Spinelli's Footsteps - Comments

Notes Towards a New END Appeal - gemtsone supplier

gemtsone supplier — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 12:07:17 +0300

Sinatra Cartier : Approach the microphone with your heart.

"Skype and ICQ Face Ban in Russia" - gemtsone supplier

gemtsone supplier — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 06:04:48 +0300

Yet, after my second cup, I may already forget about the whole thing. Have a nice day, - M

RE: An Open letter to EU Foreign Minister on depleted uranium and HAARP - Wayne Hall

Wayne Hall — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 08:55:49 +0300

I do not believe that Mikael Book will continue forever in his present
stance.

Our present initiative would not have been possible without the work of the
distinguished Swedish peace campaigner and women's activist Maj-Brit
Theorin, who ushered the report A4-0005/99 "On the environment, security and
foreign policy" through the committees of the European Parliament and so
laid the foundations for our present work. What we are now doing would not
have been possible without her. Unfortunately Ms. Theorin and her
collaborators represent the only tendency in the international anti-nuclear
movement who proved adequate to the circumstances prevailing at the
so-called "end of the Cold War", preparing a blueprint worthy of the
forty-five years of the anti-nuclear movement's prehistory prior to that
time.

There are other tendencies in existence worthily continuing her work, but
they represent a new beginning, not a continuation.

In the normal course of events it would have been Mikael Book who would have
had the task of contacting Ms. Theorin, and conveying to her, in Swedish,
our thanks for her contribution, and the contribution of her generation, of
which she provides the finest example.

This task must now be undertaken by others.

Wayne Hall
Aigina, Greece

And here's to you, Mrs. Robinson - Mikael

Mikael — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:24:11 +0200

In a speech in Brussels on 28 October, 2009, President Barroso said:

"In many people's eyes, nuclear energy is an important component of any European strategy for a low-carbon energy mix. Of course, not all Member States will want to include nuclear energy in their own energy mix, but this issue deserves to be discussed, not least because of the implications for tackling climate change and improving energy security."

"In any case, the European Union has a clear legal mandate in nuclear energy in areas such as safety and waste management, which we will pursue in the new Commission's mandate."

(quoted from: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressRelease... )

Put an end to 'the refusal of consciousness' - halva

halva — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:26:09 +0300

This is an excellent article. Mikael, and it has made it possible for us to think about trying to intervene at the UN on 24th September.

But it needs follow-up, both at the abolition-caucus forum:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aboli...
(abolition-caucus) (ending cut off)

and at the Capodistrias-Spinelli-Europe portal
http://ec-network.eu/cse

And, of course through mobilizing of private contacts to see if we can respond adequately to Jonathan Granoff's challenge:

"Just get ONE European country to convene a prep com on a convention and that would open the door to the entire project quickly. Which one?" Jonathan

Jonathan Granoff, for those who don't know, is the subject of frequent reference in this article:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idn...

Support the new Irish "No to Lisbon" campaign! - JD

JD — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 02:44:56 +0300

If you are interested:

NO TO LISBON MEANS NO TO LISBON!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?g...

Global Zero - Francine

Francine — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:42:58 +0300

Tks Mika.
I can agree with every word.
Two more remarks:
- be cautious with this formal/informal decision-making - there are too many examples with massive civil sty mobilizations (Euro-missiles in the 80s and war againt Iraq in 2003) where states decided all the same they would go ahead with their plans - we have power but not all the power
- in realizing the failures of some levels of decision-making and preferring other levels or other mechanisms, I think we must learn to think in terms of and/and instead of or/or. Seeing that one level/mechanism does not function as it should, can be an incentive to improve it, not only to substitute it. That is my main point concerning the Lisbon Treaty. It is a bad treaty, but Nice is even worse. Rejecting Lisbon and trying to build a 'new Europe' - if we ever succeed - takes us at least 10 to 20 years forward. In the meantime we abandon the democratic instruments that Lisbon gives us.

By the way: the European Council has given Ireland the necessary guarantees for this 'demilitarization' (December 20078 + June 2009).

Have a nice sunday.

Francine

Global Zero - Mikael

Mikael — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:49:09 +0300

That state governments can take formal decisions and implement them on the international scene is important, but not always decisive. Examine any historical turning-point or culmination, and you might, in the end, find it difficult to assess the role of the formal decisions. (Cf. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, by Graham T. Allison)

Our efforts to formalize the decisions, which coincide with our efforts to democratize them (make them obey to the laws of us, the peoples), equal our efforts to cope with the general difficulty to know exactly who decides what, and where.

However, the peoples may henceforward use their internet to force upon the national states an international state where decisions are taken by statement and criticism.

Immanuel Wallersteins recommendation is wise, but don't you think it can be applied in the case of European Nuclear Disarmament (END) as well? The NW of France and Britain, after all, represent "only" some hundreds of the estimated total of 26 000 NWs existing in the world today, and of which the major part are those of Russia and the USA. So in that sense, END would probably only be "a small reform on the short term". Anyway, we could and we should start there. Or should I say here, because you and me happen to live here, in Europe.

Global Zero - Francine

Francine — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:15:36 +0300

Well, I share most of your concerns. However, we also have to realize that
> sovereign national states are, till today, the only ones who can take formal
> decisions and implement them. They are still the 'masters' of the
> international scene. So, whatever strategy we develop, whatever we want to
> change, we cannot ignore or neglect them.
> And I also believe in Immanuel Wallerstein's recommendations for change: try
> to work out a strategy for the long term, and start with small reforms on
> the short term, the 'less evil' decisions.
>

Lessons for the Left from the European elections 2009 - halva

halva — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:55:13 +0300

My only disagreeement with Moses' assessment is in relation to the decisiveness of the defeat of SYRIZA and triumph of the Ecologists-Greens in Greece. It is true that SYRIZA's vote came down and the Ecologists' went up, so that for the first time they have representation in the European Parliament. But the polls, the media and the public were predicting a bigger vote for the Greens in the context of the serious corruption crisis affecting the governing centre-right party. Many of the Green voters came over from voting for the governing party, and more were expected. It was doubtless because the Greek Greens were expecting at least a second seat that the Greek/Austrian Green politician Maria Vassilakou, who has stood for mayor of Vienna on the Austrian Green ticket , decided to stand for election with the Greens in Greece. Well, she has not got in this time.

We would have voted for the Greens if they had proved themselves more willing at least on our local level, to take up the nuclear issue, and at a minimum make use of this shattering France 3 documentary on nuclear waste disposal in France, which Greeks can now see with Greek subtitles:
http://www.spitia.gr/images/video/f...

At some other local levels: Corfu, Northern Attica, there has been some more response in the Greens. But it is not visible at the national level, or at the local level where we live.

As a result, we stayed with SYRIZA, which is still well in front of the Greens in terms of voter support in Greece notwithstanding its own very real credibility problems. .

Lessons for the Left from the European elections 2009 - Mikael Böök

Mikael Böök — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:13:43 +0300

Thanks, Moses, for correcting me about PASOK. Glad to hear about PASOK's victory in Greece. By the way, how does PASOK nowadays place itself on the Green-Red scale?

Le Monde of June 6 has a substantial anti-nuclear article by Corinne Lepage, newly elected MEP for the party "Mouvement Democrate" (MoDem), of which she is the vice president. See

http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/arti...
orique-par-corinne-lepage_1202870_3232.html

Is Corinne Lepage on the Left or on the Right? Is she Green? The MoDem Party of Francois Bayrou and Corinne Lepage wants to surpass the cleavage between Left and Right, thinking that it is outdated. However, politics continues to be very much about cleavages, and the one between the Left and the Right tends to return in new shapes. Thus I am inclined to think that the writers of 'anti-nuclear' articles, like Corinne Lepage, nowadays tend to be 'on the Left'. Admittedly, this has not always been so. Consider, for instance, the example of the great nuclear scientist Frédéric Joliot-Curie. He was clearly 'on the Left', and certainly also in favor of building the (then still not yet really existing) nuclear power plants of France. But who is, today, in favor of building new nuclear power plants? Well, many (most?) of those people tend to be Right-wing politicians, like the Président de la république himself. Tragically, some scientists also continue to believe that nuclear power is a viable source of energy for humans. Their thoughtlessness is even greater than their knowledge.

Lessons for the Left from the European elections 2009 - Moses Boudourides

Moses Boudourides — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:51:37 +0300

Mikael, what you write: "The Social Democrats, in particular, and the Left in general, suffered severe losses in Germany, France, Italy, UK, Spain, Greece, Sweden, Austria, Portugal" is wrong with regards to Greece. The absolutely defeated governing party is in the right, while the relative winner is PASOK, a party belonging in the European Socialist coalition. As far as the Greek non-socialdemocratic left is concerned, SYRIZA (belonging to the European Left) was indeed defeated, although the dogmatic old-fashioned Communist Party of Greece won and the Greek Ecologists-Greens have done very well. Just for the sake of truth.. --Moses

The END is the beginning - Wayne Hall

Wayne Hall — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:33:05 +0200

Some correspondence with the Global Security Institute.

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Hall
To: Jonathan Granoff
Cc: Mikael Book ; acdn.france ; anapolitanos ; 'Tanay Sidki Uyar' ;
bbearden@
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 6:26 AM
Subject: Re: A New Year Message

Dear Jonathan,

I will donate fifty euros to your campaign if you personally, and
preferably also others from your institute, become signatories to the
Saintes Appeal for a Nuclear Free Europe.
[ http://acdn.france.free.fr/spip/art... ]

Signing will mean being available for association with initiatives
taken for the purpose of securing European nuclear disarmament,
independently of appeals to other states.

Best wishes,

Wayne Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Granoff
To: halva1@...
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 3:14 AM
Subject: A New Year Message

This message is sent in HTML format. If you have problems reading
this email, please visit our website at www.gsinstitute.org or
contact us at general@....

Dear Wayne,

We sit before a moment of extraordinary opportunity for change. The
Global Security Institute is positioned through its international
parliamentary network, initiatives with middle power countries, and
Washington DC-oriented bipartisan programs to help make our common
aspirations to achieve a nuclear weapon-free world a reality. Your
help now is critical.

Please consider a generous year-end or year commencement gift to
express your needed support for this work. Visit our website to
donate safely and securely.

All of us at GSI recognize the unique privilege and responsibility to
be able to convene governments to work on nuclear disarmament in such
a focused and high level manner. I hope you have a moment to review
our past several newsletters, linked below, as they express our
strategic integration of international and national efforts. I find
inspiration in the results of such professional and passionate
teamwork.

As Senator Cranston, GSI's visionary founder, often said, "Nuclear
weapons are unworthy of civilization." With your help, we can amplify
this message at the highest levels of governments, in parliaments, at
the United Nations and, in the coming year, to the general public.

From all of us at the Global Security Institute, I wish you all a
happy, safe and peaceful new year. We should end this year and begin
the new one with a sense of gratitude for what the spirit of hope has
brought us, a moment of extraordinary opportunity for change.

Best,

Jonathan Granoff
President

P.S. If you would like to discuss any of our needs and programs in
greater depth, please do not hesitate to call me at our Philadelphia
office: +1 (610) 668-5470

Afterword: Re:Nuclear Free World

What Jonathan Granoff asks when he seeks my support for a petition to the new US president to move towards the achievement of a nuclear-weapons-free world is that I should intervene in what is, among other things, an INTERNAL American political debate. There is another faction in US politics, the faction that supports the Republicans, that regards US possession of nuclear weapons, or any other weapon, as a question with a bearing on NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, on which the opinion of any non-American is absolutely irrelevant and the seeking-out of the opinions of non-Americans possibly even treasonous.

It may be that I don't WANT to get involved in this internal American debate, because it is by no means automatically evident to me that I would be making the right decision to support the "globalist" rather
than the "patriotic" American position on the subject of nuclear weapons.

After all, if I take the position that possession or non-possession of nuclear weapons is NOT a question that concerns only Americans, but also concerns me, a non-American, what grounds could I have for arguing that possession or non-possession of nuclear weapons by the European Union countries is a question that concerns only Europeans?

What grounds could I have for arguing that, for example, European sovereignty is more important than the solidarity of NATO?

Rejection of the "patriotic" viewpoint has two sides to it. If I want to be a "Europatriot" it is in no way evident that Jonathan Granoff is going to be a better ally than an American anti-globalist patriot.

Of course, right-wingers do not make good allies. It would be preferable to have Jonathan Granoff as an ally. This is why I judge that it is best to put the ball in his court. If he is willing to
support independent European nuclear disarmament, in this way "interfering" in my scene, then I will agree to interfere in his scene, and support anti-nuclear politics in the United States.

This issue has, in its way, come up in e-mail discussion with the "geoengineering" advocate Ken Caldeira, a Lawrence Livermore Laboratory scientist of liberal political views who has said in the
course of debate that he favours nuclear disarmament, even unilateral American nuclear disarmament.

When I asked him if he was prepared to sign the Saintes Appeal for a Nuclear-Free Europe, he said that he did not want to "interfere" in European politics. His support for unilateral American nuclear disarmament thus remains a dead letter, a debating point to be brought up in other contexts. usually for the purpose of intellectually
disarming "chemtrails" activists.

But Caldeira, unlike Jonathan Granoff, had never asked me to "interfere" in American internal politics by taking a position on whether the US should or should not possess nuclear weapons.

Wayne Hall

The END is the beginning - halva

halva — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:12:19 +0200

I have posted this at the forum of the Hellenic American Democratic Association in Athens.

United for truth - Mikael

Mikael — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:54:29 +0300

The United for Truth protest passed peacefully without incident. According to the organizers, ca 400 persons defied the rainy weather to join the protest at Schuman Place in central Brussels (www.unitedfortruth.org).

There shall be no new cold war - Mikael

Mikael — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:54:31 +0300

No, Wayne, I could not imagine anything like that coming out of the European Social Forum.

Europe already surrounds the planet. Therefore, it can no longer move in any particular direction.

Henceforward, all the conflicts of the world are inter-European conflicts.

But Europe is a myth.

Indeed, Europe is the myth.

And truth is elsewhere.

'You are not in the place. The place is in you.'

There shall be no new cold war - Wayne Hall

Wayne Hall — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 07:56:57 +0300

As a fellow-signatory with Mikael Book of the Saintes Appeal for a Nuclear-Free Europe I naturally agree with Mikael's proposal for the banning of all nuclear weapons from Europe, starting with the French and British ones.

But my vision of the territorial boundaries is different from the vision Mikael has outlined above of a Europe including Ukraine, Russia, Georgia, etc.

In Greece, where I live, the policy of the previous Socialist government was for inclusion of Turkey in the European Union. It is a policy that has been continued by the present conservative government and in my view it is a good policy.

There are many advantages to the existing polity of Turkey, and even moreso the polity that could be developed there. Turkey offers an alternative model for secularization of society to the "Western" model that has now been diverted into anti-Islamism.
Turkey's present government is the equivalent of a Western European Christian Democrat government of the more socially responsible, pre-neoliberal kind. Or it least it has tendencies in that direction which could and should be strengthened.

I would even say that it would be appropriate for Istanbul to become the PERMANENT seat of the European Social Forum and the centre of European Civil Society, a move paralleling Constantine's embrace of Christianity and shifting of the centre of the Roman Empire to the East.

There is an alternative, basically French, conception of European integration which embraces the Arab-speaking states of North Africa (also, of course, once part of the Roman Empire [and the Ottoman Empire]). This is an idea that has been instrumentalized by Sarkozy so as to fill the whole area up with French nuclear power stations, but it is shared by people in France and perhaps in North Africa who do not share Sarkozy's politics and priorities.

Another good aspect of this vision of European expansion into some of the Arab world is that it includes Israel.

How marvellous it would be if the denuclearization of Europe could also include the denuclearization of Israel.

So what about expansion to the East?? What about Russia and its former satellites?

Perhaps Russia has a different historical mission: to expand westward, "reconquering" Alaska (the Orthodox Church is strong among the indigenous peoples of Alaska, having successfully withstood the proselytzing of Protestant - and to a lesser extent Catholic - missionaries.

Perhaps Russia's mission is to help overcome the residual barbarism of the United States, to help bring a civilization there which can also embrace the ordinary people and not just an elite.

Georgia, and hopefully also Ukraine, should go in that direction too, along with the Russia to which they have had such strong historical links. That would be the preferable future in my opinion.

Already there are links between Russia and the American left that have no counterpart in Western Europe. Look at these recent article from Pravda, for example:

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/co...

Could you imagine anything like that coming out of the European Social Forum??

Europe and Russia are moving in different directions. That has been the process ever since the eighties, when both Mikael and I participated in a movement, the European Nuclear Disarmament movement, whose effect was to get Russia OUT of Europe. We must take responsibility for our own actions and what they achieved, and persist in the same logic today, so that we can finish what we started.

Later this year, all things being equal, Mikael and I will be collaborating in an initiative to take place in Aigina, Greece, that will highlight the contribution made to European integration by two great statesmen, Ioannis Capodistrias and Altiero Spinelli. Both of these historical figures started their careers in collaboration with Russia and both broke with Russia.

The Irish NO to the Treaty of Lisbon - siegfried

siegfried — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:30:29 +0300

Hello Mikael,

I agree that people do not want more of the same, which the Lisbon Treaty would certainly have been. It would have flattened the route to total
capitalism. And people do not want that and so they reject it, if they are given the choice, which is why the political leaders have tried to avoid that. They knew this would happen. But they also think that they know
better and so democracy must be done away with.

As I said, COIR - the extreme right-wing catholics - indeed was a main element of the NO campaign. They were important because they were able to
invest large sums of money into this campaign, as was Libertas, as was
Sinn Fein, which is why these three were more visible - in the NO side,
only they had the money for many large posters all around the country. The
CAEUC did not have that type of money - so they did not print large
posters. They distributed some 200000 leaflets however - or 600000 if you
also count the affiliated organizations - and were the group most present on the roads talking to people. The fact that they had no posters came in
handy for the main stream media, who also were on the YES side; it made it
easy for them to discredit the NO side saying that they were
scare-mongers and liars with their arguments of abortion (COIR) and the
harmonization of taxes (Libertas).

The YES side has invested between 2.6 (official figure) and 10 (estimate
from CAEUC) million euros into the campaign. CAEUC had some 30 K euros -
therefore no large and expensive posters. Libertas however has invested a
sum in between 0.6 and 2 million euros. Coir must have invested a similar
sum and Sinn Fein might also have been in this region.

It is important to note that the vote - as in expected and as has been the
case in France in 2005 - has been a class vote. Only richer regions have
voted YES.

For these reasons, I think that it is reasonable to assume that
solidarization of working class people and progessive minds across Europe
is possible now. We should therefore come to aid the progessive forces of
Ireland during the second Battle of Ireland, which I expect to arrive
before the end of this year.

Of course, we must have our own vision of the future; but that must be
combined with an idea how to get there. The solidarization of the working
class is that route in my view, and the second Battle of Ireland is the
first - or second if you will - step on that route.

All the best,
Siegfried

The Irish NO to the Treaty of Lisbon - mikael

mikael — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:25:00 +0300

Siegfried,

I am grateful for the information you add, and for your comments!

And I agree on your point that many Irishmen and -women probably said NO
because they felt that they did not know what is in the Lisbon Treaty and
therefore refused to give carte blanche to its proponents.

However, what do you think about my reflection, that many people felt
(feel) that the Lisbon Treaty does not alter the present economic and
political trends, and is therefore to be refuted? To simplify even more:
if you want change, but you are only given more of the same, then you end
up saying NO. This would apply, in particular, to those wo (in your own
words) "want a more democratic, more social, less militaristic and more
ecological Europe". On the other hand, it could also apply to rightist and
reactionary voters. (Which is one of the reasons why the absence of a
radical right party in Ireland is interesting.)

In order to find out more precisely why the Irishmen voted NO, one should
proceed to asking them! I guess this is what sociologists in Ireland are
presently doing.

All the best,

- Mikael

The Irish NO to the Treaty of Lisbon - siegfried

siegfried — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:21:06 +0300

Mikael,

You write that you like the vote, "even if they only did it for the usual
reasons" and then you list some of them.

Are you sure that these were the reasons for the Irish people to vote NO?
How do you know?

I have been in Ireland for 2 weeks and, yes, certainly, there were some
people expressing their wish to vote NO for the reasons you mentioned. But
there were many others.

There were people who, like Attac, want a more democratic, more social, less militaristic and more ecological Europe. And not just a few. Have you heard of a group called "Campaign Against the EU Constitution"? (http://www.caeuc.org) It exist since 2001 or 2002 and was established early on since the Irish expected a
referendum on the Consitution. That referendum never happened, but the CAEUC never ceased to exist and in November last year, they started working
together again. The CAEUC consists of 13 Irish + 2 non-irish civil action
groups of the progressiv left, peace groups, workers action groups and some
small parties. Sinn Fein is also among the 13. Sinn Fein made their own
campaign in addition. The 2 non-Irish groups, which joined only 1 month ago, are Attac Austria and Attac France.

Now it is fair to say that the NO campaign consisted of 3 major components:

1. CAEUC (with Sinn Fein maybe a 4th component by their own work)
2. COIR - the extreme catholic right - who had the subject of abortion on
the agenda as you have mentioned
3. Libertas with Declan Ganley - whose main argument was taxes
(+ some larger unions - such as UNITE - which could also be considered a 4th
or 5th component)

The Irish, however, did not vote NO because of abortion or taxes or any
other national argument alone. These arguments were found to be of very
little importance among voters, both ranging at about 1%.

The major argument (about a third of all voters asked) was that they did not
know the treaty and they did not want to sign something they did not know.
Now that is a very reasonable thing to do, because nobody in his or her
right mind would sign a contract without reading it cover to cover
beforehand - but the Irish government failed to send out copies. (The only
group that did that - 2 weeks before the vote - was Libertas).

So you may want to reconsider your stance on the Irish NO being mainly
national.

In my view, it was not.

Kind regards,
Siegfried