Did Monnet know how to make European war impossible? If not, who did?

YOUR DEMOCRACY IN EUROPE

THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT OF SUPRANATIONAL DEMOCRACY FOR EUROPE BROUGHT LONG-LASTING PEACE TO THE CONTINENT. EU'S FOUNDER ROBERT SCHUMAN DESCRIBED DEMOCRACY AS BEING IN THE SERVICE OF THE PEOPLE AND ACTING IN AGREEMENT WITH THE PEOPLE. WHAT'S GOING ON TODAY? SEE ALSO WWW.SCHUMAN.INFO AND HTTP://DEMOCRACY.BLOGACTIV.EU .

http://eurdemocracy.blogspot.com/

21 MAY, 2010

Did Monnet know how to make European war impossible? If not, who did?

What is the greatest achievement of Europeans in modern times? Is it our prosperity? Our Single Market? The Euro? Europeans have never been richer, lived longer or had access to such good health services, not recently or at any time in their history. Is this our best achievement? Not at all. Is it our technologies, the great pinacles of industries and science that our universites and research centres have produced?

Europe's greatest triumph is none of these. It is more mundane. The greatest VICTORY in all our history is that for the last several generations, Europeans are not killing each other in wars!

At the origin lies a revolutionary, spiritual idea. It comprises a scientific theory for ending war and its application put into practice with great political precision and openness. From that fecund event Europeans are harvesting a new power and resource, never before seen by our ancestors. Yet its origin is still unclear, misted by myths.

For thousands of years until 1945, Western Europeans were at war every generation. They formed armies to invade each other. Schools taught the children how to dispise their neighbouring nations. The same children later sacrificed their lives, while others worked in industries providing every more efficient means to kill the neighbours. Historians scribbled away saying how they had won crushing victories over their oppressive neighbours. (They did their best to hide the defeats and how they enslaved others.)

This doctrine of peace -- this secret-- is more than important: it is vital for the survival of the planet. It marks a complete philosophical and political break with history. The peace plan escaped the great intellects of the past, the philosophers and the politicians. Some brave souls in the past spoke of the need for European unity and a peace system. They did not, however, describe what we have today. They usually spoke of creating a grandiose Council of European governments with a European army that would pounce on any group that would not follow some policy or other. And they constructed complex systems -- they were phantoms -- with European councils or congresses that no one really believed in. Which of these great European thinkers speaks of a supranational Community in the exact terms we know it today?

None of them.

Who then was responsible for putting this extraordinary idea of the European Community into practice? It was far beyond the ability of any politician or statesman in the past. Who was at the origin of this idea that changed the face of the planet from the fires of war?

Or did it happen by accident? First let us dismiss this absurd idea. Up to 1950 all the think tanks and serious minded political thinkers were convinced that the past history of wars would continue to repeat itself. Judging from the facts they were right. One keen observer wrote that war was becoming such a feature in European politics that the Continent would now enter a dark age of continuous wars and poverty comparable to that half a millennium previously. Europe would become a black hole of dissent. Why ? Because the wars were becoming more deadly with each advance in industrial power. There was no comparable change in the mentality of Europe's leaders to create peace. None showed the ability to learn from past mistakes.

Instead of chaos, however, came order and the beginning of a new democratic organisation. Order does not come from chaos. Democracy does not suddenly arise from mob wars. Any sensible person knows that.

Something changed radically in 1950. Peace emerged with the creation of a new entity. Clearly the supranational Community idea was at the heart of this peace-making mechanism. It prevented both a war with the Soviet Union (who no longer considered bickering, nationalistic western Europe easy pickings because of its poverty and dissent). It also stopped a new war of revenge by a rising, defiant Germany although there were many plots and neo-Nazi movements in this period.

Who was responsible for this master plan? Did it come Robert Schuman or was he simply a recipient of a message of a few pages from Jean Monnet? Monnet was in 1950 the head of the French Planning and Modernisation Agency. Was the Schuman Declaration just Monnet's Plan for Europe? That sounds cute. Some enthusiastic journalists in 1950 said so. But no one says it today because there is no evidence.

If anyone disagrees, please show me the proof. But beware, I don't believe in fairies or Father Christmas. Where are the drafts? Where are Monnet's intellectual analyses of the political, philosophical, historical ideas of the past? No one has found them. Monnet himself says that his planning group never even considered such an idea of a supranational Community -- before April 1950. Nor is there any evidence that Monnet ever read any of the authors who spoke of the unity of Europe such as Dante, Erasmus, Abbé de St-Pierre, Rousseau, Kant and Proudhon.

Monnet published a book of extracts of his speeches called 'The United States of Europe have begun'. Yet he does not mention, commend or criticise Vladimir Ilyich Lenin who also wrote about a United States of Europe: 'A United States of Europe is possible as an agreement between the European capitalists ... but to what end? Only for the purpose of jointly suppressing socialism in Europe.' Monnet was silent. Yet he was married in Moscow in 1934 under Soviet law.

So did this man who left France and his father's cognac works at 16 to work in London come up with some British ideas about unifying Europe? There is no evidence. Did he read some insight in a book either there or in Canada where he went to sell cognac? His father told him:'Don't take any books with you. Look out the window and speak to people.' (Memoires p47). Monnet worked during two world wars in encouraging weapons supply but none of his colleagues record any views about making weapons unnecessary for Europeans after the war. If Monnet never considered the problem of making war impossible, who did?

Did the peace doctrine that involved a supranational Community just emerge fully fleshed out in all its political, economic, legal and social details in April 1950? If it was not complete by then why did the French Government agree to the Schuman Proposal? It is clear that Monnet had something to do with the producing a paper but what was it that convinced a score of hardened ministers in Georges BIdault's government? The proposal itself?

Is this Monnet-gave-a-message-to-Schuman story a self-serving myth? Was it invented to boost Monnet and most of all to stop the most revolutionary form of democracy yet proposed? Why was it called a 'Community', a term Monnet had not used before? Where did the strange term, 'supranational' come from? Did Monnet invent it? The answer is Monnet spoke nothing of such ideas before April 1950, that is a few days or weeks before the Schuman Declaration was made.

Robert Schuman gave several speeches on all these subjects in the YEARS before the Schuman Declaration. for example a year before the Declaration in May 1949, he gave two speeches (one in London and another in Strasbourg) proposing the creation of asupranational community. He said a new system would put an end to the war and bringlasting peace. Such a supranational Community had never existed in history before. Schuman explained why previous plans for Europe had failed. He mentioned all the main attempts including Dante, Erasmus, Abbé de St-Pierre, Rousseau, Kant and Proudhon. He explained why they would not work. He also mentioned other such planners.

Schuman said there was a system that would work. He called it a supranational Community system. He said so many times. A year later, on 9 May 1950, the French government accepted his proposal for a supranational European Community with its five democratic institutions. Almost immediately Western Europe began to benefit from the longest period of peace in the history of the six founding members. In 1953, he confirmed this peace was assured. That would seem premature to most people. How can you say that after only three years from the Declaration, peace without end would be assured among European peoples? Yet that is what he said.

The record shows that Schuman was right. Our generation, after more than 65 unprecedented years of peace, can confirm Europeans are living in the longest peace ever known. Schuman is dead but the present generation can experience that fact that his prediction holds good so far. Thus it was totally scientific in theory and application. Schuman's proposal was the result of a profound analysis, political realism and the application of Christian Democracy. Schuman said the European Community was like a 'scientific experiment' based on a theory about which he had absolutely confidence.

Monnet made no such scientific predictions, nor had any such scientific theories. If Monnet supposedly wrote the solution to Europe's 2000-year problem of war and peace on four or five sheets of paper, then wasn't sure to whom to give it, then finally decided to give it to the Foreign Minister, who had long expressed ideas about peace through a supranational Community, then this certainly needs some explaining!

12 MAY, 2010

The 2030 Gonzalez Reflection Group report: the Council's poisoned chalice

When The Council of Ministers asked Felipe Gonzalez to lead a Reflection Group on Europe 2030, it offered the participants a poisoned chalice. It told them that under no circumstances were they to discuss, debate or expose INSTITUTIONAL questions.

They took it and drank. And from the report itself, they did not realise how poisoned it was. How can anyone discuss the dangers, challenges and responses of Europe while drugged and with their arms tied behind their back? It is more. It is blindfolding the Reflection Group. The drugged chalice has befuddled their minds with intergovernmentalism. The Council party Cartel, having fraudulently imposed the Lisbon Treaty, do not want anyone to discuss anti-democratic practice and the Council’s GUILT!!

No wonder that the Group is confused as to whether 'EU’s common agenda and purpose' comes from the citizens or whether it is handed down after discussions by party politicians in its secretive Council of Ministers and then delivered on a plate to the citizens by the Council from behind its closed doors. At one stage the report says citizens must develop a sense of ownership and elsewhere that the European Council should be given leadership (nothing about earning leadership!). The Group was not allowed to pose the question why, if the citizens had already said NO to the Lisbon /Constitutional Treaty system, then why the citizens should accept another Diktat from the coup leaders, a party cartel, posing as democratic representatives.

So what did the twelve eminent wise persons come up with? They identified many problems but they failed in the first task of such a reflection group. That is to make a balance sheeton what the Founding Fathers and later politicians had done to SERVE Europeans and for the future of Europe. They failed to distinguish between service to Europe and the self-serving demands of egotistical leaders and cartels. The Group avoided anything controversial that would offend their political paymasters (one million euros) at the European Council of Ministers.

The Group say that ‘the historical origins of the EU are well known ' but they show no real grasp of them. In other words they failed to understand what were the principles and actions that allowed them to be there, meet, discuss and not be involved in some further European war or crushed by some dictatorship of the left or the right.

Let us take just four examples.

1. Security and defence policy. Robert Schuman created a Community in which ‘war was not only unthinkable but materially impossible.’ If for two thousands years Europeans had been continually killing each other and teaching their children to hate, it seems important to any wise person to find out why and how they stopped. How did this happen? It is important not only for the past understanding but for setting the basis for a future security policy. Can people in today’s killing zones around the world benefit? Do we want our neighbours to be peaceful?

Should not Europe be involved in works of peace, as Schuman said? That should be the mission statement for external policy. Instead the Reflection Group says that Europe should be more assertive. It says it has 1.8 million soldiers under arms. That is half a million more than the USA. But the EU is incapable of deploying a 60,000-strong rapid intervention force. That indicates something is seriously wrong with both the concentration on force and the internal decision-making structure of the EU. The Group does not ask the question: How do we make sure that peace is spread across the world. What are the principles Schuman and his colleagues discovered without armies and how should they be applied between now and 2030. The world's greatest security system -- stopping war between Europeans -- did not require a single gun.

In other words, in terms of Community policy, the Council’s prohibitory mandate not to discuss institutions and supranational democracy befuddled and distorted their minds. It did it so much as to render it practically useless. They did not reached the starting line of utility.

Even worse. If the Council had not forbidden the Group to analyse this essential question of war and peace, then the report would have provided real policy options. By drinking from the Council’s poisoned chalice, the Group comes up with the opposite, illogical conclusion to Community reasoning. It says: ‘A Union of 27 Member States pooling their sovereignty in order to reach common decisions is not an obvious global power house.’

In fact, to anyone who thinks, it is obvious. If Europe showed that the entire populationWHO WERE FREE TO CHOOSE had reached a democratic consensus (rather than dictated policy from the self-proclaimed leaders in Council), then Europe would be without doubt the greatest leader of the planet. If all the population was convinced personally that the planet was in danger of Climate Change destroying the environment, causing diseases, migrations and wars, it would be a marvelous example to any dictatorship or religio-political fanaticism and authoritarianism. It requires that all Europeans should become highly reasonable, well-educated and knowledgeable. Only wise people with wise leadership, dedicated to peace can lead the world wisely. That's what Schuman meant by real democracy as distinct fromcounterfeit democracy of the communist 'people's republics'.

The Group fails to analyse why the EU’s successful foreign policy always comes from its supranational Community structures and never from its intergovernmentalism.

2. Energy. The Group rightly points out that Europe is getting deeper and deeper into trouble with its imported energy dependency. That should be fairly obvious to all. For oil, Europe is 90 percent dependent on suppliers who have in the past tried to place a blackmail embargo on Western Europe. Countries like the Netherlands and Denmark were placed under total embargo while the rest were told that oil supplies would be cut by ten per cent each month unless European States changed their foreign policy. Some 80 per cent of its gas comes from suppliers who have recently subjected vast stretches of Europe to cold, cold winters by stopping the supply. And the EU which is basically built on a foundation of coal strata now imports from abroad about 50 per cent of its coal. Yet the Group do not signal this Energy Deficit and Blackmail as a MAJOR DANGER to the economic existence and viability of the European economy.

They say the opposite. And they are quite wrong in their conclusion. They say ‘There is no chance of becoming energy independent’. That is simply not true. It is possible that if Europeans set their collective minds to the main problem for its continued economic existence, Europe could be ENERGY INDEPENDENT BY 2020. That is what a top European industrialist said a few days ago. Obviously the Group did not ask anyone who knew — which is why they are repeating the soothing, lying propaganda of the oil and gas importers, who want European acquiescence to blackmail prices and extortion.

Europeans are currently paying about eight hundred percent of the free market price of oil. Oil was less than 10 dollars in 1999 and major oil companies said this was about what they expected the long-term price to be. They assumed the cartel and financial leverage powers of the oil cartel had been broken. Then oil shot to 147 dollars a barrel. How did this happen? By a combination of energy cartels squeezing supply, falsifying demand, financial leverage and greed. The western economy could not take this blood-suckingamounting to around 10 percent of GDP. The cartel action partially collapsed. It is not dead. Like a leech, it is just sleeping it off.

Now energy prices are on the way to upwards again. If Europe wants to have TRILLIONS MORE bled from its economy in the years till 2030, it should do exactly what the Group thinks is best — nothing. If Europe wants to take seriously the Warnings made from the 1950s on that oil dependency will mean economic and political servitude, then they should re-read the Community’s Louis Armand report Un Objectif pour EURATOM. This too was commissioned by the Community's six governments but it had some hard-headed analysis. It stated starkly: 'Shortage of Energy (that is NATIVE European energy) is likely to become the strongest force arresting economic growth.' They warned against foreign dependency. And they said all this in 1957 when oil was under two dollars a barrel. There was then a free market and no oil cartel.

The Group should have reviewed what many reports said subsequently. Instead the Group made no balance sheet of past failures. That is just the attitude that will cause us to repeat them with ever more disastrous consequences. The most obvious feature is oil and gas dependency with the same sort of political paralysis as drug addiction.

The solution then, a half century ago, as now, is the same — a European Energy Community based on democratic principles with clear objectives to be so energy independent that Europe will be able to act independently in the world about Energy and Climate Change. As for the urgency of this problem, it has been well known for decades. It is no revelation when the Group says 'Europe needs a common strategy,' but they don't say how to kick the addiction! Europe needs to face up to the truth that this drug will not last forever. Drugs supplies are running out fast!

The only way to stand up to global CARTELS is by united action of the victims and all sympathisers in an open, democratic anti-cartel. Otherwise economic bullies will only grow stronger. Urgent action is needed not only for Europe but for the planet. The world is facing climate disasters on a massive scale. We are already seeing increasing migrations, wars and epidemics. We can expect far more of the same.

THE WISEST WAY TO REVIVE THE EUROPEAN ECONOMY IS BY CONTROLLING THE MAXIMUM BUYING PRICE OF IMPORTED ENERGY THAT EUROPE IS PREPARED TO PAY. IT COULD THEN USE THE HUGE SAVINGS, AMOUNTING TO TRILLIONS. THE SAVINGS SHOULD CREATE A FUND TO BE DEVOTED TO PROVIDING FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR INFANT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INDUSTRIES AND ENERGY-SAVING TECHNIQUES IN EUROPE. THE FUNDS SHOULD BE UNDER NON-PARTY POLITICAL, DEMOCRATIC CONTROL OF INDUSTRY, WORKERS AND CONSUMERS. EVERY CITY AND EVERY HOME SHOULD BECOME ENERGY NEUTRAL. NO NEW VEHICLE SHOULD USE PETROLEUM. OIL SHOULD BE USED FOR PLASTICS AND OTHER INDISPENSABLE PRODUCTS.

3. Democracy The Reflection Group showed some sense in raising the question of democracy for organised civil society. Yet it gave no school report or balance sheet on democracy. What it does not say is the organised civil society, supposedly represented in the Economic and Social Committee has NEVER had an election as required by the treaties of Paris and Rome -- fifty years ago! Nor has the European Parliament EVER had a single European election under a single statute (rather the present 27 national ones) as required by the same treaties.

4 Finance and the crisis By failing to make a balance sheet, the Group has not analysed how in the 50 years of the founding Community, Europe had its own European financial resources. It had a European tax. It was able to have European loans and in fact built up a banking operation that was bigger than the European investment Bank. Why did the Council insist that it should be disbanded?

Today the major monetary contention lies between Europe which still assumes that money should represent real assets (and political parties should not fiddle the proper State accounting, causing other member states to foot the bill) and the USA which has abandoned the concept of solid money by opening the Fed to big collapsing debtors of any stripe. The banking and funding operations of the European Coal and Steel Community were based on real assets not electronic fiat money. They gained and retained the highest international ratings. The loans were granted by international bankers because the Community used the money to invest in renewal of coal and steel operations based on the democratic decisions of the entrepreneurs, workers and consumers. And they were always pleased to see there was no default because of corruption or fraud because these three democratic groupings kept a watching eye on how the money was spent.

It was the party-political ministers in the Council of Ministers who in 2000 refused to renew the Treaty establishing the Coal and Steel Community for a further fifty years. Instead they said citizens should have intergovernmental funding controlled by political parties in governments. Party politicians thus removed real democratic control from European money. They had no democratic mandate to make this change. The present crisis shows how corrupt and crisis-ridden such a political cartel system can be.