Diplomacy1 Will Europe continue its thirty years of energy and foreign policy FAILURE?

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 .

06 SEPTEMBER, 2010

Diplomacy1 Will Europe continue its thirty years of energy and foreign policy FAILURE?

Thirty years ago, the European Communities succumbed abjectly to energy blackmail. It was a shameful act. In fact, a series of shameful events that European leaders would like to forget. My purpose today is to help them remember. At stake is Europe's survival and dealing with its Achilles' heel -- energy.

Under pressure of the Arab-led oil-exporting Cartel, OPEC, which had deployed the 'Oil Weapon,' European leaders meeting at Venice unilaterally changed their foreign policy. They acted out of fear that the oil, their drug of predilection, would again be withdrawn.

Even today some books like to rewrite the Venice Declaration of 1980 as the start of European diplomacy. It was a humiliation! If it is an example, then it shows what principles the new European diplomatic service should NOT follow. With hindsight, everyone can judge this disgraceful episode. Europe appeared like a bag of fighting cats. The leaders were noted for their selfish opportunism to grab the last drop of oil, the devil take the hindmost.

The first casualty of this encounter was truth. That was the price extracted for blackmail. If Europe’s diplomatic service is to act as a reflection of Europe and its values, it should not propagate untruth and encourage and support other, foreign States’ distortions and crookedness. Europe should not bend the truth to the will of others. That is moral cowardice. Yielding to blackmail leads to moral bankruptcy and decline.

The leaders of the European Union as the world's largest economic power cannot afford to act like a bunch of scared school kids. The real answer is to think smart. The whole point of a Community foreign policy is to avoid single States of Europe being attacked and blackmailed. Solidarity around European values brings strength, respect and good judgment. The Community system is a way to unite based on common European values. Truth should be foremost, even at the cost of temporary problems. It has major long-term benefits. The European Community created a system that made 'war not only unthinkable but materially impossible.'

Member States should forge the truth together by discussion among themselves. Among ademocratic Community there should be at least one courageous Statesman who values truth. Another could supply shrewdness. A third could help with experience and infrastructure. Europeans have the means and resources not only to solve problems but to give a lead in world politics.

It is no longer the case of the old adage that a diplomat is a person sent to lie for his country. Those days should be over. We have learned that lies, like those of Hitler and Stalin, brought about Europe’s disasters, slavery and mega-deaths. We are faced with major global problems that need honest solutions.

Europe needs to set a firm goal: energy independence by 2020. It is a realistic goal according to some of Europe's top industrialists. Oil will only increase in price as it runs out. Europe must help save the planet from ecological disaster, fueled by petroleum

In the early 1970s European States behaved like a bunch of scared mice who had been found eating someone’s cheese. In this case it was Europe’s addiction to oil. Individually the European States were easily intimidated by the drug-masters.

Tension was rising between Arab States and Israel. In summer 1972 the Saudi King Faisal warned his fellow-Arabs that ‘it is dangerous even to think of the idea’ of using oil supply as a weapon to force European States and USA to change their democratic foreign policy. The USA could survive without Arab oil, he said. The Arabs were also dependent on the West for military support, goods and services. ‘You can’t drink oil,’ other oil-exporting States affirmed.

Alternative plans were afoot, reversing that position. In October 1973 on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year when Jews were fasting and praying, Egypt and Syria, heavily armed with Soviet weapons and with the collusion of other States, launched a massive attack against Israel. Israel was taken unawares.

This was clearly a genocidal attack on Jews living in Israel. General Shazli gave this order to the Egyptian troops a few months before battle was joined:

‘The Jews have gone beyond all limits in arrogance. We, the sons of Egypt, are determined to throw them back, to sweep through their positions, killing and destroying them, to cleanse the shame of the defeat of 1967, and to regain our honour and pride.

Kill them wherever you find them. Beware lest they deceive you, for they are a treacherous people. They pretend to surrender to you so that they can overcome and kill you in a foul manner. Kill them. Do not pity them. Show them no mercy.’

(In 1967, in the Six day War, Israelis had defeated Nasser’s blockade and overthrown the Arab forces that outnumbered Israel three to one.)

President Sadat said he was 'willing to pay one million men as the price of this battle.' More than Egypt was involved. The 1973 Yom Kippur war was planned and launched by a coalition of forces extending far beyond Egypt and Syria. Yet only a few days later Israel had beaten back this vicious, cowardly attack. Instead of being wiped out, Israeli forces even crossed the Suez Canal where the road to Cairo lay open.

That heroic reversal of open aggression was the signal for Saudi Arabia to act. On 18 October 1973 the Saudis deployed its Oil Weapon against the West. Yes, ‘weapon’ is another word for war against Europe and USA. In effect the Saudis and others were attacking the most vital interests of USA and certain European States. They threatened a total embargo. Abu Dhabi and other oil-exporters followed the next day. Arab States as far away as Libya and Algeria continued this embargo well into mid 1974. They ordered immediate cuts of oil deliveries to US and European States. Industry and transport ground to a halt.

The supply side war was followed with economic war. The oil cartel OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) doubled the price and then doubled it again. This had a devastating effect on the balance of payments. It hit the developing countries as much or more as the industrialized world.

The Developing countries paid 150 percent more: $12 billion dollars for oil in 1973 and $30 billion in 1974. In Africa the result was a long sequence of debts, aid, corruption and wars.

Who were the Saudis and its coalition mad at? Any nation that they deemed friendly to Israel.

A joint Arab committee of OPEC divided its customers into three categories: States “friendly,” “hostile” or “neutral.”

What if America, and the West reacted in unison at the blackmail, indirectly amounting to a declaration of war? If the United States, Europe or Japan took any countermeasures, Saudi Arabia then threatened, it would cut its output by 80 per cent. The Saudis calculated that it would paralyze not only the West but probably the world economy. It was like emptying the petrol tank of the planet. Or igniting a flame as it lay spilled. Most of the world’s petroleum came from this area. Japan, heavily dependent on imported oil, later issued a humiliating communique about its change in Middle East policy.

France and Britain had already trimmed their foreign policy to be more Arab-friendly. In 1972 France was 77 percent dependent on Arab oil; Britain around two-thirds. Italy imported nearly 80 percent of its oil from Arab sources: Germany three-quarters. (The USA imported only 12 percent its oil from the Middle East.)

Among their dire enemies, guess who was considered top of the Arab list? Holland and Denmark! Were they enemies of the Arab countries? Hardly. They were not known for their massive arms exports to Israel. It was the USA that supplied Israel with arms. Did they have massive Jewish populations that supported Israel? No, they had citizens of all persuasions who could tell right from wrong. The countries mainly re-imported their fuel from other States. That let them be more impartial in their judgements.

Impartiality was Europe's foreign policy mistake according to OPEC. The Arab oil-exporters demanded that Europe should unilaterally change its policy towards Israel. The oil bullies did not want anyone big or small to stand up for the victim. The biggest enemy was not Holland but TRUTH.

In a democracy, foreign policy is not imposed by outside forces but the citizens themselves decide what their policy should be. A subservient government can be thrown out at the polls. The people have to decide how and when and with what sacrifices they wish to preserve their basic freedoms. It also depends on leaders acting wisely.

Unfortunately, Charles de Gaulle who had seized power in 1958 blocked the means for a common European decision. Previously Gaullists acting in conjunction with the large communist vote in the National Assembly had made sure that the agreement for a common foreign and defence policy on supranational, democratic basis — the European Political Community — was stopped.

Experienced parliamentarians had worked out the plan for the Political Community at the Council of Europe. The Gaullists and the Communists (aided by the Soviet Union) made sure it was the subject of one of the most passionate public debates of modern times. The Community plan had been agreed by all governments of the Six. All the leaders of the European Community and their Allies supported it. It had been confirmed in all their parliaments, except France’s.

In the National Assembly the large bloc votes of Gaullists and Communists were opposed to it. It was not even voted down in the French Parliament. The Gaullists merely supported a motion in August 1954 that the question of this Defence Community ‘be not put.’ Europe’s foreign policy system was frozen. A procedural motion had left Europe open to blackmail and war.

Around this time in the 1950s, the European Community's Wise Men issued a report. It warned of dangers of Europe relying on external energy suppliers. More than just the economy was at stake.

The report, An Objective for Euratom, was clear. The Wise Men, Louis Armand, Franz Eztel and Francesco Giordani, said that unless Europe developed a policy of Energy independence, that also provided cheap energy then Europe would be condemned to a victim of ever-increasing energy costs. That would render Europe economically at risk against its main competitors. Recovery was highly vulnerable. At that time the problem lay not so much in the powerful undemocratic forces of energy suppliers but in the ever-increasing need for energy in a modern economy. Alternative energy sources inside Europe were urgently needed.

A quarter of century later, after de Gaulle was dead, his egotism and obstinacy still had lasting effects. His veto and his policy incoherence had stopped a Community diplomacy in its tracks. It practically broke the European economy.

To be continued.

24 AUGUST, 2010

European Council: the burqanistas 'reveal' the Minutes of their secret Meetings!

Ever wanted to know exactly what happens INSIDE the European Council? How did the President of France respond to the British Prime Minister or the German Chancellor's suggestions? Do you want the griff on how the Maltese Prime Minister or the Luxembourg Prime Minister said that a discussion was totally unacceptable to the interests of his country? Wouldn't it be revealing to know how leaders actually think they can share out public money and decide how it should be spent?

Imagine for you (as an individual, or as a group or company), your vital interests are at stake. They are now being affected in the policy workings of your country and the EU. Maybe you also are experiencing many cross-frontier and global complications and these subjects are on the agenda of the European Council. Wouldn't you like to know how the topic was being discussed in the European Council?

If for example the industrial plant where you worked had been closed down in Ireland, and then you heard that the same multinational was receiving EU funds for opening up a similar plant in one of the central or east European States (with reduced payroll costs), would you not like to know how this sort of deal was being cut?

This involves jobs, livelihoods, public money and European policy. That is what European democracy should be all about. Schuman defined democracy as being at the service of people and working in agreement with it. Note agreement by the people, not just their so-called representatives. Do leaders act as Statesmen or do they think the EU is at the service of a cartel of political parties and their own careers?

Perhaps you are interested in knowing how governments can bring in a treaty while ignoring what the people say in referendums. Party machines are increasingly important. The Lisbon Treaty was forced through by parties rather than the free vote of Members of Parliament. They were whipped in line by party officials, sometimes without giving the parliamentarians a second even to read the treaty in full.

What are the leaders up to next? How do the heads of government react when the Commission proposes (now that it is composed exclusively of a cartel of paid-up members of their political parties) that European funding should be disbursed even more bountifully to political parties? For example, providing for more parliamentarians, giving them a bigger budget, larger staffs and naturally higher salaries. The EU has far more Presidents now than ever before. Of course the heads of government are also likely to benefit from this largesse, (it provides a retirement option). It will as well help their friends and buddies in their parties.

The public might want to know if those present at the European Council are behaving predominantly as party leaders or ethical champions. Are they honestly fighting potential corruption or leading it? Are they too party hacks, anxious to help themselves and the party first, their country second and the European common good a distant third?

This is no minor matter. We are not dealing here with pennies. This is not a parish council. We are dealing with potentially multi-million euro sums. Misuse of public funds by government leaders for party political purposes is no less criminal than the local Mafioso or landowner bending the rules in a village council.

Well, with the Lisbon Treaty a new situation arose. Instead of all meetings of heads of government being legally 'informal' and therefore secret, (as de Gaulle wanted it), they now have a sort-of legal status (if you consider the Lisbon Treaty to be legal).

All institutions have to publish the Minutes of their meetings. Minutes mean to a normal person a useful, succinct summary that covers all the important discussions and contentions. The Minutes have a role beyond that of the conclusions of their deliberations. They should reveal whether all the members of the institution are doing anything dubious behind closed doors. For example, if all members of an institution decided to give themselves pay rises or do something illegal and one member objected, then the Minutes would reveal there was a dispute. The conclusions would only reveal whether the member who objected eventually fell in line --after threats and menaces -- as happened under de Gaulle. Arm-twisting is not visible in the Conclusions.

The Lisbon Treaty made the European Council a new institution. So it has to produce Minutes in the same way as the local town council has to. That is a democratic norm. The European Parliament publishes a verbatim record of its debates. It publishes its criticism and proposed amendments to legislation. The Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions publish theirs.

The reason is simple. Democratic accountability. The people can judge afterwards who was right in their arguments, who was speaking perhaps covertly for special interests, who was being obstinately doctrinal or ideological, and who just had bad judgement. They can also see cartels of block party voting and very few individuals willing to state their opinions.

Now the European Council is legally obliged to publish its Minutes too. The first meeting of the new European Council under the Lisbon Treaty was on 10 and 11 December 2009.

I requested a copy of these Minutes. No reply. I wrote to the Ombudsman and then re-applied.

Six months later I learned that the Council had considered the matter. The documents, which had been declared LIMITED circulation, would be opened to me, and the public. (Why are not all such documents from this so-called democratic institution not classified as PUBLIC? )

Now I have a copy of the Minutes to peruse at my leisure. Have I learned anything new? No. The minutes simply say that the European Council met, that it agreed to the Agenda, and that it issued a Conclusion/ communiqué (or not as the case may be).

Of course even the great Gaullist guardians of secrets cannot always control politicians sucombing to human frailties like being open from time to time. The underskirt of a couple of democratic items were exposed from under the Council's voluminous skirts of secrecy. Or should I call it the Council's burqa of blackout?

As an additional gem they added an Any Other Business item about a couple of letters, incidentally dealing with the changes to the Lisbon Treaty. But of course from behind the Council's closed doors no detail of any debate about this essential matter of democracy escapes.

Consider this ingongruity. The real Minutes would expose the nature of the Council. If they didn't debate Lisbon Treaty changes, that would indicate a paucity of democratic debate and autocratic tendencies. Cartels do not have to debate. They fix money and supply questions. If they did debate the Lisbon Treaty amendments, why are the public not allowed to know about what they said? Why the democratic blackout?

For the enlightenment of all I enclose the substance of the Minutes.

1. Adoption of the agenda

The European Council adopted its agenda (document EUCO 4/09).

2. Approval of the conclusions

The European Council approved its conclusions (document EUCO 6/09).

3. AOB

Further to the submission by the Spanish Government of a proposal for the amendment of the Treaties as regards transitional measures concerning the composition of the European Parliament, the European Council approved the draft letters to be addressed to the President of the European Parliament and to the President of the European Commission respectively (document EUCO 2/09 + COR 1).

This farce arises because of a conflict of interests, democratic and anti-democratic. The framework of the European Community system is a legal system, based on democratic principles. That means that the people should know what the European institutions are up to. The founding fathers insisted that people have a legal right to have the opinion of the Council on record. Non-democratic leaders over the past years since the inception of the Community sixty years ago want to hide their deals and prevent democratic accountability. They want to play the national champion and hide European reality from their voters.

Like the Gaullist, Francoist, Salazarian or Greek military autocrats, -- or the People's Democracies of Soviet-controlled Europe -- the present government leaders and ministers still seek to reduce their legal, democratic obligations to a minimum. The Party knows best Today it is the Party Cartel who wants you to think it knows best. The above Minutes you have what the Cartel presents as the minimum information requirement that they think they can get away with.

As it happens, these documents showed that the government leaders have not succeeded in smothering all discussion in their minimalist Minutes. A newcomer made a request that according to the Gaullist burqa rules should not be in the Minutes. It reveals a little bit of a real discussion, even an inkling of democratic debate. It was from someone who was naively used to the democratic use of Minutes as a public record, not a means of obfuscation.

Ad item 4 on the agenda

Stockholm Programme

Statement by M. Lawrence Gonzi - Prime Minister of Malta on the Stockholm Programme recalling the declaration tabled by Malta at the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 30 November 2009.

I would like to make a couple of comments about the Stockholm Programme. The Presidency is to be congratulated for getting unanimous agreement on the text. This does not mean to say that we do not have concerns about the implementation of some of its provisions, especially those relating to new obligations in the immigration area. Malta made a declaration on the matter at the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 30 November 2009, and I would like to recall and reaffirm this declaration while requesting that this statement I am making today be entered in the minutes of this European Council in accordance with Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure. It is therefore particularly important for us that the text is not re-opened."

It is democratic buffoonery to add one or two isolated items of a debate, while leaving out the context, debate and response. Either these are normal Minutes or they are not. If not, the Burqanistas of the Council should tell the Maltese Prime Minister that he should shut up, he should not think that these are Minutes like those of the Cricket Club and, above all, this European Council is not a democratic institution.

The Council should come clean and say: 'Rules of Cricket, nor those of the Minutes of commercial companies, any other councils or any other free association of free Europeans don't apply democratically to us.' They should then publish the Lisbon rules.

Have the 'democratic' leaders taken their democratic responsibilities seriously? Obviously not. And to the world at large as well as the European public, the new European Council of the Lisbon Treaty is becoming the worst example of undemocratic practice.

This in no way conforms to the principles of democracy and the explanations of democracy that Robert Schuman wrote about. Schuman called such practitioners, DEMOCRATIC FRAUDSTERS.

It is doubly a farce because the officials at the Council offices and also government officials have need to know what the European government leaders have actually said. The unofficial minutes are therefore circulated among these officials. They are also made available or 'leaked' to journalists and others. However they are not available to the general public. WHY NOT? They are usually recorded by a public official whose salary is paid for out of public taxes. It is triply a farce because Schuman said that the Councils (like the Parliament and Committees) should be open and thus supervised by public opinion.

In the Community system the Council of Ministers is just one of the five democratic institutions -- all have to respect the rules of supranational democracy.

The Council still thinks it is above this law. Imagine if we had such a record of the debates inParliament or the Consultative Committees. They would say the Institution met, it approved the agenda, and it issued a communiqué. What sort of democratic accountability is that?

As Schuman wrote, European democracy also involves the elimination of those things that are obviously anti-democratic. Democratic and ethical standards should be set by leaders. Unfortunately it usually comes about after public demonstrations, revolution, Court cases and open rebellions, following the persistent abuse of governments.

It is high time that the leaders of 27 democracies consider the loss they are creating to European prestige, values and standing in the world:

Your idea of European democracy would be a disgrace to a local tennis club.