Prague and PE's Statements 2/2

 

The Statements of Prague of 3 June 2008 and by the European Parliament

of 23 September 2008 and their consequences

PART 2/2

By Didier Bertin -02 May 2011

SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF THE EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS MODEL

Free adapted translation in English of the survey in French

 

 

2.9-FRANCE-78 MEPs-34- Signatories – 43%

 

34 MEPs out of 78 or 43% of the French MEPs have signed the declaration, which is a proportion significantly higher than that of Germany and belong to all wings from the extreme right to the Socialists with the exception of the United Left. 

These 34 members include the 13 Socialist MEPs already mentioned, 4 Green MEPs out of the 6 Green MEPs and which puts the French Greens in a special place among all the other European Greens, 4 MEPs of extreme right-wing and Eurosceptics on the 9 and 16 MEPs from the traditional right wing or 57% of the 28 non- extremist right wing.

 

2.10-UNITED KINGDOM 49 Signatories out of 78 MEPs –63%

 

The United Kingdom is a special case in Europe with 12.8% of Eurosceptic MEPs, a rejection as Poland (including also many Eurosceptics) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and of the Euro Currency as well as of Schengen Agreement. 

The MEPs of the alliance of Progressive Democrats and socialists are not socialists in the continental way but rather in our opinion, in the Center–Right. 

The lasting tradition of anti-communism in the UK has naturally led to a mass signing of the Statement that is to say 63%. 

Out of the 49 signatories, 20 were Eurosceptics, 8 Liberals, 19 were members of the Labour Party and two were Green MEPs.

 

2.11-ITALY -78 MEPs - 39 Signatories – 50%

 

Half of the MEPs have signed the statement; they include extreme Right, Right and Left Wings.

 

2.12-SPAIN - 54 MEPs-22 Signatories -40%

 

40% of MEPs have signed the declaration which is a moderate proportion as compared to some others but those MEPS were mostly from the left wing while the right wing was much more reasonable. This could be meaningful regarding the actual values of the Spanish left wing.

Spain is in big troubles and should adopt antisocial policies against which the country could need real supporters of the left-wing values in order to moderate them.

 

2.13-SUMMARY for the large countries and Eastern area  

AREA

Germany

Spain

France

Italy

UK

EAST

Total

MEPs

99

54

78

78

78

204

591

Signatories

23

22

34

39

49

150

317

% Area

23%

41%

44%

50%

63%

74%

54%

% Signatories

5.6%

5.4%

8.3%

9.5%

12%

36.7%

77.5%

 

 SMALL WESTERN COUNTRIES

 

The big countries and the Eastern countries represented 591 MEPs out of the 732 (80.7% o of the 6th parliament): 

Small countries represented therefore only 19.3% of parliament (141 MEPs) and 92 signatories, that is to say 22.4% of the signatories.

65% of deputies of the small western countries have therefore signed the statement. 

In fact this high percentage was due to the high proportion of signatories in only 5 small western countries out of 12.

 

REASONABLE SMALL WESTERN COUNTRIES

 

 

2.14-AUSTRIA: 18 Members - 5 SIGNATORIES – 28% 

As in Germany, the experience of Nazism and the long period of geographical nearness of the communist countries have apparently led this country to make as Germany a reasonable position. Only 5 members including 3 MEPs of the Right wing out of 18 signed the Statement.

 

2.15-GREECE: 3 RIGHT WING SIGNATORIES OUT OF 24 MEPs AND NOT A SINGLE

SOCIALIST

 

2.16-CYPRUS: 1 SINGLE RIGHT WING SIGNATORY OUT OF 6 MEPs

 

2.17-PORTUGAL 11 SIGNATORIES OUT OF 24 MEPs - 46% 

46% of the MEPs have signed the Statement. The problem is that 73% of these MEPs were socialists.  This position poses the problem the actual left values in Portugal.

Portugal as Spain is in big troubles and should adopt antisocial policies against which the country will need real supporters of the left-wing values in order to moderate them.

 

2.18-SWEDEN - 19 MEPs - 8 SIGNATORIES-42% 

The signatories represented 42% of MEPs and are essentially rightists, and only two socialists have signed the Statement.

 

2.19-THE NETHERLANDS-27 MEPs-12 SIGNATORIES-44%

 

These signatories belonged essentially to the right and extreme right wing. Among the 12 signatories (44%) were Eurosceptics and 7 were rightists.

Only 2 Socialists signed the Statement.

 

2.20-LUXEMBOURG: 3 SIGNATORIES out of 6 MEPs-50% 

 

 

FIVE UNREASONABLE SMALL WESTERN COUNTRIES

  

The high proportion of signatories of the small western countries was due to: 1-Malta, 2-Belgium, 3-Denmark, 4-Ireland, and 5- Finland.  

2.21 - MALTA: 3 SIGNATORIES OUT OF 5 MEPs

  

2.22-BELGIUM: 24 MEPs - 14 SIGNATORIES - 58%  

We may think that the rise of xenophobia, inter-community conflict, and extreme right parties might have encouraged the signing of the Statement. The rightist majority of signatories were in fact from the extreme right wing. 

The right and the extreme right represented half of the signatories, but the Socialist Party played a significant part with 5 signatories representing 36% of the signatories and 71% of the socialist MEPs of Belgium.

 

2.22-DENMARK - 14 MEPs - 10-SIGNATORIES - 71% 

71% of the Danish MEPs have signed the Statement, including 5 Socialists and only 5 of the 9 deputies of the right wing.

 

2.23-IRELAND - 13 MEPs - 8 SIGNATORIES – 62% 

The signatories belonged to the Right and Extreme Right wing only. The eight signatories included 3 Rightists and 5 Eurosceptics.

 

2.24-FINLAND-14 SIGNATORIES OUT OF 14 MEPs: 100%

 

All MEPs have signed the statement including the member of the United Left.  

We suspect historical reasons as the basis of this massive signature. 

Following territorial disagreements, the USSR had attacked Finland in 1939 and obtained concessions. 

Finland had thus become an objective ally of the Nazis from 1941 to 1944 but after had joined the allies by interest to escape the consequences of the coming defeat of the Nazis.

 One can imagine that Finland was pleased that the crimes of the pro-Soviet regimes may be assimilated to the worst crimes and without further considerations. 

10 of the 14 Finnish MEPs were not reelected in 2009.

 

III-CONCLUSION

 

 

The quarantine inflicted to Revolutionary countries like France in 1789 or Russia in 1917 followed by a collective offensive of the conservative states has led to deviations and authoritarian abuses within these revolutionary states where defense became the priority. 

In 1945, the three main allied countries and not of course the defeated Germany together with the USSR as this is mentioned in the Statements of Prague and by the European Parliament, have decided to split Europe into zones which then entered into a long conflict. 

We understand the suffering of the peoples of Eastern Europe captive in their own countries whose opponents who were in any case deprived of liberty and where too many opponents were killed or deported. 

However, the Statements of Prague and by the European Parliament did not merely denounce the suffering of the peoples who lived under communism regimes but instrumentalize it by all means including historical Revisionism as an offensive against Ethics and ideas of Progress. 

The ideological and propagandist aspects of these statements appear in the light of historical distortions utilized to amplify their offensive spirit. 

These Statements indirectly revised the weight of the crimes of Nazism to make them trivially equivalent to Communism, outraging thus the victims of Nazism. The expected stylish effect was eventually rude. 

The Nazis and their allies have caused a world war in which 65 million people were killed including 21 million Soviet citizens were killed by the Nazis i.e. 12.4% of the population of the USSR and 63% of the Jewish people of Europe.  

The Nazis therefore created a conflict of unprecedented violence and the Statements of Prague and by the European Parliament are shocking since the mainly targeted victims of Nazism were the Jewish people, the Soviets, and the Communists.  

The Communists were dreadful opponents to Nazis by joining the “Resistance” and the sacrifice of 13.6 million of the Red Army soldiers, i.e. 9.4 times more than the total losses of all the armies of all other allied countries, was essential to defeat the Nazism. 

It is indecent to mix in one Statement victims and executioners. 

The Prague Statement and consequently that of the European Parliament were encouraged by well known right wing actors such as Margaret Thatcher, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Zbigniew Brzezinski. 

We regret that in the past, Europe did not issue a statement against all dictatorships of the world. 

On the contrary many European countries had a good relation with them and their Banks (State owned or private) supported them during a long period.

 Dictatorships were too often considered as authoritarian and efficient guarantors against social disorders and thus as good and creditworthy sovereign risks deserving generous credit lines ultimately not repaid. This policy was still in force at the beginning of 2011with Arabic the dictatorships of North Africa and Middle East. 

These events question the sincerity of the rightist supporters of the Statements of Prague and by the European Parliament regarding the defense of freedom.  

After more than 20 years of free economy, the citizens of Eastern European Union continue to have a life of poverty with wages similar to those emerging countries, while benefiting from fewer public services than in the past. 

The minimum average gross salary is less than 300 Euros per month in 2011 and is only 148.7 Euros on average in Bulgaria and Romania, representing 28% of the population of these countries. We recall that Brazil's minimum wage amounts in 2011 to 230 Euros. 

Such wages do not really permit to enjoy the recovered freedom in the daily life. The MEPs from the Eastern countries of Europe should concentrate on improving the standard of living of their citizens. See Appendix13. 

The largest country of Eastern European Union, Poland whose citizens have been deprived of their rights under the communist regime and who are now freed from communism, are denied the benefit of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union at the request of the previous government of Lech Kaczynski. This limitation of their Rights was approved by the European Union under the Lisbon Treaty of 2009 which intended paradoxically to strengthen the implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. 

The Poles have never been able to take advantage of this Charter, and we understand the record level of abstention of 83% at European elections in 2009. 

In Hungary the totalitarian steps made by the rightist Government elected in 2010 and not anymore by the Communists, are seemingly still in force; the European Commission does not seem to have requested the cancellation of these steps despite this is its duty. On the contrary Hungary is in charge of the presidency of the Council of the European Union in 2011. 

The Statements of Prague and by the European Parliament may encourage the harmful excesses observed in the European Union as the full disinhibition of the extreme right, the resurgence of Nazism in the Baltic Countries and the birth of Neo-McCarthyism in opposition to the European spirit and already legally enforced laws in many countries of Eastern European Union. 

The insidious equivalence made between Nazism and Communism encouraged the people of Eastern Europe to crate indecently a concept of Genocide as a result of their suffering during the communist regimes equivalent to the Holocaust and obfuscating the memory of the Holocaust. 

Lithuania and Hungary have already implemented laws making equivalence between the suffering of peoples who lived under communism and those of Holocaust victims. 

Lithuania’s National Museum of Genocide and Genocide Research Institute, whose public relations officer is a Neo-Nazi leader excludes the Holocaust from their Institutions. 

The creation of a forged concept of Genocide equivalent to the Holocaust "by ideological principle" is in our opinion an act of denial of the Holocaust as such. 

This action is an obfuscation of the Holocaust based in our opinion on a deeply rooted anti-Semitism still alive in the Eastern countries. 

We wish to acknowledge the fact that most German and Austrian MEPs who are particularly well placed to know Nazism and Communism mostly abstained from signing the Statement of the European Parliament. This attitude should have guided the other MEPs. 

The Statements of Prague and by the European Parliament could also have a negative impact on the foreign policy of Europe:

 

  • The offensive anti-Communism as it is worded in the Statements and which  encourages the birth of a New McCarthyism in Europe may ultimately hurt the People's Republic of China, the second world power and communist country

 

  • The indirect revision of the Nazi crimes that affects directly the memory of the Holocaust victims and can promote the resurgence of anti-Semitism may strengthen the convictions of the Israeli Right wing about the need of consolidation of Israel as a shelter-State for the Jewish people .The Israeli electors having had a smarting experience of Europe may feel obliged to support their authorities. The History of hatred in Europe has generated the conflict in the Middle East and the least we may hope is a positive participation of Europe to the peace process instead of the contrary. 

  

The gap in time between the date of the statements and our report is due to the accumulated observation of events that may be related, or were encouraged or legitimized by the Statements of Prague and by the European Parliament. 

 

We will propose a text of statement mentioning the sufferings of people who lived under communist regimes avoiding any trivial and regrettable amalgams and acknowledging the main Historical events, which should always be kept in memory.

 

 

Didier Bertin - May 2, 2011

 

This text is inseparable from its 13 appendices