ISSUES,INSIGHTS AND COLOURFUL MOMENTS-FROM THE DESK OF AN ENGLISH AUTHOR.
STUFFING UNDESIRABLE FACTS UNDER THE CARPET
Some may feel that at this moment the world is looking into the abyss, a world of multi layered problems that seem to have no answers and end up pigeon holed for some other political agents to address at a later date – if there is a later date!
One of the real problems with unsettled questions is they tend to distort our view of the world. We take sides, expounding opinions that are full of angst and imagined adversity based on uncertain information. The Trump saga of Russiagate has been playing itself out for years with little sign of any conclusive argument, except that the ex-president had absolutely nothing to do with it!
The United States has form, having meddled in the political affairs of numerous countries – mostly in an effort to make them unstable. The Ukraine is one of them that just now is causing a bout of indigestion in Europe. It might pay to step back a little and consider one salient argument in these matters that have been given little traction in the western news media. I give you one new and, for better understanding, one old example to mull over.
BACKGROUND. With the collapse of the old Stalinist Soviet Union Ukraine became an autonomous region, and an independent state in 1991. Given that strong links still remained, Russia was able to obtain a lease for Crimea basing its fleet in the ports on the Black Sea. Fast forward to 2010 and the general election that placed Viktor Yanukovych as president. He, by all accounts, was not a particularly admirable person but he had been democratically elected and therefore should have been able to serve his term. His fault lay in the fact that he was pro-Russian, and on a question of aid, chose that of Russia instead of the EU. Not suiting the United States or the European union a coordinated coups ousted him from power which led to a civil war and the annexing of the Crimea which had become the refuge of ethnic Russian leaning Ukrainians. A referendum in the region produced over 90% support for a permanent connexion with Russia leading to the Crimea being duly annexed permanently by Russia and placed firmly within the Russian Federation.
As an argument it does not take much wit to realise that for Russia the loss of the Crimea would be a step too far in that the military importance to its Black Sea fleet was of some moment. It was never going to happen, and it can be argued that the United States and the European Union have exasperated the tension in the area along with considerable loss of life.
Therefore, as a possibility, the massing of Russian troops on the border may well be a signal to the Ukraine to accept the permanent loss of the Crimea and not a sign of imminent invasion. For the NATO alliance to be drum beating over the matter only seems to make the situation more parlous.
Another question that has been long overlooked, now seemingly so distant that its importance is no longer of any moment, goes back to the very origin of the European Union. Some may query the opinion that a philosophical and political master plan may in fact have been left in place unnoticed on purpose, one stemming from the very roots of what remains an unanswered question. I’m referring to the character and background of the first President of the European Commission. You may very well have difficulty recalling who that person was, and it’s true, I only came across him a decade ago, long after his death, whilst researching for details on Jean-Claude Juncker. The man was Walter Hallstein. Now, at the time I may have been tempted to pass over the reference except that I noted some entries may have been removed under data protection laws in Europe – notably rulings by the European Union Court of Justice. Nothing could be more suspicious.
What is so mysterious about Herr Hallstein that so much of his history has been pushed into obscurity? Why indeed did those founding members of the EU accept him as President being only recently the victims of a terrible war perpetrated by his nation? The question arises because, he apparently, was not an innocent by-stander in this matter.
BACKGROUND. A lawyer by occupation, Hallstein served as a lieutenant in the German army and was captured at the Battle of Cherbourg. If that was the sum of his life we might go no further in the matter, but the inconsistencies of a biographical cover up tempts us to look further. Wikipedia states that he was not a member of the Nazi Party, but this is hardly credible as no one who was not a member could have obtained officer rank in the military. Indeed a ‘protester’, as some have made out, would have likely been sent to prison as such persons were ruthlessly purged. There was no such thing as the ‘Silent opposition’ in Nazi Germany! Despite this, it is possible that Hallstein accepted the reality of German pre-war ideology to secure his own safety. But Hallstein was more than just a mere junior military officer sent to the front. He was in fact a German legal representative to the bi-national commission creating the legal basis for Germany and Italy’s European dictatorship. In 1939 he made a speech referring to a link-up between Austria, Germany and Czechoslovakia in the creation of a Greater German Reich. More tellingly he was also a leading figure in compiling the Nuremberg Race Laws – excluding Jews from Reich citizenship, and the marriage between Jewish women and German men.
Yet this was the man chosen for the Presidency of the European Commission and raises the question of who was actually pulling the strings in achieving such an unlikely promotion? If I tell you that Hallstein was shipped to the United States after his capture you may be able to make an educated guess! The point is, of course, does the influence of such a person in this formative position during the inception of the EU perhaps still linger on to this day?
All indeed food for thought. The Devil being in the detail.