Europe is becoming an undemocratic continent where force matters more than law

theguardian.com

Europe is becoming an undemocratic continent where force matters more than law

 

Paul Mason

 

We've had the rival launches, in which cheesy celebs and tawdry men in suits swapped platitudes about Europe. Now we're going to get the letter: David Cameron is being forced to write down his demands before the other EU governments will begin negotiations. All this in preparation for a referendum whose date has not yet been set.

Writing stuff down is good – and too rarely done in international diplomacy. What you think is wrong with the EU, and what you want done about it, will vary widely depending where in Britain you live, your class, age and ideals. My hunch is that, if we all did this, and loaded the results into some vast database, the real problem with Europe would emerge. It is power – and the lack of democratic control over it.

I have no prior hostility to the EU. But the first time you have to lug TV production kit around the stairs and tunnels at Rond-Point Schuman in Brussels, beneath the unfriendly gaze of armed Belgian cops, you begin to realise how unequal power is in this semi-superstate. The architecture of power in Brussels is faceless: it seems to embody the determination to dissolve political traditions into a monolith.

The sheer size of the EU directorates makes them susceptible only to two kinds of influence: global corporations and pan-national industry lobby groups. That means, for businesses, it is almost impossible to deal with Europe unless you have mega size, or are prepared to dissolve your specific interest into a sector agenda, which will itself be mediated through layer upon layer of protocol. For individual citizens, it's worse. The only real power to influence Europe's vast bureaucratic structures has to be expressed through one of two channels: the British government and the European Court. The commission is not accountable to the parliament, and the central bank seems accountable only to Angela Merkel.

 

In the past year, on two occasions when tested, European solidarity fell apart. Critics say Greece was smashed by the European central bank that was supposed to keep it solvent. There was no democratic redress. The many millions of people who saw the protest hashtag #ThisIsACoup had no way – even indirect – to influence the actions of the commission and the European Central Bank. Then, as refugees from Syria and beyond flowed through the Balkans, two key parts of the legal architecture fell apart: the Schengen agreement, which assures free movement between some central states, was suspended. And the Dublin III treaty, which forces the deportation of migrants to their first country of entry, likewise ignored.

 

It's hard to avoid the conclusion: Europe is becoming a continent where force matters more than law. Germany forced Greece to accept a programme that will destroy its economy and strip its state of assets for the next 50 years. Half a million people forced their way across borders in a way that all forms of rhetoric against migration could not stop.That's great for them: but not for the thousands of sub-Saharan migrants trapped in violent slums across north Africa. They must rot there, simply because they do not have the power to do what the Syrians did. Businesses and politicians have also begun to understand that, in Europe, might is right. Uber, which has faced bans in Spain and had its offices raided three times in the Netherlands, has just been declared legal in the UK.

Staking a claim to a new business model then seeing if it's actually legal seems to be the new normal. In Europe, the outcome seems hit and miss. Both the action and reactions demonstated something that all Chinese city governments know: when the executive power is far away and the law lethargic, arbitrary pursuit of self-interest is the most effective course of action.

For the "stay" lobby, in the run-up to the referendum, the strongest argument will be the lack of real alternatives to EU membership. Sure, let's do 50 bilateral trade deals and sell our infrastructure to China – but don't think this comes with a return to Great Power status for the UK. It will mean the opposite – as we bargain away our diplomatic positions and our human rights agenda for the sake of investment deals and energy security.But the "everything's fine and the critics are just nationalists" argument does not wash either. Just as the euro is destroying the economies of southern Europe, the EU's institutions might destroy European solidarity.

My own written demands would focus on the imbalance of power and the tendency to use it arbitrarily. For the EU to be a legitimate state, even a weak one, its legislature must control its executive. The rule of law means swift redress and advance compliance: but European law is neither swift nor enforcable without expensive retrospective justice.The ECB's tendency to take politicised and arbitrary action is not just a problem for euro countries, but the whole project. Finally, the power to admit new states has to lie with existing populations. The EU's logo is on my passport: before the borders of that institution are extended to Iraq (via Turkey) or the Donetsk warzone (via Ukraine), I would like not just a vote but a veto.

 

This problem of power is so big that both sides in the referendum have a vested interest in ignoring it. Even if we leave, it will still be a problem for Britain if there's a power imbalance between people and institutions inside the EU. The pro-EU faction seem happy to tolerate glacial change, leaving generations of Europeans to live under a semi-democracy. The real power, meanwhile, sits with large corporations, banks and elites.

And here's the strangest thing: for all the power concentrated at the top, the EU lacks the will to operate purposefully in the multipolar global power system. We know, roughly, what the US wants. Ditto for China and Russia. Ask what Europe wants – in Ukraine, Syria or the Arctic circle – and you'll draw a blank. In a multipolar world, whose chaos zones are expanding, effective states with clear diplomatic aims and red lines matter.

Paul Mason is economics editor of Channel 4 News. @paulmasonnews

 

Brilliant Explanation of US Foreign Policy and What Went Down at the UN

russia-insider.com

Brilliant Explanation of US Foreign Policy and What Went Down at the UN

Rob Slane (Blogmire)

This article originally appeared at the author's excellent blog

---

Imagine a kid at school. An intimidating kid he is, packing a lot of muscle, used to getting his own way, and with no scruples about bullying other kids that stand in his way.

His goal is to get everyone to acknowledge his authority and leadership over them, and he's not afraid to use any number of tactics to make this happen.

Sometimes he humiliates them. Sometimes he arm-twists them. Sometimes he threatens to take their money. Sometimes he gets other kids to fight his battles for him, promising them all sorts of perks. Sometimes he even tortures some folks, if need be. And if he sees anyone standing in his way, he has no hesitation in demonising them, making up all sorts of stories up about them, turning some of the other kids against them, before going in with his gang to sort them out.

Cut to another scene and the same kid is standing up in front of the whole school giving a speech. He starts by talking of the need to solve disputes using diplomacy. He speaks about the need to stand up to what he calls "strongmen" in the school. He berates some of the bigger boys for asserting themselves in ways that contravene the rules of the school. He speaks about spreading peace and moving away from what he calls the "old ways of conflict and coercion".

Warming to his theme he says that force alone cannot impose order, but he also mentions that of course he possesses massive force and will use it if necessary. He talks about the history of the school over the past few years, telling his audience about all the bad guys out there and what they've been up to. He's careful not to mention his own part in it though, but he does manage to praise himself for the great job he's been doing of keeping order.

He moves on to talk about the importance of respecting the rules and then singles out one of the other boys in particular for breaking them, and for being a big bad bully. He acknowledges his own part in the case of Libby, who he put on a life support machine, but only to say that it was necessary for something to be done about her. He then admits that we (notice the "we") perhaps could have done more to help her rehabilitation, and that "we" will have to do more to help in the rehabilitation of those who get hospitalized in the future.

He finishes by lamenting the plight of all the poor and weak kids in the class, including some that he has hospitalized in the past, speaking about their dignity and how "we" should all work together for a brighter future. For those who swear unswerving loyalty, his speech is welcomed as putting all the trouble makers in the school in their place. Others sit there scratching their heads, wondering whether they are going mad or did they just hear the school bully paint himself as an angel of light bringing freedom and peace to the school?

A few minutes later, along comes another boy with a speech – the boy he accused of being a big bad bully – and in one sentence – "Do you realise what you have done?" – sticks a pin in the big fat hubris-filled balloon of the school's chief bully and exporter of chaos.

Listening to Barack Hussein Obama's speech at the United Nations was one of the most nauseating experiences I have ever had, and it ought to have been accompanied by a health warning. Rarely have I ever witnessed a more deluded individual manage to turn the world on its head, painting a picture of US foreign policy that is utterly divorced from the tragic reality. 

Yet, sad as that may have been, even more astonishing is the fact that events since then – which have moved at breakneck speed – have shown that the man has learnt not even an ounce of humility from the Emperor's New Clothes treatment he got from Vladimir Putin. On the contrary he seems set on continuing in his ways.

With the agenda exposed like never before, and with their Middle East policy lying in ruins, you might have thought there'd be some sort of contrition and even radio silence from Washington and its global media outlets. Not a bit of it. No sooner had Russian planes got off the ground (perhaps even sooner), at the request of the Government of Syria, we were told that 33 civilians had been killed, including children, and that Russia was not targeting ISIS but the US-trained rebels.

I reserved judgement for a while. In these days of reckless propaganda, unverified claims and trial by social media, it is right to be cautious, especially when the alleged incident is so horrible. Nevertheless, my first thought was that it was mighty quick of the western media to tell us how many civilians and children died literally minutes after an airstrike in a warzone. All the more remarkable since they seem to have been unable to tell us this sort of thing when it has happened because of Saudi Arabia's bombing campaign against Yemen.

But it didn't take long for the claim to be shown to be false. A Tweet put out by the White Helmets organization, apparently showing a picture of a man carrying a dead child out of rubble after Russian airstrikes, turned out to be a fake, the picture having been taken several days prior to the Russian action.

What about the claim of Russia targeting US-backed "rebels" rather than ISIS targets? The first question that springs to mind is this: Since the US and its allies seem to be so clear about which targets the Russian planes have been hitting, and since they are so clear that they are not hitting the right targets, presumably they must have the military intelligence to know where the "right" targets actually are. In which case, what exactly have they been doing out there for the last year?

A couple of answers to that question spring to mind. Firstly, they've been violating the sovereignty of a nation that never gave them permission to be there. And I must say that the nausea generated by Barack Obama's UN address is matched only by the nausea generated in the last year upon hearing these globalists, these neo-Trotskyite world revolutionaries, who despise the idea of national sovereignty, berating Russia over its alleged violations of sovereignty.

The other answer to the question of what they have been doing for the last year is not very much at all. Target practice in the desert maybe, but that's about all. They certainly haven't been tackling ISIS, for the simple reason that they need ISIS to serve their real purpose, which is the removal of the Syrian Government.

Their claim that Russia has been targeting "moderate" Syrian rebels is especially absurd. Less than a month ago, General Lloyd Austin, Commander of US Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that so far, the US had trained four or five "moderate" Syrian rebels to take on ISIS. You heard that right. Not four or five thousand. Not even four or five hundred. No, just four or five. Less than ten in other words. But apparently the Russians have now been targeting them. All four or five of them!

Or could it be that the "moderate" Syrian rebels that that the Russians have been targeting are the ones that were trained via a covert CIA programme since at least 2012? Very probably, but if so Russia's actions have further exposed the diabolical US policy for what it really is, since most of these "moderates" are known to have ended up either in ISIS, or in groups like the al-Nusra Front (or al-Qaeda in Syria as they are also known).

So when Barack Obama said in his address that "we have demonstrated over more than a decade of relentless pursuit of al-Qaeda, we will not be outlasted by extremists", would he care to explain how it is that days after he said this, we are now meant to be lamenting the fact that the Russians have apparently been targeting not just ISIS, but also groups like the al-Nusra Front, a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria? Our allies, huh? 

Back in the days of the Soviet Union, the most potent weapon the West had against the tyranny of communism was simply to tell the truth about it. No need to lie, though of course there was a lot of that going on too. The Soviet Union, by contrast, needed its Pravda to feed people with lies and distortions.

Today the boot is firmly on the other foot. The western complaint about Russian lies and propaganda utterly misses this simple point: the most potent weapon Russia has against the tyranny of US neo-Trotskyist globalism is not to lie about it, but to simply tell the truth about it.

This is why at the UN, Putin's Pin was so successful in bursting Barack's Balloon. He didn't need to lie to make the point. Rather he simply told the truth about what they had done, and the effect was powerful.

Yet far from backing down, the West is now cranking up the lie machine to maximum volume. It won't end well. Their lies are now finding them out, and there is only so much lying to cover up lying to cover up lying you can get away with before your whole narrative collapses in upon itself.

As for the foreign policy pursued by the United States and its allies for the past couple of decades, it has been weighed in the balances, and has been found wanting.

 

Sott Exclusive: Full unedited text of Vladimir Putin's interview with Charlie Rose: What CBS left out

Sott Exclusive: Full unedited text of Vladimir Putin's interview with Charlie Rose: What CBS left out

Harrison Koehli
Sott.net
Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:14 UTC

 

© Presidential Press and Information Office

 

The day before his much-anticipated address to the UN General Assembly on Monday, CBS broadcast Charlie Rose's interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin for its season premiere of 60 Minutes. Understandably, the interview was cut and edited to fit in the 20-minute slot available in the program. But now that the full transcript has been made available on the Kremlin website, it's fascinating to see just what was cut. We're including the full transcript below, with comments identifying which parts were not included in the final broadcast, or as special online clips.

From single sentences to entire exchanges, some of the exclusions are noteworthy. For example, practically the whole of Putin's commentary on the Minsk agreements was not aired. Nor were Putin's pointed comments on Libya and Syria, his observation that the U.S.'s actions in those countries was a blatant violation of international law, and his suggestion that "somebody wants to use either certain units of ISIS or ISIS in general in order to overthrow al-Assad and only then think about how to get rid of ISIS." Other exchanges, such as Putin's views on sanctions and gay rights, were broadcast online, but not in the final program.

You can view what CBS chose to broadcast on their website, and read the relevant transcript of their translation, here.

 

CONTINUED….http://www.sott.net/article/302911-Sott-Exclusive-Full-unedited-text-of-Vladimir-Putins-interview-with-Charlie-Rose-What-CBS-left-out