a great statesman. His salient trait was, if anything, restraint. He was characterized precisely by not being the cowboy he was accused of being.

This year the GOP held its first major debate in a Reagan-themed venue, suggesting that the candidates were Reagan-like. All but one were the cheapest and shoddiest of imitations. Trump came closest because he is anti-establishment and tussles with the media, as Reagan had done. Of course, unlike Reagan, Trump does not exactly sound like a wise grandfather, more like a cantankerous uncle, but he is the only one who shows restraint toward Russia.

For all their hot air about Reagan, here is what today’s GOP wants you to forget:

Reagan never got the US into wars that killed thousands of Americans, the way the Bushes did.

Despite his cowboy image, exaggerated by the press, his skirmishes were brief and relatively safe. Only 19 Americans died in Grenada (although to be fair, legal experts tell us that war was not in line with international law), only two US airmen died in the 1986 attack on Libya, and no US military fighters died in Afghanistan because Reagan knew he did not dare go head to head with the Soviet Union in that conflict. Unlike today’s amateurs, Reagan knew that a nuclear confrontation would likely spell the end of civilization, if not of human life.

In fact, most of us have forgotten by now that, despite Reagan’s vehement philosophical disagreement with the Soviets, he did nothing to escalate the tension even after the Soviet Union shot down Korean Airlines flight 007 in September of 1983.

Instead of risking US lives in foreign conflicts, Reagan engaged in secret operations, for example, recruiting Osama bin Laden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan and numerous terror groups to ostensibly fight communism in Latin America and elsewhere (some of which groups we now, unfortunately, face as enemies).

Reagan also cautiously entered the conflict in Lebanon. However, instead of trying to reconcile the belligerent factions, he sided militarily with the Christian faction because he felt he should represent the people closest in religion to most Americans. Very shortly after that, the US Marine barracks were blown up by suicide bombers and he realized his mistake.

Now if he had been a Bush, he would no doubt have sacrificed still more lives for the sake of American “prestige.” Instead, to his credit, he pulled out all US troops and offered no lame excuses. The plaque on his desk said it all: “the buck stops with me.”

Now I am opposed to about everything our current radical socialist White House resident has done domestically, so the following is hard to say, but I hope you will make an effort to understand this: Like it or not, Obama’s policy of standing aside for Putin in Syria resembles Reagan’s policy in Lebanon and in the 007 shootdown incident more than the Neocon saber-rattling to which we are subjected 24-7. A good president knows when to hold ‘em and when to fold ‘em. Even a bad president has some good (and many bad) advisers. A stopped clock is right twice a day.

I can’t imagine the Gipper going up against Russia, and for the same reason that Obama won’t. It is just too downright dangerous. And yet, knowing the Gipper as we do, I am sure you will agree that he would not put the Syrian Christians in harm’s way as Obama has done. I would expect that Reagan would have made an effort to reconcile with Assad, knowing that the latter was protecting Christians and all other minorities in Syria.

So would Reagan have taken Israel’s side and opposed Assad over the Golan Heights?

Who knows? At any rate, you will no doubt agree that he’d have tried to find a mutually agreeable solution. On the other hand, it is true that no president, including Reagan, has ever supported making Jerusalem the capital of Israel – despite pressure to do so. Therefore, there never has been a totally pro-Israel US president.

Another important detail is that Jonathan Pollard was convicted of spying for Israel in 1987, near the end of the Reagan administration, and the president did not bow to pressure from Israel to release Pollard.

There are many unfathomables in US politics. Reagan was one of them. Yet some foolish Neocons hide behind the Reagan brand to defend their warlike policies and reckless statements about Putin.

Ron, they never knew ye.

SOVEREIGNTY: BACK TO WESTPHALIAN PRINCIPLES

 

BACK TO WESTPHALIAN PRINCIPLES

By Bernard CHALUMEAU

The treaties of Westphalia and the genesis of International law.

 

Like all French school children, we are aware that the Treaties of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War, which began with the defenestration of Prague in 1618, giving France the Three Bishopricks of Metz, Toul and Verdun  of the Holy Roman Empire.

However, let us take a closer look because there was much more to it than this:

These treaties are constituted of several agreements signed between the parties to the various conflicts:

– On January 30th, 1648, in Münster, the treaty between Spain and the United Provinces ended the war of Eighty Years.

– On October the 24th, in Münster, the treaty between France and the Holy Roman Empire ended the Thirty Years War, to which was added an act by which the Holy Empire gave to France the three Bishopricks of Alsace, Brisach and Pignerol, and another by which Emperor Ferdinand III, the archdukes of Austria, Charles, Ferdinand and Sigismund gave Alsace to France.

– On October 24, in Osnabrück, it also ended the 30 Years War.

-On July 2,1650, in Nuremberg, the two agreements between the Holy Empire and France and between the Holy Empire and Sweden relating to the enforcement of the peace.

These treaties were the bases for the organization of Germany up to the end of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806.

Unfortunately, most school texts fail to indicate that the principles of international law were born on the date these important treaties were signed.

The object of this article is not to describe the very complex progress of the Thirty Years War (1618-1848) where many conflicts pitted the Hapsburg of Spain and the Holy German Empire, supported by the Roman Catholic Church, against the Protestant German States of the Holy Empire allied with the nearby European powers with Protestant majorities, United Provinces and Scandinavian countries, as well as France, which intended to reduce the power of the Hapsburgs on the European continent.

However, one must bear in mind that it was the most dreadful slaughter of the entire 17th century, which killed several million men, women and children.

Since the demography of Europe was seriously affected, the belligerents thus looked for ways and means to avoid a recurrence of such horrific massacres.

The negotiations of these treaties lasted a long time (from 1644 till 1648), because it was necessary to establish new modes of relations between States with a view to limiting wars and to strengthen “the law of nations.”

In his work “The six books of the Republic”, published in 1576, the famous French lawyer Jean BODIN (1529-1596), had published his thoughts on public law, “res publica,” and on the powers of the king, as the first legal principles of sovereignty: “Sovereignty is the absolute  and perpetual power of the State, which is the greatest power to command. The State in the person of the monarch is supreme inside its territories, independent of any high authority, and legally equal to the other States”

Further, the Dutchman Hugo Grotius published in 1623 a work entitled “De Jure Belli et Pacis,” which proposed the establishment of a “mutual association” between nations, that is to say an international organization, thereby laying the groundwork for a code of public international law. Their ideas were intended to guide the negotiators of these treaties in establishing what has conventionally been called since that time “the Westphalian system” as a guideline for the concept of modern international relations.

– The balance of powers, meaning that any State, large or small, has the same importance on the international scene (For example, see the Article CXXII of the Münster Treaty in Old French below)

– The inviolability of national sovereign power (See article CXII of the Treaty below).

– The principle of non-intervention in the affairs of others (see article LXIV of the Treaty below).

Since the treaties of Wesphalia, a new actor succeeds the division of the power between villages, duchies and counties, namely, the modern State.  The world is organized with States whose sovereignty must be respected by the bordering states by virtue of the Westphalian concept of the border. International relations become interstate and the respected borders guarantee the peace.

These treaties proclaim the absolute sovereignty of the State as the fundamental principle of international law.

Europe becomes a set of States, having precise borders, recognized by others, in which the prince or monarch exercises his full and complete sovereignty. The characteristics of these modern States include the constitution of permanent armies and the expression by the elites of the fact of national existence. In these States, language appears as a factor of unity.

The Westphalian principles subsequently contributed to the emergence of the idea of the Nation States in the 19th century, as well as the principle of nationalities, where every National State enjoys, within its own borders, complete independence, being provided with the highest possible form of sovereign power with its own army, its own currency, its justice system, its police and an economy, allowing it to live as independently as possible of the other States.

Later the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, signed on December 26th 1933, would add four essential elements:

 

“To be sovereign, a State must have :

–          a permanent population.

–          a defined territory.

–          an operational government.

–          the capacity to enter directly in relation with other states.” 

 

It added a fundamental clause:

The political existence of a state is independent of its recognition by other states.

The United Nations, undoubtedly horrified by this measure, which it considered too Westphalian for its taste — since it paved the way for the emergence of multiple large or small States — then hurried to add notions of “internal sovereignty” and “external sovereignty,” so that, to be sovereign, States must have, in addition to their capacity to exercise their power over the population inside their territory without any outside constraint, the need to be recognized as sovereign States by the other States of the international system.

 

The law of nations (Jus gentium ) or public international law:

Established under the Treaties of Westphalia, this law governs the relations between the subjects of this legal system, which are States and international organizations.

A subject of international law must comply with this law and must be able to benefit from it. In the beginning, the State was the only subject of international law. But this concept became obsolete, because, after1815, the States found it necessary to join together in international organizations, gradually acquiring the status of legal subjects. Thus, the United Nations became, like the EU and other international organizations, subjects of derived law (generally referred to in American English as case law).

Introduction of the right of intervention in international relations:

Unfortunately, since the end of World War II, the increase in the number of treaties between States of the western world tended to suppress Westphalian principles by considerably developing their military, economic and financial interdependence.

At the end of the Cold War, the United States of America, an enormous consumer of energy and raw materials, desiring to extend its hegemony throughout the planet and to get energy and raw material at the lowest possible prices, noticed that the Westphalian ban on intervention in other States thwarted its designs.

The United States of America felt obliged to find a way to by-pass Paragraph 7 of Article 2 of the UN Charter, which stated:

“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State,” summing up the very Westphalian-sounding article 8 of the Agreement of Montevideo, which banned intervention in the internal affairs of a State.

Based on the ideas of persons such as the philosopher Jean-François Revel in 1979 and of Bernard Kouchner, a new “right” called the “right of intervention,” was concocted, i.e., the recognition of a right of one or more States to violate the sovereignty of another State, within the framework of a mandate granted by a supranational authority.

It was a wondrous invention which allowed:

–          to abolish Westphalian principles,

–          to add the notion of supranationality,

–          to intervene on the territory of any State even against the will of that State,

–          to establish world governance under the aegis of ad hoc international organizations,

–          to subjugate the weakest States to one or more stronger States,

–          to establish the hegemony of the US government.

The precious Westphalian principles were thereby overturned and the whole world returned essentially to the monstrous situation of the Thirty Years War.

The desired ad hoc international organization in the hands of United States of America was found, namely, the UN. All that was needed was the pretexts for war.

No problem:

– The US oligarchy rushes to the target State to be destabilized, a CIA team, which will increasingly include, or be supplanted by, a Soros foundation, USAID or the like, providing camouflage in the form of “private” intervention.

– This team, relying on existing opposition or opposition to be created from whole cloth in the current regime, develops a “National Liberation Front” or the equivalent thereof.

– It equips it with the necessary weapons and bolsters it with troops, usually drawn from the Islamic sphere of influence.

– Thanks to mass media under its control, it floods public opinion with information and images, often doctored, that overwhelm the government in power.

– All that remains is for the UN to pass a “resolution” allowing the armed forces of several States, mainly of the EU and the US, to come to the aid of the young “National Liberation Front” and oust the current regime.

This system worked very well for the interventions in Romania, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Darfur, Ivory Coast, Libya, Syria, Nigeria, Ukraine, etc., spreading war throughout the planet.

The right of the bankers replaces the right of the people :

Thanks to the “legality” of the UN ad hoc resolution, the armed forces deployed in the target State destroy a maximum of infrastructure, such as power plants, factories, bridges, roads, railways, airports, runways, and so on…

Thus, when the target State is “pacified,” American companies share in the juicy reconstruction contracts. The new leader of the regime, set up by the “liberators,” is very helpful in awarding these contracts to said companies. At that point, the target State, its population and resources are under the control of the US oligarchs.

These operations are managed behind the scenes by bankers, generally US bankers. The bankers finance both belligerent parties, enjoining the winner to honor the loser’s debts. They finance the military-industrial lobbies committed in the conflict and manage the process in such a way that it is drawn out as long as possible.

So, the bankers win every time!

The superiority of the right of the bankers over the right of the people was established in Europe by the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 by the introduction of a single currency, the “euro,” controlled by the European Central Bank, completely independently of the Member States’ governments under Article 108 of that treaty.

ARTICLE 108

 

When exercising the powers and carrying out the tasks and duties conferred upon them by this Treaty and the Statute of the ESCB, neither the ECB, nor a national central bank, nor any member of their decision-making bodies shall seek or take instructions from Community institutions or bodies, governments of the Member State or from any other body.”

All European treaties since then have reinforced those provisions, resulting in an impoverishment of populations subject to this single currency and complete submission to a new slavery for the benefit of bankers.

It is no longer states that control the banks, but the banks that control the states.

Evidence of this is on flagrant display throughout the world, notably in Cyprus where depositors were ruined by bankers with the support of the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission in Brussels and the Central Bank of the EU.

 

The objective of Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty, expressed below:

 

“Let me produce and control the issue of currency of a state, and I do not care who can make laws”

 

has been achieved!

Having succeeded in removing Westphalian principles from international law, the bankers rule the planet, start wars wherever and whenever they want and enslave the people of the world.

Conlusion:

The Westphalian system described herein clearly shows that whoever advocates it, in France or elsewhere, i.e., patriots and the sovereignists, are peace activists! They are the future of nations. That is why the banker-controlled mass media are bent on either contradicting them with outright lies, or silencing them.

To secure peace in the world, Wesphalian principles must be restored!

History in fact shows that, as long as these principles were respected, the world (ie, Europe initially and then throughout the world from the 19th century onward) experienced overall stability, but when they were abandoned by a State or group of States, horrific conflict occurred again.

Many historians believe that the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 was responsible for World War II by violating Westphalian principles, substituting a collective security.

That is why I urge all patriots and French sovereigntists, particularly French youth, to enter into Resistance.

I invite them to partner with the youth of Europe and the rest of the world to fight by all possible means to restore Westphalian principles everywhere based on respect for the inalienable sovereignty and independence of States.

There is not only an absolute necessity to recover their freedom, their way of life, the kind of society they want to live in to escape this new slavery, but also and above all, the need to preserve their property, their lives and those of their descendants, who are, as we can see today, physically threatened.

As for me, I remain at their disposal to help them while strength and breath shall last.

French patriots!

The wind of hope is rising! It is bringing back our France! It is bringing back our freedom!

Bernard CHALUMEAU

Translation by Bernard Chalumeau, translation editing by Don Hank

SACRED SOVEREIGNTY MUST BE RESTORED

SACRED SOVEREIGNTY MUST BE RESTORED

American conservatives and libertarians have always stressed the importance of the US Constitution as the ruling document in our government. Indeed sticking to the Constitution could restore government. Yet, government moves farther and farther from that document, and sometimes with the aid of unwitting conservatives.For example, we have often made the mistake of supporting presidents based on machismo and swag instead of on their insistence on respect for the sovereignty of other countries. Indeed, we have in the past praised presidents for their decisiveness in invading a country without the permission of Congress prescribed in Article 1, Section 1, foolishly thinking we can have it both ways.

We have also forgotten Section 10 of that Article, which gives Congress the power to print money. We’ve had over a century to forget that. It was back in 1913 that Congress, without constitutional authorization, gave a group of fast talking bankers that power and dubbed them the Federal Reserve. These people are no more legitimate than our foreign born and foreign raised White House resident. But force of habit accustoms unwary and lazy-brained people to accept the unacceptable. We cherry pick the Constitution, accepting the parts we like and discarding the rest. Many of the people who do this proudly call themselves ‘Patriots’ or even ‘sovereign citizens.’

Friends, all of these missteps have cost us not only our liberty but also our national sovereignty, and those are 2 equal but separate concepts. Americans have been brainwashed into forgetting sovereignty and focusing on personal liberty. We base our demands for liberty on the Constitution. Yet our government denies people outside the US their liberty on a routine basis, denying the concept of sovereignty. We have the gall to blame it on God, averring that He will protect us no matter how we misbehave because we are ‘exceptional.’ (Yet the Bible shows that God does not allow the disobedient to win wars. Joshua, the great general, lost one war because one of his soldiers took forbidden booty.)

Sovereignty is as important to a nation as the heart is to the body. And the borders are the skin of the nation, without which it would bleed to death.

The answer to these problems is complex, and part of the problem with sovereignty is that the word is not mentioned explicitly in our Constitution, which was written by men who took for granted that the US would always be sovereign because anyone seeking to eliminate national sovereignty would be considered a traitor and not be able to acquire power. But they were wrong.

Sovereignty is a 2 way street. A nation must not only defend its own sovereignty but also that of other nations. Otherwise, the rest of the world will eventually gang up on the nation that denies theirs.

Just as our Constitution laid the groundwork for our national government, the Treaty of Westphalia, signed in 1648, laid the groundwork for the modern concept of national sovereignty and the mutual respect of nations for each other’s sovereignty — a concept no more nor less revolutionary, or vital, in its sphere than our Constitution is in its.

Yet, like the Constitution, that remarkable Treaty seems to be lying around gathering dust.

However, if we read what international law specialist Bernard Chalumeau says in his translated article (click on his name or the link below), we can catch a glimpse of the importance of reviving the concept of national sovereignty, not only for our own country, but for every other country as well.

The EU, as pointed out by M. Chalumeau, was an attempt to suppress the sovereignty of all European nations — with disastrous effects both economically and socially. But that action to enslave was met with an equal and opposite reaction as the northern countries in Europe started to demand a return of their sovereignty and pro-sovereignty parties gained momentum. UKIP in the UK, PVV in Holland and Front National in France.

I  dream of a day when the concept of national sovereignty is revived and people of all nations reach out to each other in an effort to keep this concept alive and to reinforce their power. And in so doing, to diminish the power of the self-appointed Masters of the Universe. M. Chalumeau and I are committed to seeing that happen some day. We will lend our support to any group founded on the principle of national sovereignty.

So far, there is Free Nations in the UK and France Libre in France. America can and should be the linchpin. Like Europe, we are straining under the burden of unlimited immigration and all the problems of crime, drugs, disease and job loss that such entails, not to mention the disastrous loss of prestige associated with our haphazard military adventures that violate the sovereignty of other nations.

A political party based on the principle of sovereignty could resonate with patriotic Americans and kick off the movement, if only Americans could understand the vital importance of this little-used word ‘sovereignty.’

Please give the idea your thoughts and prayers.

Bernard Chalumeau’s article:

http://laiglesforum.com/sovereignty-back-to-westphalian-principles/3133.htm

Don Hank