European Union review

 

THE REASONS WHY THE EUROPEAN UNION IS NOT A GREAT POWER

 

by Didier Bertin

20 july 2012

 

The analysis of what truly represents the European Union aims to determine if it has, as such, a tangible economic and geopolitical impact on the world i.e. if this group of  countries can be regarded as a great power or whether it is more appropriate  to stick to each member state in this field.

Arithmetically the European Union could be the first global power in terms of GDP: USD 17,960 billion in 2011 before the United States: USD 15,060 billion although in terms of defense budget,  the sum of those of the countries of the  European Union  is with USD 345 billion, far behind that of the U.S.: USD 693 billion and that of China: USD 485 billion. Moreover  the sum of the defense budgets of the countries of the European Union, has little meaning since they are not coordinated and have not real synergy. In addition the European Union as such has no army.

 

1 - EUROPEAN UNION AND NATO

 

The EU has no army and of course no single military command and prefers mostly to act in the field of a coordinated defense as part of NATO.

Only 6 Member States do not belong to NATO (Cyprus, Malta, Finland, Sweden, Austria and Ireland) which thus includes 21 out of the 27 Member States of the European Union, the United States and other allies of the latter.

The European Union has thus preferred to act primarily in a defense  organization substantially dominated by the United States.

NATO  AND THE REST

Billions USD

Millions

 

Billions USD

OF THE WORLD

GDP

Population

% GDP

Military exp.

US AREA

USA

15 060

314

4,6

693

CANADA

1 759

34

1,1

19

TOTAL

16 819

348

 

712

NATO COUNTRIES OUT OF  EUROPEAN UNION

TURKEY

763

80

5,3

40

CROATIA

61

4

2,4

1

ICELAND

14

0

0

0

ALBANIA

13

3

1

0

NORWAY

479

5

1,9

9

TOTAL

1 330

92

 

50

NATO 21 MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

GERMANY

3 629

81

1,5

54

France

2 808

67

2,6

73

UK

2 481

63

2,7

67

ITALY

2 246

61

1,8

40

SPAIN

1 537

47

1,2

18

NETHERLANDS

858

17

1,6

14

POLAND

532

38

1,9

10

BELGIUM

529

10

1,3

7

DENMARK

349

6

1,3

5

GREECE

312

11

4,3

13

Portugal

242

11

2,3

6

CZECH REPUBLIC

220

10

1,15

3

ROMANIA

185

22

1,9

4

HUNGARY

148

10

1,75

3

BULGARIA

54

7

2,6

1

ESTONIA

22

1

2

0

LATVIA

27

2

1,1

0

LITHUANIA

43

3

1

0

SLOVENIA

52

2

1,7

1

Luxembourg

63

0

1

1

SLOVAKIA

97

5

1

1

TOTAL - 21 EU

16 434

474

2%

321

NATO

34 583

914

3.1%

1083

REST OF THE WORLD

39 877

6 108

3.1%

1 117

WORLD

74 460

7 022

3,20%

2200

EUROPEAN UNION

17 960

504

1,90%

345

 

The NATO's countries totalize 46.4% of the world GDP and nearly half of world military expenditures, but only 13% of the world population. The NATO's forces are coordinated and thus allows 13% of the world population to have an unquestionable dominance in order to support  most of the richest countries and an ideological economic doctrine.

Most members of the European Union have preferred to incorporate this organization  largely dominated by the United States whose military budget represents 64% of the sum of defense budgets of all NATO's members  rather than creating its own military deterrent.

This demonstrates a shared vision of the world order for most countries of the European Union with the United States and contributes significantly to the lack of substance of the European Union.

Moreover 10 former communist countries which had joined NATO and were then welcomed into the European Union, have strengthened  its rightist vision and its link with NATO.

This integration of the European Union in NATO has also  been greatly strengthened by the return of France on 17 March 2009 at the initiative of Nicolas Sarkozy.

France withdrew from NATO in the past because of a wish of national independence expressed by General De Gaulle, founder of Gaullism to  which Nicolas Sarkozy is assumed to adhere.

 

Before 2004,  10 of the 15 European Union countries i.e. 2/3 were NATO's members against 78% today.

 

2-CREATION AND TREATIES - EXPANSION AND INTEGRATION

 

Before the Second World War, Europe had  not heard the calls of the two "Nobel Peace prize holders": Aristide Briand for France and Gustav Stresemann for Germany in order that Europe avoids creating the conditions conducive to World War II.

After the war, the ECSC was created in 1951 and  had represented a first reconciliation between former enemies France, Benelux and Germany and Italy and established a free trade zone for coal and steel. In 1957, the European Economic Community (EEC) has expanded the scope of this economic free trade zone. In 1986 the Single European Act was designed to increase community integration, to reform the previous treaties in order to achieve a true single market and give more powers to Community institutions. In 1992 the Maastricht Treaty has replaced the European Economic Community by the European Community with a broader scope including  an international and defense policy and judicial and police cooperation; at the same time a political union has been created and named the "European Union."

In 1997, the Treaty of Amsterdam clarified the concepts of development and human rights within the European Community.

The Euro zone was created in 1999, implemented in 2001 and included 11 countries initially that became 17 in 2011.

The Treaty of "Nice" signed in 2001 established a system of qualified majority based on the demographics of the Member States and adopted the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Eager of expansion and of large markets, the European community has increased their sizes and that of its Euro zone without establishing sufficient stabilization phases and without even systematically checking the authenticity of the figures of all the countries wanting to join the Euro zone.

 

Its expansion is visible through the numbers:

YEAR

1957

1973

1981

1986

1995

2004

2007

2013

COUNTRIES

6

9

10

12

15

24

27

28

 

 

The Lisbon Treaty of 2009 has imposed as a compulsory rule the application of Charter of Fundamental Rights to its Member States but paradoxically to this obligation, The EU has also accepted that the peoples of the UK and of Poland do not benefit of the rights included in this Charter at the request of their own conservative Europhobic governments.

This Treaty has also extended the qualified majority vote with exceptions and has appointed a representative for Foreign Affairs.

 

The Lisbon treaty of 2009 has also  given a legal personality to the European Union and replaced by the name "European Community" by that of "European Union" in the initial treaties.

 

3-THE PROBLEM OF THE APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

 

Despite being mandatory since 2009 for all members of the European Union except for Poland and the United Kingdom who both rejected the Charter of Fundamental Rights without being excluded of the European Union, this Charter does not seem to be really and entirely enforced by all Member States;  it does not seem either that the European Commission is ready to force them to do so.

The rise of a certain number of racist and extremist organizations tolerated or allowed by some Member States are increasing as well as the  limitations of freedom of expression. Moreover the pauperism of certain Member States is of concern and shows the wide heterogeneity of the European Union.

Hungary was shockingly authorized to chair  the Council of the European Union from January to June 2011 despite his dictatorial policy.

The most difficult clauses to enforce, which require steps from the European Commission are the following:

 

Article 11

Freedom of expression and information

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected

 

Article 12

Freedom of assembly and of association

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association at all levels, in particular in political, trade union and civic matters, which implies the right of everyone to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his or her interests.

2. Political parties at Union level contribute to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union.

 

Article 21

Non-discrimination

 

1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

2. Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.

 

Article 22

Cultural, religious and linguistic diversity

The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.

 

Article 30

Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal

Every worker has the right to protection against unjustified dismissal, in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices.

 

Article 31

Fair and just working conditions

1. Every worker has the right to working conditions which respect his or her health, safety and dignity.

2. Every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours, to daily and weekly rest periods and to an annual period of paid leave.

 

Article 35

Health care

Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices. A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all the Union's policies and activities.

 

4-THE CONSTRAINTS OF DECISION MAKING

 

Two principles may give priority to the action of Member States:

a) The principle of subsidiarity, which restricts the actions of European institutions to those that States cannot drive.

b) The principle of degressive proportionality, which  favors the application of the least coercive action vis-à-vis the  Member States.

These two principles may also be used by the European Commission to limit its monitoring by laying the blame of non-enforcement of the rules on the sole  EU Member States.

 

5 - INSTITUTIONS

 

A-The European Council

The European Council includes the heads of State or Government of all countries of the European Union in order to decide on important priorities in the major fields. The European Council also deals with issues that cannot be resolved at a lower level. It has no power to enact legislation. Mr. Van Rompuy is the current President of the European Council.

The European Council shows that the major decisions of the European Union remain the domain of the highest authorities of the Member States.

 

B-The Council of the European Union

The Council of the European Union includes the government ministers from each EU member countries chosen according to the particularity of the problems to be solved. The presidency of the Council of the European Union is rotating with a different country every semester.

The Council of the European Union adopts legislation of the European Union, coordinates the broad guidelines of economic policies of Member States, signs agreements with other countries, approves the annual budget of the European Union, defines its foreign policy and defense and also coordinates the cooperation between the courts and police forces of Member States.

The prerogatives of the Council of the European Union and those of the European Council, show that Member States retain control on the European Union at their level and do not wish to transfer any real power to an elected representation by the all the European citizens such as the European Parliament.  Indeed the Council of the European Union together with the Parliament share the common responsibility for the final decision on the legislation proposed by the European Commission.

The Council of the European Union is indirectly an extension of the majorities and of the national parliaments and plays the role of a European Parliament. It shares its power with the "official" European Parliament whose decisions have an impact only if the Council of the European Union also agree with them. This designated organization (Council of the European Union) has therefore "somehow" a control over the elected body of the European Union (the European Parliament).

Regarding security, foreign affairs and taxation, the Council of the European Union must make its decisions unanimously. This means that any single Member State can veto. The Council of the European Union usually takes its decisions by qualified majority in accordance with demographic considerations, according to the following rules:

 

Countries

Countries

Number

Votes per country

Germany, France, Italy , UK

4

29

Spain, Poland

2

27

Romania

1

14

Netherlands

1

13

Belgium, Greece, Hungary, Portugal, Czech Rep

5

12

Austria, Bulgaria, Sweden

3

10

Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovakia

5

7

Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg,   Slovenia

5

4

Malta

1

3

TOTAL

27

345

 

A qualified majority is reached if (i) a majority of the 27 Member States approves a proposal  (two-thirds majority for the projects not proposed by the European Commission), if (ii) a minimum of 255 out of 345 votes are obtained and if (iii) the favorable voting countries represent at least 62% of the total population of the European Union (upon request).

 

This system will be simplified in 2014 by a double majority of 55% of voters representing at least 65% of the population of the European Union.

 

THE WEIGHT OF THE VOTES OF THE COUNTRIES ACCORDING TO THEIR GDP

Countries

GDP/POP

Entrance

date

VOTE SHARE

in %

Shares Sum

Dominant Party -EU

SWEDEN

63 556

1995

10

2,9

10

PPE

LUXEMBOURG

63 000

1952

4

1,1

14

PPE

DANEMARK

58 166

1973

7

2

21

S&D

FINLAND

54 200

1995

7

2

28

PPE

AUSTRIA

53 125

1995

10

2,9

38

S&D

BELGIUM

52 900

1952

12

3,5

50

  S&D

NETHERLANDS

50 471

1952

13

3,8

63

ALD

GERMANY

44 802

1952

29

8,4

102

PPE

FRANCE

42 545

1952

29

8,4

131

PSE

IRELAND

44 400

1973

7

2

138

PPE

UNITED KINGDOM

39 380

1973

29

8,4

167

ECR

ITALY

36 820

1952

29

8,4

196

Indépendant

SPAIN

32 702

1986

27

7,8

223

PPE

GREECE

28 364

1981

12

3,5

235

PPE

CYPRUS

26 000

2004

4

1,2

239

GUE/NGL

SLOVENIA

26 000

2004

4

1,2

243

PPE

ESTONIA

23 000

2004

4

1,2

247

ALD

PORTUGAL

22 000

1986

12

3,5

259

PPE

CZECH REP.

22 000

2004

12

3,5

271

ECR

MALTA

21 000

2004

3

0,9

274

PPE

SLOVAKIA

19 400

2004

7

2

281

S&D

HUNGARY

14 800

2004

12

3,5

293

PPE

POLAND

14 000

2004

27

7,8

320

PPE

LATVIA

13 500

2004

4

1,2

324

PPE

LTHUANIA

10 750

2004

7

2

331

Indépendant

ROMANIA

8 409

2007

14

4

335

PPE

BULGARIA

7 714

2007

10

2,9

345

PPE

 

13 of the 27 countries, which are richest and include six founding members and eleven of the twelve EEC countries, have an absolute majority and two-thirds majority in the Council of the European Union.

 

C-The European Commission

The European Commission represents and upholds the interests of the European Union as a whole. It submits proposals for new legislation to Parliament and the Council of the European Union, manages the budget of the European Union, provides financing and ensure the application of European law. The Commission consists of 27 commissioners, one from each Member State, who are appointed for five years. The President gives each commissioner one or more specific areas. The President is appointed by the European Council, who also appoints other commissioners in agreement with the President.

The Commission has a right of law initiative: The Commission may propose new laws (which must be approved by at least by 14 of the 27 commissioners) that aim to defend the interests of the European Union in areas that cannot be treated at the national level (principle of subsidiarity).

The legislative initiative is thus the privileged area of the Commission . As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission should normally ensure that each Member State shall apply the law correctly in the European Union. In practice it appears that a member state  may resist this application because of its importance or of the lack of interest of the Commission that may wish to avoid a conflict.

 

D-The European Parliament

The European Parliament is currently composed of 753 MEPs elected by universal proportional suffrage and on the basis of lists, every five years and who are supposed to represent the citizens of Europe. The Parliament shares the legislative power with the Council of the European Union. The number of seats will be reduced to 736 for the next  elections of June 2014 and distributed as follows:

Countries

GDP/POP

SEATS

%

cumulative   seats

SWEDEN

63 556

18

2,4

18

LUXEMBOURG

63 000

6

0,8

24

DANEMARK

58 166

13

1,8

37

FINLAND

54 200

13

1,8

50

AUSTRIA

53 125

17

2,3

67

BELGIUM

52 900

22

3

89

NETHERLANDS

50 471

25

3,4

114

GERMANY

44 802

99

13,5

213

FRANCE

42 545

72

9,8

285

IRELAND

44 400

12

1,6

297

UNITED KINGDOM

39 380

72

9,8

369

ITALY

36 820

72

9,8

441

SPAIN

32 702

50

6,8

491

GREECE

28 364

22

3

513

CYPRUS

26 000

6

0,8

519

SLOVENIA

26 000

7

1

526

ESTONIA

23 000

6

0,8

532

PORTUGAL

22 000

22

3

554

CZECH REPUBLIC

22 000

22

3

576

MALTA

21 000

5

0,7

581

SLOVAKIA

19 400

13

1,8

594

HUNGARY

14 800

22

3

616

POLAND

14 000

50

6,7

666

LATVIA

13 500

8

1

674

LTHUANIA

10 750

12

1,6

686

ROMANIA

8 409

33

4,5

719

BULGARIA

7 714

17

2,3

736

In fact the  figures of 2014 should be increased by the new coming Croatian MPs.

As we can see in the above table, the majority may be gained by the eleven richest countries also representing eleven of the twelve former members of the EEC. Furthermore the number of votes in the Council of the European Union and the number of seats in Parliament are supposed to be calculated on the basis of national demographics  and yet different percentages are applied.

The 2014 reform regarding the rule of vote in the Council of the European Union in 2014 will bring more clarity.

The Parliament adopts the European laws together with the Council of the European Union, has a control over the activities of other institutions of the European Union, including the Commission and adopt the budget of the European Union also with the Council of the European Union. The Parliament may have an influence on the designation of the members of the European Commission and may "in principle" force it to resign. The Parliament may ask the commissioners to report on their action.

The Parliament elected by the European citizens could be the key institution of the European Union, as is the case of national parliaments, but in fact it seems to be only an expensive ceremonial institution without power of law initiative or capacity to adopt the laws proposed by the European Commission, without the consent of the Council of the European Union that in fact oversees its legislative activity.

 

Some MEPs may have been designated on the lists  by their party when they have failed to be elected to their National Parliament. Moreover, the strict proportional representation opens the doors to extremist parties.

If the European Union was a nation and not a group of countries, the European Parliament would have a similar role to the national parliaments, which is not the case at all. The real European Parliament is currently all the National Parliaments of the Member States whose orientation can be seen through the members of the European Council and of the Council of the European Union.

Their members are in one way or another a reflect of the majorities of national parliaments.

However the political ties of the European Parliament are heavily marked on the right wing and if the power of the European parliament was not restricted, it could be in major conflict with the societal choices of some Member States without possibility of moderation  through the intervention of the Member States themselves.

 

6-THE POLITICAL ORIENTATION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

 

A-THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: DISTRIBUTION OF SEATS

 

  • CONSERVATIVES PARTIES: 472 seats or 62.7% of MEPs

EPP -European People's Party- Europhile-Rightists: 271;

ALD-Alliance of Liberals and Democrats - Center Rightists: 85;

ECR-European Conservatives and Reformists -anti-Federalist Rightists: 52;

EFD - Europe of Freedom and Democracy - Europhobic Rightists: 34;

IN (Independent people and various extremists): 30

 

  • PROGRESSIVES PARTIES: 281 seats or 37.3% of MEPs

S & D - Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats: 189

GUE-NGL -European United Left / Nordic Green Left: 34

G /EFN - Greens/European Free Alliance: 58

 

B-THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL

CONSERVATIVES PARTIES: 9 heads of government or 70.4% of the members

EPP - Europhile Rightists: 15 

ALD-Center-Rightists: 2,

ECR- Anti-Federalist Rightists: 2 - INDEPENDENT: 2 heads of government, or 7.4% of members

PROGRESSIVE PARTIES: 6 heads of government, or 22.2% of the members  

S & D: 5   - GUE/NGL: 1

C-INFLUENCE OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL MAJORITIES ON THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Countries

GDP/POP

Entrance

date

VOTE SHARE

in %

Shares

% Sum

Dominant Party

SWEDEN

63 556

1995

10

2,9

2.9

PPE

LUXEMBOURG

63 000

1952

4

1,1

4

PPE

FINLAND

54 200

1995

7

2

6

PPE

GERMANY

44 802

1952

29

8,4

14.4

PPE

SPAIN

32 702

1986

27

7,8

22.2

PPE

GREECE

28 364

1981

12

3,5

25.7

PPE

IRELAND

44 400

1973

7

2

27.7

PPE

SLOVENIA

26 000

2004

4

1,2

28.9

PPE

PORTUGAL

22 000

1986

12

3,5

32.4

PPE

MALTA

21 000

2004

3

0,9

33.3

PPE

HUNGARY

14 800

2004

12

3,5

36.8

PPE

POLAND

14 000

2004

27

7,8

44.6

PPE

LATVIA

13 500

2004

4

1,2

45.8

PPE

ROMANIA

8 409

2007

14

4

49.8

PPE

BULGARIA

7 714

2007

10

2,9

52.7

PPE

UNITED   KINGDOM

39 380

1973

29

8,4

61.1

ECR

CZECH REP.

22 000

2004

12

3,5

64.6

ECR

NETHERLANDS

50 471

1952

13

3,8

68.4

ALD

ESTONIA

23 000

2004

4

1,2

69.6

ALD

DANEMARK

58 166

1973

7

2

2

S&D

AUSTRIA

53 125

1995

10

2,9

4.9

S&D

BELGIUM

52 900

1952

12

3,5

8.4

S&D

FRANCE

42 545

1952

29

8,4

16.8

S&D

CYPRUS

26 000

2004

4

1,2

18

GUE/NGL

SLOVAKIA

19 400

2004

7

2

20

S&D

LITHUANIA

10 750

2004

7

2

2

Indépendant

ITALY

36 820

1952

29

8,4

10.4

Indépendant

 

CONSERVATIVE PARTIES: 19 countries - 69.6% of votes

PROGRESSIVE PARTIES: 6 countries - 20% of votes

INDEPENDENT: 2 COUNTRIES - 10.4% of votes

 

D-THE DOMINANT POWER IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

The right wing is thus the "overwhelmingly dominant" power in the European Union and substantially  controls all of its institutions.

The EPP (European People's Party) which represents the Europhile conservative right wing, is itself the dominant party of this power.

The President of the Commission Jose Manuel Barroso and the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, and the Hungarian quasi-dictator,, Viktor Horban are Vice-Presidents of the EPP. Herman Van Rompuy belongs to the conservative side of the rightist Belgian party: "Christen-Democratisch en Vlaams."

Jose Manuel Barroso was prime minister of Portugal in 2002 and apparently did not take the necessary steps to prevent his country from plunging into a major crisis due to deep structural reasons and Herman Van Rompuy has not spared Belgium from its public debt crisis and communities conflict when he was Prime Minister until November 2009.

The presidents of the European Union institutions seem therefore having been chosen primarily for their opinions.

Thus the rightist vision is the basis of the European Union politics and this has the following effects:

  • Predominance of the policies of austerity,  i.e. cuts of  expenses  to solve the situation of budget deficits without enough consideration any possible increase of  the revenues of the states by an adequate tax policy, social reforms or steps to boost the general activity. This is doctrinal choice  minimizing the role of the State.
  • Accelerated growing of the number of the Member States in order to offer new market opportunities to major companies at the expense of European integration
  • Reduction of  labor cost by restricting social policy
  • Incorrect application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and  total exemption  of  its application granted  to the most antisocial countries.
  • Publication by the European Commission of a report highly critical of the program of the French Socialist Party regarding its proposal for retirement, in the middle of the parliamentary election campaign of June 2012 and which was a clearly political offensive.
  • The European Union supports the doctrinal capitalism and tends to reject the Member States which do not share its ideas.
  • The Rightist Declaration in 2008 by a majority in the European Parliament linked to that of Prague equating crudely communism and Nazism, whose consequence was the opacification of the horror of Nazism and shading on the memory of its  victims.

The European Union cannot be under these conditions neither a nation nor a great power.

 

7-INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

 

National governments exert independent control over these issues, but they cooperate together to develop an "International Politics and Security Policy." The EU has no army and most of its actions are coordinated within the NATO that comprises twenty one of the twenty seven Member States of the European Union.

It seems, that the most important members-States wish to retain control of their foreign policies and in this purpose the EU has designated a High Representative for Foreign affairs for the form only.

The international positions of the European Union appear to lack substance e.g. the European Union has on one side protested against the imprisonment since August 5, 2011 of Yulia Tymoshenko (who obtained 45.88% of votes in the presidential elections of January 2010) probably orchestrated by her rival President Viktor Yanukovych (48.53% of votes) who remains totally indifferent to the protest of the EU and was probably encouraged to behave in this manner by the participation on the Ukrainian territory, of the football teams of all Member States of the European Union, to the EURO in 2012.

 

8-THE CASE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ELECTIONS

 

This is a proportional suffrage by not alterable lists in one single round.

From 2004 to 2009, the abstention rate in the European elections increased from 45.7% to 57% up from 37% in the first elections in 1979. In France the rate increased gradually from 39.3% in 1979 to 59.5% in 2009.

The European electorate does not seem to be fooled by the limits of the European Parliament, which can only approved the laws proposed by the Commission and agreed by the Council of the European Union, the latter being itself a kind of European Parliament. Also the very strong rightist ties of the European Parliament does not leave much hope for change.

 

9- THE DISPARITIES OF THE MEDIAN INCOME OF HOUSEHOLDS   IN THE

COUNTRIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

 

Median gross disposable income of households per capita in the EU in 2010 - Source: Eurostat (extraction June 20, 2012)

 

2010

Euros /year

Euros/month

Value/average

1

Luxembourg

32 333

2 694

2,19

2

DENMARK

25 668

2 139

1,74

3

FINLAND

21 349

1 779

1,45

4

AUSTRIA

20 618

1 718

1,4

5

NETHERLANDS

20 292

1 691

1,38

6

FRANCE

20 058

1 672

1,36

7

IRELAND

19 882

1 656

1,35

8

SWEDEN

19 709

1 642

1,34

9

BELGIUM

19 464

1 622

1,32

10

GERMANY

18 797

1 566

1,27

11

United Kingdom

17 106

1 425

1,16

12

CYPRUS

16 981

1 415

1,15

13

ITALY

15 937

1 328

1,1

14

SPAIN

13 030

1 085

0,88

15

GREECE

11 963

997

0,81

16

SLOVENIA

11 736

978

0,8

17

MALTA

10 458

872

0,71

18

PORTUGAL

8 678

723

0,59

19

CZECH Republic

7 058

588

0,48

20

SLOVAKIA

6 117

509

0,41

21

ESTONIA

5 727

477

0,39

22

LATVIA

4 537

378

0,31

23

POLAND

4 405

367

0,3

24

HUNGARY

4 241

353

0,29

25

LITHUANIA

4 059

338

0,27

26

BULGARIA

3 016

251

0,2

27

ROMANIA

2 037

170

0,14

 

European Union

14 751

1 229

1

 

The disparities are substantial and show the heterogeneity that would be totally unacceptable if the European Union was a nation. The averaged median income of the European union is low and below the French minimum wage of 1,343 Euros in 2010.

The highest median income represents 15.8 times the lowest one. France ranks sixth, ahead of Germany who ranks before the  UK that holds the 11th place. Median incomes for the first nine countries are higher than that of the United States in 2010 (approximately 19,400 Euros).

Apart from Slovenia all Eastern countries remain poor in 2010 after six years in the European Union and three for Bulgaria and Romania, but after twenty years in the capitalist system from which they expected a substantial  enrichment

 

10 - THE NEW MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

 

In 2004 and 2007, the EU has expanded from fifteen to twenty-seven Member States and should reach twenty eight in 2013, by integration of most former communist countries of Europe (ten) and Cyprus and Malta and Croatia in 2013.

This sudden enlargement of the European Union has complicated its administration and organization of its institutions and has strengthened its rooting on the right wing as well as in the NATO.

This expansion process by heterogeneous integration is a growth process similar to that of  conglomerates. The growth of 80% in terms of member states which seems to have induced an unjustified  renunciation to part of ethical values , has  only resulted in low overall growth.

 

EUROPEAN UNION - 15 COUNTRIES (before 2004)

MN

BN USD

 

BN USD

%

taxes

%

%

POPULATION

GDP

GDP/POP

MILITARY   EXP.

PUBLIC DEBT

PUBLICDEBT/PIB

BN USD

taxes/GDP

GINI

402

16 544

41 154

320

14 023

84.8

7 121

43

31

EUROPEAN UNION - 27 COUNTRIES (after 2007)

504

17960

35 635

345

14 738

82

7526

42

30

GAP

102

1 416

-5 879

25

715

-2.8

405

-1

-1

 

The 80% increase in the number of countries provided only an overall GDP growth of 8.6% and a population increase of 24.8%. The averaged GDP per capita of the twelve new members is $ 13,882 as compared to  $ 41,154 dollars for the Europe of fifteen. These countries being  poor, are not over-indebted.

The increasing number of members-states may be justified, at the expense of the speed of integration, by social reasons based on humanitarian solidarity with countries that are lagging behind, but these new member states should accept democratic, social  and ethical values and reconsider their rigid conservatism that affects their development.

 

11-THE LIMITS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

The purpose of the above analysis was to determine whether the EU could be regarded as a world power  that it is arithmetically or if in the field of economics and geopolitics, it is wiser to stick to its components: each Member State.

After a phase of purely economic association, European countries have attempted to create an economic and political Union that could rival the great powers of the moment: USA and USSR and then USA and China.

 

The difference between these great powers and the European Union is that they are or were nations.

A nation is characterized in our opinion by:

1. A common language,

2. A common economic area,

3. A common currency,

4. A willingness to represent a group of currents of thought in Europe including the identity and historical heritage of each state that is both rich and ancient and which is the wealth of Europe and also the willingness to discard the idea to be the bearer of a political doctrine  as it is currently the case,

5. A sufficient autonomy of each Member State in order to allow them to implement a social policy that suits the identity of each one,

6. Common laws in particular in the field of Human rights, social rights and Justice as well as a common ethics,

7. A central government understanding  and admitting the differences between the member states,

8. A median income of households  in harmony on the whole European territory

9. A social and medical protection similar for all European citizens,

10. A coordinated education system which discards any indoctrination and defends History as it is and not arranged for the benefit of any national glory,

11. A common deterrent under a single command and independent of the two major powers,

12. A single external and reliable foreign policy.

 

The European Union is far from being a nation, and each member state wishes to retain considerable discretion.

Moreover the conservative doctrinaire thinking in economics would not allow the action of the Member States, which would wish to adopt in the frame of a European nation, a policy with a strong social involvement  requiring an important role of the State in all spheres of economic and of social life in order to avoid crises, which damage the welfare of citizens.

 

Despite the large development subsidies, the gap between north and south and between west and east are still very important because their applications were not properly controlled. This lack of rigor is also visible in the Euro zone which was opened to some countries that did not have met "initially" the conditions, which permit to face  the constraints of a common currency. The former Communist countries remain poor and as yet neither the capitalism nor the European Union  have really enriched them.

 

Europe has no real parliament. However it seems that an organization that leaves the prerogative to national parliaments or to bodies emanating from it, is currently the most suitable. A powerful European Parliament would require that all member states implement a highly conservative policy, which would be difficult then to relax by the representatives of the Member States in the European Council and in the Council of the  European Union. Member States, which wish to implement a very social policy might have a too limited flexibility.

 

The European Union has many vernacular languages but no common language (which could be for example English for practical purposes given the failure of Esperanto). The absence of a single common language could restrict the appropriation of the European Union by the sole elites as also shown by  the failure of the European elections

 

The EU has no army and is submitted to NATO.

 

The excessively rapid enlargement of the European Union and of its Euro area, by absorption without stabilization phase and sufficient common values, might lead to the disintegration of ethics  and identity.

 

 

12-A PARTICULAR EXAMPLE THE RIGHTIST ROOTING  OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

 

The Declarations of Prague of  3 June 2008 and of the European Parliament of 23

September 2008 and their consequences:

 

The contents of the Declarations of Prague of 3 June 2008 and the European Parliament of 23 September 2008, whose target was to take stock of the suffering experienced by the peoples under communist regimes, finally took an ideological and partisan rightist turn.

The progressive parties  could have done about it their own statement rejecting the ideological and revisionist considerations, which focus both an anti-communist hatred and contempt for Nazi victims and their liberators. We had  proposed such a declaration to the French Socialist MPs in July 2011 which did not receive the expected support (see the proposal in paragraph k).

 

A-The Prague Declaration of June 3, 2008

 

The Declaration of Prague dated of 3d June 2008,  should have been devoted to the errors and crimes of communist regimes of Eastern European countries, but went unfortunately well beyond this mission by engaging in an unfortunate reconsideration of the History motivated by ideological convictions, whose  consequences are ethically damaging.

The letters of support issued in 2008 by Margaret Thatcher, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Zbigniew Brzezinski supporter of American hegemony by meddling in European affairs, foreshadowed the direction of the Prague Declaration and the process that has resulted.

The historical considerations of this declaration that were neither necessary nor justified but have shook the European ethics when the European Parliament also made a declaration in the spirit of that of Prague.

The content of the Prague Declaration has lost track of critical assessment of the serious errors and crimes of communist regimes in order  to become a political rightist statement aiming to bring the Communist regimes at the highest level of horror in making them crudely equivalent to the Nazism.

Consequently the Prague Declaration has indirectly reassessed of the reality of the crimes of the Nazis.

The Nuremberg trials and the numerous procedures and investigations that followed, have determined that Nazi crimes were the culmination of horror.

Their improper and shocking indirect reassessment was probably made to create an "effect" symbolizing the strong disapproval of the Communism by the signatories of the declaration of Prague and of the European Parliament.

Unfortunately it has become commonplace to call what one hates, Nazism to mark the horror that is felt, but this trivial ease of language becomes insulting for the victims of Nazism when it is used by institutions in official statements.

This form of expression used by institutions are on the border of revisionism or denial and  are counterproductive for the critics of the communist regimes. It is as if the signatories of the declarations were lacking  of arguments to criticize the communist regimes for themselves and felt obliged  to refer to the crimes of other regimes.

This unfortunate reference gives a propagandist appearance to the critics of the communist regimes and is damaging for the memory of the victims of Nazism.

The triviality of the Prague Declaration is betrayed by the will to make a mathematical equation between the crimes of communist regimes and those of the Nazis despite they have no link regarding their causes, their goals, their  ideology, their politics, their  nature and the motivations  of their founders.

 

B-The dangerous consequences of the Prague Declaration and of the related declaration of

the European Parliament

 

a- The European Commission

The Declarations of Prague and of the European Parliament have apparently already affected the European institutions, as we have seen in our exchange of correspondence with the Cabinet of Viviane Reding. Nazism is seen now as a totalitarian regime among others and is thus trivialized, by losing sight that it was consecrated as the climax of horror by investigations and procedures over more than half a century.

It seems that the European Commission has in this regard a limited power or that it limits itself in order not to interfere in ethical domains that are voluntarily abandoned to  Member States.

It is all the more regrettable that there exists  a very meaningful Charter of Fundamental Rights whose application remains de facto at the free initiative of the Member States despite the fact that the Lisbon Treaty of 2009 has made compulsory its application.

 

b-The European Parliament

 

Similarly the European Parliament in its Declaration of 23 September 2008 has repeated the same mistakes and shortcuts than those contained in the Prague Declaration.

This declaration is not legally binding but remains regrettable for the victims of Nazism and for those who might misunderstand the legal value of such a declaration.

 

c-Nazism and Communism in brief

The Prague Declaration mixes communism and his perverted version of "Stalinism" and omits to mention the responsibility of Europe due to the offensive and ostracism imposed to the revolutionary countries by the highly conservative states. This aggressiveness has led to the winning spirit of the First Empire in France and to that of the USSR. It is significant that  France and  United Kingdom had preferred to abandon the Sudetenland in 1938 to the Nazis rather than forcing Poland to permit USSR to move troop to defend the Sudetenland  as USSR had proposed to do.

Moreover in this declaration the concept, which could be criticized, of dictatorship of the proletariat representing the power given to impoverished people is insidiously confused with a dictatorship of one single man like in  fascist regimes.

After a long period of silence of the survivors of the holocaust due to surrounding incomprehension, many procedures and investigations have permitted to be inform everyone of the reality of Nazism and should have led anyone not to use the suffering of victims of Nazism to assert those of the people of Eastern countries.

 

  • Nazism was the product of the general European racism at the time of its creation notably on the basis of the works of French and English racist ideologues. Nazism developed the concepts of sub-men, supermen and living space and aimed  to be the consecration at the highest level of the Germanic identity.
  • We are far from Communism and its commitment to empower the workers of all nationalities to improve their lot.
  • The founder of Nazi has developed a fanaticism in the field of anti-Semitism, which  was already part of European traditions particularly violent in the East (Pogroms in Tsarist Russia and Poland) and of the strong anti-Semitic atmosphere in many Western European countries.
  • Instead Communism has reduced the violent mass anti-Semitism in the Eastern countries as compared to what it was before. Anti-Semitic steps taken by the communist countries after 1948 did not reach the violence of those of the Tsarist era, or of Nazism.
  • The cult of death and of extermination were clearly mentioned  in "Mein Kampf" regarding the Jews and  before the Wannsee Conference; the author of this book was convinced that his targets were in agreement  with: "the plans  of the Lord and Nature. "
  • Communism has no such conceptual values.
  • Stalinism was a perverted version of Communism, resulted in the death, exile and incarceration of large numbers of people for political reasons,
  • while Nazism developed industrialization and commercialization of death by providing the major German companies with enslaved people to be ultimately murdered and by implementing  industrial process and equipment dedicated to racist mass extermination with high productivity,
  • Communism has not pursued a policy of industrial death.
  • The Nazis and their allies have triggered a world war in which 65 million people were killed in five years  of which 21 million Soviet citizens and 63% of the European Jewish population
  • Communism did not cause such carnage in 5 years but the USSR gave back its freedom to all Europe, as being in fact the essential opponent of Germany.

 

Nazism is the ultimate horror and should remain as such for ethical purpose and it is not one totalitarian regime as any others as some would like to  impose the idea of it, within the European Union.

 

d-The Holocaust and the de facto denial of the Holocaust

 

Equating Communism and Nazism as this is done in the Declarations of Prague and of the European parliament has probably encouraged on the basis of the same principle, the eastern European countries to pretend they had been also victims of a genocide similar to the Holocaust.

In some cases this self-persuasion goes to the point of ranking the Holocaust second after the alleged genocide by Communists and sometimes to the point of excluding it from History. Yet The Holocaust had been made to 91% in the  Eastern European countries whose peoples had been  the first witnesses and in some case some of them had  also been its perpetrators.

  • With the extermination of six million Jews, the Holocaust destroyed 63% of European Jewry and any no other genocide is comparable in term of magnitude over a so short period.
  • No East European countries has seen its population destroyed in a so big proportion and the Eastern European country that lost the largest number of people during the World War II, was the USSR  with 21 million people killed by the Nazis out of a population of 170 million i.e. 12.4% of its whole population.

 

The alleged existence of a genocide in any Eastern country equivalent to the Holocaust could have among other anti-Semitic motives deeply rooted in these countries despite the almost disappearance of local Jewish populations. 

In certain Baltic countries the anti-Semitism may be also combined with a glorification of the Nazis considered as liberators.

It must be also noted  that the Holocaust has been  the paroxysmal phase of a two thousand years of European anti-Semitism. This paroxysmal phase of a European continuum, has resulted in the necessary creation of  a refuge for Jews in the Middle East and consequently  Europe has a direct responsibility in the conflict in the Middle East today.

The questioning of the magnitude of the Holocaust compared to an alleged other genocide in Eastern countries reveals the deeply rooted European anti-Semitism and  reinforces Israel's role as the last refuge for world Jewry and undermines the possible involvement of Europe in a peace process in the Middle-East.

Some Eastern countries such as Lithuania and Hungary may find in the Declarations of Prague and of the European Parliament a support to their regrettable claim to be seen as victims of a genocide similar to the Holocaust as well to their newly created  concept of double-Genocide.

The uniqueness of the Holocaust is very clear as a result  of the proportion of   the Jewish population of Europe exterminated.

The sole concept of double genocide that we may note is (i) the destruction of the memory of the individuals  after they were (ii) physically  murdered. This can be felt strongly in Lithuania

In order to clarify this point we will quote the words of the BUND (1) leader  Leon Feiner (2) said to Jan Karski (3), during their meeting in Warsaw in August 1942 (reference: My testimony before the World -Jan Karski published in 1944):

"You Poles, you are lucky. Many of you are suffering and dying but despite that your nation will live on. After the war there will be a new to Poland, and your wounds will heal. In this sea of tears , of suffering and of humiliation, this country, which was also our homeland, will rise again, but we, Jews will be no longer here, our people will have disappeared. "

 

(1) Bund: Algemeyner Yidisher Arbeter Bund in Lite, Poyln un Rusland - Labor union and Movement of Socialist secular Jewish Workers of Lithuania, Poland and Russia.

(2) Leon Feiner: Executive member of the Bund in Warsaw. He sent to London a first report on the massacres of Jews in Poland in May 1942 and a second report in August 1942 on the final solution (Endlösung der Judenfrage).

(3) Jan Karski: was a Polish resistance leader and emissary in London in November 1942 with the support of the Polish Government in exile. He reported  the situation of Poland and the extermination of Jews in Poland to Anthony Eden, to other British ministers and members of the British Parliament and  in 1943 at its creation, to the commission of crimes to United Nations. He also reported this situation to President Franklin D. Roosevelt at the White House on July 28, 1943 during one hour and fifteen minutes. Jan Karski had penetrated twice in the Warsaw Ghetto and once in the extermination camp of Ibizica Lubeska near that of  Belzec.

The alleged existence of another genocide equivalent to the Holocaust is a denial of the Holocaust "as such."

 

 

e) The declarations of Prague and the European Parliament could lead some Member States from Eastern EU to propagate a distorted version of History:

 

LITHUANIA

  • The Holocaust was excluded from the National Museum of the genocide of Lithuania and by the Centre for Research of Genocide associated with it.
  • The Public Relations Director of the Genocide Research Center funded by the Lithuanian State is a leader of a neo-Nazi Party, and the organizer of the neo-Nazi marches in the city of Vilnius on the independence day of Lithuania. His statements on Diena.lt are particularly shocking: "The Jews play with matches on a powder keg ... if the Government does nothing the people will do it ...".
  • The neo-Nazis parades and marches  are allowed in Lithuania.
  • Lithuania has legalized the swastika in 2010 as a national symbol (Judgment of Klaipeda) and without any European protest.
  • Several events are organized to rehabilitate the memory of Nazi collaborators during the war and participants to the perpetration  of the Holocaust : The last one is the reburial from 17 to 20 May 2012 of the former President of Lithuania and Nazi collaborator who created the first concentration camp in Lithuania in 1941: "Juozas Ambrazevicius." The Lithuanian government has allowed this shameful event. A celebration was held in the Church of the Resurrection of Christ in Kaunas and a lecture was given to his glory at the University of Vytautas Magnus. Terese Burauskaite, President of the research center of  the genocide has naturally attended these events.
  • Audronius Azubalis, foreign secretary, said he intend to take the opportunity of Lithuania's presidency of the Council of the European Union in 2013, to emphasize the new version of history built by his country.

 

HUNGARY

  • While the former left wing government, had established in 2010 a law condemning the denial of the Holocaust, the following far rightist totalitarian government has during the same year, deleted the word Holocaust of the law and replaced it by the word  Genocide, which  is related, on the same footing,  to the one that was allegedly perpetrated by the communist regime.
  • This new far rightist government took totalitarian steps restricting the freedom of expression and particularly that of press and has increased its control over the main entities of the country.
  • The European Commission did not take any disciplinary steps and has in addition imposed to the European Union, this quasi-dictatorship as President of its Council  from January to June 2011.
  • The Hungarian President Viktor Orban is apparently still Vice President of the  EPP, as are MM Barroso and Van Rompuy.

 

LITHUANIA, HUNGARY AND OTHER SIMILAR COUNTRIES

 

Since the fall of Communism, many pro-Nazi war criminals from Eastern European countries and especially from Hungary and Lithuania, were able to return quietly live out their retirement in their home country either voluntarily or expelled from the United States when they are unmasked.

The Declarations of Prague and European Parliament do not ease healing of the resurgent or traditional Anti-Semitism in the Eastern European countries, which is very particularly rooted in the minds "as a real mental sickness of many people" notably because  the Jewish populations of these countries have virtually disappeared.

Moreover the trivialization of Nazi totalitarianism may only facilitate the disinhibition of far right on the whole territory of the European Union.

 

f-Neo-McCarthyism in the eastern countries of the European Union

The Prague Declaration accusing the communist parties of not being able to evolve, has  promoted a  policy similar of that of  McCarthy i.e. the  banning the communist parties, their symbols and their supporters.

Such laws are in force in most countries of the Eastern members of the European Union and are in conflict with the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights regarding  freedom of expression and association.

 

g-THE FREEDOM OF EUROPE REGAINED BY THE USSR

 

The Prague Declaration and that of the European Parliament leave no room for the fact that Europe owes its freedom to the USSR.

Without the  death of 21 million soviet citizens out of which 13,6 million soldiers of  the Red Army during the World War II, Europe would have been  difficultly freed from Nazism. The Red Army lost 9.4 times more soldiers than that of all the other allied armies of about 1.44 million soldiers.

The USSR has been able to defeat Germany with the  material support  from the United States by destroying or neutralizing nearly 80% of the Wehrmacht.

To achieve this victory  the USSR has suffered  85% of all losses of the allied army.

 

h-VERSAILLES - RIGA -MUNICH-Ribbentrop-Molotov- YALTA

 

The division of some European territories and in particular of Polish territories were not definitely decided by the USSR and Germany as we could think in reading the Prague Declaration and that of the European Parliament , but ultimately by the leaders of the United States, the United Kingdom and the USSR who met in Yalta in February 1945: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin. Yet the Declarations of Prague and the European Parliament made a relation between  the division of Europe or with an assumed common view between Germans and Soviets, and the temporary and strategic agreement between Ribbentrop and Molotov dated of August 23, 1939  and broken on June 22, 1941.

 

Given the failed attempts of the Soviet Union to find an agreement  with France and the United Kingdom, Molotov (see Nikonov -2009) concluded an agreement with Ribbentrop  to save time on the inevitable war with Germany, in order to make up the technology gap of the USSR and move strategic assets to the East.

By the additional agreement dated of 28 September 1939, Germany invaded a part of Poland including 22 million of Polish and USSR occupied another part of Poland including 14 million inhabitants of which 60% were not Polish but mainly Belarusians and Ukrainians, since part of these territories, initially Russian,  had became Polish in 1918 following the Treaty of Versailles  or in 1921 following the Treaty of Riga (Russo-Polish war).

 

At the Yalta conference the territories taken to Russia and given to Poland were returned to the USSR, while Poland was receiving territories in the West.

 

Germany and USSR had signed in 1939 a strategic agreement in order to prepare the war, meanwhile France, UK and Germany had signed in 1938 a shameful agreement in order to preserve the peace at least in the mind of France and UK. France and UK  had signed September 30, 1938 the shameful Munich Agreement by which Czechoslovakia had to cede the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany and by which France was in breach of its agreement with Czechoslovakia.

 

Before the Munich  Agreement, the USSR, which  was rejected from any negotiations, was the only country to have proposed to oppose militarily the annexation of the Sudetenland by Nazi Germany.

 

Colonel Jozef Beck Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland and former collaborator of the General-dictator Pilsudski had prevented the USSR to go to  the Sudetenland and had objectively favored the projects of Nazis.

 

In 1939 the power in Poland was still in the hands of the military: "Regime of the Colonels" and this since his coup in 1926  by General Pilsudski. After Pilsudski's death in 1935, the former colonels of his Legion had continued to rule the country until the German invasion with Edward Rydz-Simigly as president.

 

It should be noted that the authoritarian Polish regime had applied in Poland an antisemitic policy quite similar to that of Nazi Germany before the war and had planned a mass deportation of Jews from Poland (see Daniel Tollet -2010).

 

i-The declaration of the European Parliament

 

Following the recommendation of the Prague Declaration, 409 members out of 732 of the sixth parliamentary term of the European Parliament, have signed a declaration inspired by that of Prague, a few months of before the end of their legislative mandate.

In this declaration, the word Stalinism  often preferred to the word communism refers ultimately to the communism according to the words of the third paragraph of that declaration.

The declaration  makes a tragic mix of Communism and Nazism in the same manner of that of the Prague Declaration, and again the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement is mentioned as a reference probably to underline absurdly the alleged common vision of Germans and Soviets.

The Declaration of the European Parliament and its correalted resolutions has even proposed a unique mixed day of commemoration  for victims of communism and of Nazism that would be the day of the anniversary of the signing of the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement i.e. 23 August.

The victims of Nazism are used against their will in order  to give weight to anti-communism despite the fact that as above mentioned the Nazism was essentially defeated by the Red Army.

The choice of the date of commemoration may be seen as a provocative act, consciously or unconsciously towards those who want to protect the memory of the victims of Nazism, which is relegated to the same level as those of Communism.

A day of commemoration that serves the interests of some and rejects that of all others may only be perceived as an injustice.

Among the main victims of Nazism we may note without being exhaustive the Jews whose  nearly two thirds were exterminated in Europe, Gypsies, the people with physical or mental defects, the Freemasons, the Communists, the civilian and military Soviets , the resistance fighters and allied soldiers.

A day of commemoration cannot exclude anyone by its definition of victims or by the choice of a memorial day and its reference  and cannot be determined without the agreement of all or it would have the color of the totalitarianism.

j-Conclusion

We understand the suffering of the peoples of Eastern European countries under Communist regimes, captives in their own countries where many of them  were imprisoned, deported or executed  for their political disagreements and where they were in any case deprived of freedom.

However the Declaration of Prague and of the European Parliament do not denounce only  the suffering of the peoples, who lived under communism but also use them for the glory of another ideology. Indeed, the ideological nature of these declarations appears in the light of its historical distortions used in an offensive spirit.

These statements re-assess indirectly the horror of the Nazism by a trivial equation with Communism, which is outrageous to the victims of Nazism.

The defeat of Nazism was possible through the sacrifice of 13.6 million Red Army soldiers, i.e. 9.4 times the total losses of all the other allied armies.

The Declarations of Prague and of the European Parliament may also encourage deleterious excesses as the disinhibition of the far right organizations and Parties in Europe, the resurgence of Nazism in the Baltic countries and the birth of a neo-McCarthyism enshrined in the laws of Many Eastern countries of the European Union in opposition with the ethics of the European Union.

We wish to acknowledge the fact that most of German and Austrian MEPs, which have knowledge of  Nazism and Communism abstained from signing the Declaration of the European Parliament.

 

k-Proposal of declaration written in cooperation with Profesor Dovid Katz, submitted in July 2011 to French socialist MPs without much success and resubmitted in July 2012 as part of this essay.

 

DECLARATION

 

The content of the “Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism” dated 3 June 2008, and the related declaration by the European Parliament of 23 September 2008, having introduced the concept of equivalence of Communism and Nazism, has impaired the specific abomination of Nazism accepted as a universal value in pan-human resistance to the evils of genocide, racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, which generated the unique phenomenon of the Holocaust, and in terms of magnitude of destruction over a few years, on a unique scale in European history.

As a result they have introduced a significant danger of obfuscation and trivialization of the crimes of Nazism whose effect among others might be the granting of de-facto contemporary encouragement to the current rise of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and of the resurgence of Nazism in Europe, in total opposition to the ethos upon which the European Union is founded.

Additional pressures are currently being applied by some Eastern members of the European Union to impose upon Europe this distorted combination of a legitimate wish for an improved knowledge of the history under Communist regimes with an irrational supposed equivalence with the Nazi regime. This trivial equation is detrimental for history and ethics and must be rejected.

 

We declare that:

 

1 - Suffering of Peoples under Communist Regimes:

 

We understand the suffering of the peoples of Eastern Europe under Communist regimes, each of who may legitimately celebrate its recovered freedom from communism. 

However, the notion of an imposed pan-European remembrance of the victims of Nazism and Communism together, as this is suggested by the above mentioned declarations, is an attempt to build an artificial equivalence between two different phenomena so that the one serves the other one and is not acceptable.

 

2 -Crimes of Nazis and the uniqueness of the Holocaust:

 

As a result of World War II which was unleashed on Europe and the world by the Nazis and their allies, more than 60 million people lost their lives in the world in only 6 years, and the very large majority of the Jewish European population in Nazi-occupied Europe was murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators, in the frame of a campaign of total eradication of the world’s Jewish population.

Taking into account the unparalleled destruction perpetrated by the Nazis, the monstrousness of the Holocaust and of its racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic principles, Nazism must keep its specific place in the field of horror which cannot be shared with Communism, without a high risk of obfuscation impairing ethical references hardly acquired and still very fragile. The specificity of the crimes of the Nazis must always be taken into account and taught by all the institutions.

We draw the attention that the word ‘genocide’ should not be utilized without due care, as we currently notice it in a certain number of Eastern countries, or with a purpose of only challenging the empirical uniqueness of the Holocaust.

 

The simplistic proposed equivalence between Communism and Nazism obfuscates the Nazism as paroxysmal phase of racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia, impairs the memory of the Holocaust and offers encouragement to dangerous new strains of resurgent racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism.

 

3 -The duty of the European Union to prevent any form of resurgence of Nazism on its

territory:

 

Taking into account the huge sacrifices of the Allies to free Europe from Nazism, the European Union should feel responsible for preventing any resurgence of Nazism or similar movements on any part of its territory and to take sanction against any person who might try to reintroduce it , or its glorification in any form or circumstance.

 

l-PROPOSAL 2 - SHORT FORM ? also written in cooperation with Professor Dovid Katz

 

PROPOSAL 2

DECLARATION

 

We, elected officials , are united in our rejection of the 2008 “Prague Declaration” and the ensuing European Parliament declaration and resolutions that would try to force on all of European Union,  a revised bogus history that makes Nazism and communism “equal” and requests the observance of a mixed single day of remembrance for the victims of Nazism and Communism, which is the anniversary day of the Molotov- Ribbentrop Pact i.e. 23 August.

In fact, acceptance of the unprecedented character, uniqueness of the barbarity of Nazism and of the uniqueness of the Holocaust in European history is a prerequisite to protect the European Union against the growing of  far-right tendencies, ultranationalism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and neo-Nazism.

In certain Member-States  of eastern European Union, the memory of Nazi collaborators and local Holocaust perpetrators is glorified with a total contempt for the ethics of the European Union.

Further attempts to abuse European institutions for such far rightist efforts distorting History,  will be met with the strongest opposition.