By Phil Butler
NATO continually pets its yapping dogs on the frontiers of Russia. A story on the Globe and Mailmade me chuckle for its author’s zombie-like adherence to the globalist propaganda script over the recent NATO Parliamentary Assembly on Svalbard. Here’s the most pitiful bit of poodle power political policy propaganda you’ll ever read about. By the time you’re done you’ll wonder, “Where have the big dogs of détente gone to?”
“How Norway stood up to Putin – and what Canada can learn”, is a transparent bit of nonsense, when all is said and done. However, authorMichael Byers does reveal a thing or two about NATO and America’s control of satraps like Norway. The Canada Research Chair of Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia applauds the Norwegians for poking out their chests at Russia, as if he were ordered to pass doggie treats to the yapping arctic elkhounds playing guard dogs of Washington. “Stood up to Putin”, what a laugh.
By way of background, the 1920 Svalbard Treaty bans any sort of military activity on the northernmost arctic islands closest to Russia. While technically under Norway’s control, the archipelago has been deemed neutral where aggressive military activity is concerned. This recent meeting however, is cause for alarm because of its provocative nature. With the so-called “west” and Russia in a heated crisis, and further NATO moves are seen as highly inflammatory by Russia. This is especially true since the clear and present danger of the military partnership’s continued attempts at expansions toward Ukraine, Georgia, and now Belarus. Returning to Michael Byers’ make believe world where tiny Norway fends off any would-be invader, Russia has never exhibited designs on Scandinavia. The purpose of Byers commenting at all was simply to keep his name in the headlines over the Arctic where international law is concerned.
In the article, the former Oxford research fellow uses a fairly provocative visit by a sanctioned Russian diplomat named Dmitry Rogozin as justification for teams of NATO representatives to travel to neutral Svalbard. Rogozin, who was put on Norway’s sanction list for his support of Crimea rejoining Russia in 2014, did in fact visit the archipelago a couple of times. So according to Byers, “Norway responded to the provocation by offering to host a meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly on Svalbard.” It’s interesting to note here that key attendees included none other than the Ukraine-NATO Interparliamentary Council (UNIC), as I reported earlier on NEO. Casting aside the obvious cheerleading by Byers, what’s most pertinent for understanding the Norway position was revealed not by direct discussions at the meetings about NATO and anti-Russia rhetoric, but in a segue from supposed climate change agenda.
This story from icepeople.net frames this meeting of sissy sword rattlers more precisely. “Nyet for NATO Parliamentary Assembly? Seminar participants, Russians question Norway’s Svalbard policies” speaks plainly, and directly from the conference floor. What was supposed to be a summit on Svalbard and its role in climate change, was really only a veiled provocation directly to Russia. Observers at the meetings observed “old school” industrialist players, only pretending to care for the environment of these islands. Coal being the main resource there, even assembly members took note of the subterfuge. Raymond Knops, a member of the assembly from The Netherlands, is quoted by icepeople:
“I was walking around this morning in Svalbard and what was astonishing to me I see only or mostly examples of old economy. Coal mining, no solar panels. So what’s your message to us? Should we change our attitude or is Svalbard supposed to be an example of what needs to happen? I think your story and message would be much more power if it was happening here.”
The meeting quickly turned to discussions over terrorists uses of natural resources, and to how Norway could take a far more aggressive stance toward Russia. One Norwegian writer and consultant, Per Arne Totland went so far as to suggest the Norwegians turn the Svalbard Treaty upside down:
“If you really want to turn around Article 9 of the treaty, you would like to say that it obliges Norway to establish an ability to prevent others from exploiting Svalbard ‘for military purposes,’” he said.
This Norway-Russia dispute is part of the overall escalation in tensions Russia and United States puppet nations, as anyone can see. Now Svalbard serves as the latest proving ground for pressuring Russia. Using the controversial visit of Russian Deputy Prime Minister DmityRogozin to Svalbard in the spring of 2015 as an excuse, the western powers cast the chips in a much bigger Arctic game, and the global chess match as well. What’s most alarming for me in all this is the fact the Norwegians are taking advice on crucial strategic issues from a PR like Totland, whose company Claritas is supposed to specialize in communications strategies for corporations etc. If Norway communicates Totland’s way, the world can never expect positive or lasting peace, in my view. As a PR exec myself, I am not familiar with the school that teaches provocativeness and foolhardy saber rattling, let along negating century old agreements on a whim. Norway may be better advised to sail a course for Norwegians, rather than the globalist expansionism that got us right where we are. As for the country’s NATO poodles, they’d best staying up on the porch and let the big dogs contend for the front yard.