Henry Kissinger on the Assembly of a New World Order

The Wall St. Journal ^ | 8/29/14 | Henry Kissinger

[x]

But put them in power and nothing will change. There will be no war with Russia over Ukraine for example just like there was no war with the Soviets when they shot down a Korean airliner when Reagan was president.

Did you really want war with Russia over that airline shoot-down?

[Mariner]

The question Kissinger posed also refers to deciding when uni and multi meet the interests of the USA.

He's certainly open to both, just thinks it's prudent to know in advance what our interests are. Align when it suits our interests, act independently when it doesn't.

[ronnie raygun]

I say we bury him with soros

[blueplum]

Kissinger views financial crises as caused by tension between multinational corporations and individual countries: a statist perspective. A conservative would view these crises as generated by government fiscal and monetary meddling in the economy.

For example, he sees the tribulations of the PIIGS as resulting from EU 'structural misdesign'. That is the perspective of a socialist who insists that "we'll get it right next time". The reality is that the EU adventure is a German and French exercise in self-interest and the PIIGS are collateral damage.

I agree the EU is a structural misdesign, but I don't think it's a socialist statement at all. It goes back to what is Europe and what is the EU to Europe? Is Europe the map boundries set out in the 1600's? Is it the 15 Christian nations with the shared common values and ideals of Winston Churchill? Or a group of democratic sub-sovereign nations with common goals for mutual defense with one-source diplomacy of Kissinger's liking? Is the EU, as some would dream, simply a free-for-all trade zone from the arctic to the antarctic regardless of commonality? Is it a welfare organization?

Are PIIGS 'collateral damage,' or are they just small nations that will always be impacted more by recessions because of their size? Do PIIGS members expect a common universal standard of living in addition to multilateral trade benefits offered by the EU?

Spain now draws US$420 million annually in support payments from the EU and the US. That's about what they received after WW2. Why? What's the mandate for continuous Marshall Plans? No doubt the Germans and French are careful of their pocketbooks.

Spain and Italy were isolated by the rest of Europe after WW2 because of their support for Hitler, who destroyed Greece. All three nations' were rebuilt into modern economies on an influx of post-war American millions. Italy was able to compensate for an internal blackmarket economy equal to 25% of its GDP and it's over-concentration of small (3.6 employee) businesses, Spain enjoyed an influx of sent-home remittances equal to 20% of their GDP, Greece found an industrial side and it's own remittence heaven. After the world recession hit in 08 the remitters returned home as unemployment pensioners - to an unprepared country. Wasn't 50 years of subsidized prosperity and absolute safety long enough to have planned for such an event and so ensure the future of the PIIGS? Especially after the warnings of the 70's oil crisis and the 90's recession? I don't think it's really fair to label PIIGS as 'collateral damage.'

[Praxeologue]

When Kissinger referred to the EU's 'structural misdesign', he adopted the conventional wisdom that the flaw was monetary union, without fiscal union. The latter is the Brussels technocrat's dream. The expansion of EU power, both in geography and scope has been, to an American conservative's eyes, a socialist endeavor. The other rationales put forward by Europhiles, such as "an end to war", are viewed as cover stories.

EU subsidies, while comparable in relative size to the short-term Marshall Plan, are a permanent fixture despite the contrary intent. These subsidies built and are building dependency, creating vassal states that serve as markets for the industrial core. When a severe recession hits, these states are brought to their knees, as you observe. The cost of debt restructuring to the core, public and private, is tolerable so long as the captive markets are retained: collateral damage. These vassal states are then criticized for being spendthrift and backward, though they implemented largely the same welfare state programs as the core. The core then promotes even tighter integration to create a more perfect union.

[Nextrush]

No, not really but there were wars like Korea and Vietnam that demanded more of the United States than its leaders like Truman and Johnson, among others, were willing to give.

Nixon ended up bombing the main harbor and transportation links around Hanoi and Haiphong (which should have happened in 1965) just to get the commies to sign a peace deal they never intended to keep anyway.