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/YOUR DEMOCRACY IN EUROPE
03 MAY, 2011
Jihad4 : Europe must reverse its Nazi-like support for Holocaust-denial, Jew-hatred and jihadi terrorism!
18 APRIL, 2011
Mr Barroso: Where is Europe's celebration for the first real peace and democracy in 2000 years? 18 April 2011 is the 60th Anniversary!
Europe Declaration
18 April 1951
The following CHARTER OF THE COMMUNITY was made and signed on same day as europe's founding treaty of paris, creating the european coal and steel community. This DECLARATION of INTER-DEPENDENCE affirms that europe must be built on supranational democratic principles.
16 APRIL, 2011
Monnet7: Can YOU discern if Jean Monnet was an egotistical mythmaker and a charlatan?
`Schuman did not really understand the Treaty which bore his name.'
Sunday, 8 May 2011
Human Rights in the Middle East and North Africa? The European Union is going the right way -- the extreme right way -- to encourage Nazi ideology all along its southern borders. It spends millions of tax-payers' money in supporting a regime that is outrightly anti-Semitic and jihadist, that follows the Nazi model on racial supremacy and glorifies the extermination of the Jews as part of its programme.
THIS MUST STOP!! I M M E D I A T E L Y !! THIS IS POLICY MADNESS! IT IS NOT BEING DONE IN MY NAME OR IN THE NAME OF MILLIONS OF FAIR MINDED EUROPEANS.
IT IS TOTALLY AGAINST ALL THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY WAS FOUNDED: HUMAN RIGHTS, DEMOCRACY AND THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND RELIGION.
Consider! THINK!
* If one of EU's Member States demanded that all Jews down to the last man, woman and child must be cleared out of its territory, would it get EU funding for the project?
Yet this is exactly what the EU is doing abroad. The Council of Ministers gives political and diplomatic support and millions of euros -- European taxpayers' money -- to do so.
* If an EU Member State named a football tournament after a jihadist who had hijacked a bus and then murdered the passengers, 37 people including 12 children, would the EU continue its political support and funding?
Yet abroad EU politicians are strongly propping up this regime with diplomatic support and the Europeans' own money.
* If an EU member State refused to recognize another member State, let us say Denmark, Luxembourg or the Netherlands, or even a neighbour like Switzerland and said it should be part of greater Germany or an aggrandized France, would it get EU funding and support?
Yet this is exactly what the EU is supporting abroad with all the political and diplomatic power at its elbow.
* If a member State had official textbooks that preached hatred and war against another member State or a minority inside its borders, would it get OFFICIAL EU funding?
Yet this is exactly what official EU Foreign Policy supports. Other funding is coming directly from Member States budgets.
* If a terrorist organisation was found to be largely sustained because of public funding inside the EU, would it get extra aid and encouragement from Brussels? If the entire population of a region voted in elections to declare war and kill the population of a neighbouring country, would it get EU funding? Is that democracy?
Yet this is what is happening abroad according to EU policy.
* What would the EU do if one of the political parties in the European Parliament made a political merger with a terrorist organisation responsible for countless deaths, bombings and stabbings? Would it continue to give them support, pay its 'politicians' and expect them to attain high office in government?
Yet that is exactly what the EU is doing abroad.
Let us take those points one by one.
1. The EU is providing half a billion euros to support 'ministries' and 'administrations' of what could be the latest neo-Nazi racist and apartheid state. The Palestine Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas said that if he had a state 'I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land". He would exclude any European of Jewish origin setting foot in 'HIS' territory. In published sources he is quoted by the official Palestinian agency, Wafa as saying: '"I'm willing to agree to a third party that would supervise the agreement, such as NATO forces, but I would not agree to having Jews among the NATO forces, or that there will live among us even a single Israeli on Palestinian land.” This makes it clear that when Abbas says Israeli he does not mean Israeli Arab, Israeli Christian or Israeli Baha'i. He means Jew.
Later Wafa published the following correction: ' I will not agree that an Israeli, even if he is a Muslim, will be present on my land.' That implies war against any who collaborate with Jews. This is worse than any apartheid state. It is pure racism of the Nazi type -- Judenrein, free of Jews. That is the term the Nazis gave to conquered territories where all the Jews had been murdered or sent to concentration camps elsewhere. Is the Council of Ministers now funding this Nazi policy abroad? Why is there no debate on the subject? Will the EU demand that Abbas repudiate all of these statements before he gets another cent in support?
In any European Member State Abbas would not be allowed even to be a politician. Why then is he recognized at all? What are the EU's rules for talking to anti-Semites? Where has the European External Action Service published its rules? Abbas is the author of a Holocaust denying thesis, passed in Moscow in Cold War days. It says that Zionist leaders conspired with Nazis in the killing of thousands of fellow Jews. It describes as “the Zionist fantasy, the fantastic lie that six million Jews were killed”. It maintains that the gas chambers were built and used for disinfection and control of disease. The Palestinian Authority has steadfastly refused to remove this Holocaust-denying book from all its libraries. It is scarcely surprising that so many Arabs deny the Holocaust. Is the EU also encouraging this in supporting Abbas and 'former' terrorists, now residing in their plush villas? Abbas was once elected but when his term expired declared himself an extension. That puts him in the same category as a dictator, following the German pattern in history. In any EU State he would be boycotted for fraud.
2. Yes, the Palestinian football tournament is named after a bloody murderer, whose war name was Abu Jihad, or Khalil al-Wazir. He was a founder of the Fatah terrorist group which saw killing of defenceless children and civilians as the type of combat to which he was best suited. He was acclaimed by the Palestinian 'peace' leaders as prince of the shahids or martyrs. This is not unusual. The Karate championships are named for Abdallah Daoud who was responsible for many terror attacks. It is sponsored by an organisation wanting the 'repatriation' of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Daoud was one of the terrorists who stormed the Church of the Nativity in 2002, continuing to fight against Israel for several weeks while using the monks and the religious site as shields
What is the EU's policy on such 'sport' ? Does it encourage interchanges with people who glorify the idea of using force against churches? Christians, mainly educated Arab Christians, who used to be the majority of around 75% in Bethlehem have now mainly disappeared to around 23% under the PA 'administration'.
Why is the EU supporting regimes that glory in the destruction of synagogues and churches and anything that opposes a dictatorial Islam? Why is the EU supporting an Arab Palestinian entity that has declared that it wants a state totally dominated by Sharia law where all other religions are banned or subjugated to Islam? All members of any Palestinian parliament would have to be Islamic sectarians and swear allegiance before 'Allah'. "I swear by Allah Almighty to be faithful to the Homeland, and to preserve the rights and interests of the people and nation, and to respect law and perform my duties in the best manner, as Allah is my witness". That is the equivalent term jihadis and other politically brainwashed Islamists use when killing, maiming or stabbing those who disagree with them -- Allahu Akhbar, the takbir, used by various killers including those suicidal jihadi maniacs of 9/11, and the bombers in Europe's capital cities.
Do these so-called Arab 'democrats' expect Europeans, do the expect ME or anyone else, to pay them from our taxes for such bigotry? After they have already eliminated any Arab wanting real friendship with Jews, do they expect EU support? Why? What if someone believes this 'Allah', is a false god. The name is used for bloody and bigoted conflict that also permits witnesses to lie. It is clear, he says, it has nothing to do with the true God, the creator of the universe, who says: you shall not bear false witness. Must that honest person lie or submit to be part of this bigoted, sharia state? Such a constitution is a recipe for increasing aggressive Middle Eastern politics-- which will envelop Europe in more bloody wars.
3. We have already quoted the self-proclaimed 'President' Abbas on the Judenrein Palestine. What is its policy towards Israel, a full member of the UN? The PA issues maps where the State of Israel has been left out altogether. All the land is Palestine, according to the PA. That rather makes nonsense of any peace process. Amendments to the Palestinian Covenant of the PLO that denies Israel's right to exist have been promised many times. The articles on a new Holocaust have never been revoked. Despite promises by Arafat to the press conference that it was 'caduc' and misleading statements by others such as US President Clinton, Palestinians and their documents confirm that all they have agreed to is that sometime in the future they might amend the articles on their policy of Israeli ethnocide. In the meantime such murderous sentiments as were written into the covenant dating back to PLO's Nasserite origins remain. Why is the EU supporting an entity whose official policy is still the extermination of the Jews?
4. According to a monitoring report by EUfunding.org, research which is confirmed by other organisations, the EU and its Member States are funding hatred in school books. Five key points are listed:
* Palestinian children are forced to learn from inflammatory material, much of it containing hidden and/or violent directives. This is an abuse of their basic student rights, as laid down by UNESCO.
* It is evident that the texts are designed not to include the name of Israel. When this rule is breached, Israel is only referred to in a negative context. Any connection between Jews and the Holyland is denied emphatically.
* The result is that the Palestinian children are encouraged to hate their neighbors. This culture not only fans the flames of violence; it significantly reduces the chances for peace among the next generation.
* These books are funded by foreign governments and respected international agencies; in particular Belgium, Italy and UNESCO.
* The institutions of the United Nations, in particular UNESCO and UNRWA, are clearly providing services, which only deepen the fostering hatred directed at Israel.
What about teaching Human Rights in Arab schools? Do the teachers and the workers in Palestinian Arab schools learn the facts about the Holocaust? It is forbidden! Verboten! This is what the Arab daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, published on 14 April 2011.
Headline: "The [UNRWA Workers'] Union emphasized its opposition to teaching the Holocaust of the Jews as part of the curriculum in the [UNRWA] Agency's schools..."
"The [UNRWA] Workers' Union emphasized its adamant opposition to teaching the Holocaust of the Jews within the educational curriculum of UNRWA schools, as part of the topic of human rights. The union said, 'We emphasize our adamant opposition to confusing the thinking of our students' by means of Holocaust studies in the human rights study curriculum ... (emphasis added)
Confused from what? Perhaps the constant encouragement of young people on television and throughout the media to prepare themselves as shahids that is suicide bombers, martyrs and guerrillas against civilians, like Abu Jihad.
5. The EU is sustaining and has sustained this squalid political mess where terrorists -- not democrats -- run the administration. The PLO terrorized any Arab who wanted to collaborate or had collaborated with the Israelis. Why did the EU let that happen? Then the EU encouraged elections in Gaza between two terrorist organizations, the PLO and Hamas, which is still on the EU's terrorist list. Hamas states its goal as Jewish ethnocide. As discussed in the earlier commentary, Hamas sets their goal as the destruction of Israel and the subjection to the whole population to militant Islam 'which will abolish {Israel} as it abolished all that preceded it.'
UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, is mainly paid for by the EU. It pays nearly two-thirds (62%) of its budget. Europe has been paying for more than 60 years! Why? because the Arab refugees in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan refuse to be integrated into those States and the States refuse to integrate them. That was the case when Egypt was in charge of Gaza from 1948 to 1957 and when also Jordan had invaded and controlled Samaria and Judea. They did absolutely nothing for the refugees and kept them in tents.They could have solved the problem then. They refused.
Who are the refugees? They are like no other refugees in the world and they get more more per capita than the really needy elsewhere. They are also permanent. In 1948 there were an estimated 8 million Indian refugees expelled from Pakistan following the independence conflict between Pakistan and India. Where they re-settled? Yes. Is the Palestinian Arab problem an issue about Islam? No. There were six million Islamic refugees from India who went to Pakistan. Were they re-settled? Yes.
Those 14 million refugees have all been re-settled. So have the millions and millions of refugees in Europe after World War 2. But not the much smaller number of Arab Palestinians, half a million maybe three-quarters. Why? Because the other Arab States wanted to create a permanent problem for Israel. They did so because of the humiliating defeat of their seven national armies illegally invading the sovereign State of Israel in 1948. There are now some 4 million refugees!
They created a special definition of 'refugee' like no other in the world. An UNRWA refugee can not only be the person seeking refuge but his children and his children's children and so on ad infinitum. It will never end. UNLESS the EU and democrats take the problem in hand. A Nazi-like Judenrein State with no agreed borders, with terror weapons financed from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and perhaps Egypt is no solution. It is an invitation for disaster for Europe too. Europe needs to use its influence to create a real DEMOCRATIC solution based on the European Human Rights Convention.
What defines a refugee? He has to be displaced from a dwelling -- where he lived less than TWO years -- before 1948. They had to be in residence from June 1946. An UNRWA refugee is one whose "normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict." And now this is 'inherited' by his many, many children, unlike other refugees.
Many of the original refugees were itinerant workers from Egypt, Syria and neighbouring countries. That definition was not a serious proposition in 1950s. It is ridiculous today where we see the scores of great grandchildren of one wandering agricultural worker from Syria claiming they are Palestinians. Yasser Arafat, despite his claims to the contrary, was born in Egypt as his birth certificate proved.
At the beginning there were many Jews who had been displaced. Some had lived there for generations, despite long persecution under the Ottoman empire, and then through the British Mandate -- the system where the nations of the world promised the conquered land from the Ottomans to the Jews as a national home. All coins and all stamps during the British Mandate period (1922-1948) already bore the designation in Hebrew for Land of Israel, in conformity to the international law of the League of Nations. This law had been passed by all Member States of the League and ratified by all their parliaments. It was re-confirmed by nations joining the United Nations.
The score of Arab States, some immensely rich from oil and including those that illegally invaded the land of Israel, did not deal with the Arab refugee problem. All the Jewish refugees under UNRWA were long resettled -- half a century ago. So have the 900,000 Jewish refugees expelled at that time from Arab lands of the North Africa and the Middle East.
6. The Fatah is taking a two stage solution of trying to obtain concessions and undermine Israel's security and delegitimize it by any means. That will make it weaker for armed attack. That is proved by their refusal to remove the following articles and others from its Covenant:
Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it . They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it.
Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. Absolute responsibility for this falls upon the Arab nation - peoples and governments - with the Arab people of Palestine in the vanguard. Accordingly, the Arab nation must mobilize all its military, human, moral, and spiritual capabilities to participate actively with the Palestinian people in the liberation of Palestine. It must, particularly in the phase of the armed Palestinian revolution, offer and furnish the Palestinian people with all possible help, and material and human support, and make available to them the means and opportunities that will enable them to continue to carry out their leading role in the armed revolution, until they liberate their homeland.
The PLO also want apply their peculiar version of Arab anti-capitalism, coordinate all the destructive forces of Arabs worldwide and to re-write history, presumably also in the law texts of Europe.
Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.
Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.
Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization.
Hamas has the simple idea of destroying all of Israel by terrorism, with the thousands of rockets it has fired and the support of the jihadist network of the Moslem Brotherhood, plus bombs, rockets and hate from Shi'ite Iran.
If the EU recognizes and pays for part of the Palestinian Authority, a covert terrorist organisation, should it continue to do so if it combines with an overtly terrorist group like Hamas? Does adding more poison make a bilious drink more appetizing? Hamas is already on the terrorist list of the EU. If Fatah wants to blow its cover and join forces with an openly terrorist group, then the only question to ask is:
Why hasn't the EU placed Fatah and the PA, open collaborators in Hamas terrorism on the terrorist list too?
It is time for the EU to take stock of their policies. Appeasement with terror in Czechoslovakia in 1938 strengthened the Nazis and led to World War. The EU has ample means to act. The EU is paying for the Palestinians. It should now begin to expect them to implement democratic practices. If politicians have forgotten what they are, they include:
Human Rights, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly ... in fact why don't they just check the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It was created at the initiative of Robert Schuman and the Founding Fathers of modern Europe.
Why did they create it? To stop States and governments becoming like Nazis. They experienced that. Unless a determined moral stance is made a democratic government can slide from bad to worse. It becomes a gangster state, threatening everyone.
Don't just believe me -- listen to what Schuman's friend and colleague, Pierre-Henri Teitgen, said when he introduced the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the Council of Europe.
'Democracies do not become Nazi countries overnight. Evil progresses in an underhand way, with a minority operating to seize what amounts to the levers of power. One by one, freedoms are suppressed, in one sphere then another.
Public opinion is smothered, the worldwide conscience is dulled and the national conscience asphyxiated.
And then, when everything fits in place, the Führer is installed and this evolution continues right on to the deadly gas ovens of the crematorium.
Intervention is needed before it becomes too late. A conscience must exist somewhere which will sound the alarm to the minds of a nation threatened by this spreading gangrene, to warn them of the peril and to show them that they are committing themselves to a crooked road leading far, sometimes even to Buchenwald or to Dachau. An international jurisdiction within the Council of Europe, a system of surveillance and guarantee, could be this conscience, of which other countries also maybe have special need.’
EUROPE MUST ACT NOW -- BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE !
OPEN LETTER to President Barroso, Mr Herman van Rumpuy, Member State governments, Presidents of the European Parliament and the Consultative Committees: the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions.
From: David Price, Editor
Dear President Barroso and Presidents of European institutions,
Today 18 April 2011 marks the sixtieth Anniversary of the foundation of European Democracy. It is also the Birthday of the Commission although the Commission together with the other institutions that were also created that day refuse to acknowledge it. Not even a press release was published.
It is the designated day to commemorate the birth of Europe. It is set by treaty and the by moral authority of all Europeans 60 years ago. That was agreed with huge majorities in all the eleven parliamentary debating chambers of the original Six founding Member States. The Founding Fathers also expressed themselves very clearly. They signed a document -- the Declaration of Inter-Dependence -- saying so.
Konrad Adenauer (West Germany),
Paul van Zeeland, Joseph Meurice (Belgium),
Robert Schuman (France),
Count Sforza (Italy)
Joseph Bech (Luxembourg),
Dirk Stikker and J. R. M. van den Brink (The Netherlands)
signed this document declaring the exact principles and the exact method which laid theTRUE FOUNDATION of a united democratic Europe.
After they had signed the Treaty of Paris creating Europe's first supranational Community, they reinforced it with this separate Declaration of Inter-Dependence.
It celebrates the way to create PEACE.
It celebrates the way to create EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY.
It says that 18 April should be regarded as the TRUE FOUNDATION of a democratic and political entity that had never existed as such before --- EUROPE.
The first European Community laid the foundation for
Today we are celebrating the LONGEST PERIOD OF PEACE in more than 2000 years of European history. At no time in the history of Europe was the territory of the original Six founder States of Europe free from war for more than about fifty years. Usually it was a great deal less.
Every generation in the past knew WAR. Now every generation since World War 2 knows only one thing inside the European Community -- PEACE.
That has NOT happened before.
It has always been in a constant state of European civil war -- until 18 April 1951.
Today EUROPE has peace. Today, when the half-billion population of the European Union is probably twice that of the entire earth under the Romans, Europe has peace. And with what diversity of views! Today Europe is filled with more people with more diverse ideas on life, science, religion and politics. It has a couple of States with Atomic bombs able to kill hundreds of thousands in a single flash of light. It has tons of explosive bombs. European States have large armies, navies and airforces. They have never been used against fellow Member States. Never since 18 April 1951. States have great industry and fierce industrial competition. They have great centres of banking. But none of these have led to wars as in the past, not since 18 April 1951. Europe has not just a Single Market but now has the way to manage it without strife. It has more than a score of languages and much more in terms of cultures, all vying for survival in a modern world. No culture has gone to war to protect its existence, not since 18 April 1951. Everyone is free to pursue their own cultural activities. It has atheists living along side Jews and Christians, even though the principles of asupranational Europe derive from Biblical revelation. It has icy wastes in the Arctic and dry deserts in the south. All Europeans are fed. Europe has ideologies by the bucketful! And yet it has new means to come to agreement on the truth.
And yet in spite of all that diversity the New Europeans all have agreed on one thing. They want peace. And they agreed on the Method. That was the the SUPRANATIONAL method of the Community.
It has peace as a SUPRANATIONAL COMMUNITY. It works. Robert Schuman called it an innovation like a great 'scientific discovery'.
Why is the European Commission not explaining HOW it works? Why is it not explaining the difference between Supranational Democracy which works and internationalism or inter-governmentalism which will inevitably FAIL? History shows that to be the case.
That COMMUNITY was founded 60 years ago today. On that day the totally independent States of Europe agreed to a new institution, the European Commission, then called the High Authority. It would have supranational powers. That means it would exercise independent judgement, in the same way as a judge must in Court. It should NOT be in dialogue or tied to any enterprise, labour force, consumer group, nation, political party or other interest group or lobby. It should not take instructions from any government, and that includes resigning when they want a new minister. We would not expect that of a High Court judge. It would function according to universal values such as truth and justice. It would respect the framework agreement of all European States -- the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
To work properly supranational democracy has a minimum of FIVE independent institutions. The Commission's members were to be selected by the governments to fulfill these criteria and also have sound judgement and the necessary experience. (That independence is a continuing struggle as politicians refuse to stop acting like prima donnas. They want to nominate their man or woman in the Commission, an act which is completely illegal in the Community system.)
The Commission's proposals, made as fair as they could judge, were then subject to Legal Opinions from three representative groups: governments, organized civil society (directly elected in their own parliament) and all individuals (represented by the European Parliament). Thus all sections of society should be consulted who were affected by the powers of the Commission. It would then enter into a full dialogue before the proposals became law by their publication by the Commission in the Official Journal. A court also of independent lawyers was given the task to act as a means of legal appeal, should any institution, or organization or individual feel that it was being discriminated. Any such person can ask the European Court a relevant question via a local, regional or national court or even a tribunal.
Because of that great innovation, Europe has had peace since 1945 -- 66 years of peace, totally unknown in the past. Instead of having another war the next generation after World War 2, Europe found a way to peace. That is a fact of history.
This political design was agreed by all governments and signed by their plenipotentiaries on 18 April 1951. It had as its prime goal and purpose:
TO MAKE WAR NOT ONLY UNTHINKABLE BUT MATERIALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
It succeeded.
Peace can only come from TRUTH, Justice and Morality. That was also described in the DEMOCRATIC principles that the leaders defined on that great, historic day, sixty years ago. They said that the TRUE FOUNDATION for building Europe was SUPRANATIONAL DEMOCRACY.
Why, Mr President Barroso, are the European Institutions REFUSING to celebrate this event?
Why are the politicians REFUSING to spend a Euro of taxpayers' money on commemorating this date?
WHY was there not even a simple Press Release today? Is the Commission not even free enough to commemorate this great day of PEACE -- perhaps the greatest event in some 2000 years of European history?
Is it because the politicians WANT to abandon SUPRANATIONAL DEMOCRACY? What other possible motive do you think they can have?
Is this the reason that the European institutions still refuse to publish the Declaration of Inter-Dependence that the European Founding Fathers signed on this day six decades ago?
I am enclosing a copy of that Declaration below.
Yours sincerely,
David Price
The President of the Federal Republic of Germany, His Royal Highness the Prince Royal of Belgium, the President of the French Republic, the President of the Italian Republic, Her Royal Highness the Grand Duchess of Luxembourg, Her Majesty, the Queen of The Netherlands,
Considering that world peace can only be safeguarded by creative efforts commensurate with the dangers threatening it;
Convinced that the contribution that an organized and invigorated Europe can bring to civilization is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations;
Conscious that Europe will not be constructed except by concrete achievements establishing first of all the reality of partnership, and by the establishment of common bases for economic development;
Anxious to cooperate through the expansion of their primary products in raising the standard of living and in progressing in works of peace;
Resolved to transform their age-long rivalry through the unification of their essential interests, and, by the inauguration of an economic Community, to assemble the initial basis for a broader and deeper Community of peoples who had for centuries been opposed in bloody conflicts, and to set the foundations of institutions capable of providing a direction to a destiny that is henceforward shared,
Have decided to create a European Coal and Steel.Community
This work, that has just been confirmed by our signature, we owe to the wisdom of our delegations and to the perseverance of our experts. We are deeply grateful to them.
Even before the work was set in motion, the virtues of the idea that inspired it had already aroused in our countries and beyond its borders an extraordinary surge of hope and confidence.
In signing the treaty founding the European Community for Coal and Steel Community, a community of 160 million Europeans, the contracting parties give proof of their determination to call into life the first supranational institution, and consequently create the true foundation for an organized Europe.
This Europe is open to all European countries that are able to choose freely for themselves. We sincerely hope that other countries will join us in our common endeavour.
In full awareness of the need to reveal the significance of this first step by sustained action in other sectors, we have the hope and the will in the same spirit that presided in the elaboration of this Treaty, to bring the current projects now in preparation to a successful conclusion. The work will be pursued in conjunction with the existing European bodies.
These initiatives, each with their particular objective, should rapidly take their place within the framework of a European Political Community, the concept of which is being elaborated in the Council of Europe. This should result in the coordination and simplification of the European institutions as a whole.
All these efforts will be guided by the growing conviction that the countries of free Europe are inter-dependent and that they share a common destiny. We will strengthen this sentiment by combining our energies and our determination, and bringing our work into harmony through frequent consultations and building ever-increasing trust through our contacts.
Herein lies the significance of this day. We have no doubt its importance will be understood by the public opinion of our countries and by our parliaments, who are called to decide on its ratification. The governments that together are represented here will act to all as interpreters of our common will to build a peaceful and prosperous Europe. And together we will serve Europe.
The declaration was signed by Konrad Adenauer (West Germany), Paul van Zeeland, Joseph Meurice(Belgium), Robert Schuman (France), Count Sforza (Italy) Joseph Bech (Luxembourg), Dirk Stikker and J. R. M. van den Brink (The Netherlands).
Why do people read blogs or history books, for that matter? Facts, you might say. A broader purpose is the search for truth. How do you examine history books? Do you always agree with them? Some blogs might seem to be convincing but are they really the truth or smooth public relations? To get at the truth, readers need discernment, logical analysis and background knowledge.
Are you up to the task?
If you doubt, what do you do? You check a reference book. But are they reliable? Take this comment which has found its way from the Memoirs of former Commission President Roy Jenkins into such reference books as the Penguin Companion to the European Union.
This is obviously balderdash but it would appear that both authors (the reference book and the Commission President Roy Jenkins) thought the comment of the original critic, X, was worth recording.
Or do you think it is possibly true? Can you be sure and defend your opinion?
Firstly, it seems rather extraordinary that anyone would make such a claim. The European Community is one of the most successful ventures in history. The author of the remark, X, quoted by Jenkins says the EU's originator, Schuman, did not understand what he was doing. Secondly, it is probably more astounding that someone somewhere believed this comment whoever made it. Did they have evidence? None is given. Does this mean that that Jenkins and the reference book's author were wise judges or parrots? All we can say is that they do not treat the reader as having any intelligence because they expect us to accept it purely on their own reputation. What is their reputation? Beyond that we have to suspend judgement on the facts for the moment.
The first rule is that we should have material evidence and logic for our opinions. We should not take any critic at face value. We should examine his credentials but more importantly we should examine the logic and facts first, without getting involved in personalities or opinions, whether a reference book, a Commission president or the original source of the quotation, X. Secondly we should then examine the motivation of the person, X, making the remarks.
The public accept a lot of advertising, propaganda and distortions without reflection. Many clever, well paid people fashioned them in a way to make people swallow them without thought. What a reader should ask is: What is the motivation of this critic and the purpose does he want to achieve? What critic would level such a obvious slander against someone who was considered one of the greatest experts on international treaties?
Let us assume that Roy Jenkins has reported the criticism correctly. This should be checked against other parts of his books. Let us get to the substance of the remark.
So what treaty is the critic is addressing? Schuman's name is associated with so many. The critic betrays his background and also lack of knowledge. No one treaty actually bears Schuman's name. So we must question whether the critic is a proven expert. Was he really familiar with diplomacy and treaty-making?
Schuman was involved in most of the key treaties that are still the democratic foundation of modern Germany, the foundation of modern Europe and trans-Atlantic relations. The understanding and wisdom of these agreements shows his expertise in the matter of treaty writing. Treaties were not only the exclusive prerogative of the Foreign Minister but Schuman as an international lawyer with three decades of experience, was a great specialist.
Does the statement agree with impartial judges? An American diplomatic historian of the US State Department wrote Schuman ‘derived great intellectual delight in the subtleties of international agreement’. Any such postwar treaty also entailed political risks. An effective treaty-writer had to be both an expert lawyer and and expert politician. The international negotiations to create the Council of Europe had taken a great deal of energy and time. There is hardly a lawyer one could name in the postwar period that was more expert in treaties, so this criticism seems on any ground, bizarre.
Let us assume that the critic, X, refers to the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty, not the Statutes of London, the European Convention of Human Rights or the Treaty of Washington that created NATO or the numerous others.
We come to specifics. Was it a matter about the technical industry, coking quality, iron ore trade and other details of processing of coal and steel? Did Schuman not understand new innovations and rolling mills? Was he ignorant about coal and steel cartels? That would require someone with enormous knowledge and experience to say that Schuman was inadequate in this department.
Schuman had been a member of the French Parliament for around four decades. He was elected without fail every election for his constituency of Thionville. This city of Lorraine is know as France's city of steel. The area was rich in iron ore but poor in the right sort of coal. It had to be imported mainly from the German Ruhr area. Schuman knew the ins and outs of the trade and also how the German iron, steel and coal barons had over the centuries manipulated and controlled the market against French interests.
Schuman was well aware that various wars with France were largely over asserting primacy for this main sector of the industrial revolution and the modern economy. In the postwar years Schuman had been continuously involved in Allied discussions about German steel production in all its ramifications. In his youth he had spent a great deal of tie in Germany, received his education there and had a large network of German friends. Monnet did not know the language, the commerce, politics or the people.
There was probably no politician in France who knew more about the technical processes of steel making than Schuman. His long speech in Brussels in 1949, well before Monnet had anything to do with the Schuman Declaration, shows his vast encyclopedic knowledge of both coal and steel techniques and hot political issues.
Was it, according to this critic, in the area of European Finance in the treaty that Schuman was so disastrously ignorant? Schuman had as Minister of Finance and Prime Minister achieved what many politicians considered impossible -- tackling simultaneously rampant inflation and balancing the books, both of government accounts and trade balance. In the interwar period he was considered one of Europe's great experts in international finance.
So who is this acerbic critic who says that Schuman did not understand the treaty that bore his name? So secondly, we should analyse the critic himself carefully.
Let's now start asking more personal questions. Who was this genius who far outclassed this intellectual, democratic and political accomplishments of Prime Minister Schuman? Was the critic more experienced in national finance? Did he have a greater political record? Schuman greatly desired that he would become a professor of the subject he had studied all his life -- the history of international and constitutional law.
He was well qualified for such a post, but he had devoted his life to practical work rather than ivory tower expositions. Schuman had been largely responsible both for the Lex Schuman, a consolidation of numerous laws and the civil, criminal and administrative codes that re-united Alsace and Lorraine after the First World War. He had been instrumental in the treaties of NATO, the Council of Europe, the Convention of Human Rights and of course the European Community.
The latter was based on a remarkable new innovation in the history of international law called supranational democracy. This was based on a deep analysis of political and moral philosophy as well as a life long study of how in history constitutions from the time of the Greek city states fail.
So if this critic was correct then to find the errors and mistakes of Schuman, he must have an intellect that far outclassed him and a critical sense. He must have political experience greater than a man who had twice been Prime Minister of France. One would have thought so.
Who was he? None other than Jean Monnet. What were his qualifications? He had never been elected to any democratic office. He knew very little about coal and steel. He inherited a brandy firm of Monnet and Co. His lacks when it came to understanding the coal and steel sector are clear from the time he was an administrator of the French economic plan. (This showed he had little grasp of the geopolitical position of the sectors and the key elements in it.)
Did Jean Monnet really understand the treaty of which he was supposed by de Gaulle to have been the inspirer? That epithet 'inspirer' started as a Gaullist slander and later found its way into sycophantic books and biographies.
What was Monnet's background and interest? One of the most in-depth studies of the period was accomplished by historian Georgette Elgey. What did she say about Monnet after interviewing him and his colleagues?
Monnet 'did not possess the faintest understanding of international law.'
Did he then learn on the job? Monnet's own career would indicate he knew little about the working of the treaty because he did not last long as a president of the first Commission, called the High Authority. That whole experience lasted two years nine month at the Commission. Is this period really long enough for Monnet to be able to make up his opinion? Schuman talked about long-term processes, such as that for Europe's national democracies that already took a thousand years.
For Monnet when he was responsible for aspects of the treaty from 10 Aug 1952 to 1 June 1955, he was obviously not concentrating on his job. His mind was elsewhere. During that time he resigned a couple of times but withdrew his first resignation so that his period there might have been rather shorter. He hardly had his mind on the treaty. And he died well before he could see the effects that Schuman predicted such as the re-unification of Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
A clear discrepancy is apparent with Monnet's story and the legend he and his friends constructed for him. For someone who claimed to be the inspirer too, it is obvious that this is false because if the first Community were his work he would have stayed longer. He stayed long enough with the high salary he set himself to clear his old debts. Then he left, presumably on a good pension. Monnet was known to make false claims over other aspects of the origin of the European Community.
Was he a great intellectual? Monnet never went to university so we have no way to make proper assessment. Was he a great learner? His biographer, Francois Duchene says he was 'little attracted to books, he left school at sixteen.' (Jean Monnet p30). His father told him not to read books. Was he an expert in coal and steel? Hardly. His family business was cognac and he was a cognac salesman. Was he an expert in finance? At one stage he was a banker but he lost his fortune in a crash.
What then were his talents? Paul Reuter, an international lawyer who worked for Schuman at the Foreign Ministry as deputy jurisconsult, had this to say: 'he was small and stocky ... and sometimes had a sly smile. I have seen him wrapping people round his little finger, seducing them. He could do that.' (Jean Monnet, p24). He was therefore a great manipulator, keen to persuade. As Monnet might or might not know -- he gives little clue in his Memoirs, since he calls Reuter a university professor -- a jurisconsult is a top lawyer at the Foreign Ministry and as a lawyer can plead the case of France before international courts dealing with treaties. He is paid to have discernment.
On 20 February 1978 the then Commission President Roy Jenkins went to meet with Jean Monnet, who was then 89. Jenkins describes Monnet as 'remarkably sharp' in his published diaries. Jenkins gives every indication that he also was seduced by Monnet. It would seem that many people including successive Commission have been seduced and waylaid by him too. They devoted all the Community's propaganda power to shoring up the Monnet myth.
So what great illumination did Monnet have about the treaty that Schuman lacked? Schuman spoke at length in many speeches in French, German and English about the great innovation of the Treaty of Paris, Europe's first Community. He described the democratic bases of the Community. He signed with the other Founding Fathers the Great Charter of the Community, that redefined Europe's history from war to peace, from nationalism to international cooperation, from dictatorship to democracy.
During the whole period of Monnet's presidency of the High Authority there is no evidence that he published this great document. It said that the supranational principle was the foundation stone of the new Europe.
Nor did he publish the correct version of the Schuman Declaration. He published his own version cutting out all Schuman's introduction that put it in a historic and geopolitical context.
Schuman said a great new innovation, 'a scientific discovery' lay behind all of this new opportunity for peace and prosperity. It was the supranational principle. What did Monnet think of this, how did he analyse it and what did he say about it? Simply this. 'I did not fancy the word (supranational) then and I have never liked it.' That seems the height of incompetence and willful ignorance.
It might be a smart or glib remark for someone to make in a bistro with a glass of brandy in his hand. It is hardly fitting coming from someone who was employed by the public tax-payer to defend the principle of supranational democracy.
The public should begin to analyse whether this part of the work of Monnet is the work of a charlatan or a con artist. It is much like someone who is secretary general of NATO saying I do not really believe in defence or the military. It is rather like a supreme court judge saying I do not believe in the rule of law, do not know what the term means and never liked the idea as far as I grasp it.
What did Monnet think of his fellow Commissioners? There were two Germans, a Luxembourger, a Belgian, two Italians, and another Frenchman with a lifetime in the steel industry management. They included very experienced people, lawyers, diplomats, trade unionists, and other experts in the coal and steel industries. Indeed they covered all the experience and expertise that Monnet lacked.
Were they any better than Schuman? This is what Jenkins records. 'The German members of the Commission -- and indeed those of the other nations -- were pretty useless.'
I am afraid that this would probably be the opinion of M. Monnet on the present and past Commissions -- in fact it could well be his opinion on everyone else -- except of course M. Monnet.
Posts
