translation: L. Salimbeni
“[NATO] has actually the following aims:
1. First of all it re-establishes a sort of balance of power in continental Europe. Why do Americans need a balance of power in continental Europe? Because it prevents Europeans from being too concerned with the rest of the world, and from pursuing a wide-ranging foreign policy. Shortly, Americans want to neutralize them as business competitors on the world markets. Continental Europeans don’t spend money to establish and to maintain military bases abroad located next to the possible points of intervention. This is just what Americans want: the world must be theirs. They don’t want to fight for a foreign market with European States that might be able to intervene militarily and effectively.
2. The second goal of NATO is the usual one of the United States when they set up any military alliance: the political control and maybe the violent subversion of the member states. With the pretext of the Alliance, the Americans – both with their military and civil personnel – are massively present in Europe. As regards the civil officials, we must bear in mind that the presence of American bases allows the maintenance in Europe of large delegations of actual CIA agents, who go easily undercover as civil employees. This massive American presence has remarkable effects on the internal affairs of the European States: probably, instead of being more and more similar to South Corea, these States could be more like Sweden, that never wanted to enter NATO. Moreover, their military presence allows the United States to gain big and unsuspected advantages in the industrial and commercial sphere, through a very powerful network of spies. The aims of the listening stations of the National Security Agency (NSA, an intelligence agency of the United States government, administered as part of the United States Department of Defense) in Europe are essentially two […]. The interception of the commercial communications is its typical sector, because – due to their massive structure – they need such installations and technical abilities as only the NSA has.
3. Why do the Americans insist so much on keeping nuclear weapons in Europe? The American nuclear weapons don’t answer to any military purpose: in fact they don’t defend Europe. The Americans don’t want an intact or a “conventionally” destroyed Europe fall in the hands of the Russians. A Europe wasted by a nuclear war is the only Europe the Americans are prepared to let in the hands of the Russians. For them it would be no more a competitor on the world markets. That’s why in Europe weren’t deployed neutron bombs, then N-Bombs, where thermic and explosive power is replaced by a very high emission of deadly radiations: these are bombs that kill people but do not destroy buildings, at least not considerably. Anyway, what’s important is the fact that once the American nuclear weapons are deployed in Europe, she isn’t the master of her destiny any longer; she’s hostage to the Americans, completely in their hands.”
This passage is drawn from Vecchi trucchi. Le strategie e la prassi della politica estera americana (Old tricks. Strategies and praxis of the American foreign policy), published in 1991: almost twenty years later, these statements are still very much to the point.
Bye Bye Uncle Sam 