# How did Europe become an American turf?

Bertrand M. Roehner

► To cite this version:

Bertrand M. Roehner. How did Europe become an American turf?. Université Pierre et Marie Curie. 131 p., 2015. [hal-04620156](https://hal.science/hal-04620156)

HAL Id: hal-04620156

https://hal.science/hal-04620156

Submitted on 21 Jun 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

Public Domain
# How did Europe become an American turf?

Bertrand M. Roehner

► To cite this version:

Bertrand M. Roehner. How did Europe become an American turf?. Université Pierre et Marie Curie. 131 p., 2015. [hal-04620156](https://hal.science/hal-04620156v1)

HAL Id: hal-04620156

https://hal.science/hal-04620156v1

Submitted on 21 Jun 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

Public Domain
# How did Europe become an American turf?

Bertrand M. Roehner, University of Paris 6 (UPMC: University Pierre and Marie Curie)

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Ramstein Air Base, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany (2014).</figcaption></figure>
# How did Europe become an American turf?

Bertrand M. Roehner, University of Paris 6 (UPMC: University Pierre and Marie Curie)

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Ramstein Air Base, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany (2014).</figcaption></figure>
The United States has conducted nation-building operations since 1898 and does so in a uniquely American way. After defeating Spain in Cuba and routing their forces from the Philippines, the United States began nation-building efforts to establish democratic governments that were representative of the populace.

—Colonel Jayne A. Carson, *Nation-building. The American way* (April 2003)

“We must contemplate an increase in the activity of the USIA [US Information Agency, created in 1953] and vastly increase exchange programs with the key population elements of the intelligentsia, the labor leaders and the newspaper leaders.”

—Vice-President Richard Nixon, *366th National Security Council* (22 May 1958)

“If the proposed student and other groups which we are to organize in Latin America go out and fight for pro-American causes, we must avoid giving any over-emphasis to our policy of trying to keep Latin America as a safe preserve for US private enterprise and US private investment. We must rather go along with the sentiments of the people [even though] this may sound like promoting socialism.[...]

We have been for some time promoting the development of a Common Market in Europe. Why could we not make a similar effort on behalf of a Common Market for Latin America?”

—George Allen, head of the USIA, *366th National Security Council* (22 May 1958)

There is a strong family resemblance about the misdeeds, and if you have all the details of a thousand at your finger ends, it is odd if you can't unravel the thousand and first.

—Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, *The Valley of Fear* (1915)
The United States has conducted nation-building operations since 1898 and does so in a uniquely American way. After defeating Spain in Cuba and routing their forces from the Philippines, the United States began nation-building efforts to establish democratic governments that were representative of the populace.

—Colonel Jayne A. Carson, *Nation-building. The American way* (April 2003)

“We must contemplate an increase in the activity of the USIA [US Information Agency, created in 1953] and vastly increase exchange programs with the key population elements of the intelligentsia, the labor leaders and the newspaper leaders.”

—Vice-President Richard Nixon, 366th National Security Council (22 May 1958)

“If the proposed student and other groups which we are to organize in Latin America go out and fight for pro-American causes, we must avoid giving any over-emphasis to our policy of trying to keep Latin America as a safe preserve for US private enterprise and US private investment. We must rather go along with the sentiments of the people [even though] this may sound like promoting socialism.[...]

We have been for some time promoting the development of a Common Market in Europe. Why could we not make a similar effort on behalf of a Common Market for Latin America?”

—George Allen, head of the USIA, 366th National Security Council (22 May 1958)

There is a strong family resemblance about the misdeeds, and if you have all the details of a thousand at your finger ends, it is odd if you can't unravel the thousand and first.

—Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, *The Valley of Fear* (1915)
# HOW DID EUROPE BECOME AN AMERICAN TURF?

Version of 26 December 2015. Comments are welcome.

Lecture given at Chuo University<fnref n="1" />, Tokyo on 12 November 2013

*In the title, “turf” is understood in its (mostly US) meaning of being an area claimed by a group as its own<fnref n="2" />. In other words, in political context, it is what is called a client state, a backyard or a sphere of influence.*

A distinctive characteristic of the present study is that it uses a comparative approach (in line with Roehner and Syme 2002). We do not wish to limit ourselves to just one country because we believe that comparisons bring with them a deeper understanding. For instance, the history of US “Civil Affairs” in France becomes clearer when compared with the cases of Denmark or Norway.

## Table of content

### Is Europe a satellite of the United States?

- Eastern satellite countries

- NATO

- Revealing episode

- Kill Program

- US torture program in Eastern Europe

- What historical model for the European Union?

### Forms of influence

- Overt domination or soft power

- Hidden cultural influence

- Hidden political influence

### Four methods for gaining influence

- Method 1: Filling a power vacuum

- Method 2: Developing means of cultural influence

- Method 3: Funding non-governmental organisations

- Method 4: Gaining influence through “cooperation”

- Military cooperation

- The Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission

<footnote n="1">¹In the months following the lecture several of the points considered in this paper were developed further.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²As for instance in the sentence: “The real turf war between the Department of State and the Department of Defense has just begun.” (November 2009). As a French translation of the title one may propose: “L’américanisation de l’Europe. Comment est-elle devenue un satellite des Etats-Unis?”</footnote>
# HOW DID EUROPE BECOME AN AMERICAN TURF?

Version of 26 December 2015. Comments are welcome.

Lecture given at Chuo University<fnref n="1" />, Tokyo on 12 November 2013

*In the title, “turf” is understood in its (mostly US) meaning of being an area claimed by a group as its own<fnref n="2" />. In other words, in political context, it is what is called a client state, a backyard or a sphere of influence.*

A distinctive characteristic of the present study is that it uses a comparative approach (in line with Roehner and Syme 2002). We do not wish to limit ourselves to just one country because we believe that comparisons bring with them a deeper understanding. For instance, the history of US “Civil Affairs” in France becomes clearer when compared with the cases of Denmark or Norway.

## Table of content

### Is Europe a satellite of the United States?

- Eastern satellite countries

- NATO

- Revealing episode

- Kill Program

- US torture program in Eastern Europe

- What historical model for the European Union?

### Forms of influence

- Overt domination or soft power

- Hidden cultural influence

- Hidden political influence

### Four methods for gaining influence

- Method 1: Filling a power vacuum

- Method 2: Developing means of cultural influence

- Method 3: Funding non-governmental organisations

- Method 4: Gaining influence through “cooperation”

- Military cooperation

- The Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission

<footnote n="1">¹In the months following the lecture several of the points considered in this paper were developed further.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²As for instance in the sentence: “The real turf war between the Department of State and the Department of Defense has just begun.” (November 2009). As a French translation of the title one may propose: “L’américanisation de l’Europe. Comment est-elle devenue un satellite des Etats-Unis?”</footnote>
Spreading American football in China

Ultimate goal: the worldwide domination of US companies

The case of Monsanto

Foreign executives sentenced and jailed in the US

Defeated countries in historical perspective

Conditional versus unconditional surrender

The conditional surrenders of 1871 and 1918

The unconditional surrenders of 1945

Postwar manipulation of vanquished countries

Luxembourg and its radio station

Liberation

British and US influence after 1945

Impact of Radio Luxembourg on Communist Poland

Armed Forces Network (AFN)

Countries where there are US bases

Countries without US base: example of Taiwan

The liberation of Denmark

Why Denmark?

Civil affairs directives for Denmark

Causes of friction with the United States

Occupation episodes and NATO

Founding members of NATO

Command structure of NATO

Expansion of NATO

AMGOT, AMG, Civil Affairs Division, G-5 and MAAG

Terminology

Crucial issues in civil affairs plans

Outline of the activities of Civil Affairs Divisions

Example of France

Multiple facets of the activity of Civil Affairs

Resistance to foreign influence

US opinion about sovereignty concerns

Iceland

Italy

South Korea

France
# Spreading American football in China

## Ultimate goal: the worldwide domination of US companies

### The case of Monsanto

### Foreign executives sentenced and jailed in the US

## Defeated countries in historical perspective

### Conditional versus unconditional surrender

### The conditional surrenders of 1871 and 1918

### The unconditional surrenders of 1945

### Postwar manipulation of vanquished countries

## Luxembourg and its radio station

### Liberation

### British and US influence after 1945

### Impact of Radio Luxembourg on Communist Poland

## Armed Forces Network (AFN)

### Countries where there are US bases

### Countries without US base: example of Taiwan

## The liberation of Denmark

### Why Denmark?

### Civil affairs directives for Denmark

### Causes of friction with the United States

## Occupation episodes and NATO

### Founding members of NATO

### Command structure of NATO

### Expansion of NATO

## AMGOT, AMG, Civil Affairs Division, G-5 and MAAG

### Terminology

### Crucial issues in civil affairs plans

## Outline of the activities of Civil Affairs Divisions

### Example of France

### Multiple facets of the activity of Civil Affairs

## Resistance to foreign influence

### US opinion about sovereignty concerns

### Iceland

### Italy

### South Korea

### France
The case of France

Charles de Gaulle

Jean Monnet

The key issue of national sovereignty

Chronology of the Civil Affairs dispute in the case of France (1942-1946)

Chronology of the liberation of Denmark

Chronology of the liberation of Norway

Why did the US promote European unification (1945-1960)?

Role of the United States in European unification?

Adverse side effects of an assertive Europe

*Divide et imperia*

The EDC: a failed vassalization attempt (1950-1954)

Outline

Chronology (1949-1955)

A test-experiment: is the US in favor or against the euro?

Looking beyond official statements

US vision of a United Europe

The case of the European Free Trade Association promoted by the UK

Amero or dollarization

The road to the euro paved with failures and delays

Crisis of 2005: Roberto Maroni

Crisis of 2010-2013

The case of the Baltic countries as seen by the New York Times Conclusion

Was Jean Monnet a spokesman of US interests?

Monnet's role in Algiers in early 1943

Monnet's support for the European Defense Community

Monnet's support for the Euratom project

Appendix A: The American Forces Network (AFN)

Appendix B: American Football leagues in Europe and Asia

Europe

Asia

Appendix C: Baseball leagues in Europe and Asia

References
The case of France

Charles de Gaulle

Jean Monnet

The key issue of national sovereignty

Chronology of the Civil Affairs dispute in the case of France (1942-1946)

Chronology of the liberation of Denmark

Chronology of the liberation of Norway

Why did the US promote European unification (1945-1960)?

Role of the United States in European unification?

Adverse side effects of an assertive Europe

*Divide et imperia*

The EDC: a failed vassalization attempt (1950-1954)

Outline

Chronology (1949-1955)

A test-experiment: is the US in favor or against the euro?

Looking beyond official statements

US vision of a United Europe

The case of the European Free Trade Association promoted by the UK

Amero or dollarization

The road to the euro paved with failures and delays

Crisis of 2005: Roberto Maroni

Crisis of 2010-2013

The case of the Baltic countries as seen by the New York Times Conclusion

Was Jean Monnet a spokesman of US interests?

Monnet's role in Algiers in early 1943

Monnet's support for the European Defense Community

Monnet's support for the Euratom project

Appendix A: The American Forces Network (AFN)

Appendix B: American Football leagues in Europe and Asia

Europe

Asia

Appendix C: Baseball leagues in Europe and Asia

References
# Is Europe a satellite of the United States?

## East European satellite countries

Before 1990, East European countries were commonly referred to as being satellite countries of the Soviet Union. In this case the story seemed fairly clear. The USSR took advantage of its post-war military occupation of these countries to impose the political domination of the Communist party. Although this was probably a crude schematizing in the sense that after the war the Communist party also became the leading party in countries such as France and Italy which were occupied by American troops, the suppression of popular movements by Soviet troops first in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968 provided conclusive proof of the subordinate status of these countries.

On the contrary, west European countries which after the war were occupied by American and British troops were never referred to (except perhaps in Communist media) as being satellite countries of the United States. In addition, it would be reasonable to expect that through the creation of the European Union, Europe was able to strengthen its political independence. Yet, as will be shown below, this did not happen. On the contrary, in 2013 the European countries were more subordinate to the United States politically, militarily and culturally than they were in 1960. How can one explain such a paradox?

One important part of the explanation is that US influence was applied through fairly hidden channels. This kind of influence often called *soft power influence* turned out to be very effective nevertheless. In contrast, the fact that in 1990 all East European countries (and even some former nations belonging to the USSR) severed their links with Russia and eventually joined NATO shows that the methods used by the Soviet Union in order to maintain influence were quite ineffective and definitely no match for soft power methods.

The success of the United States in developing soft power methods is impressive not only with respect to the Eastern Bloc but also compared with the record of France or Great Britain in their former colonies. For instance, whereas US influence over the Philippines was maintained ever since the country became independent in July 1946, French political influence over its former colony and protectorates of North Africa, namely Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, collapsed almost immediately after these countries gained independence<fnref n="3" />.

<footnote n="3">³The only noticeable US failure was Cuba which until 1959 was a *de facto* US colony. In this respect one may remember that Cuba declared war on Germany and Italy on December 11, 1941 that is to say, 3 days after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Moreover, all Japanese living in Cuba (there were a few hundreds) were arrested and jailed even earlier than those in the United States.</footnote>
# Is Europe a satellite of the United States?

## East European satellite countries

Before 1990, East European countries were commonly referred to as being satellite countries of the Soviet Union. In this case the story seemed fairly clear. The USSR took advantage of its post-war military occupation of these countries to impose the political domination of the Communist party. Although this was probably a crude schematizing in the sense that after the war the Communist party also became the leading party in countries such as France and Italy which were occupied by American troops, the suppression of popular movements by Soviet troops first in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968 provided conclusive proof of the subordinate status of these countries.

On the contrary, west European countries which after the war were occupied by American and British troops were never referred to (except perhaps in Communist media) as being satellite countries of the United States. In addition, it would be reasonable to expect that through the creation of the European Union, Europe was able to strengthen its political independence. Yet, as will be shown below, this did not happen. On the contrary, in 2013 the European countries were more subordinate to the United States politically, militarily and culturally than they were in 1960. How can one explain such a paradox?

One important part of the explanation is that US influence was applied through fairly hidden channels. This kind of influence often called *soft power influence* turned out to be very effective nevertheless. In contrast, the fact that in 1990 all East European countries (and even some former nations belonging to the USSR) severed their links with Russia and eventually joined NATO shows that the methods used by the Soviet Union in order to maintain influence were quite ineffective and definitely no match for soft power methods.

The success of the United States in developing soft power methods is impressive not only with respect to the Eastern Bloc but also compared with the record of France or Great Britain in their former colonies. For instance, whereas US influence over the Philippines was maintained ever since the country became independent in July 1946, French political influence over its former colony and protectorates of North Africa, namely Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, collapsed almost immediately after these countries gained independence<fnref n="3" />.

<footnote n="3">³The only noticeable US failure was Cuba which until 1959 was a *de facto* US colony. In this respect one may remember that Cuba declared war on Germany and Italy on December 11, 1941 that is to say, 3 days after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Moreover, all Japanese living in Cuba (there were a few hundreds) were arrested and jailed even earlier than those in the United States.</footnote>
What are these soft power methods and how do they work? This will be the main issue addressed in this study. It will be seen that an appropriate answer leads us back to the Second World War and its aftermath.

But first of all, let us briefly assess the extent of US influence over Europe.

The fact that over the past decades US influence has been thriving can be illustrated by the following observations.

## NATO

As we will see later, NATO is a military organization that is completely dominated by the United States in the sense that the Commanding officer is always a 4-star US general appointed by the president of the United States.

The “Washington Treaty” which marked the beginning of NATO was signed in March 1949 but the same design was already contained in the “Five-Nation Treaty” signed in Brussels in March 1948 which was a military alliance between Belgium, Britain, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

The founding members of NATO were the following countries: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom. All these countries were occupied (partially or totally) by US troops during or after the Second World War<fnref n="4" />.

On the contrary, if we consider countries which were not occupied by US troops such as Finland, Ireland, Spain or Sweden none of them were among the founding members of NATO.

NATO was founded in 1949, and although Korea was outside of the zone covered by this alliance, 8 NATO countries took part in the Korean War on the side and under the command of the United States. Although nowadays NATO's initial Cold War mission no longer exists, by 2013, NATO has swollen to 28 countries plus a number of partner countries.

The wars which took place since 1945 also suggest that the influence of the United States has increased rather than decreased. Some 19 nations took part in the Korean war on the side of South Korea and under US Command. Yet, only the closest US allies (Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Thailand) sent troops to take part in the Vietnam War. This contrasts with the over 50 countries which sent troops to take part in the war in Afghanistan which started in 2001.

## General de Gaulle's 1958 pledge regarding NATO

<footnote n="4">⁴In this statement we include of course also the cases of peaceful occupations such as the occupation of Newfoundland, Greenland, Iceland, the Azores Islands. Whereas in some of these cases the occupation took place with the agreement of the legal government in the case of Greenland and Iceland it was done against the will of the Danish government.</footnote>
What are these soft power methods and how do they work? This will be the main issue addressed in this study. It will be seen that an appropriate answer leads us back to the Second World War and its aftermath.

But first of all, let us briefly assess the extent of US influence over Europe.

The fact that over the past decades US influence has been thriving can be illustrated by the following observations.

## NATO

As we will see later, NATO is a military organization that is completely dominated by the United States in the sense that the Commanding officer is always a 4-star US general appointed by the president of the United States.

The “Washington Treaty” which marked the beginning of NATO was signed in March 1949 but the same design was already contained in the “Five-Nation Treaty” signed in Brussels in March 1948 which was a military alliance between Belgium, Britain, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

The founding members of NATO were the following countries: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom. All these countries were occupied (partially or totally) by US troops during or after the Second World War<fnref n="4" />.

On the contrary, if we consider countries which were not occupied by US troops such as Finland, Ireland, Spain or Sweden none of them were among the founding members of NATO.

NATO was founded in 1949, and although Korea was outside of the zone covered by this alliance, 8 NATO countries took part in the Korean War on the side and under the command of the United States. Although nowadays NATO's initial Cold War mission no longer exists, by 2013, NATO has swollen to 28 countries plus a number of partner countries.

The wars which took place since 1945 also suggest that the influence of the United States has increased rather than decreased. Some 19 nations took part in the Korean war on the side of South Korea and under US Command. Yet, only the closest US allies (Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Thailand) sent troops to take part in the Vietnam War. This contrasts with the over 50 countries which sent troops to take part in the war in Afghanistan which started in 2001.

## General de Gaulle's 1958 pledge regarding NATO

<footnote n="4">⁴In this statement we include of course also the cases of peaceful occupations such as the occupation of Newfoundland, Greenland, Iceland, the Azores Islands. Whereas in some of these cases the occupation took place with the agreement of the legal government in the case of Greenland and Iceland it was done against the will of the Danish government.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1a Map of NATO countries in the 1950s during the Cold War.**</figcaption></figure>

*Source: Wikipedia*

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1b Map of NATO countries in February 2012.**</figcaption></figure>

*Light blue: membership planned. Yellow: partnership planned. Orange: partnership for peace.*

*Source: Wikipedia*

General de Gaulle came back to power in late May 1958. Remembering from the war years that he would not be a pliable partner, the US State Department was at first very opposed to its coming back to power. As always, this position was well reflected in the New York Times. An article published on 15 May 1958 says:

> The possibility of an attempt by General Charles de Gaulle to return to power caused apprehension in the State Department. The United States is apprehensive but thinks de Gaulle will not succeed.

Four days later, the same journal reported:

> The United States military officials, deeply concerned over the developments in France, are reconsidering proposals to relocate important European military
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1a Map of NATO countries in the 1950s during the Cold War.</figcaption></figure>

Source: Wikipedia

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1b Map of NATO countries in February 2012.</figcaption></figure>

Light blue: membership planned. Yellow: partnership planned. Orange: partnership for peace.

Source: Wikipedia

General de Gaulle came back to power in late May 1958. Remembering from the war years that he would not be a pliable partner, the US State Department was at first very opposed to its coming back to power. As always, this position was well reflected in the New York Times. An article published on 15 May 1958 says:

> The possibility of an attempt by General Charles de Gaulle to return to power caused apprehension in the State Department. The United States is apprehensive but thinks de Gaulle will not succeed.

Four days later, the same journal reported:

> The United States military officials, deeply concerned over the developments in France, are reconsidering proposals to relocate important European military
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 1c** Even after the end of the Cold War American hydrogen bombs continue to be stored on US bases in several NATO countries. In September 2015 the Russian Foreign Ministry charged that the US was upgrading B-61 nuclear bombs (such as those shown in the picture) stored in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey. In official statements such bombs are referred to as “special weapons”. The place shown in this picture provided by the “Federation of American Scientists” is (supposedly) at the “Nellis Air Force Base” in Nevada. Sources: http://www.military.com and *Federation of American Scientists*.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 1d** US interest in European unification. The numbers of occurrences of the expression “European Union” in the New York Times suggest that the climax of US interest in European unification was in 1948-1949. Nonetheless, the European Economic Community (which eventually led to the EU) started only in 1957. The fact that the Five-Nation Treaty was a blue print for NATO can be seen from the fact that the wording of its main article (Article V) is almost identical to Article IV of the Washington Treaty through which NATO was created. Sources: *Search engine of the New York Times*; *Wikipedia*

installations. (NYT May 19, 1958, p. 1)

This was probably a way to put some pressure on the French military.

However, the most important event was not revealed in the New York Times. It is
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 1c** Even after the end of the Cold War American hydrogen bombs continue to be stored on US bases in several NATO countries. In September 2015 the Russian Foreign Ministry charged that the US was upgrading B-61 nuclear bombs (such as those shown in the picture) stored in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey. In official statements such bombs are referred to as “special weapons”. The place shown in this picture provided by the “Federation of American Scientists” is (supposedly) at the “Nellis Air Force Base” in Nevada. Sources: http://www.military.com and Federation of American Scientists.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 1d** US interest in European unification. The numbers of occurrences of the expression “European Union” in the New York Times suggest that the climax of US interest in European unification was in 1948-1949. Nonetheless, the European Economic Community (which eventually led to the EU) started only in 1957. The fact that the Five-Nation Treaty was a blue print for NATO can be seen from the fact that the wording of its main article (Article V) is almost identical to Article IV of the Washington Treaty through which NATO was created. Sources: Search engine of the New York Times; Wikipedia

installations. (NYT May 19, 1958, p. 1)

This was probably a way to put some pressure on the French military.

However, the most important event was not revealed in the New York Times. It is
the fact that General de Gaulle found it necessary to make a pledge about keeping France within NATO. This is what can be learned from the following account given by the US Embassy in Paris.

On 21 May 1958 Mr. Henri Tournet, an aide of General de Gaulle, accompanied by Colonel Sternberg, Executive Officer of MAAG in France, visited the US Embassy. He gave guarantees regarding de Gaulle's position on NATO that allowed the embassy to write to the State Department (on 1 June) "We have been assured from so many sources that De Gaulle will continue the policy of supporting NATO". (FRUS, 1958-1960, France)

Indeed, that is what he did during his first term. France left NATO only 7 years later during the second term of President de Gaulle.

## NATO used as a Trojan horse of US influence

After World War II, in the face of the threat (real or supposed) of a Soviet invasion, almost all West European countries were dependent on the United States for their defense. The following episode illustrates how this lever could be used. In January 1946, after the resignation of General de Gaulle, the formation of a Socialo-Communist coalition government was contemplated in France. During a crucial party meeting an urgent letter was delivered by a motorcyclist. It was written by General Billotte, the deputy Chief of Staff and explained that "a Sociolo-Communist government would be seen as a threat by our Allies; as a result they may consider reducing their commitment to guaranty our security" (Demory 1995). Eventually, a coalition government was formed which, apart from the Socialist and Communist parties, also comprised the Christian Democratic Party (MRP). Probably we will never know what had been the real influence of General Billotte's letter.

Although the previous episode took place before NATO was established, it reflects fairly well the kind of pressure that NATO members may experience. For instance, the US State Department may have to give its green light for the appointment of the ministers of defense or the heads of intelligence in NATO members. Of course, this will not be done openly, but the State Department may express its concern if someone is appointed who is on his "black list".

## A revealing episode

An episode that occurred in early July 2013 revealed some of the hidden channels of influence of the United States on European countries. First of all it can be observed that while Edgar Snowden, a former National Security Agency officer, was still in Hong Kong trying to find a country willing to offer him political asylum none of the European countries came forward with a proposal. The only countries which considered offering asylum to Snowden were Latin American countries.
the fact that General de Gaulle found it necessary to make a pledge about keeping France within NATO. This is what can be learned from the following account given by the US Embassy in Paris.

On 21 May 1958 Mr. Henri Tournet, an aide of General de Gaulle, accompanied by Colonel Sternberg, Executive Officer of MAAG in France, visited the US Embassy. He gave guarantees regarding de Gaulle's position on NATO that allowed the embassy to write to the State Department (on 1 June) "We have been assured from so many sources that De Gaulle will continue the policy of supporting NATO". (FRUS, 1958-1960, France)

Indeed, that is what he did during his first term. France left NATO only 7 years later during the second term of President de Gaulle.

## NATO used as a Trojan horse of US influence

After World War II, in the face of the threat (real or supposed) of a Soviet invasion, almost all West European countries were dependent on the United States for their defense. The following episode illustrates how this lever could be used. In January 1946, after the resignation of General de Gaulle, the formation of a Socialo-Communist coalition government was contemplated in France. During a crucial party meeting an urgent letter was delivered by a motorcyclist. It was written by General Billotte, the deputy Chief of Staff and explained that "a Sociolo-Communist government would be seen as a threat by our Allies; as a result they may consider reducing their commitment to guaranty our security" (Demory 1995). Eventually, a coalition government was formed which, apart from the Socialist and Communist parties, also comprised the Christian Democratic Party (MRP). Probably we will never know what had been the real influence of General Billotte's letter.

Although the previous episode took place before NATO was established, it reflects fairly well the kind of pressure that NATO members may experience. For instance, the US State Department may have to give its green light for the appointment of the ministers of defense or the heads of intelligence in NATO members. Of course, this will not be done openly, but the State Department may express its concern if someone is appointed who is on his "black list".

## A revealing episode

An episode that occurred in early July 2013 revealed some of the hidden channels of influence of the United States on European countries. First of all it can be observed that while Edgar Snowden, a former National Security Agency officer, was still in Hong Kong trying to find a country willing to offer him political asylum none of the European countries came forward with a proposal. The only countries which considered offering asylum to Snowden were Latin American countries.
Then, on 3 July while Snowden was a refugee in the international zone of the Moscow airport and still trying to get an offer of political asylum, a rumor spread according to which he may be on board the aircraft of president of Bolivia Evo Morales who was flying back to Bolivia after attending a conference in Moscow. When the aircraft approached the French border the pilot was informed that France, Italy, Spain and Portugal had closed their airspace to the aircraft<fnref n="5" />. Being too short on fuel to fly to Bolivia without flying over these countries, the aircraft landed in Vienna. There, the Austrian police came on board, checked the identity of the 5 crew members and of the 6 people accompanying President Morales and searched the plane. Then the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement saying that Snowden was not on board<fnref n="6" />. This was of course a gross violation of diplomatic rules and it raised a wave of indignation in Latin America.

Clearly in that affair the European countries were not defending any proper national interest. Quite on the contrary, they should have seen Snowden as being on their side as shown by revelations made subsequently. For instance in November 2013 it became known that the cell phones of most European leaders (including German Chancellor Angela Merkel) had been spied upon by the NSA. Thus, there can be little doubt that it is US pressure which was at work in this incident <fnref n="7" />. The State Department recognized that pressure was applied on some Latin American countries. For instance, economic countermeasures had been threatened on Ecuador if the country offered Snowden asylum.

This incident can be contrasted with another one which occurred in April 1986. After the bombing of a nightclub in Berlin which killed two GIs and for which Libya was held responsible president Ronald Reagan ordered retaliatory air strikes on Tripoli and Benghazi ten days later without clearance of the UN Security Council. For this raid, the United States was denied overflight rights by France, Italy and Spain (as well as the use of European continental bases), forcing the aircraft to fly around France and Spain, over Portugal. The strike killed some 15 Libyan civilians, including Qaddafi's adopted 15-month old daughter. The French embassy in Tripoli was also hit. On 20 November 1986, the attack was condemned in a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly.

<footnote n="5">⁵Later on, France and Spain provided embarrassed explanations according to which they did not know that President Morales was on board and that they granted permission as soon as they knew. However, what happened in Vienna was an even clearer demonstration.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23158242
http://www.österreich.at/nachrichten/Boliviens-Praesident-Morales-in-Wien-zur-Landung-gezwungen-FOTO/109035185.</footnote>

<footnote>The Internet provides very little precise information on what happened in Vienna. It is said that President Morales accepted that the plane be searched by the police but we do not know for what compelling reason he did so while at the same disapproving such a procedure.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷An interesting point would be to learn through what channels US “orders” were sent.</footnote>
Then, on 3 July while Snowden was a refugee in the international zone of the Moscow airport and still trying to get an offer of political asylum, a rumor spread according to which he may be on board the aircraft of president of Bolivia Evo Morales who was flying back to Bolivia after attending a conference in Moscow. When the aircraft approached the French border the pilot was informed that France, Italy, Spain and Portugal had closed their airspace to the aircraft<fnref n="5" />. Being too short on fuel to fly to Bolivia without flying over these countries, the aircraft landed in Vienna. There, the Austrian police came on board, checked the identity of the 5 crew members and of the 6 people accompanying President Morales and searched the plane. Then the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement saying that Snowden was not on board<fnref n="6" />. This was of course a gross violation of diplomatic rules and it raised a wave of indignation in Latin America.

Clearly in that affair the European countries were not defending any proper national interest. Quite on the contrary, they should have seen Snowden as being on their side as shown by revelations made subsequently. For instance in November 2013 it became known that the cell phones of most European leaders (including German Chancellor Angela Merkel) had been spied upon by the NSA. Thus, there can be little doubt that it is US pressure which was at work in this incident <fnref n="7" />. The State Department recognized that pressure was applied on some Latin American countries. For instance, economic countermeasures had been threatened on Ecuador if the country offered Snowden asylum.

This incident can be contrasted with another one which occurred in April 1986. After the bombing of a nightclub in Berlin which killed two GIs and for which Libya was held responsible president Ronald Reagan ordered retaliatory air strikes on Tripoli and Benghazi ten days later without clearance of the UN Security Council. For this raid, the United States was denied overflight rights by France, Italy and Spain (as well as the use of European continental bases), forcing the aircraft to fly around France and Spain, over Portugal. The strike killed some 15 Libyan civilians, including Qaddafi's adopted 15-month old daughter. The French embassy in Tripoli was also hit. On 20 November 1986, the attack was condemned in a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly.

<footnote n="5">⁵Later on, France and Spain provided embarrassed explanations according to which they did not know that President Morales was on board and that they granted permission as soon as they knew. However, what happened in Vienna was an even clearer demonstration.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23158242
http://www.österreich.at/nachrichten/Boliviens-Praesident-Morales-in-Wien-zur-Landung-gezwungen-FOTO/109035185.</footnote>

<footnote>The Internet provides very little precise information on what happened in Vienna. It is said that President Morales accepted that the plane be searched by the police but we do not know for what compelling reason he did so while at the same disapproving such a procedure.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷An interesting point would be to learn through what channels US “orders” were sent.</footnote>
Below we examine three common methods through which a country can increase its influence over others. But first of all it can be useful to get a clearer idea of the objectives that these methods should achieve.

## The Kill Program

Another revealing fact is the Kill Program. Implemented by the United States through a panel of the “National Security Council”, it can be described in the following terms (Wikipedia article entitled “United States National Security Council”):

> A secret “National Security Council” panel may pursue the killing of an individual who has been called a suspected terrorist. In this case, no public record of this decision will be made available. No laws govern criteria for killing such suspects. It is unknown who has been placed on the kill list.

One would expect that a program set up officially (albeit secretly as far as actual decisions are concerned) by a government in order to kill its ennemies in foreign countries would raise some concern among people who care about human rights or among governments willing to protect themselves against such intrusions. May be it had, but one must recognize that very little was heard about any protestsqfootA-mong the small number of protests one can mention an opinion-paper by former president Jimmy Carter (New York Times 24 June 2012) entitled “A Cruel and unusual record”. It opens with the following sentence: “Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated abroad, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation’s violation of human rights has extended”. . Is the fact that all major world media kept (and still keep as of 1 January 2014) a low profile about this program not revealing of their state of submissiveness? Killings of people through drones are presented as acts of war, never as what they really are<fnref n="8" /> namely cold blood assassinations. The opposite situation in which a state would kill allies and friends of the United States would certainly trigger a strong response.

Incidentally, it can be observed that, despite its interest, the main Wikipedia article about this program (which goes under the sanitized sybilline title of “Disposition matrix”) has not been translated from English into any other language. Surprising, isn’t it?

This program was started before President Obama came to power but it was vigorously developed during his first term. The fact that the Nobel Peace prize has been awarded by the Norwegian Parliament to the head of a government which maintains such a program also raises some questions.

<footnote n="8">⁸For indeed there is no declared state of war between the United States and the relevant countries.</footnote>
Below we examine three common methods through which a country can increase its influence over others. But first of all it can be useful to get a clearer idea of the objectives that these methods should achieve.

## The Kill Program

Another revealing fact is the Kill Program. Implemented by the United States through a panel of the “National Security Council”, it can be described in the following terms (Wikipedia article entitled “United States National Security Council”):

> A secret “National Security Council” panel may pursue the killing of an individual who has been called a suspected terrorist. In this case, no public record of this decision will be made available. No laws govern criteria for killing such suspects. It is unknown who has been placed on the kill list.

One would expect that a program set up officially (albeit secretly as far as actual decisions are concerned) by a government in order to kill its ennemies in foreign countries would raise some concern among people who care about human rights or among governments willing to protect themselves against such intrusions. May be it had, but one must recognize that very little was heard about any protestsqfootA-mong the small number of protests one can mention an opinion-paper by former president Jimmy Carter (New York Times 24 June 2012) entitled “A Cruel and unusual record”. It opens with the following sentence: “Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated abroad, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation’s violation of human rights has extended”. . Is the fact that all major world media kept (and still keep as of 1 January 2014) a low profile about this program not revealing of their state of submissiveness? Killings of people through drones are presented as acts of war, never as what they really are<fnref n="8" /> namely cold blood assassinations. The opposite situation in which a state would kill allies and friends of the United States would certainly trigger a strong response.

Incidentally, it can be observed that, despite its interest, the main Wikipedia article about this program (which goes under the sanitized sybilline title of “Disposition matrix”) has not been translated from English into any other language. Surprising, isn’t it?

This program was started before President Obama came to power but it was vigorously developed during his first term. The fact that the Nobel Peace prize has been awarded by the Norwegian Parliament to the head of a government which maintains such a program also raises some questions.

<footnote n="8">⁸For indeed there is no declared state of war between the United States and the relevant countries.</footnote>
It is always enlightening to put things into a broader perspective. During the second half of the 19th century Great Britain was the major world power. Not surprisingly, it was also confronted to the activities of “terrorists” particularly in Ireland and India (this reminds us of the fact that there is no clear difference between freedom fighters and terrorists). Were there also assassination lists? It would be interesting to learn more on this point.

## US torture program in Eastern Europe

As an introduction to this episode one can read the following excerpt from an article of the New York Times of 22 December 2009⁹.

The prime minister of Lithuania, Andrius Kubilius [Prime Minister from December 2008 to December 2012], accused the United States of using “Soviet methods” to set up two secret prisons in Lithuania for terrorism suspects. He said the United States had reached what he contended were clandestine and illegal arrangements with the Lithuanian secret services for prisons that were outside civilian control. Arvydas Anusauskas, chairman of the national security committee, said state security officials “received requests from the CIA to establish detention facilities.” Five planes that apparently transported people to Lithuania were never inspected by civilian officials.

Mr. Kubilius did note that “Lithuania is a strategic United States ally, and cooperation in many fields, including secret operations and counterterrorism, is very important.” But he said it was “deeply worrying” that security officials established the prisons without oversight from senior civilian officials.

The scandal over the secret prisons has shaken Lithuania's political system and the intelligence chief has already resigned.

It can be observed that, according to this article, the Prime Minister gave very little information about these black centers: no dates, no location, no data about the number of prisoners. However, he clearly recognized the existence of the torture centers<fnref n="10" />.

It is interesting to understand how this story came to light. The first steps can be summarized as follows.

1 April 2005: Article (in French) by Stephen Grey in the newspaper “Le Monde Diplomatique”. It was entitled: “The United States invent the delocalisation of tor-

<footnote n="9">⁹In fact, the story about a black center in Vilnius was revealed at the end of August 2009 by Dick Marty, the investigator for the European Council. His declaration of 21 August 2009 is reported in the Wikipedia article (in French) on this topic.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰The English Wikipedia article on this topic is entitled “Black site”. In its introduction, it says that “not one [European] country has confirmed that it is [or was] hosting black sites”. Obviously, this statement is not correct. The rest of the article tries to give the impression that the existence of these centers was first revealed by US media. Such a claim is in line with US reaction in such cases, e.g. My Lai massacre or Abu Graib, Most often, however, such claims are not correct.</footnote>
It is always enlightening to put things into a broader perspective. During the second half of the 19th century Great Britain was the major world power. Not surprisingly, it was also confronted to the activities of “terrorists” particularly in Ireland and India (this reminds us of the fact that there is no clear difference between freedom fighters and terrorists). Were there also assassination lists? It would be interesting to learn more on this point.

## US torture program in Eastern Europe

As an introduction to this episode one can read the following excerpt from an article of the New York Times of 22 December 2009⁹.

The prime minister of Lithuania, Andrius Kubilius [Prime Minister from December 2008 to December 2012], accused the United States of using “Soviet methods” to set up two secret prisons in Lithuania for terrorism suspects. He said the United States had reached what he contended were clandestine and illegal arrangements with the Lithuanian secret services for prisons that were outside civilian control. Arvydas Anusauskas, chairman of the national security committee, said state security officials “received requests from the CIA to establish detention facilities.” Five planes that apparently transported people to Lithuania were never inspected by civilian officials.

Mr. Kubilius did note that “Lithuania is a strategic United States ally, and cooperation in many fields, including secret operations and counterterrorism, is very important.” But he said it was “deeply worrying” that security officials established the prisons without oversight from senior civilian officials.

The scandal over the secret prisons has shaken Lithuania's political system and the intelligence chief has already resigned.

It can be observed that, according to this article, the Prime Minister gave very little information about these black centers: no dates, no location, no data about the number of prisoners. However, he clearly recognized the existence of the torture centers<fnref n="10" />.

It is interesting to understand how this story came to light. The first steps can be summarized as follows.

1 April 2005: Article (in French) by Stephen Grey in the newspaper "Le Monde Diplomatique". It was entitled: "The United States invent the delocalisation of tor-

<footnote n="9">⁹In fact, the story about a black center in Vilnius was revealed at the end of August 2009 by Dick Marty, the investigator for the European Council. His declaration of 21 August 2009 is reported in the Wikipedia article (in French) on this topic.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰The English Wikipedia article on this topic is entitled "Black site". In its introduction, it says that "not one [European] country has confirmed that it is [or was] hosting black sites". Obviously, this statement is not correct. The rest of the article tries to give the impression that the existence of these centers was first revealed by US media. Such a claim is in line with US reaction in such cases, e.g. My Lai massacre or Abu Graib, Most often, however, such claims are not correct.</footnote>
ture” (Les Etats-Unis inventent la délocalisation de la torture).

2 May 2005: Publication of the annual report of “Amnesty International”. It contained only vague reference to the secret prison program. Bascially, it mentioned that some prisoners were transferred to countries where torture was known to be commonly used<fnref n="11" />. It is possible that Amnesty had more information on hand but had delayed its publication in a deal with American authorities. Perhaps this is what triggered the publication of the article in the “Washington Post”.

3 June 2005: On a visit in Washington the Swiss foreign affairs minister asked the Secretary of State for explanations about aircraft which had temporarily landed in Switzerland and were suspected of carrying prisoners. In the Swiss press those landings were referred to as the “Guantanamo Express”.

4 2 November 2005: Article in the “Washington Post” entitled: “CIA holds terror suspects in secret prisons”.

In fact, apart from recognizing the existence of secret prisons abroad, the article gives almost no information about them. Instead, it says: “The Washington Post is not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at the request of senior US officials”.

What gave much weight to this article is precisely the fact that it was written under the supervision of US officials. It was, so to say, a semi-official statement.

5 7 November 2005: The Secretary General of the Council of Europe sent an information request about secret prisons to all member states. Was this request triggered by the article in the “Washington Post” or by earlier intelligence? We do not know.

6 On November 25, 2005, the lead investigator for the Council of Europe, Swiss lawmaker Dick Marty announced that he had obtained latitude and longitude coordinates for suspected black sites.

7 8 January 2006: The Swiss newspaper “Sonntagsblick” published a document intercepted on November 10 by the Swiss Onyx interception system. Purportedly sent by the Egyptian embassy in London, the document stated that 23 Iraqi and Afghan citizens were interrogated at Mihail Kogalniceanu base near Constanta, Romania. According to the same document, similar interrogation centers existed in Bulgaria, Kosovo, the Republic of Macedonia, and Ukraine.

8 22 January 2006: A preliminary report written by Dick Marty at the request of the “Council of Europe” was released. A second version was published in June 2006.

The previous chronology is clear evidence of how powerless Europe has been. This program certainly started shortly after September 11, 2001 but it took 4 years for European authorities to start an investigation. In the opposite situation namely a

<footnote n="11">¹¹The French version of the report reads: “Prisonniers considérés comme hautement importants maintenus en détention secrète dans des lieux inconnus. Remise de prisonniers à des pays où la torture est notoirement en usage”.</footnote>
ture” (Les Etats-Unis inventent la délocalisation de la torture).

2 May 2005: Publication of the annual report of “Amnesty International”. It contained only vague reference to the secret prison program. Bascially, it mentioned that some prisoners were transferred to countries where torture was known to be commonly used<fnref n="11" />. It is possible that Amnesty had more information on hand but had delayed its publication in a deal with American authorities. Perhaps this is what triggered the publication of the article in the “Washington Post”.

3 June 2005: On a visit in Washington the Swiss foreign affairs minister asked the Secretary of State for explanations about aircraft which had temporarily landed in Switzerland and were suspected of carrying prisoners. In the Swiss press those landings were referred to as the “Guantanamo Express”.

4 2 November 2005: Article in the "Washington Post" entitled: "CIA holds terror suspects in secret prisons".

In fact, apart from recognizing the existence of secret prisons abroad, the article gives almost no information about them. Instead, it says: "The Washington Post is not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at the request of senior US officials".

What gave much weight to this article is precisely the fact that it was written under the supervision of US officials. It was, so to say, a semi-official statement.

5 7 November 2005: The Secretary General of the Council of Europe sent an information request about secret prisons to all member states. Was this request triggered by the article in the "Washington Post" or by earlier intelligence? We do not know.

6 On November 25, 2005, the lead investigator for the Council of Europe, Swiss lawmaker Dick Marty announced that he had obtained latitude and longitude coordinates for suspected black sites.

7 8 January 2006: The Swiss newspaper "Sonntagsblick" published a document intercepted on November 10 by the Swiss Onyx interception system. Purportedly sent by the Egyptian embassy in London, the document stated that 23 Iraqi and Afghan citizens were interrogated at Mihail Kogalniceanu base near Constanta, Romania. According to the same document, similar interrogation centers existed in Bulgaria, Kosovo, the Republic of Macedonia, and Ukraine.

8 22 January 2006: A preliminary report written by Dick Marty at the request of the "Council of Europe" was released. A second version was published in June 2006.

The previous chronology is clear evidence of how powerless Europe has been. This program certainly started shortly after September 11, 2001 but it took 4 years for European authorities to start an investigation. In the opposite situation namely a

<footnote n="11">¹¹The French version of the report reads: "Prisonniers considérés comme hautement importants maintenus en détention secrète dans des lieux inconnus. Remise de prisonniers à des pays où la torture est notoirement en usage".</footnote>
foreign country running secret prisons in the United States<fnref n="12" />, it would certainly not take 4 years for US federal authorities to find out the truth.

Actually, European governments do not know the truth even 13 years later for they were completely unable to get any answers from the United States.

For the case of Lithuania, this is confirmed by the following excerpt.

NYT (10 Decembre 2014) Title: Lithuania presses Washington to say whether it tortured prisoners there.

Lithuanian Prime Minister Algirdas Butkevicius called on Washington to say whether the CIA used his country to house one of the bases where it tortured prisoners.

It will be interesting to see if the Prime Minister will be able to get a reply. It seems that by 20 January 2015 no reply had been received because this led the Lithuanian parliament to propose the establishment of a temporary inquiry commission. (http://en.delfi.lt/lithuania/politics)

## What historical model for the European Union?

Is there a historical model that can describe the present status of the European Union? It must correspond to a political entity made of several states both small and larger ones but with none of them emerging as a natural leader. The models which come to mind immediately are Germany before it realized its unity under the leadership of Prussia and India shortly before British colonization<fnref n="13" />.

In both cases the subservient character of these political entities was made clear by the fact that other powers, particularly France and Great Britain, took advantage of their weakness by playing some against the others and by using them as allies for their own political agenda. The consequences were more dramatic in the case of India than in the case of Germany because in India there was only one “master” whereas in Germany, the separate kingdoms (e.g. Saxony or Bavaria) and principalities could make use of the rivalry between France and Britain to their advantage.

As India the European Union has also a single “master” but in contrast with India it is a soft domination. It can be called a cultural, information technology, mass media and military vasselage. In appearance, each country has still its political autonomy, but what does that really mean when most of the aspects of everyday life just mirror what is done in the United States. Europe is no longer the source of creativity that it was in the 19th and early half of the 20th century<fnref n="14" />.

<footnote n="12">¹²Such a situation is so unlikely that it is even difficult to imagine.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³It must be recalled that formally British India, i.e. the so-called Raj, did not comprise all India. Many principalities had some measure of autonomy.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴Even when Europe achieves an outstanding success, as was the case with the discovery of the Higgs particle in July 2012, it is unable to tell it to the rest of the world in an effective way. At that time it was easy to check that outside</footnote>
foreign country running secret prisons in the United States<fnref n="12" />, it would certainly not take 4 years for US federal authorities to find out the truth.

Actually, European governments do not know the truth even 13 years later for they were completely unable to get any answers from the United States.
For the case of Lithuania, this is confirmed by the following excerpt.

NYT (10 Decembre 2014) Title: Lithuania presses Washington to say whether it tortured prisoners there.

Lithuanian Prime Minister Algirdas Butkevicius called on Washington to say whether the CIA used his country to house one of the bases where it tortured prisoners.

It will be interesting to see if the Prime Minister will be able to get a reply. It seems that by 20 January 2015 no reply had been received because this led the Lithuanian parliament to propose the establishment of a temporary inquiry commission. (http://en.delfi.lt/lithuania/politics)

## What historical model for the European Union?

Is there a historical model that can describe the present status of the European Union? It must correspond to a political entity made of several states both small and larger ones but with none of them emerging as a natural leader. The models which come to mind immediately are Germany before it realized its unity under the leadership of Prussia and India shortly before British colonization<fnref n="13" />.

In both cases the subservient character of these political entities was made clear by the fact that other powers, particularly France and Great Britain, took advantage of their weakness by playing some against the others and by using them as allies for their own political agenda. The consequences were more dramatic in the case of India than in the case of Germany because in India there was only one “master” whereas in Germany, the separate kingdoms (e.g. Saxony or Bavaria) and principalities could make use of the rivalry between France and Britain to their advantage.

As India the European Union has also a single “master” but in contrast with India it is a soft domination. It can be called a cultural, information technology, mass media and military vasselage. In appearance, each country has still its political autonomy, but what does that really mean when most of the aspects of everyday life just mirror what is done in the United States. Europe is no longer the source of creativity that it was in the 19th and early half of the 20th century<fnref n="14" />.

<footnote n="12">¹²Such a situation is so unlikely that it is even difficult to imagine.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³It must be recalled that formally British India, i.e. the so-called Raj, did not comprise all India. Many principalities had some measure of autonomy.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴Even when Europe achieves an outstanding success, as was the case with the discovery of the Higgs particle in July 2012, it is unable to tell it to the rest of the world in an effective way. At that time it was easy to check that outside</footnote>
It is often thought that unity brings strength but on the other hand one should not forget that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. To open the European Union to countries which already had a strong loyalty pledge to the United States has endangered its very existence.

# Forms of influence

## Overt domination or soft power influence

The most obvious example of overt influence is colonialism. In this system all the important decisions are overtly made by the colonizer. However history shows that this system is strongly rejected by the population. Uprisings may fail as was the case in Ireland, Poland or South Korea, but their very existence shows that this form of influence is inherently unstable.

## Soft/smart power

In June 2014 after a military coup occurred in Thailand, the media reported that the US State Department blocked some cooperation programs. such as (Taipei Times 26 June 2014):

* a US-sponsored firearms training program for the Thai police

* a study trip to the US for senior Thai police officers

If these programs had not been blocked they would probably not have been mentioned in the media. These are typical examples of what is called soft (or smart) power. Such sponsored trips to the US are also offered to army or air force officers, students, journalists, hospital directors, and indeed to any persons who may have an influence in key-sectors.

The same article of the Taipei Times (based on a Reuters-AFP dispatch) reported that the US government may also relocate the annual “Cobra Gold” military exercise which is held in Thailand since 1980. It involves 13,000 troops from US-friendly nations across the region and is one of the largest US military exercises.

## Hidden cultural influence: some general rules

What is hidden influence? Previously we mentioned the case of Snowden's asylum issue. In this case, the influence is indeed hidden in the sense that we do not know through which channel it was exercised but we can see the effect and readily find out from where the pressure came. In other words, this is not really what one would like

<footnote>Europe most university researchers were aware of the landing of a US spacecraft on Mars (though there had been at least 3 landings prior to the one of July 2012) but almost nobody had heard of the Higgs discovery. This may be due to two factors:</footnote>

<footnote>* The worldwide domination of the media industry by US companies.</footnote>

<footnote>* The fact that in Europe there is very little awareness regarding the crucial importance of public relations pains.</footnote>
It is often thought that unity brings strength but on the other hand one should not forget that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. To open the European Union to countries which already had a strong loyalty pledge to the United States has endangered its very existence.

# Forms of influence

## Overt domination or soft power influence

The most obvious example of overt influence is colonialism. In this system all the important decisions are overtly made by the colonizer. However history shows that this system is strongly rejected by the population. Uprisings may fail as was the case in Ireland, Poland or South Korea, but their very existence shows that this form of influence is inherently unstable.

## Soft/smart power

In June 2014 after a military coup occurred in Thailand, the media reported that the US State Department blocked some cooperation programs. such as (Taipei Times 26 June 2014):

* a US-sponsored firearms training program for the Thai police

* a study trip to the US for senior Thai police officers

If these programs had not been blocked they would probably not have been mentioned in the media. These are typical examples of what is called soft (or smart) power. Such sponsored trips to the US are also offered to army or air force officers, students, journalists, hospital directors, and indeed to any persons who may have an influence in key-sectors.

The same article of the Taipei Times (based on a Reuters-AFP dispatch) reported that the US government may also relocate the annual “Cobra Gold” military exercise which is held in Thailand since 1980. It involves 13,000 troops from US-friendly nations across the region and is one of the largest US military exercises.

## Hidden cultural influence: some general rules

What is hidden influence? Previously we mentioned the case of Snowden's asylum issue. In this case, the influence is indeed hidden in the sense that we do not know through which channel it was exercised but we can see the effect and readily find out from where the pressure came. In other words, this is not really what one would like

Europe most university researchers were aware of the landing of a US spacecraft on Mars (though there had been at least 3 landings prior to the one of July 2012) but almost nobody had heard of the Higgs discovery. This may be due to two factors:

* The worldwide domination of the media industry by US companies.

* The fact that in Europe there is very little awareness regarding the crucial importance of public relations pains.
to call *hidden* influence. So, what is hidden influence?

Here is an observation that can be done very easily. In any city that has a subway there are many travelers who are reading novels. By looking over their shoulder it is not difficult to find out the name of the authors. In Paris, that observation suggests that about two thirds of the books are translations of American or English novels. The same observation can be made in the bookstores of airports, whether in Paris, in Copenhagen or Munich. Of course, the range of books offered in airport bookstores is conditioned by the distribution network which does not necessarily reflect the preference of readers, but at least one can say that they shape what readers are able to read.

Another question concerns radio stations. What is the proportion of those on which the singers sing in English?

One can also extend this investigation to scientific issues. For instance, while most persons will have heard about the exploration of Mars by American spacecraft, who knows that an European spacecraft has landed on Titan, one of the moons of the planet Saturn? In spite of the fact that this was the first landing on a celestial body beyond Mars, very few people know about it whether in Europe or outside Europe. Why is this so? One obvious reason is that the journal "Scientific American" publishes 18 foreign-language editions, including in Chinese, French, German, Japanese, Russian. Up to now there is no similar journal published in the European Union.

"National Geographic" has 33 foreign editions. One must realize that apart from its beautiful pictures "National Geographic" is also a mouthpiece of the State Department. One example will be sufficient.

The issue of June 1950 (p. 778) has an article about South Korea in which the following sentence appears several times: "May 10, 1948: South Koreans flock to the polls for their first free election in their country's history". It is now well recognized even by Korean newspapers that this election was far from being free and in fact rather a mascarade. Not only were all leftists either imprisoned or in hiding, but even many conservative leaders refused to take part. Moreover, the high turn out was only obtained through threats and coercion<fnref n="15" />.

The previous examples illustrate a much broader objective. The bottom line is this. For any country it is much easier to sell its services (retail trade, movies, TV programs, health care, restaurants, real estate, computer software, and so on) to countries which have the same social framework and organisation. It has often been observed that the so-called globalization is in fact an Americanization. Ever since the end of

<footnote n="15">¹⁵More details can be found in "Relations between US troops and the population of South Korea" by the present author.</footnote>
to call *hidden* influence. So, what is hidden influence?

Here is an observation that can be done very easily. In any city that has a subway there are many travelers who are reading novels. By looking over their shoulder it is not difficult to find out the name of the authors. In Paris, that observation suggests that about two thirds of the books are translations of American or English novels. The same observation can be made in the bookstores of airports, whether in Paris, in Copenhagen or Munich. Of course, the range of books offered in airport bookstores is conditioned by the distribution network which does not necessarily reflect the preference of readers, but at least one can say that they shape what readers are able to read.

Another question concerns radio stations. What is the proportion of those on which the singers sing in English?

One can also extend this investigation to scientific issues. For instance, while most persons will have heard about the exploration of Mars by American spacecraft, who knows that an European spacecraft has landed on Titan, one of the moons of the planet Saturn? In spite of the fact that this was the first landing on a celestial body beyond Mars, very few people know about it whether in Europe or outside Europe. Why is this so? One obvious reason is that the journal "Scientific American" publishes 18 foreign-language editions, including in Chinese, French, German, Japanese, Russian. Up to now there is no similar journal published in the European Union.

"National Geographic" has 33 foreign editions. One must realize that apart from its beautiful pictures "National Geographic" is also a mouthpiece of the State Department. One example will be sufficient.

The issue of June 1950 (p. 778) has an article about South Korea in which the following sentence appears several times: "May 10, 1948: South Koreans flock to the polls for their first free election in their country's history". It is now well recognized even by Korean newspapers that this election was far from being free and in fact rather a mascarade. Not only were all leftists either imprisoned or in hiding, but even many conservative leaders refused to take part. Moreover, the high turn out was only obtained through threats and coercion<fnref n="15" />.

The previous examples illustrate a much broader objective. The bottom line is this. For any country it is much easier to sell its services (retail trade, movies, TV programs, health care, restaurants, real estate, computer software, and so on) to countries which have the same social framework and organisation. It has often been observed that the so-called globalization is in fact an Americanization. Ever since the end of

<footnote n="15">¹⁵More details can be found in "Relations between US troops and the population of South Korea" by the present author.</footnote>
World War II the US government and the American business community have had a very clear understanding of the fact that if they can export their way of life and the way in which they see the world, this will greatly facilitate the worldwide adoption of American products and services.

Besides exporting the US way of life there is also the wish to bar the introduction of ways from abroad. At first sight such a statement may seem strange because of the broad diversity of the US population. Yet, “E pluribus unum” (i.e. “Out of many make one”), the motto which is on the Seal of the United States describes very well the policy of the American government. All possible ways are accepted provided that they become integrated into the American melting pot.

The case of softball may help to understand this point. In almost all countries softball is the most popular sport. Even for somebody who has no good knowledge of the rules, it is much more pleasant and easier to follow than American football or baseball; it can even be said that it is more interesting to watch than basket ball. Yet, during the past two decades professional softball has made little headway in the United States. On the contrary (as documented elsewhere in this study), American football and baseball have been introduced (with more or less success) in many countries. Often this introduction followed a political change after a government friendly to the United States came to power.

## Hidden cultural influence: the case of funding by US foundations

In this subsection we focus on the case of social science research in France. However, one should keep in mind that there were similar programs in other countries (e.g. the UK or Germany). Moreover, such programs also extended to the natural sciences, particularly biology.

In the 1930s and again after 1945 French research in the social sciences was funded by the “Rockefeller Foundation” and by the “Ford Foundation”. It would of course be naive to think that when a foundation gives millions of dollars it does not try to take advantage for the purpose of influencing the direction of the projects developed by the recipients. However, to be acceptable this influence must be applied in subtle and hidden ways.

A striking example of this kind of interference was provided in April 1950 (that is to say two months before the Korean War started) with the removal of Georges Teissier from his position as director of the French “National Center for Scientific Research” (CNRS) and (on 28 April 1950) of Nobel prize laureate (in 1935) Frédéric Joliot-Curie from his position as head of the French “Atomic Energy Commission” (CEA) to which he had been appointed by General de Gaulle in 1945. The reason of these removals was that both Teissier and Joliot-Curie were members of the French
World War II the US government and the American business community have had a very clear understanding of the fact that if they can export their way of life and the way in which they see the world, this will greatly facilitate the worldwide adoption of American products and services.

Besides exporting the US way of life there is also the wish to bar the introduction of ways from abroad. At first sight such a statement may seem strange because of the broad diversity of the US population. Yet, "E pluribus unum" (i.e. "Out of many make one"), the motto which is on the Seal of the United States describes very well the policy of the American government. All possible ways are accepted provided that they become integrated into the American melting pot.

The case of softball may help to understand this point. In almost all countries softball is the most popular sport. Even for somebody who has no good knowledge of the rules, it is much more pleasant and easier to follow than American football or baseball; it can even be said that it is more interesting to watch than basket ball. Yet, during the past two decades professional softball has made little headway in the United States. On the contrary (as documented elsewhere in this study), American football and baseball have been introduced (with more or less success) in many countries. Often this introduction followed a political change after a government friendly to the United States came to power.

## Hidden cultural influence: the case of funding by US foundations

In this subsection we focus on the case of social science research in France. However, one should keep in mind that there were similar programs in other countries (e.g. the UK or Germany). Moreover, such programs also extended to the natural sciences, particularly biology.

In the 1930s and again after 1945 French research in the social sciences was funded by the "Rockefeller Foundation" and by the "Ford Foundation". It would of course be naive to think that when a foundation gives millions of dollars it does not try to take advantage for the purpose of influencing the direction of the projects developed by the recipients. However, to be acceptable this influence must be applied in subtle and hidden ways.

A striking example of this kind of interference was provided in April 1950 (that is to say two months before the Korean War started) with the removal of Georges Teissier from his position as director of the French "National Center for Scientific Research" (CNRS) and (on 28 April 1950) of Nobel prize laureate (in 1935) Frédéric Joliot-Curie from his position as head of the French "Atomic Energy Commission" (CEA) to which he had been appointed by General de Gaulle in 1945. The reason of these removals was that both Teissier and Joliot-Curie were members of the French
Communist Party.

A report of the “Rockefeller Foundation” contains the following acknowledgement (Mazon 1985, p. 194).

"The Rockefeller relations with the CNRS will be held in abeyance [in other words the RF will suspend funding] until a solution has been found for replacing the ousted Communist Director, Georges Teissier, and also until some way could be found for eliminating Prof. Joliot-Curie, as head of the CEA."

At the time, US pressure was suspected in the elimination of Teissier and Joliot-Curie but there was no tangible proof. The previous excerpt seems to provide one.

What were (and still are) the objectives of the Rockefeller foundation in developing funding programs? Well, they were basically the same as already reported previously.

1. To press for the adoption of the American model in scientific research for this will prevent the rise of concurrent approaches. In short, this will make other countries followers and prevent them from becoming leaders. At the same time it will make easier the worldwide diffusion of American scientific journals.

2. To try to prevent research promoted by countries with which the US is in confrontation. This means for instance opposing research on the Marxist conception of economics, history or sociology. For instance the notion of class struggle is to be banned. On the other hand, research on the neoliberal conception of economics is to be promoted.

3. To develop a good knowledge of rival countries. At first sight it may seem that this objective is in contradiction with the previous one but in fact it is not. In order to set up "Radio Free Asia" (or similar stations funded by the State Department) one needs persons who are fluent in Chinese. In order to rewrite the history of rival countries in a way which suits the conceptions of the State Department or the Department of Defense one needs historians who have studied the history of those countries. This may apply to the USSR during the Cold War or to China in the early 21st century.

Next, we describe how such objectives were implemented by the Rockefeller or Ford foundations. Most of what follows is based on the study of Brigitte Mazon (1985).

It may be useful to show how control could be gained without attracting much attention. One way is to choose the directors very carefully. This is expressed in the following comment made in a report of the Rockefeller Foundation (31 August 1955 p. 196, 313):

"The active leaders of the program are well aware of the danger of Communist domination of the program and of slanting the results of research. Furthermore,
Communist Party.

A report of the “Rockefeller Foundation” contains the following acknowledgement (Mazon 1985, p. 194).

"The Rockefeller relations with the CNRS will be held in abeyance [in other words the RF will suspend funding] until a solution has been found for replacing the ousted Communist Director, Georges Teissier, and also until some way could be found for eliminating Prof. Joliot-Curie, as head of the CEA."

At the time, US pressure was suspected in the elimination of Teissier and Joliot-Curie but there was no tangible proof. The previous excerpt seems to provide one.

What were (and still are) the objectives of the Rockefeller foundation in developing funding programs? Well, they were basically the same as already reported previously.

1. To press for the adoption of the American model in scientific research for this will prevent the rise of concurrent approaches. In short, this will make other countries followers and prevent them from becoming leaders. At the same time it will make easier the worldwide diffusion of American scientific journals.

2. To try to prevent research promoted by countries with which the US is in confrontation. This means for instance opposing research on the Marxist conception of economics, history or sociology. For instance the notion of class struggle is to be banned. On the other hand, research on the neoliberal conception of economics is to be promoted.

3. To develop a good knowledge of rival countries. At first sight it may seem that this objective is in contradiction with the previous one but in fact it is not. In order to set up "Radio Free Asia" (or similar stations funded by the State Department) one needs persons who are fluent in Chinese. In order to rewrite the history of rival countries in a way which suits the conceptions of the State Department or the Department of Defense one needs historians who have studied the history of those countries. This may apply to the USSR during the Cold War or to China in the early 21st century.

Next, we describe how such objectives were implemented by the Rockefeller or Ford foundations. Most of what follows is based on the study of Brigitte Mazon (1985).

It may be useful to show how control could be gained without attracting much attention. One way is to choose the directors very carefully. This is expressed in the following comment made in a report of the Rockefeller Foundation (31 August 1955 p. 196, 313):

"The active leaders of the program are well aware of the danger of Communist domination of the program and of slanting the results of research. Furthermore,
the powerful positions held by the senior sponsors [in the French academic world] i.e. Berger, Febvre, Braudel would seem to be guarantees against the placing of leftist graduates of the program in key positions in other universities”.

In other words the objective was not only to prevent leftist influence in the programs sponsored by the US <fnref n="16" /> but in fact in a more general way in French universities.

The discretion requirement is well expressed in the following observation made by an officer of the Rokefeller Foundation with regard to a report of 26 October 1933 that the Foundation had sent to *recteur* Gustave Roussy (my translation):

> This report should have been kept internal. It gives the impression that the Foundation wants to impose specific directions. It would be more clever to say that we were sollicited by French social scientists.

The “Institut Scientifique de Recherches Economiques et Sociales” (sometimes the word “scientific” is omitted) was created in 1933 thanks to a $350,000 subsidy of the Rockefeller Foundation (Mazon 1985, p. 71). Its president was Charles Rist and its secretary Robert Marjolin. It became a place for the diffusion of neoliberal ideas.

On the contrary a project submitted by the ethnologue Marcel Mauss was not supported, may be, observes Brigitte Mazan (1985, p. 59) because he was a socialist.

## Hidden political influence

It is more difficult cases of political influence. For instance, when a country asks to become a member of NATO it is very difficult to know if this is the wish of the majority of the citizens or if it is rather the will of leaders who, for some reason, support this idea. Referendums on such questions are seldom organized <fnref n="17" />

For fairly obvious reasons, political influence is usually belittled or denied both by the overlord country and by the leaders of the vassal country. This statement can be illustrated as follows.

* During his time as a civil affairs officer in Tokyo, Alfred Hussey was one of the Americans who drafted the Japanese constitution. In 1962 after retiring from the CIA at the age of 60, Hussey wanted to publish his memoirs. Quite understandably he thought that they would represent a major contribution to the post-war history

<footnote n="16">¹⁶Support was discontinued to leftists such as Jean Chesnaux (p. 196), Frédéric Joliot-Curie, or Georges Teissier (p. 169).</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷The constitution of the European Union that was submitted for approval to French citizens in May 2005 contained language establishing a close connection between NATO and the European Union. Whether or not this was one of the main reasons for its rejection is difficult to say. Incidentally, it can be noted that (i) This was the only *binding* referendum organized in the countries of European Union. (ii) Despite the French rejection the constitution was adopted in the form of the so-called “Lisbon Treaty”, this time without any referendum. Is such a procedure which sidelines the wishes of citizens not revealing of how democracy is implemented in the European Union?</footnote>
the powerful positions held by the senior sponsors [in the French academic world] i.e. Berger, Febvre, Braudel would seem to be guarantees against the placing of leftist graduates of the program in key positions in other universities”.

In other words the objective was not only to prevent leftist influence in the programs sponsored by the US <fnref n="16" /> but in fact in a more general way in French universities.

The discretion requirement is well expressed in the following observation made by an officer of the Rokefeller Foundation with regard to a report of 26 October 1933 that the Foundation had sent to *recteur* Gustave Roussy (my translation):

> This report should have been kept internal. It gives the impression that the Foundation wants to impose specific directions. It would be more clever to say that we were sollicited by French social scientists.

The “Institut Scientifique de Recherches Economiques et Sociales” (sometimes the word “scientific” is omitted) was created in 1933 thanks to a $350,000 subsidy of the Rockefeller Foundation (Mazon 1985, p. 71). Its president was Charles Rist and its secretary Robert Marjolin. It became a place for the diffusion of neoliberal ideas.

On the contrary a project submitted by the ethnologue Marcel Mauss was not supported, may be, observes Brigitte Mazan (1985, p. 59) because he was a socialist.

## Hidden political influence

It is more difficult cases of political influence. For instance, when a country asks to become a member of NATO it is very difficult to know if this is the wish of the majority of the citizens or if it is rather the will of leaders who, for some reason, support this idea. Referendums on such questions are seldom organized <fnref n="17" />

For fairly obvious reasons, political influence is usually belittled or denied both by the overlord country and by the leaders of the vassal country. This statement can be illustrated as follows.

* During his time as a civil affairs officer in Tokyo, Alfred Hussey was one of the Americans who drafted the Japanese constitution. In 1962 after retiring from the CIA at the age of 60, Hussey wanted to publish his memoirs. Quite understandably he thought that they would represent a major contribution to the post-war history

<footnote n="16">¹⁶Support was discontinued to leftists such as Jean Chesnaux (p. 196), Frédéric Joliot-Curie, or Georges Teissier (p. 169).</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷The constitution of the European Union that was submitted for approval to French citizens in May 2005 contained language establishing a close connection between NATO and the European Union. Whether or not this was one of the main reasons for its rejection is difficult to say. Incidentally, it can be noted that (i) This was the only *binding* referendum organized in the countries of European Union. (ii) Despite the French rejection the constitution was adopted in the form of the so-called “Lisbon Treaty”, this time without any referendum. Is such a procedure which sidelines the wishes of citizens not revealing of how democracy is implemented in the European Union?</footnote>
of Japan. Probably did he assume that almost 20 years after the war the real story
could be told. He was wrong. In principle, it should have been easy for him to find
a publisher: not only did he have an interesting story to tell but in addition he had
personal connections with the editors at three publishing houses. Yet, none of them
wanted to publish his story. One of the publishers replied: "I'm not sure it will be a
book for the general public". Another wrote: "It is a book I would like to read but
it is not a book I would like to have to promote." Whatever they had in mind, the
obvious outcome is that Hussey was unable to publish his memoirs.

* There have been several books written about the operations in foreign countries conducted by the State Department and the CIA. Quite a few of these books were written by former case officers of the Agency. After describing a number of fairly well-known historical episodes the authors usually conclude the book by emphasizing two things. The first is that most of these cases either ended in failure or were not of great usefulness anyway<fnref n="18" />. The second is that if in the past the State Department was able to control a number of foreign newspapers or journals this was a long time ago thus implying that in the meanwhile this control has ended.

In the next sections we describe some of the methods through which a country *A* can
increase its influence over a country *B*.

Method 1: filling a power vacuum

"It is crucial that France emerge from the liberation as an *independent nation*. For that purpose everything must be organized *in advance* so that a national government takes over *immediately* and leads the country according to its *own* wishes until the citizens can express their preference through elections".

*General de Gaulle, London, 10 May 1943, Message to the National Resistance Council (my translation).*

How can a power *A* win a durable influence in a country *B*? A method which has been practiced extensively by the United States since the end of World war II relies on filling the *power vacuum* that occurred in many countries in the aftermath of the war.

In this game the duration of the power vacancy is a crucial parameter. It can last just the time for an area to emerge from the active combat phase which means one or two weeks in the case of the liberation of France. On the contrary, if the country is ruled by a weak provisional government until elections can be organized then the power vacancy may last between one and two years. During this time the "Civil Affairs

<footnote n="18">¹⁸If that would be true, Congress would certainly have raised some critical questions and suggested some means for improving the working of the Agency.</footnote>
of Japan. Probably did he assume that almost 20 years after the war the real story
could be told. He was wrong. In principle, it should have been easy for him to find
a publisher: not only did he have an interesting story to tell but in addition he had
personal connections with the editors at three publishing houses. Yet, none of them
wanted to publish his story. One of the publishers replied: "I'm not sure it will be a
book for the general public". Another wrote: "It is a book I would like to read but
it is not a book I would like to have to promote." Whatever they had in mind, the
obvious outcome is that Hussey was unable to publish his memoirs.

* There have been several books written about the operations in foreign countries conducted by the State Department and the CIA. Quite a few of these books were written by former case officers of the Agency. After describing a number of fairly well-known historical episodes the authors usually conclude the book by emphasizing two things. The first is that most of these cases either ended in failure or were not of great usefulness anyway<fnref n="18" />. The second is that if in the past the State Department was able to control a number of foreign newspapers or journals this was a long time ago thus implying that in the meanwhile this control has ended.

In the next sections we describe some of the methods through which a country *A* can
increase its influence over a country *B*.

Method 1: filling a power vacuum

"It is crucial that France emerge from the liberation as an *independent nation*. For that purpose everything must be organized *in advance* so that a national government takes over *immediately* and leads the country according to its *own* wishes until the citizens can express their preference through elections".

*General de Gaulle, London, 10 May 1943, Message to the National Resistance Council (my translation).*

How can a power *A* win a durable influence in a country *B*? A method which has been practiced extensively by the United States since the end of World war II relies on filling the *power vacuum* that occurred in many countries in the aftermath of the war.

In this game the duration of the power vacancy is a crucial parameter. It can last just the time for an area to emerge from the active combat phase which means one or two weeks in the case of the liberation of France. On the contrary, if the country is ruled by a weak provisional government until elections can be organized then the power vacancy may last between one and two years. During this time the "Civil Affairs

<footnote n="18">¹⁸If that would be true, Congress would certainly have raised some critical questions and suggested some means for improving the working of the Agency.</footnote>
Division” will be in good position to appoint his favorite candidates for top positions in police, education, broadcasting, foreign trade and other key-departments.

It is this issue which was at stake in April-September 1943 in Algiers. President Roosevelt and the State Department supported General Giraud against General de Gaulle because they knew that, according to his own words, the former was not interested in “politics” and would therefore be fairly pliable for all issues which were not strictly military. On the contrary, as shown by the excerpt given at the beginning of this section, General de Gaulle had a clear understanding of the fact that time greatly mattered. As one knows, thanks to an agreement with General Eisenhower (see the chronology at the date of 30 December 1943), he was indeed able to have his way in this respect<fnref n="19" />.

Even so, for some questions, there was a power vacancy. For instance, in August 1945, i.e. one year after Paris was liberated, France was still unable to set itself the exchange rate of its currency<fnref n="20" /> (FRUS, 1945, France, 23 August 1945).

Usually, the vacancy method uses the following steps.

## 1 Power vacuum.

At the end of a war there is often a power vacuum in some of the countries which have been affected. This is fairly clear for a defeated country because it will be occupied temporarily by the victor and its former government will be either dissolved or it will have to operate under the supervision of the victor. But the same is also true for liberated countries. During the war they may have had a government which collaborated with the defeated countries, so the old government has lost its credibility but until it can be replaced by another government there will be a power vacuum.

## 2 AMGOT and the Civil Affairs Division (CAD)

The key-point is that at least two years before the end of the war, the US government started to train so-called “civil affairs officers”. After being trained these officers would become part of the “Civil Affairs Division” or CAD. The CAD was an essential part of the “Allied Military Government for Occupied Territories” (originally abbreviated AMGOT, later AMG<fnref n="21" /> and ) which designates the administration of European countries occupied by Allied forces during and after World War II.

<footnote n="19">¹⁹More details about this episode can be found in the chronology chapter.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰In the exchange rate set by the Allies, the franc was over-valued. There was a similar policy in other occupied countries. One reason for that may have been to encourage GIs to buy US goods from the so-called “Post Exchange” stores (PX stores) or to send home a part of their earnings (which is indeed what they did). Moreover, France was giving GIs a complementary income in compensation for the unfavorable exchange rate.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹In the New York Times, the term AMGOT was used during only a short time interval of a little more than one month, between 18 July 1943 and 26 August 1943, that is to say at the beginning of the invasion of Italy. The last article announced that following instructions from the War Department “from now on AMGOT will be called AMG. In liberated countries, the expression the more neutral expression “civil affairs” was preferred to “Military Government”. Actually, US newspapers did not give much attention to the activities of the “Civil Affairs Division” and preferred to uphold the belief that liberated countries were ruled solely by their provisional governments.</footnote>
Division” will be in good position to appoint his favorite candidates for top positions in police, education, broadcasting, foreign trade and other key-departments.

It is this issue which was at stake in April-September 1943 in Algiers. President Roosevelt and the State Department supported General Giraud against General de Gaulle because they knew that, according to his own words, the former was not interested in “politics” and would therefore be fairly pliable for all issues which were not strictly military. On the contrary, as shown by the excerpt given at the beginning of this section, General de Gaulle had a clear understanding of the fact that time greatly mattered. As one knows, thanks to an agreement with General Eisenhower (see the chronology at the date of 30 December 1943), he was indeed able to have his way in this respect<fnref n="19" />.

Even so, for some questions, there was a power vacancy. For instance, in August 1945, i.e. one year after Paris was liberated, France was still unable to set itself the exchange rate of its currency<fnref n="20" /> (FRUS, 1945, France, 23 August 1945).

Usually, the vacancy method uses the following steps.

## 1 Power vacuum.

At the end of a war there is often a power vacuum in some of the countries which have been affected. This is fairly clear for a defeated country because it will be occupied temporarily by the victor and its former government will be either dissolved or it will have to operate under the supervision of the victor. But the same is also true for liberated countries. During the war they may have had a government which collaborated with the defeated countries, so the old government has lost its credibility but until it can be replaced by another government there will be a power vacuum.

## 2 AMGOT and the Civil Affairs Division (CAD)

The key-point is that at least two years before the end of the war, the US government started to train so-called “civil affairs officers”. After being trained these officers would become part of the “Civil Affairs Division” or CAD. The CAD was an essential part of the “Allied Military Government for Occupied Territories” (originally abbreviated AMGOT, later AMG<fnref n="21" /> and ) which designates the administration of European countries occupied by Allied forces during and after World War II.

<footnote n="19">¹⁹More details about this episode can be found in the chronology chapter.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰In the exchange rate set by the Allies, the franc was over-valued. There was a similar policy in other occupied countries. One reason for that may have been to encourage GIs to buy US goods from the so-called “Post Exchange” stores (PX stores) or to send home a part of their earnings (which is indeed what they did). Moreover, France was giving GIs a complementary income in compensation for the unfavorable exchange rate.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹In the New York Times, the term AMGOT was used during only a short time interval of a little more than one month, between 18 July 1943 and 26 August 1943, that is to say at the beginning of the invasion of Italy. The last article announced that following instructions from the War Department “from now on AMGOT will be called AMG. In liberated countries, the expression the more neutral expression “civil affairs” was preferred to “Military Government”. Actually, US newspapers did not give much attention to the activities of the “Civil Affairs Division” and preferred to uphold the belief that liberated countries were ruled solely by their provisional governments.</footnote>
### 3 What was the role of Civil Affairs officers?

Although the CAD and AMGOT were really two facets of the same organization, it was the CAD that had the key role. So, we must give some more details about it. First, one must observe that the Civil Affair officers belonged to the military, most often to the US Army but sometimes also to the US Navy. The expression “civil affairs” means that they will be in charge of running a government which will have all the attributes and functions of the normal government of a country: police, public security, education, national statistics, transportation, health, agriculture, fishing, mining, and so on. Previously, we said that AMGOT and the CAD were in charge of the administration of the occupied countries. The word “administration” suggests a fairly neutral role limited to purely technical issues. This is indeed the thesis held by the Department of State and by the Army Headquarters. However, a closer examination reveals that CAD was really the government of the country and that it took advantage of this position to guide the country in the direction that it favored. How can we see that? Well, it is very simple. According to the State Department thesis the role of CAD was only to keep order in the country while war was still going on. The following observations show that the role of the CAD was much broader.

(i) In many countries the CAD created newspapers and established radio broadcasting stations which would have a long-lasting influence. One of its roles was also to import American movies, to adapt them to the local context, and to show them around in cities, towns and villages.

(ii) Denmark and Norway were not directly liberated by Allied forces; rather, German troops left these countries after the capitulation of Germany on 8 May 1944. Thus, no occupation by Allied troops would have been necessary from a military perspective. Yet, both countries were occupied mostly (but not only) by British troops and these troops stayed for quite a while.

(iii) Civil Affairs in Denmark. A document entitled “Details of Civil Affairs directives for Denmark” was issued by the State Department on 9 April 1945, that is to say only one month before the end of the war.

It reveals several objectives which were of political nature. One may for instance mention the following.

“If it is thought that Danish educational associations are being used to conceal political activities which would interfere with the success of the mission, the Danish authorities will be requested to effect such suspension or suppression as it is desired. Failing such compliance the Commander-in-Chief is authorized to take direct action”.

This means that under directives of the Commander-in-Chief, the Civil Affairs Division could directly intervene in the selection of Danish teachers.
### 3 What was the role of Civil Affairs officers?

Although the CAD and AMGOT were really two facets of the same organization, it was the CAD that had the key role. So, we must give some more details about it. First, one must observe that the Civil Affair officers belonged to the military, most often to the US Army but sometimes also to the US Navy. The expression “civil affairs” means that they will be in charge of running a government which will have all the attributes and functions of the normal government of a country: police, public security, education, national statistics, transportation, health, agriculture, fishing, mining, and so on. Previously, we said that AMGOT and the CAD were in charge of the administration of the occupied countries. The word “administration” suggests a fairly neutral role limited to purely technical issues. This is indeed the thesis held by the Department of State and by the Army Headquarters. However, a closer examination reveals that CAD was really the government of the country and that it took advantage of this position to guide the country in the direction that it favored. How can we see that? Well, it is very simple. According to the State Department thesis the role of CAD was only to keep order in the country while war was still going on. The following observations show that the role of the CAD was much broader.

(i) In many countries the CAD created newspapers and established radio broadcasting stations which would have a long-lasting influence. One of its roles was also to import American movies, to adapt them to the local context, and to show them around in cities, towns and villages.

(ii) Denmark and Norway were not directly liberated by Allied forces; rather, German troops left these countries after the capitulation of Germany on 8 May 1944. Thus, no occupation by Allied troops would have been necessary from a military perspective. Yet, both countries were occupied mostly (but not only) by British troops and these troops stayed for quite a while.

(iii) Civil Affairs in Denmark. A document entitled “Details of Civil Affairs directives for Denmark” was issued by the State Department on 9 April 1945, that is to say only one month before the end of the war.

It reveals several objectives which were of political nature. One may for instance mention the following.

“If it is thought that Danish educational associations are being used to conceal political activities which would interfere with the success of the mission, the Danish authorities will be requested to effect such suspension or suppression as it is desired. Failing such compliance the Commander-in-Chief is authorized to take direct action”.

This means that under directives of the Commander-in-Chief, the Civil Affairs Division could directly intervene in the selection of Danish teachers.
In the present section the power vacancy of the central government was due to a major disruption such as war and invasion. In more normal circumstances, the power of the central government can be weakened for a number of different reasons. (i) An inept government system may create chronic political instability (ii) An excessive regional decentralization may leave the central government unable to enforce its decisions in the whole country. Separatist tendencies in some provinces may have the same weakening effect.

World history shows many examples in which a power A was able to take advantage of a weak central government in a country B to gain influence over its leadership. One well-known case was the kingdom of Poland in the 18th century. In that time every nobleman could veto any decision taken by the assembly of noblemen. It may have been a fairly “democratic” system (in the sense that noblemen did not have to follow any rule with which they disagreed) but it made the government powerless and ineffective. The neighboring countries, namely Austria, Prussia and Russia, took advantage of this weakness to the point of breaking up the country.

## Method 2: developing means of cultural influence

We have already mentioned the fact that one of the main missions of the Civil Affairs Division was to create newspapers and broadcasting stations and to organize the distribution of American movies. In the title of this section the word “culture” should be understood in its broadest sense in order to include sports, comic strips, TV programs for the children and many other things. The case of comic strips for children will provide an illustration.

In the same way as many French Wikipedia article are just translations of the American article, so do the “Buck Danny” comic strip series find their inspiration in similar stories written by Milton Caniff in the United States. There is a Wikipedia article about the “Steve Canyon” series as well as about the “Buck Danny” series. However, the later does not mention any link with the American series. It is likely that many fans of the series published in Europe were not even aware of the “Steve Canyon” series.

As far as the adult population was concerned, radio and movies were the most important medias. US troops arrived in liberated countries with a huge supply of American movies. Here are a few illustrations.

* In the fall of 1945 during the 6 months following the liberation of Belgium some 80% of the movies for which people were queuing in Brussels were American. Of the remaining 20%, about 10% were French, and those of the Soviet Union represented 2.5%. One should add that at the end of 1942 the “Office of War Information” had been given the power to ban the export of films highlighting the less attractive
In the present section the power vacancy of the central government was due to a major disruption such as war and invasion. In more normal circumstances, the power of the central government can be weakened for a number of different reasons. (i) An inept government system may create chronic political instability (ii) An excessive regional decentralization may leave the central government unable to enforce its decisions in the whole country. Separatist tendencies in some provinces may have the same weakening effect.

World history shows many examples in which a power A was able to take advantage of a weak central government in a country B to gain influence over its leadership. One well-known case was the kingdom of Poland in the 18th century. In that time every nobleman could veto any decision taken by the assembly of noblemen. It may have been a fairly “democratic” system (in the sense that noblemen did not have to follow any rule with which they disagreed) but it made the government powerless and ineffective. The neighboring countries, namely Austria, Prussia and Russia, took advantage of this weakness to the point of breaking up the country.

## Method 2: developing means of cultural influence

We have already mentioned the fact that one of the main missions of the Civil Affairs Division was to create newspapers and broadcasting stations and to organize the distribution of American movies. In the title of this section the word “culture” should be understood in its broadest sense in order to include sports, comic strips, TV programs for the children and many other things. The case of comic strips for children will provide an illustration.

In the same way as many French Wikipedia article are just translations of the American article, so do the “Buck Danny” comic strip series find their inspiration in similar stories written by Milton Caniff in the United States. There is a Wikipedia article about the “Steve Canyon” series as well as about the “Buck Danny” series. However, the later does not mention any link with the American series. It is likely that many fans of the series published in Europe were not even aware of the “Steve Canyon” series.

As far as the adult population was concerned, radio and movies were the most important medias. US troops arrived in liberated countries with a huge supply of American movies. Here are a few illustrations.

* In the fall of 1945 during the 6 months following the liberation of Belgium some 80% of the movies for which people were queuing in Brussels were American. Of the remaining 20%, about 10% were French, and those of the Soviet Union represented 2.5%. One should add that at the end of 1942 the “Office of War Information” had been given the power to ban the export of films highlighting the less attractive
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Buck Danny by G. Troisfontaines,
J.-M. Charlier and V. Hubinon (1947–2008)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 2** An American comic strip and its French version. The “Steve Canyon” series was in fact the continuation of the series “Terry and the pirates” which was started by Milton Caniff in 1934. It takes place in China at a time when the United States started to worry about the Japanese policy. In 1946, the “Terry and the pirates” series was published in “Pacific Stars and Stripes”, the free daily newspaper destined to US troops in the Pacific theater. At the end of 1946, Caniff started the “Steve Canyon” series but the “Terry and the pirates” series was continued until 1973 by another author. The “Steve Canyon” series ended in 1988 with the death of Caniff. There are striking similarities between Caniff’s series and the Buck Danny series published in Spirou, a Belgian French-speaking journal for teenagers. It is not only the main character (namely Buck Danny alias Steve Canyon alias Terry Lee) which is the same in both publications, but also several secondary characters (e.g. Sonny Tuckson or Dragon Lady). Of course, the crucial point is that by describing US-led military operations the Buck Danny series also spread the version of history favored by the State Department.

side of American society. (Schrijvers 2012)

* Early in 1945, the OWI (Office of War Information) invited Belgian newspapers over to the United States. There was a similar campaign in France. For instance, Jean Paul Sartre was among the invited persons and he wrote several long articles for the “Figaro” newspaper after he came back. (Schrijvers 2012)

**Method 3: Funding non-governmental organisations**

Let us explain this method on a specific case which will serve as an illustration. After 1945 and for reasons that will be discussed later on, the US State Department was eager to promote the political, economic and military unification of Europe. The idea itself was not new of course. For instance in the period between the two World Wars several organisations (e.g. the movement of Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi) had emerged which had a similar agenda. They had little resources however and their means were even more limited after the war. When European unification became one of the priorities of the State Department a natural procedure was to fund those organisations already in existence whose programs were consistent with the State Department's own objectives. The “European Movement” was the most important of these organisations. Based in London and headed by Winston Churchill, it was directly funded by the US government. After the creation of the “American Committee on United Europe” (ACUE) by the Truman administration in January 1949 the funding was channeled through this organisation.
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Buck Danny by G. Troisfontaines,
J.-M. Charlier and V. Hubinon (1947–2008)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 2** An American comic strip and its French version. The “Steve Canyon” series was in fact the continuation of the series “Terry and the pirates” which was started by Milton Caniff in 1934. It takes place in China at a time when the United States started to worry about the Japanese policy. In 1946, the “Terry and the pirates” series was published in “Pacific Stars and Stripes”, the free daily newspaper destined to US troops in the Pacific theater. At the end of 1946, Caniff started the “Steve Canyon” series but the “Terry and the pirates” series was continued until 1973 by another author. The “Steve Canyon” series ended in 1988 with the death of Caniff. There are striking similarities between Caniff’s series and the Buck Danny series published in Spirou, a Belgian French-speaking journal for teenagers. It is not only the main character (namely Buck Danny alias Steve Canyon alias Terry Lee) which is the same in both publications, but also several secondary characters (e.g. Sonny Tuckson or Dragon Lady). Of course, the crucial point is that by describing US-led military operations the Buck Danny series also spread the version of history favored by the State Department.

side of American society. (Schrijvers 2012)

* Early in 1945, the OWI (Office of War Information) invited Belgian newspapers over to the United States. There was a similar campaign in France. For instance, Jean Paul Sartre was among the invited persons and he wrote several long articles for the “Figaro” newspaper after he came back. (Schrijvers 2012)

## Method 3: Funding non-governmental organisations

Let us explain this method on a specific case which will serve as an illustration. After 1945 and for reasons that will be discussed later on, the US State Department was eager to promote the political, economic and military unification of Europe. The idea itself was not new of course. For instance in the period between the two World Wars several organisations (e.g. the movement of Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi) had emerged which had a similar agenda. They had little resources however and their means were even more limited after the war. When European unification became one of the priorities of the State Department a natural procedure was to fund those organisations already in existence whose programs were consistent with the State Department's own objectives. The “European Movement” was the most important of these organisations. Based in London and headed by Winston Churchill, it was directly funded by the US government. After the creation of the “American Committee on United Europe” (ACUE) by the Truman administration in January 1949 the funding was channeled through this organisation.
Needless to say, when you sponsor a foreign organization you expect it to work in a direction which agrees with your own objectives. Such a crisis broke out in June 1950 when the ACUE abruptly refused to continue funding the European Movement. This episode will be discussed in more detail later on.

## Method 4: Gaining influence through “cooperation”

### Intelligence cooperation

Ever since the end of World War II, the United States is the uncontested world leader in military affairs and intelligence. In this respect it can be recalled that the US spends on defense as much as the rest of the world taken together. Regarding intelligence gathering, the recent revelations by Edgar Snowden have shown the extent of US intelligence gathering organizations. When one country is so much ahead of all others cooperation is not a partnership between equals but rather a fairly unequal association in which the weaker party falls under the dependence of the leader.

A first illustration was provided by events which occurred in Australia in 1973-1974. In March 1946 a secret treaty called the “UKUSA Agreement” was signed between the UK and the US for the purpose of intelligence sharing. In the following years it was extended to Australia, Canada and New Zealand. However, it was considered so secret that successive Australian prime ministers were not informed about it. The first prime minister who was informed was Gough Whitlam in 1973 in the aftermath of the so-called Murphy raids on the “Australian Security Intelligence Organization” (ASIO). At that time a US CIA station was operating at Pine Gap without the knowledge of the Australian government. Whitlam tried to close Pine Gap but was dismissed as Prime Minister before being able to do so<fnref n="22" />.

As a second illustration one can mention the collaboration of several former East European countries with the CIA in its overseas torture program for which the CIA prefers to use a fairly opaque expression, namely “rendition program”. On 24 July 2014 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the CIA ran a secret jail on Polish soil in the years following 2001²³. The court case was brought by two men, Saudi-born Abu Zubaydah, and Saudi national Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri, who said they were flown in secret to a CIA-run jail in a Polish forest and subjected to treatment that amounted to torture (Taipei Times, Reuters 25 July 2014, press release on the website of the Court). The two men, who are now (July 2014) in Guantanamo

<footnote n="22">²²In a highly surprising move, Whitlam was dismissed by the Governor-General that is to say the representative of the British queen. For more details about this episode one can read the Wikipedia articles entitled “UKUSA Agreement”, “Gough Whitlam”, “Pine Gap”.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³There is a some irony in this judgment for one may remember that this court started to operate in 1954 together with the “European Commission of Human Rights” and that one of its main role during the Cold War was to denounce human right violations in the USSR and East European countries.</footnote>
Needless to say, when you sponsor a foreign organization you expect it to work in a direction which agrees with your own objectives. Such a crisis broke out in June 1950 when the ACUE abruptly refused to continue funding the European Movement. This episode will be discussed in more detail later on.

## Method 4: Gaining influence through “cooperation”

### Intelligence cooperation

Ever since the end of World War II, the United States is the uncontested world leader in military affairs and intelligence. In this respect it can be recalled that the US spends on defense as much as the rest of the world taken together. Regarding intelligence gathering, the recent revelations by Edgar Snowden have shown the extent of US intelligence gathering organizations. When one country is so much ahead of all others cooperation is not a partnership between equals but rather a fairly unequal association in which the weaker party falls under the dependence of the leader.

A first illustration was provided by events which occurred in Australia in 1973-1974. In March 1946 a secret treaty called the “UKUSA Agreement” was signed between the UK and the US for the purpose of intelligence sharing. In the following years it was extended to Australia, Canada and New Zealand. However, it was considered so secret that successive Australian prime ministers were not informed about it. The first prime minister who was informed was Gough Whitlam in 1973 in the aftermath of the so-called Murphy raids on the “Australian Security Intelligence Organization” (ASIO). At that time a US CIA station was operating at Pine Gap without the knowledge of the Australian government. Whitlam tried to close Pine Gap but was dismissed as Prime Minister before being able to do so<fnref n="22" />.

As a second illustration one can mention the collaboration of several former East European countries with the CIA in its overseas torture program for which the CIA prefers to use a fairly opaque expression, namely “rendition program”. On 24 July 2014 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the CIA ran a secret jail on Polish soil in the years following 2001²³. The court case was brought by two men, Saudi-born Abu Zubaydah, and Saudi national Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri, who said they were flown in secret to a CIA-run jail in a Polish forest and subjected to treatment that amounted to torture (Taipei Times, Reuters 25 July 2014, press release on the website of the Court). The two men, who are now (July 2014) in Guantanamo

<footnote n="22">²²In a highly surprising move, Whitlam was dismissed by the Governor-General that is to say the representative of the British queen. For more details about this episode one can read the Wikipedia articles entitled “UKUSA Agreement”, “Gough Whitlam”, “Pine Gap”.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³There is a some irony in this judgment for one may remember that this court started to operate in 1954 together with the “European Commission of Human Rights” and that one of its main role during the Cold War was to denounce human right violations in the USSR and East European countries.</footnote>
Bay, the US military prison on Cuba, brought the case against Poland for failing to prevent their illegal detention and torture.

Since its capture in Pakistan in March 2002 Zubaydah has not been charged with any criminal offence and remains in indefinite detention in Guanahamo.

After his capture in Dubai in October 2002, Al-Nashiri was brought to several places: Afghanistan, Thailand, Poland, Morocco and finally Guanahamo Bay. The US government brought charges against him in June 2008 for trial before a Military Commission. The date of his trial has been set for 2 September 2014.

In Poland the two prisoners were detained at the Stare Kiejkuty base where they were interrogated by CIA teams.

The court ruled that Poland had violated the European Convention on Human Rights and ordered Poland to pay Al-Nashiri 100,000 euros in damages and 130,000 euros to Zubaydah<fnref n="24" />. The Polish government has a close security relationship with the United States. Polish officials have always denied the existence of any CIA jail on their territory. and have refused to collaborate with the court.

Similar cases have been lodged with the European Court of Human Rights against Romania and Lithuania.

It can be observed that the European Court of Human Rights is more a political body than a court of justice.

* Firstly, because until 1998 the admissibility of cases was decided by the “European Commission of Human Rights”. The Secretariat of the Commission was chosen by the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe. The deliberations of the Commission were secret.

More precisely, when the “Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” (drafted by the Council of Europe in 1950) came into force in September 1953 three institutions were responsible for its enforcement: (i) the “European Commission of Human Rights”, (ii) the “European Court of Human Rights” and (iii) the “Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe”, consisting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Member States. The members of the Commission are elected by the “Committee of Ministers”. Moreover, the Commission could refer its reports to the “Committee of Ministers”, which would decide whether the Convention had been violated. In other words, the admissibility process was under the control of a political body, the “Committee of Ministers”.

* Secondly because the court has as many as 47 judges, one from each of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe.

<footnote n="24">²⁴Such amounts seem inappropriately small. Moreover, the fact that the judgment came more than 10 years after the crime was committed appears fairly unsatisfactory. The article says that the court ruling did not cover the US because it is outside its jurisdiction. One wonders how during the Cold War East European countries happened to fall within the court's jurisdiction. Probably it is the court itself which determined the extent of its jurisdiction.</footnote>
Bay, the US military prison on Cuba, brought the case against Poland for failing to prevent their illegal detention and torture.

Since its capture in Pakistan in March 2002 Zubaydah has not been charged with any criminal offence and remains in indefinite detention in Guanahamo.

After his capture in Dubai in October 2002, Al-Nashiri was brought to several places: Afghanistan, Thailand, Poland, Morocco and finally Guanahamo Bay. The US government brought charges against him in June 2008 for trial before a Military Commission. The date of his trial has been set for 2 September 2014.

In Poland the two prisoners were detained at the Stare Kiejkuty base where they were interrogated by CIA teams.

The court ruled that Poland had violated the European Convention on Human Rights and ordered Poland to pay Al-Nashiri 100,000 euros in damages and 130,000 euros to Zubaydah<fnref n="24" />. The Polish government has a close security relationship with the United States. Polish officials have always denied the existence of any CIA jail on their territory. and have refused to collaborate with the court.

Similar cases have been lodged with the European Court of Human Rights against Romania and Lithuania.

It can be observed that the European Court of Human Rights is more a political body than a court of justice.

* Firstly, because until 1998 the admissibility of cases was decided by the “European Commission of Human Rights”. The Secretariat of the Commission was chosen by the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe. The deliberations of the Commission were secret.

More precisely, when the “Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” (drafted by the Council of Europe in 1950) came into force in September 1953 three institutions were responsible for its enforcement: (i) the “European Commission of Human Rights”, (ii) the “European Court of Human Rights” and (iii) the “Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe”, consisting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Member States. The members of the Commission are elected by the “Committee of Ministers”. Moreover, the Commission could refer its reports to the “Committee of Ministers”, which would decide whether the Convention had been violated. In other words, the admissibility process was under the control of a political body, the “Committee of Ministers”.

* Secondly because the court has as many as 47 judges, one from each of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe.

<footnote n="24">²⁴Such amounts seem inappropriately small. Moreover, the fact that the judgment came more than 10 years after the crime was committed appears fairly unsatisfactory. The article says that the court ruling did not cover the US because it is outside its jurisdiction. One wonders how during the Cold War East European countries happened to fall within the court's jurisdiction. Probably it is the court itself which determined the extent of its jurisdiction.</footnote>
Finally, one should bear in mind that the “rendition program” in Europe was already investigated by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe which led to the reports prepared by Swiss Senator Dick Marty in 2006, 2007 and 2011.

## Military cooperation

Military cooperation between European countries and the United States started right after World War II and continued ever since; at time of writing (March 2016) it is in full swing.

In all European countries, whether defeated countries or liberated countries, the armed forces had to be rebuilt almost completely. Through the MAAGs (Military Advisory and Assistance Groups) and through the constitution of NATO the US furnished equipment and expertise but this was not without a cost for the European countries. Basically it resulted in enduring US influence up to present day in all these matters which are of such crucial importance for the independence of a country.

It is revealing that in 2013, that is to say some 60 years after the events that they describe, most of the MAAG archives were still classified.

The so-called war against terrorism provided new opportunities for enrolling European armed forces along side the United States. Many European countries took part in the wars in Afghanistan (which started in late 2001) and Iraq (which started in 2003). In both cases their forces were under US command because the United States provided the major part of the troops. More recently, together with the United States and other NATO countries, France (which did not take part in the invasion of Iraq) became involved in the bombing of Libya and Iraq. The last case, i.e. the bombing campaign against Islamic forces in Iraq, illustrates very well how unbalanced this kind of cooperation always is. Although in that campaign of 2015-2016 the French aircraft were taking off from a French aircraft carrier, their objectives were selected by the US command center in Qatar and during their flight they were monitored by and in permanent contact with US radar aircraft (so-called AWACS planes). In other words, without having any direct interest in this war, the French air force was helping the Pentagon to uphold a regime put in place by the US occupation. A parallel with a former time period comes to mind: in the Middle age, it was the privilege of the overlord to get the assistance of his vassals in his wars.

The method in which a country A develops cooperation with other countries in fields in which it is the uncontested leader is not restricted to military cooperation. It can also consist in sponsoring the worldwide diffusion of sports such as basket-ball, base-ball or American football. The following section gives an illustration.

## Unbalanced cooperation: the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission
Finally, one should bear in mind that the “rendition program” in Europe was already investigated by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe which led to the reports prepared by Swiss Senator Dick Marty in 2006, 2007 and 2011.

## Military cooperation

Military cooperation between European countries and the United States started right after World War II and continued ever since; at time of writing (March 2016) it is in full swing.

In all European countries, whether defeated countries or liberated countries, the armed forces had to be rebuilt almost completely. Through the MAAGs (Military Advisory and Assistance Groups) and through the constitution of NATO the US furnished equipment and expertise but this was not without a cost for the European countries. Basically it resulted in enduring US influence up to present day in all these matters which are of such crucial importance for the independence of a country.

It is revealing that in 2013, that is to say some 60 years after the events that they describe, most of the MAAG archives were still classified.

The so-called war against terrorism provided new opportunities for enrolling European armed forces along side the United States. Many European countries took part in the wars in Afghanistan (which started in late 2001) and Iraq (which started in 2003). In both cases their forces were under US command because the United States provided the major part of the troops. More recently, together with the United States and other NATO countries, France (which did not take part in the invasion of Iraq) became involved in the bombing of Libya and Iraq. The last case, i.e. the bombing campaign against Islamic forces in Iraq, illustrates very well how unbalanced this kind of cooperation always is. Although in that campaign of 2015-2016 the French aircraft were taking off from a French aircraft carrier, their objectives were selected by the US command center in Qatar and during their flight they were monitored by and in permanent contact with US radar aircraft (so-called AWACS planes). In other words, without having any direct interest in this war, the French air force was helping the Pentagon to uphold a regime put in place by the US occupation. A parallel with a former time period comes to mind: in the Middle age, it was the privilege of the overlord to get the assistance of his vassals in his wars.

The method in which a country A develops cooperation with other countries in fields in which it is the uncontested leader is not restricted to military cooperation. It can also consist in sponsoring the worldwide diffusion of sports such as basket-ball, base-ball or American football. The following section gives an illustration.

## Unbalanced cooperation: the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission
One of the most spectacular examples of an unequal cooperation between two major countries occurred through the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission (1993-1998) Al Gore was at that time the US vice-president and Chernomyrdin the Russian prime minister appointed by president Boris Yeltsin. Between 1993 and 1998 this commission made key decisions in the privatization of the Russian economy, the reconversion of the Russian defense industry and the reorganisation of the trade between the two countries.

A report of the US Department of State cited in the Wikipedia article about this commission states that “the United States and Russian trade and business agreements [worked out by this commission] included methods to increase the financial strength of both countries”. Well, the reforms that were decided were perhaps good for the United States, but in 1998 after the commission had been working for 5 years, the outcome in Russia was a huge capital outflow, the collapse of the ruble and a *de facto* state bankruptcy.

Incidentally, this financial disaster was similar to the one that occurred in Argentina in 2000-2001 in the sense that there was the same sequence of events: capital flight lead to the collapse of the national currency which in turn compelled the government to discontinue interest payments on IMF (International Monetary Fund) loans.

The Wikipedia article already cited above explains that, together with other cooperation committees, the members of the G-C commission were able to take advantage of their position to enrich themselves.

The United States government gave responsibility to the “Harvard Institute for International Development” to help the Russian transition to a private economy. The Harvard Project was led by Andrei Shleifer and Jonathon Hays. Anatoly Chubais, a Russian economist, politician, and businessman represented Russia. Members of the intertwined Chubais-Harvard network appointed each other on the high-level Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission. Chubais, Shleifer and several others used their insider access to enrich themselves (Wedel 2009)<fnref n="25" />.

The investigation proceeded as follows.

* After the Russian press had raised many questions for over one year, on 22 May 1997 the US Agency for International Development (USAID, an organization working for the State Department has suspended $14 million in grants to the Harvard University institute, saying two of its advisers used their positions for personal profit (NYT 22 May 1997)

* In September 2000 the US government filed an 11-count lawsuit against the University, Shleifer, Zimmerman [Andrei Shleifer's wife], former Harvard employee

<footnote n="25">²⁵Nevertheless in 1998 the New York Time deplored the dismissal of Chubais in the following terms. “On Friday, President Boris N. Yeltsin dismissed his Government’s top negotiator with Western bankers, Anatoly B. Chubais. Mr. Chubais was perhaps the man most trusted by Western negotiators” (NYT 30 August 1998).</footnote>
One of the most spectacular examples of an unequal cooperation between two major countries occurred through the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission (1993-1998) Al Gore was at that time the US vice-president and Chernomyrdin the Russian prime minister appointed by president Boris Yeltsin. Between 1993 and 1998 this commission made key decisions in the privatization of the Russian economy, the reconversion of the Russian defense industry and the reorganisation of the trade between the two countries.

A report of the US Department of State cited in the Wikipedia article about this commission states that “the United States and Russian trade and business agreements [worked out by this commission] included methods to increase the financial strength of both countries”. Well, the reforms that were decided were perhaps good for the United States, but in 1998 after the commission had been working for 5 years, the outcome in Russia was a huge capital outflow, the collapse of the ruble and a *de facto* state bankruptcy.

Incidentally, this financial disaster was similar to the one that occurred in Argentina in 2000-2001 in the sense that there was the same sequence of events: capital flight lead to the collapse of the national currency which in turn compelled the government to discontinue interest payments on IMF (International Monetary Fund) loans.

The Wikipedia article already cited above explains that, together with other cooperation committees, the members of the G-C commission were able to take advantage of their position to enrich themselves.

The United States government gave responsibility to the “Harvard Institute for International Development” to help the Russian transition to a private economy. The Harvard Project was led by Andrei Shleifer and Jonathon Hays. Anatoly Chubais, a Russian economist, politician, and businessman represented Russia. Members of the intertwined Chubais-Harvard network appointed each other on the high-level Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission. Chubais, Shleifer and several others used their insider access to enrich themselves (Wedel 2009)<fnref n="25" />.

The investigation proceeded as follows.

* After the Russian press had raised many questions for over one year, on 22 May 1997 the US Agency for International Development (USAID, an organization working for the State Department has suspended $14 million in grants to the Harvard University institute, saying two of its advisers used their positions for personal profit (NYT 22 May 1997)

* In September 2000 the US government filed an 11-count lawsuit against the University, Shleifer, Zimmerman [Andrei Shleifer's wife], former Harvard employee

<footnote n="25">²⁵Nevertheless in 1998 the New York Time deplored the dismissal of Chubais in the following terms. “On Friday, President Boris N. Yeltsin dismissed his Government’s top negotiator with Western bankers, Anatoly B. Chubais. Mr. Chubais was perhaps the man most trusted by Western negotiators” (NYT 30 August 1998).</footnote>
Jonathan Hay, and Hay's wife Elizabeth Hebert. (McClintick 2006)

* On June 28, 2004, a US district court found Shleifer liable for conspiracy to defraud the US government, and concluded that Harvard had breached its contract with the government. (McClintick 2006)

* On August 4, 2005 Harvard University agreed to pay $26.5 million to settle a civil complaint about inappropriate security purchases made by Andrei Shleifer. Shleifer himself paid $2 million and his wife $1.5 million<fnref n="26" />. (NYT 4 August 2005)

* Janine Wedel in her book "Shadow Elite" (2009, p. 248) observes that Harvard's financial assets swelled from $4.6 billion in 1990 to $19 billion in 2000 and wonders how much of this "mushrooming endowment" is due to its financial transactions with Russia.

In his deposition Andrei Shleifer acknowledged that he had numerous conversations with representatives of the "Harvard Management Company", Harvard's finance arm.

Wedel also notes (2009, p. 122) that from 1992 to 1995 the Shleifer-Chubais clan was "the eyes and ears of US policymakers". This group was in close contact with the USAID (an agency of the State Department widely seen as a front organization of the CIA) whose Moscow director, Jim Norris, oversaw Russian privatization operations.

With respect to the privatization operations of the 1990s, Wedel (2009, p. 68) writes that the record of the "massive looting" and transfer of Russian and Ukrainian wealth to Western banks "is by now well established". However, in the chapter that she devotes to this question she fails to give any real example of such "looting". As a matter of fact, one of the only detailed examples of alleged bribery that she gives (2009, p. 5-7) refers to the agreement that former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder made with Gazprom about a pipeline from Russia to western Europe.

## Spreading American football in China

This case relies on some personal recollections. While visiting Shanghai in September 2007 I was surprised to see a kind of documentary about American football displayed on the TV screens that can be watched in subway stations and in carriages. It was not an advertisement but rather a brief introduction to the basic rules of American football explained by an attractive young lady. It made me wonder what was the organization behind this promotion campaign. I got an answer 6 years later.

Another way to promote American football in China was to send demonstration teams to the campuses of top universities. Organized in a festive way usually over a week end, these demonstrations attracted non only students but also children from

<footnote n="26">²⁶It should be noted that Harvard itself had also bought a substantial amount of Russian shares. For instance, it had bought $130 million shares of the Russian oil company Surgut. (NYT 3 August 2005)</footnote>
Jonathan Hay, and Hay's wife Elizabeth Hebert. (McClintick 2006)

* On June 28, 2004, a US district court found Shleifer liable for conspiracy to defraud the US government, and concluded that Harvard had breached its contract with the government. (McClintick 2006)

* On August 4, 2005 Harvard University agreed to pay $26.5 million to settle a civil complaint about inappropriate security purchases made by Andrei Shleifer. Shleifer himself paid $2 million and his wife $1.5 million<fnref n="26" />. (NYT 4 August 2005)

* Janine Wedel in her book "Shadow Elite" (2009, p. 248) observes that Harvard's financial assets swelled from $4.6 billion in 1990 to $19 billion in 2000 and wonders how much of this "mushrooming endowment" is due to its financial transactions with Russia.

In his deposition Andrei Shleifer acknowledged that he had numerous conversations with representatives of the "Harvard Management Company", Harvard's finance arm.

Wedel also notes (2009, p. 122) that from 1992 to 1995 the Shleifer-Chubais clan was "the eyes and ears of US policymakers". This group was in close contact with the USAID (an agency of the State Department widely seen as a front organization of the CIA) whose Moscow director, Jim Norris, oversaw Russian privatization operations.

With respect to the privatization operations of the 1990s, Wedel (2009, p. 68) writes that the record of the "massive looting" and transfer of Russian and Ukrainian wealth to Western banks "is by now well established". However, in the chapter that she devotes to this question she fails to give any real example of such "looting". As a matter of fact, one of the only detailed examples of alleged bribery that she gives (2009, p. 5-7) refers to the agreement that former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder made with Gazprom about a pipeline from Russia to western Europe.

## Spreading American football in China

This case relies on some personal recollections. While visiting Shanghai in September 2007 I was surprised to see a kind of documentary about American football displayed on the TV screens that can be watched in subway stations and in carriages. It was not an advertisement but rather a brief introduction to the basic rules of American football explained by an attractive young lady. It made me wonder what was the organization behind this promotion campaign. I got an answer 6 years later.

Another way to promote American football in China was to send demonstration teams to the campuses of top universities. Organized in a festive way usually over a week end, these demonstrations attracted non only students but also children from

<footnote n="26">²⁶It should be noted that Harvard itself had also bought a substantial amount of Russian shares. For instance, it had bought $130 million shares of the Russian oil company Surgut. (NYT 3 August 2005)</footnote>
the city neighborhood along with their parents.

On 9 November 2013 there was a long article in “China Daily” which eventually provided a clue. It started with the following sentence: “History will unfold at the Capital Gymnasium in Beijing on Sunday afternoon [10 November] when American football makes its long-anticipated debut in China. “It has been a long journey but I am thrilled to be the one who sponsored what we believe is the biggest thing to hit China’s sporting scene in a very long time” said Martin Judge who has sunk more than $10 million into making his dream a reality. He added “We could not have hoped to come this far without the support and cooperation of the Chinese government”. In the first year, 70% of the players will be American; then, in subsequent years the proportion of Chinese players is expected to rise. The kind of football which will be played will be so-called “Arena American football” which features much less interruptions than standard American football in which the action usually stops some 30 seconds after it started.

Perhaps one may be tempted to say: “Well, this is only about sport, so what is the point?”. This is precisely the trap. We will see that this argument is used over and over again. “This is only about comic strips, this is only about public health, ...”. However, any smart political leader will understand that all these topics have also a political dimension and significance. It is all about the confrontation between different cultural systems. The Romans were able to spread their way of life throughout their empire. After emperor Constantine (306-337) converted to Christianity, they were even able to “export” their religion.

Ultimate goal: the worldwide domination of US companies

In the process of influencing other countries what is the main objective? The cases documented in this section strongly suggest that it is the worldwide expansion and domination of US companies. Of course, all government support their national companies. However, there is a big difference between the highly effective support provided by the US State Department and US Department of Justice and the basically ineffective support provided by the European Commission. Why is this support ineffective?

* Firstly because the European Union is a very weak form of government.

* Secondly, it is well known (examples are given below) that the European agencies in Brussels are widely open to all forms of lobbying which is just a polite way to say that they are in fact corrupt.

* The trials of German and Japanese war criminals in the wake of World War II gave the US government a unique opportunity to develop an expertise in how to build up a case against a foreign country. European countries never had the opportunity to
the city neighborhood along with their parents.

On 9 November 2013 there was a long article in “China Daily” which eventually provided a clue. It started with the following sentence: “History will unfold at the Capital Gymnasium in Beijing on Sunday afternoon [10 November] when American football makes its long-anticipated debut in China. “It has been a long journey but I am thrilled to be the one who sponsored what we believe is the biggest thing to hit China’s sporting scene in a very long time” said Martin Judge who has sunk more than $10 million into making his dream a reality. He added “We could not have hoped to come this far without the support and cooperation of the Chinese government”. In the first year, 70% of the players will be American; then, in subsequent years the proportion of Chinese players is expected to rise. The kind of football which will be played will be so-called “Arena American football” which features much less interruptions than standard American football in which the action usually stops some 30 seconds after it started.

Perhaps one may be tempted to say: “Well, this is only about sport, so what is the point?”. This is precisely the trap. We will see that this argument is used over and over again. “This is only about comic strips, this is only about public health, ...”. However, any smart political leader will understand that all these topics have also a political dimension and significance. It is all about the confrontation between different cultural systems. The Romans were able to spread their way of life throughout their empire. After emperor Constantine (306-337) converted to Christianity, they were even able to “export” their religion.

Ultimate goal: the worldwide domination of US companies

In the process of influencing other countries what is the main objective? The cases documented in this section strongly suggest that it is the worldwide expansion and domination of US companies. Of course, all government support their national companies. However, there is a big difference between the highly effective support provided by the US State Department and US Department of Justice and the basically ineffective support provided by the European Commission. Why is this support ineffective?

* Firstly because the European Union is a very weak form of government.

* Secondly, it is well known (examples are given below) that the European agencies in Brussels are widely open to all forms of lobbying which is just a polite way to say that they are in fact corrupt.

* The trials of German and Japanese war criminals in the wake of World War II gave the US government a unique opportunity to develop an expertise in how to build up a case against a foreign country. European countries never had the opportunity to
develop such an expertise.

The next subsections document some specific cases of close and effective cooperation between US companies and the agencies of the US government.

## The case of Monsanto

MON 810 was the first genetically modified corn variety developed by the US company Monsanto. Since its introduction in the 1990s it has been adopted by many countries around the world with the exception of the European countries. Overcoming this resistance was therefore a major objective for Monsanto and for the US Department of State. This is illustrated by the following excerpts from a message sent by US ambassador in Paris, Craig Stapleton, to the Department of State<fnref n="27" />.

2007 December 14, CONFIDENTIAL.

In our view, Europe is moving backwards not forwards on this issue with France playing a leading role, along with Austria, Italy. The government of France sees the 10-year review of the Commission's authorization of MON 810 as a key opportunity. It will play a leading role in renewed European consideration of the acceptance of agricultural biotechnology.

Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the European Union. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices. In fact, the pro-biotech side in France have told us retaliation is the only way to begin to turn this issue in France.

Both the government of France and the Commission have suggested that their actions should not alarm us since they are only cultivation rather than import bans. We see the cultivation ban as a first step. We should not be prepared to cede on cultivation because of our considerable planting seed business in Europe.

[Signed] Stapleton

## Unilateral US tariff hikes may be incompatible with WTO rules

Let us illustrate this issue with the following case.

On 14 July 2014 WTO [World Trade Organization] judges said that the US broke its rules in imposing hefty duties on Chinese steel products, solar panels and a range of other goods that Washington argues enjoyed government subsidies. The case which had been under scrutiny for nearly two years reflected a widespread concern in the 160-member WTO over what many see as illegal US protection of its own producers. The panel found that Washington was at fault in its calculations of the value of the subsidies to Chinese firms producing items

<footnote n="27">²⁷Source: http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07PARIS4723_a.html</footnote>
develop such an expertise.

The next subsections document some specific cases of close and effective coopera-
tion between US companies and the agencies of the US government.

The case of Monsanto

MON 810 was the first genetically modified corn variety developed by the US com-
pany Monsanto. Since its introduction in the 1990s it has been adopted by many
countries around the world with the exception of the European countries. Over-
coming this resistance was therefore a major objective for Monsanto and for the US
Department of State. This is illustrated by the following excerpts from a message
sent by US ambassador in Paris, Craig Stapleton, to the Department of State<fnref n="27" />.

2007 December 14, CONFIDENTIAL.

In our view, Europe is moving backwards not forwards on this issue with France playing a leading role, along with Austria, Italy. The government of France sees the 10-year review of the Commission's authorization of MON 810 as a key opportunity. It will play a leading role in renewed European consideration of the acceptance of agricultural biotechnology.

Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the European Union. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices. In fact, the pro-biotech side in France have told us retaliation is the only way to begin to turn this issue in France.

Both the government of France and the Commission have suggested that their actions should not alarm us since they are only cultivation rather than import bans. We see the cultivation ban as a first step. We should not be prepared to cede on cultivation because of our considerable planting seed business in Europe.

[Signed] Stapleton

Unilateral US tariff hikes may be incompatible with WTO rules

Let us illustrate this issue with the following case.

On 14 July 2014 WTO [World Trade Organization] judges said that the US broke its rules in imposing hefty duties on Chinese steel products, solar panels and a range of other goods that Washington argues enjoyed government subsidies. The case which had been under scrutiny for nearly two years reflected a widespread concern in the 160-member WTO over what many see as illegal US protection of its own producers. The panel found that Washington was at fault in its calculations of the value of the subsidies to Chinese firms producing items

<footnote n="27">²⁷Source: http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07PARIS4723_a.html</footnote>
like kitchen shelving, grass cutters and even citric acid. The US was asked to bring its measures into line with the WTO's agreement on subsidies. (Taipei Times, Reuters 16 July 2014)

## Foreign executives sentenced and jailed in the US

To our best knowledge no US business executive has ever been jailed for illicit business behavior in a foreign country. Yet, there have been quite a few cases in which Japanese executives were indicted, sentenced and jailed in the United States. One case is documented below by excerpts from the "Japan Times".

Japan Times, 18 August 2012.

The US Justice Department said an executive with automotive parts supplier Yazaki Corp. has agreed to plead guilty in a conspiracy to fix prices of instrument panel clusters installed in cars sold in the United States. He and others agreed to sell the components at noncompetitive prices.

Toshio Sudo agreed to serve 14 months in a US prison, pay a $20,000 fine and cooperate with the investigation.

Sudo is the 11th [Japanese] person charged in the investigation of price-fixing in the auto parts industry.

A 14-month confinement for having sold car components at noncompetitive prices appears to be a fairly harsh sentence. The fact that Japan is a faithful ally of the United States did not provide any leniency.

Japanese executives were not the only businessmen to be targeted. One may remember that several executives from the Swiss bank UBS were indicted and tried in the United States for inciting US citizens to tax fraud.

What is really remarkable in such cases is the fact that the countries which were targeted did not voice any protest. This contrasts with the retaliation advice given by Ambassador Stapleton.

## Policy of the US State Department

Although we said above that supporting US companies was probably the most permanent objective of the State Department, it would be a mistake to forget its other strategic goals. For instance, during the Cold War containing the Soviet Union was clearly a priority. However friendly toward US companies a foreign leader may have been, if he had close relations with the Soviet Union, he would be considered with suspicion. The same observation can be made nowadays (2014) with the Soviet Union being replaced by the PRC.

## Defeated countries in historical perspective
like kitchen shelving, grass cutters and even citric acid. The US was asked to bring its measures into line with the WTO's agreement on subsidies. (Taipei Times, Reuters 16 July 2014)

## Foreign executives sentenced and jailed in the US

To our best knowledge no US business executive has ever been jailed for illicit business behavior in a foreign country. Yet, there have been quite a few cases in which Japanese executives were indicted, sentenced and jailed in the United States. One case is documented below by excerpts from the "Japan Times".

Japan Times, 18 August 2012.

The US Justice Department said an executive with automotive parts supplier Yazaki Corp. has agreed to plead guilty in a conspiracy to fix prices of instrument panel clusters installed in cars sold in the United States. He and others agreed to sell the components at noncompetitive prices.

Toshio Sudo agreed to serve 14 months in a US prison, pay a $20,000 fine and cooperate with the investigation.

Sudo is the 11th [Japanese] person charged in the investigation of price-fixing in the auto parts industry.

A 14-month confinement for having sold car components at noncompetitive prices appears to be a fairly harsh sentence. The fact that Japan is a faithful ally of the United States did not provide any leniency.

Japanese executives were not the only businessmen to be targeted. One may remember that several executives from the Swiss bank UBS were indicted and tried in the United States for inciting US citizens to tax fraud.

What is really remarkable in such cases is the fact that the countries which were targeted did not voice any protest. This contrasts with the retaliation advice given by Ambassador Stapleton.

## Policy of the US State Department

Although we said above that supporting US companies was probably the most permanent objective of the State Department, it would be a mistake to forget its other strategic goals. For instance, during the Cold War containing the Soviet Union was clearly a priority. However friendly toward US companies a foreign leader may have been, if he had close relations with the Soviet Union, he would be considered with suspicion. The same observation can be made nowadays (2014) with the Soviet Union being replaced by the PRC.

## Defeated countries in historical perspective
## Conditional versus unconditional surrender

From a historical perspective the end of the Second World War was quite exceptional in several respects, the most important of which was the requirement for *unconditional surrender* introduced by President Roosevelt at the Casablanca conference in January 1943. That was a radical innovation. We are told that Churchill and Staline did not immediately agree with this demand because they feared that it might prolong the war. That may indeed have been the case but it also allowed the United States to develop a policy in the defeated countries that prevented the surge for revenge that had occurred in France after the defeat of 1871 and in Germany after the defeat of 1918.

In order to get a clearer view of these differences between World War II and previous conflicts it will be useful to make a comparison with the peace of 1871 and 1918.

## The conditional surrenders of 1871 and 1918

The treaty of Versailles of 26 February 1871 (later confirmed by the Treaty of Frankfurt of 10 May 1871) ended the war between France and Germany. It is often called the “Franco-Prussian War” but this expression is not completely correct because it also involved the kingdoms of Bavaria and Saxony. The peace treaty included the following conditions.

* a war indemnity of 5 billion francs to be paid by France to Germany.

* Some 500,000 German troops would continue to occupy the northern part of France until the payment was complete. Moreover, the cost of the occupation which represented about 0.4 billion franc per year had to be paid by France.

* Preliminary discussion began on the annexation by Germany of the region of Alsace Lorraine in the east of France. Despite Bismarck's objections, the German generals insisted that the territory was necessary as a defensive barrier. However, Bismarck opposed the annexation because he did not wish to make Germany a permanent enemy of France but his opinion did not prevail.

The war indemnity was finished to be paid in 1873 and by September 1873 all German troops had left France. It can be noted that if one excepts the crucial question of the annexation of eastern provinces these conditions were similar (but somewhat more severe) to those imposed on France by the First and Second Treaty of Paris of 1814 (30 May) and 1815 (20 November). In this case the amount of the war indemnity was 0.7 billion franc; in addition an occupation army of 150,000 troops would remain in the northern and eastern parts of France until the indemnity was paid. The cost of these troops were also covered by France and represented approximately 0.13 billion franc per year. It took France three years to pay the indemnity and in 1818 the last occupation troops left the country.
## Conditional versus unconditional surrender

From a historical perspective the end of the Second World War was quite exceptional in several respects, the most important of which was the requirement for *unconditional surrender* introduced by President Roosevelt at the Casablanca conference in January 1943. That was a radical innovation. We are told that Churchill and Staline did not immediately agree with this demand because they feared that it might prolong the war. That may indeed have been the case but it also allowed the United States to develop a policy in the defeated countries that prevented the surge for revenge that had occurred in France after the defeat of 1871 and in Germany after the defeat of 1918.

In order to get a clearer view of these differences between World War II and previous conflicts it will be useful to make a comparison with the peace of 1871 and 1918.

## The conditional surrenders of 1871 and 1918

The treaty of Versailles of 26 February 1871 (later confirmed by the Treaty of Frankfurt of 10 May 1871) ended the war between France and Germany. It is often called the “Franco-Prussian War” but this expression is not completely correct because it also involved the kingdoms of Bavaria and Saxony. The peace treaty included the following conditions.

* a war indemnity of 5 billion francs to be paid by France to Germany.

* Some 500,000 German troops would continue to occupy the northern part of France until the payment was complete. Moreover, the cost of the occupation which represented about 0.4 billion franc per year had to be paid by France.

* Preliminary discussion began on the annexation by Germany of the region of Alsace Lorraine in the east of France. Despite Bismarck's objections, the German generals insisted that the territory was necessary as a defensive barrier. However, Bismarck opposed the annexation because he did not wish to make Germany a permanent enemy of France but his opinion did not prevail.

The war indemnity was finished to be paid in 1873 and by September 1873 all German troops had left France. It can be noted that if one excepts the crucial question of the annexation of eastern provinces these conditions were similar (but somewhat more severe) to those imposed on France by the First and Second Treaty of Paris of 1814 (30 May) and 1815 (20 November). In this case the amount of the war indemnity was 0.7 billion franc; in addition an occupation army of 150,000 troops would remain in the northern and eastern parts of France until the indemnity was paid. The cost of these troops were also covered by France and represented approximately 0.13 billion franc per year. It took France three years to pay the indemnity and in 1818 the last occupation troops left the country.
## The unconditional surrenders of 1945

In 1945 there were unconditional surrenders for Italy, Germany and Japan. In such cases international law holds that the defeated country should nevertheless be protected by the rules stated in the Hague Convention of 1907. However, that was hardly the case. For instance, the Hague convention stipulates that the victor should not violate the patent rights of the defeated country. In spite of that, US technical teams were sent to Germany and Japan to investigate and take away all devices deemed of interest for the American industry (see "Relations between Allied occupation forces and the population of Japan").

* Although there was no official war indemnity, the victors asked for reparations in the form of commodities and industrial equipment.

* The political leaders of the defeated countries were tried by the victors.

* Moreover, a broad extension was given to the notion of war crime which resulted in several hundred trials of officers and soldiers.

* The occupation of the countries by foreign troops lasted several years during which they were ruled by a military government officially in the case of Germany and *de facto* in the case of Japan.

* The United States got the right to establish military bases for a period of time that continues until present day (19 September 2013).

But these were probably not the most important differences with respect to 1815, 1871 or 1919. The deepest and most lasting effect was the way in which the social and psychological conditions prevailing in the country were affected. Quite surprisingly, these changes affected not only the defeated countries but also the liberated countries. In order to illustrate this point we will consider the case of Luxembourg and Denmark.

## Postwar manipulation of vanquished countries

After a war the main concern of the victor is to prevent the defeated country from starting a new war in the near future. In this respect the postwar provisions set up by the peace treaties of 1918 were a complete failure. As a matter of fact, the previous centuries provided numerous examples of recurrent wars between the same countries. For instance, Britain and France were at war in the middle of the 18th century during the so-called Seven Year War, then again during the American Independence War, then again during the wars that followed the French Revolution of 1789.

With regard to this problem, even a leader like General de Gaulle who had a broad knowledge and understanding of history did not have any good solution to propose. His requirement for a future peace treaty with Germany was to ask that the new German state should not be allowed to rule the part of Germany on the west bank of the Rhine. Well, this zone had already been demilitarized in the wake of World War
## The unconditional surrenders of 1945

In 1945 there were unconditional surrenders for Italy, Germany and Japan. In such cases international law holds that the defeated country should nevertheless be protected by the rules stated in the Hague Convention of 1907. However, that was hardly the case. For instance, the Hague convention stipulates that the victor should not violate the patent rights of the defeated country. In spite of that, US technical teams were sent to Germany and Japan to investigate and take away all devices deemed of interest for the American industry (see "Relations between Allied occupation forces and the population of Japan").

* Although there was no official war indemnity, the victors asked for reparations in the form of commodities and industrial equipment.

* The political leaders of the defeated countries were tried by the victors.

* Moreover, a broad extension was given to the notion of war crime which resulted in several hundred trials of officers and soldiers.

* The occupation of the countries by foreign troops lasted several years during which they were ruled by a military government officially in the case of Germany and *de facto* in the case of Japan.

* The United States got the right to establish military bases for a period of time that continues until present day (19 September 2013).

But these were probably not the most important differences with respect to 1815, 1871 or 1919. The deepest and most lasting effect was the way in which the social and psychological conditions prevailing in the country were affected. Quite surprisingly, these changes affected not only the defeated countries but also the liberated countries. In order to illustrate this point we will consider the case of Luxembourg and Denmark.

## Postwar manipulation of vanquished countries

After a war the main concern of the victor is to prevent the defeated country from starting a new war in the near future. In this respect the postwar provisions set up by the peace treaties of 1918 were a complete failure. As a matter of fact, the previous centuries provided numerous examples of recurrent wars between the same countries. For instance, Britain and France were at war in the middle of the 18th century during the so-called Seven Year War, then again during the American Independence War, then again during the wars that followed the French Revolution of 1789.

With regard to this problem, even a leader like General de Gaulle who had a broad knowledge and understanding of history did not have any good solution to propose. His requirement for a future peace treaty with Germany was to ask that the new German state should not be allowed to rule the part of Germany on the west bank of the Rhine. Well, this zone had already been demilitarized in the wake of World War
I and with little effect.

At a deeper level, neither Churchill, nor de Gaulle or Staline understood that there will be a durable peace only if forces favoring peace emerge and grow inside of the defeated power. On the contrary, the US government had the experience of the Civil War. In this case, the military victory of the Union was followed by what is called a "Reconstruction period" which was marked by considerable interference of the federal government in the internal affairs of southern states. The idea was to root out the factors (and people) that triggered the war.

The same method will be tried in the vanquished countries. Basically it comprised the following steps:

* Persons who were willing to cooperate with the Allies received nominal authority under strict Allied supervision.

* Persons unwilling to cooperate were discarded or tried by military provost courts or (for more serious offenses) by military commissions. The same courts had already been used in southern states during the Reconstruction phase.

* Thanks to a complete control of the media and clever public relations campaigns the occupation forces were able to change the mood of the public and at the same time to hide the fact that the country was ruled by a Military Government <fnref n="28" />.

Inventing and implementing such a policy was certainly a great challenge. With the benefit of hindsight one must recognize that it was an astonishing success. Ever since the end of World War II, some 70 years ago, all vanquished and liberated countries have remained faithful allies of the United States. What a difference with what happened after 1871 or 1918!

## Luxembourg and its radio station

Revision of US policy towards the Soviet-dominated nations of Eastern Europe (Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Rumania<fnref n="29" />. Because present conditions of ferment in the dominated nations offer new, though still limited, US opportunities for influencing the dominated regimes, the proposed policy provides for further increasing various kinds of contacts and exchanges such as cultural contacts, exchanges of persons, etc.

<footnote n="28">²⁸In a sense this kind of exercise was similar to the role played by the so-called psycho-historians of Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" story. In this novel the psycho-historians were able to guide the rulers of all nations in the galaxy without giving them any suspicion that they were in fact manipulated.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹The policies toward East Germany, Poland and Yugoslavia were distinct and determined at previous meetings of the "National Security Council" held in February and April 1958. The report notes that "for Poland and Yugoslavia we encourage, through financial assistance and otherwise, their demonstrated efforts to assert varying degrees of independence from Soviet domination". "Radio Free Europe" and "Radio Liberty" were used for this purpose. Broadcasts by Radio Luxembourg served the same purpose in a "softer" (and perhaps smarter) way.</footnote>
I and with little effect.

At a deeper level, neither Churchill, nor de Gaulle or Staline understood that there will be a durable peace only if forces favoring peace emerge and grow inside of the defeated power. On the contrary, the US government had the experience of the Civil War. In this case, the military victory of the Union was followed by what is called a "Reconstruction period" which was marked by considerable interference of the federal government in the internal affairs of southern states. The idea was to root out the factors (and people) that triggered the war.

The same method will be tried in the vanquished countries. Basically it comprised the following steps:

* Persons who were willing to cooperate with the Allies received nominal authority under strict Allied supervision.

* Persons unwilling to cooperate were discarded or tried by military provost courts or (for more serious offenses) by military commissions. The same courts had already been used in southern states during the Reconstruction phase.

* Thanks to a complete control of the media and clever public relations campaigns the occupation forces were able to change the mood of the public and at the same time to hide the fact that the country was ruled by a Military Government <fnref n="28" />.

Inventing and implementing such a policy was certainly a great challenge. With the benefit of hindsight one must recognize that it was an astonishing success. Ever since the end of World War II, some 70 years ago, all vanquished and liberated countries have remained faithful allies of the United States. What a difference with what happened after 1871 or 1918!

## Luxembourg and its radio station

Revision of US policy towards the Soviet-dominated nations of Eastern Europe (Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Rumania<fnref n="29" />. Because present conditions of ferment in the dominated nations offer new, though still limited, US opportunities for influencing the dominated regimes, the proposed policy provides for further increasing various kinds of contacts and exchanges such as cultural contacts, exchanges of persons, etc.

<footnote n="28">²⁸In a sense this kind of exercise was similar to the role played by the so-called psycho-historians of Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" story. In this novel the psycho-historians were able to guide the rulers of all nations in the galaxy without giving them any suspicion that they were in fact manipulated.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹The policies toward East Germany, Poland and Yugoslavia were distinct and determined at previous meetings of the "National Security Council" held in February and April 1958. The report notes that "for Poland and Yugoslavia we encourage, through financial assistance and otherwise, their demonstrated efforts to assert varying degrees of independence from Soviet domination". "Radio Free Europe" and "Radio Liberty" were used for this purpose. Broadcasts by Radio Luxembourg served the same purpose in a "softer" (and perhaps smarter) way.</footnote>
Summary of discussion at the “US National Security Council” of 22 May 1958 (source: Dwight Eisenhower Library).

Luxembourg is a small country but for the Allies it had an important asset, namely its radio station. Established in 1933, it was at that time one of the most powerful private broadcasters in the world with a power of 1,300 kW.

## Liberation

On May 24, 1944, the Luxembourg government in exile in Washington, D.C. agreed that, following the liberation of the Grand Duchy, they would turn over the facilities of Radio Luxembourg to US Army control. More specifically, this control would be given to the SHAEF (Supreme Headquarter of the Allied Expeditionary Force). Accordingly, when on 10 September 1944, the German armies fled from Luxembourg (surprisingly without destroying the transmitter) the radio was turned over to the “Psychological Warfare Branch” of the US Office of War Information (OWI) under the management of CBS radio chief William S. Paley.

During the remaining time of the war the radio broadcast so-called black propaganda, a form of propaganda which includes false information destined to mislead and confuse listeners, in the framework of covert psychological operations directed against Germany. After May 1945, for some time the Luxembourg transmitters remained under American control and they were used to relay programs for the “Voice of America” under the name of of the “United Nations Station”. How long the station was used in this way is not clear.

## British and US influence after 1945

Geoffrey Everitt was hired by Radio Luxembourg in 1946 while on a mission from the British government to help reform the Luxembourg Army; he was hired as a disc jokey.

Born in Melbourne, Australia, Alan Freeman began his European career on Radio Luxembourg in 1957 as a cover DJ.

In 1979 Radio Luxembourg hired former AFN (American Forces Network) soldier Benny Brown. Benny Brown, born in San Francisco and a combat veteran of the Vietnam War, had previously presented the daily breakfast show on the American Forces Network. He left in 1982 but rejoined RTL again in 2005.

## Impact of Radio Luxembourg on Communist Poland

The following excerpts are taken from the exhibition catalog of “Remembering Radio Luxembourg in the People’s Republic of Poland” edited in 2012 by the Embassy of Luxembourg in Warsaw and the Faculty of History of the Warsaw University.
Summary of discussion at the “US National Security Council” of 22 May 1958 (source: Dwight Eisenhower Library).

Luxembourg is a small country but for the Allies it had an important asset, namely its radio station. Established in 1933, it was at that time one of the most powerful private broadcasters in the world with a power of 1,300 kW.

## Liberation

On May 24, 1944, the Luxembourg government in exile in Washington, D.C. agreed that, following the liberation of the Grand Duchy, they would turn over the facilities of Radio Luxembourg to US Army control. More specifically, this control would be given to the SHAEF (Supreme Headquarter of the Allied Expeditionary Force). Accordingly, when on 10 September 1944, the German armies fled from Luxembourg (surprisingly without destroying the transmitter) the radio was turned over to the “Psychological Warfare Branch” of the US Office of War Information (OWI) under the management of CBS radio chief William S. Paley.

During the remaining time of the war the radio broadcast so-called black propaganda, a form of propaganda which includes false information destined to mislead and confuse listeners, in the framework of covert psychological operations directed against Germany. After May 1945, for some time the Luxembourg transmitters remained under American control and they were used to relay programs for the “Voice of America” under the name of of the “United Nations Station”. How long the station was used in this way is not clear.

## British and US influence after 1945

Geoffrey Everitt was hired by Radio Luxembourg in 1946 while on a mission from the British government to help reform the Luxembourg Army; he was hired as a disc jockey.

Born in Melbourne, Australia, Alan Freeman began his European career on Radio Luxembourg in 1957 as a cover DJ.

In 1979 Radio Luxembourg hired former AFN (American Forces Network) soldier Benny Brown. Benny Brown, born in San Francisco and a combat veteran of the Vietnam War, had previously presented the daily breakfast show on the American Forces Network. He left in 1982 but rejoined RTL again in 2005.

## Impact of Radio Luxembourg on Communist Poland

The following excerpts are taken from the exhibition catalog of “Remembering Radio Luxembourg in the People’s Republic of Poland” edited in 2012 by the Embassy of Luxembourg in Warsaw and the Faculty of History of the Warsaw University.
*Testimony of Conrad Bruch*, Ambassador of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in Poland, about the Cold War years.

In October 2010 I came to Warsaw as the new Ambassador of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to the Republic of Poland. During my first courtesy calls to Polish politicians, high-level civil servants and business people I was struck by the fact that so many of my interlocutors spontaneously associated my country first and foremost with Radio Luxembourg. Indeed, many representatives of modern Poland's political, economic and cultural elites regularly listened to the English-language programs of Radio Luxembourg in their youth.

In other words, Radio Luxembourg had a huge impact on Communist Poland during the late 1960s and 1970s.

Contrary to what was done for “Radio Free Europe” and “Voice of America”, the Communist authorities never resorted to systematically jamming Radio Luxembourg’s signal, probably because it seemed apolitical. Radio Luxembourg was indeed a commercial, non-political broadcast. However, smart political leaders know (or should know) that at the end of the day everything, including music, is in fact political.

*Testimony of Wojciech Mann*, music journalist.

It was not only the difference in musical repertoire which was astounding but also the way the programs were presented which was modeled on American stations.

*Testimony of Franciszek Walicki*, Polish band creator and lyric writer.

On 31 October 1967 our band was guest of the famous “Station of the Stars” of Radio Luxembourg as the first rock band from behind the Iron Curtain.

# Armed Forces Network (AFN)

## Countries where there are US bases

In all countries where there are US military bases there is a so-called “Armed Forces Network” radio. Although primarily destined to US troops, such radios are also of cultural importance for the host country as well as for surrounding countries in the sense that they broadcast American music and therefore contribute to its diffusion. Moreover, the fraction of the resident population who knows English will also be able to listen to the news. Most often, even when US forces leave the country, this radio network remains in one form or another. This can be illustrated by the case of Taiwan.

## Countries without US base: Radio station in Taiwan

Prior to 1979, the AFN branch in Taiwan was the “Armed Forces Network Radio
*Testimony of Conrad Bruch*, Ambassador of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in Poland, about the Cold War years.

In October 2010 I came to Warsaw as the new Ambassador of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to the Republic of Poland. During my first courtesy calls to Polish politicians, high-level civil servants and business people I was struck by the fact that so many of my interlocutors spontaneously associated my country first and foremost with Radio Luxembourg. Indeed, many representatives of modern Poland's political, economic and cultural elites regularly listened to the English-language programs of Radio Luxembourg in their youth.

In other words, Radio Luxembourg had a huge impact on Communist Poland during the late 1960s and 1970s.

Contrary to what was done for “Radio Free Europe” and “Voice of America”, the Communist authorities never resorted to systematically jamming Radio Luxembourg’s signal, probably because it seemed apolitical. Radio Luxembourg was indeed a commercial, non-political broadcast. However, smart political leaders know (or should know) that at the end of the day everything, including music, is in fact political.

*Testimony of Wojciech Mann*, music journalist.

It was not only the difference in musical repertoire which was astounding but also the way the programs were presented which was modeled on American stations.

*Testimony of Franciszek Walicki*, Polish band creator and lyric writer.

On 31 October 1967 our band was guest of the famous “Station of the Stars” of Radio Luxembourg as the first rock band from behind the Iron Curtain.

# Armed Forces Network (AFN)

## Countries where there are US bases

In all countries where there are US military bases there is a so-called “Armed Forces Network” radio. Although primarily destined to US troops, such radios are also of cultural importance for the host country as well as for surrounding countries in the sense that they broadcast American music and therefore contribute to its diffusion. Moreover, the fraction of the resident population who knows English will also be able to listen to the news. Most often, even when US forces leave the country, this radio network remains in one form or another. This can be illustrated by the case of Taiwan.

## Countries without US base: Radio station in Taiwan

Prior to 1979, the AFN branch in Taiwan was the “Armed Forces Network Radio
Taiwan” (AFNRT), which had a main station in Taipei. After the US Armed Forces withdrew all its troops stationed in Taiwan, the station was reorganized under the name of International Community Radio Taipei (ICRT) by the American business community and the ROC government. Today, ICRT is the only English-language radio service in Taiwan.

Before we discuss the question of whether occupation episodes can be instrumental in expanding political influence it will be useful to examine the case of Denmark.

# The liberation of Denmark

## Why Denmark?

This country is of special interest with respect to the question under investigation for at least two reasons.

* No battle had to be waged for the liberation of Denmark. Instead its liberation was a consequence of the capitulation of Germany on 8 May 1945 (in fact the Danish resistance movement took over a few days earlier that is to say in the time interval between the suicide of Adolf Hitler on 30 April 1945 and the capitulation of 8 May). In other words, there was no military need for an occupation of the country by Allied troops. The Danish resistance would have been able to disarm the German troops and to direct them toward Allied internment camps.

* No occupation agreement was signed with Denmark because after the German occupation the government had remained in Denmark and the Allies recognized neither the “Fighting Denmark” movement that emerged in London in 1943 nor the “Danish Freedom Council established secretly in Copenhagen.

## Civil affairs directives for Denmark

However, on the Internet one can read a document<fnref n="30" /> entitled “Details of Civil Affairs Directives for Denmark, 9 April 1945”. This document is much more interesting and revealing than the occupation agreements with countries such as Belgium or the Netherlands. The occupation agreements are fairly vague and leave aside many important points (e.g. the issue of the bank notes introduced by Allied Forces). On the contrary, because it was not destined to be published and read by Danish people, the “Civil Affairs Directives” provide many specific details as shown by the following excerpts.

1. Zone covered by Civil Affairs. You will be responsible for insuring that the execution of Civil Affairs policies is uniform throughout Denmark both in the Military and non-Military Zone.

<footnote n="30">³⁰It comes from the UK National Archives (FO 371/47222-0002) and corresponds to a publication of the company “Gale, Cengage Learning”. As of 20 September 2013 it was freely available on the Internet</footnote>