Spinelli's Footsteps

I do not think that we should try to sell the idea of a global tax on financial transactions (FTT) with the "insurance fund" argument. All sound economical systems should provide mechanisms for saving some money or resources for the bad days, but certainly not "to protect citizens from the astronomical costs of bailing out further banks and financial institutions".

In general,  I consider the main argument for a global FTT to be that it can help open the black boxes of the world's computerized financial system; thus I recommend an information-oriented approach to the FTT. The revenue generated by such global taxation may also be significant, and the FTT might also be used to stabilize the financial system , but the really important function of a global FTT should be to further global democratization by increasing the public's knowledge about what is going on in the world of finance.
The Schumacher lecture of Susan George, which I already quoted, contains a vision of how another, alternative financial system should be constructed. One of the necessary points on the agenda is the abolition of the tax havens, about which John Christensen and Richard Murphy from the Tax Justice Network have published a fresh article, Tax havens and the financial crisis.

But neither Susan George nor Christensen & Murphy mention Clearstream. While looking for news about Clearstream I found, to my dismay, that Denis Robert, the French investigating journalist has recently been sentenced in court for libel against the bank of all banks in Luxembourg. So Clearstream has scored a victory in its tenacious efforts to silence him! Hope to be back on this subject when I have more details about the continuing harassment of Denis Robert.

Choike has collected signatures on a statement "on the proposed "Global Summit" to reform the international financial system". (http://www.choike.org/bw2/). This relates to the planned G20 meeting on the financial crisis, which president Bush will be hosting on the 15th of November. The main demands of the statement are that a global summit on the financial crisis

1. " is inclusive and participatory of all governments of the world;
2. includes representatives from civil society, citizen?s groups, social movements and other stakeholders;
3. has a clear timeline and process for regional consultations, particularly with those most affected by the crisis;
4. is comprehensive in scope, tackling the full array of issues and institutions;
5. is transparent, with proposals and draft outcome documents made publicly available and discussed well in advance of the meeting."

I signed this statement as an individual, because these are elementary democratic demands. Yet I am convinced that the governments will not be capable of doing any good and right things without a strong pressure from non-governmental, civic movements. Susan George, in her Schumacher lecture, has sketched the programme we should be agreed on and forcefully put forward now:

• "... a new Keynesianism, not military this time, but environmental; a push for massive investment in energy conversion, eco-friendly industry, new materials, efficient public transport; the green construction industry and so on";
• "... take taxes up to the European level and to the international one through currency and other financial transaction taxes";
• "... debt cancellation for poor countries";
• "Tax havens that allow affluent individuals and corporations to avoid paying their fair share of the conversion should be shut down: it would be cheaper to pay the inhabitants of the Cayman Islands, Liechtenstein and the rest a living wage for twenty years. Plenty of cash would remain for eco-investments, job-creation and poverty relief."

In its essence, this is the program of ATTAC. But it has two weak spots. We must also, and in particular, raise the demand for European Nuclear Disarmament and make it a condition of the European Union, to be inscribed in its constitution.  This is a goal to achieve for Europeans, in the first place. Every important political question is connected to it: the future of NATO, the question of how to organize a global governance, the orientation of the real economy, which is a permament war economy, and of which the nukes and the related weapons systems (missile defense, and "star wars", in particular) are the top of an enormous economical -- or rather, uneconomical -- iceberg. Without this demand the movement will continue to lack a real political perspective. It will continue to grope in the dark. The weapons of mass destruction are also the weakest point of our adversary, it is his means to keep us scared and under his control; but when we attack him united on this point, we will we be real and courageous again, and we will win.

Secondly, we must make an offensive towards the heart of the present financial system, which is a computerized system, where the money is becoming equal to digital information. The "shadow banking system" , which now breaks down, has its centre in Luxembourg, in the financial machinery of Clearstream, the "notaries of the world". It is a myth that the financial system is non-transparent; yes, it is opaque to us, the people, but every deal of the financial capitalists in their tax havens is certainly being documented, all the data are there, and for the ones who have all the data, it is not non-transparent at all. As long as Clearstream, Euroclear and SWIFT are not under democratic control, the financial system cannot be controlled by the people. The situation now is, that the average journalists or ministers or economists, for that matter, have scarcely heard about these nodal points in the financial machinery, the digitalized clearing-houses, which have come into being only during the last few decades, and without which the financial globalization would not have been possible.

The role of information in the financial system has always been of prime importance, but the networked computer has changed the basic conditions - far from being opaque, the system is now transparent and controllable, at least in principle, thanks to the digital networks.

PS.  In addition to Susan George´s impressive Schumacher lecture (see above), I also re-read her "Budapest Paper" from October 2001, where she constated that we had all entered 'an age of radical insecurity and post-State conflict.'

In order to end this age of insecurity, we need to recognize the library-cum-internet as a global state power on pair with the national state powers. Instead of being hidden in the secret databases of Luxembourg's shady notaries, the financial data of the world must be recorded in public libraries and archives.

Is it really possible to keep European integration and nuclear disarmament apart? For a philosopher, it is difficult to forget that these issues are closely connected. Thus, while I intend to speak about Spinelli's ideas and proposals at the seminar in Aegina, I will try to keep the disarmament issue constantly in my mind (even without mentioning it!). Btw, I believe that Spinelli never lost sight of the problematic of the peace.

Will there be other Spinelli-related presentations at the seminar in Aigina? I don't know. If the organizer of the seminar wants me to, I can narrow my focus to presenting either the ideas in the Manifesto of Ventotene (1941), or Spinelli's memorandum on the European Army (1951), or behind the Treaty Establishing the EU (1984).

It could also be interesting to focus on the evolution of the young Communist Spinelli to the slightly older Marxian Federalist Spinelli, whose way of thinking we can study in the manifesto from Ventotene and in his articles from the 1940s. This would mean inquiring into the idea(s) of Europe of the classical Marxists -- Marx and Lenin, in the first place -- and to compare them with those of the young Spinelli.

In his autobiography (in fact, in the article which was published in Preuves in October 1957; later inserted by himself in Come ho tentato di diventare saggio, p 66), Spinelli stresses that it was the world war which had brought him to Communism. While many young persons from his own generation were drawn to "lunatic Nationalism" (nazionalismo forsennato), Spinelli had acquired, so he says, an "insurmountable antipathy" (una insormontabile antipatia) against the very words "nation" and "Fatherland".

Of course, the circumstance vary and people are somewhat different. Therefore it is, in a sense, a truism that Spinelli's road to Communism was different from that of, say, Marx or Lenin. Yet it may be interesting, in view of his later intellectual evolution, to reflect on what it could mean that the first world war was, so to speak, Spinelli's starting point. It is a central tenet of the Federalists, that the Marxist proletarian internationalism does not provide a valid solution to the problem of the peace. Perhaps the very reason why Spinelli became a Communist was also the reason why he left the Communist Party in 1937, having found Federalism to be a better answer to the problem of the peace?

Today, Sunday 7 September 2008, two courageous individuals, Julez Edward and Olivier Galand, organised a demonstration in Brussels to "Reopen 9/11 Investigation, Stop Big Brother, Stop War & Capitalism, Go Think For Yourself". (http://www.unitedfortruth.org/)

A first demonstration  on these themes was already held in Brussels last year, although you may not have heard about it. This year, a number of associations supported the demonstration. Among these were the Belgian chapter of the Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions to Aid the Citizen (ATTAC) (NOTE: see additional information and correction at the end of this page !),  and the Committee for the Abolition of Third World Debt (CADTM) .

News about the "United for truth"-demonstration are not yet available (at the time of writing).

In the USA,  the break-through  of the 9/11 truth movement happened years ago. Today, seven years after 11 September, 2001, the movement for truth about what really happened on that day  is broader than ever. 

Earlier this year, professor David Ray Griffin, a leading American independent researcher on the issue,  published a long open letter to the US Congress and the American press.[1] His message:  congressmen and journalists need to inquire into  the self-contradictions of the US authorities.  Griffin meticulously documents 25 cases, thus producing a most compelling proof of the need to re-open the official investigation of the 9/11 crimes.  Those who have been caught  stating "P" and "not P" on 25 different occasions can no longer expect to be believed on their word!

The movement of the truth-seekers about 9/11 now includes hundreds of architects, engineers, pilots, firemen, military officers, members of the intelligence community and other professionals, who find  the official story, or certain parts of it,  to be  incompatible with their professional experience.

Then we have scientists for 9/11 truth and justice, who scrutinize what we have been told  in the light of the available empirical evidence and their knowledge of the laws of nature.  Earlier this year, physicist Steven E. Jones and his co-authors offered their colleagues at the National Institute for Science and Technology (NIST) to continue the discussion about the collapses at the WTC  "in a civil manner as a matter of scientific and engineering courtesy and civic duty". The conclusion of their article highlights some of the key questions, which have been left open:

"We have enumerated fourteen areas where we are in
agreement with FEMA and NIST in their investigations of
the tragic and shocking destruction of the World Trade Cen-
ter. We agree that the Towers fell at near free-fall speed and
that is an important starting point. We agree that several
popular myths have been shown to be wrong, such as the
idea that steel in the buildings melted due to the fires, or that
the Towers were hollow tubes, or that floors “pancaked” to
account for total Tower collapses. We agree that the collapse
of the 47-story WTC 7 (which was not hit by a jet) is hard to
explain from the point of view of a fire-induced mechanism
and that NIST has refused (so far) to look for residues of
explosives [...]. Our investigative team would like to
build from this foundation and correspond with the NIST
investigation team, especially since they have candidly con-
ceded (in a reply to some of us in September 2007):
“...we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total
collapse” [2]

Thus two seemingly different and contrary images have emerged.  The first shows a gang of Eastern fanatics, armed with ancient religious dogma and box-cutters,  launching a devastating surprise attack against Western civilization in a way that military defense and intelligence were not able to foresee and avert.  It shows the victory of primitive brutality and shrewdness over sophisticated technology and modern bureaucratic rationality.
In the second picture we see advanced science applications  and cynical psychological operations at work. Planes are being controlled and guided remotely.  Nanotechnology offers new ways to demolish steel structures. Stunning!  Incredible?  Not if you remember that Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be, and actually had been, annihilated in a few moments years before George W. Bush and yourself had grown up.

What is decisive in the final analysis -- because we believe in free speech and democracy --  is the judgment of the people. Millions of ordinary American citizens continue to doubt the official 9/11 conspiracy story which has been uncritically adopted and repeated by the mass media. Now, when the number of Europeans who demand a new investigation is also growing, it is essential to start a discussion about the direction in which the "9/11 truth" should be leading us. Where do we go from here? The two organizers of today's demonstration call for "a ReLovution". That is a funny word, and I like it, because it speaks of Love. However, is it not enough , in this case, to unite for truth and against war? Is it necessary to stand united against Capitalism in order to be a reLovutionist?
 
Correction 8 September: A spokesperson of Attac Belgium has notified me that  only one of the two local Attac groups in Brussels (Attac Bruxelles-1) did in fact support the United for truth-demonstration in Brussels yesterday. -MB

Footnotes:

[1] Griffin, D.R.: 9/11 Contradictions. An Open Letter to Congress and the Press. The Olive Branch Press 2008.

[2] Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley: "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction", In Open Civil Engineering Journal 2008:2, pp.35-40.
(http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/gen.php?file=35TOCIEJ.pdf)

3.

''Mr. Backlash, Mr. Backlash
Just what do you think I got to lose
I'm gonna leave you
With the backlash blues
You're the one will have the blues
Not me, just wait and see''
- from Backlash Blues by Langston Hughes, Nina Simone

Mr Robert Cooper, who is the right hand of the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Secretary-General of both the Council of the European Union and the Western European Union, wrote:

"What is needed then is a new kind of imperialism, one acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan values. We can already discern its outline: an imperialism which, like all imperialism, aims to bring order and organisation but which rests today on the voluntary principle" (The Observer, 7 April, 2002).

Here, Mr. Cooper sounds like he would be living in the age of H.G. Wells and the British Empire, but at occasions he also speaks like a Cold War hawk:

Maybe we are going to use nuclear weapons before anyone else, but I'd be wary of saying it out loud

he stated to the Brussels Correspondent of ''The Guardian in January 2008.

Mr. Daniel Onyango, a young inhabitant of Korogocho, one of the slums of Nairobi, takes us back to the present realities :

Here is common that many young people are shot everyday on suspicion of been criminal's especially when the former minister of internal security who was there last year issued a shot to kill order to police to kill any person suspected to be a criminal. In fact immediately after my cousin was shot other two young people were shot by police just a few meter's from where we stay." ..."we are fine and doing well. Isaiah is doing well in the Piano, Simon also well in playing the guitar and we also have another young man who is playing for us too. Am also learning to play the percussion and other instruments." ..."we have found somebody who specialize in computer and willing to get for us one at a very cheap price, we have also contributed some few money among ourself so that we can be able to have one though the money is not yet enough.If you could know somebody from your country who might be coming to Nairobi you could also send him come with it if you may be able to find one. (Quoted with permission from Mr Onyango's recent email. You may also want to read his article Light in Korogocho.)
 

(This article is dedicated to the Russian political scientist Alla Glinchikova, who asked, recently, on the mailing list of the European Social Forum: what was done to break this tendency by all of us? Was it estimated as high priority not in words, but in actions? Is there a strategy of developing of civil diplomacy to enhance civil trust in Eastern Europe?)

Are the great powers returning to Cold War politics? If that is the case, "the war against terrorism" will perhaps be tuned down, which is good. The bad news is the return of the balance of terror. The US missile shield in Poland and the Czhech Republic is a clear reminder of the basic nuclear structure of the cold war, which has remained in place, as well as of the sad fact that the parties are seeking first strike capability.

NATO's expansion continues. A similar Eastern pact is probably underway. In 2001, Russia and China, plus Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, formed the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The military dimension of the SCO-cooperation might soon become its prime purpose. Other Eastern countries may also want to join the pact.

Therefore, a new division of the world into two antagonistic military blocs is again a possible scenario, in spite of the globalization of production, trade and finances. Unfortunately, the general economic development and the security policies of the states are still dominated by corporate and/or Nationalist military-industrial interests.

Much talk is heard in these days about the need for a re-assessment of the security policy. Do we need to increase the military budget and to modernize the existing systems for mass destruction on earth, in the seas and in outer space? In what sense will we be more secure if we decide to tie ourselves to military pacts between states, which threaten each other with weapons of mass destruction?

Judge for yourself what the gibberish of the security political parrots is worth and where it leads us.

Who is capable of breaking this situation, which in many ways resembles the period before the outbreak of the first world war in 1914?

Presidents, foreign ministers and diplomats should of course continue to do their best, but they hardly have the power to stop the alarming trend. They stand for an obsolete political world system, which is based on sovereign states, we are told, but can only regenerate hierarchically ordered military blocs.

The peoples of Europe, including the Russians, should therefore turn their backs to the security policies of their governments. And that is precisely what will happen. The peoples of the whole world already cooperate through, for instance, the social forum and the internet, in order to create a security, which is worth its name.

By the way, we have an excellent example of citizens' diplomacy from the last Cold War, namely, the European Nuclear Disarmament movement of the 1980s, which joined together millions of people from the Atlantic to the Urals. Independent peace groups and movements grew like mushrooms not only in Western Europe, but also in Czhechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, GDR and the Soviet Union. And they managed to cooperate over the bloc borders against the insane nuclear militarism of the Russian (Soviet), Eastern European, Western European and American governments.

The people power generated by the END-movement caused Reagan and Gorbachev to sign the agreement on intermediate nuclear forces in 1987, whereafter a detente in the Cold War followed. However, when the Soviet Union collapsed, the END-movement's vision of a denuclearized Europe faded as quickly as if somebody had given the signal for "danger over"!

But the danger was not over, and it is time now as ever to continue the END-movement. There shall be no new Cold War but a non-militant federation called "The European Union", which includes Russia, Ukraine and Georgia, and bans all weapons of mass destruction from its territory, starting with the nukes of the present EU - the French and British ones.

Looking at the program of the next European Social Forum (17-21 September), the European Peace Action seems to be particularly well prepared for doing what needs to be done. ("The European Peace Action wants to create a Europe working together in peaceful solidarity through nonviolent direct action and popular mobilisation."). You may all want to sign the appeal for a nuclear-free EU, which was launched at the conference organized by the Action des Citoyens pour le Désarmement nucléaire at Saintes on 11 May, 2008 (The Saintes Appeal; http://www.acdn.net/). See you at the ESF in Malmö!

Mikael Böök

"The nuclear weapons signify a rupture in the relations of force because the future of the human species is endangered. [...] Therefore, priority must be given to guaranteeing the existence of the species. The nuclear arms must be removed from the relation of forces. The search for a way to suppress the nuclear arms is the base on which any serious policy must rest" -- Maurice Kriegel-Valrimont

Act more consciously than hitherto to solve the problem of the unity of a movement where almost everybody is against nuclear weapons, but many have not yet been able to make up their minds about the civil nuclear energy (this does not necessarily mean that they are FOR it). Preoccupy your thoughts with the positive construction of the future European Union. Make up your mind: be in favour of the European Union, whereby I mean the political federation, and against ideas of absolute national or European (or American, etc.) sovereignty, which actually are used to legitimize, for instance, weapons of mass destruction.

The European Nuclear Disarmament movement (END), which is also a movement for the gradual dismantlement and substitution of the nuclear power stations, needs to forge a unity with the other social movements, for common solutions to the global problems, and against the ruling imperialists, technocrats and market fundamentalists. It must be linked to the international movement of the small farmers, for food sovereignty, and against Monsanto. Keep in mind the words of the Indian expert: "If they control seed they control food, they know it, it is more powerful than bombs, it is more powerful than guns, this is the best way to control the populations of the world" -- Vandana Shiva

The Social Forum forum is the open terrain where the meetings, the network-building and the the elaboration of the new END (European Nuclear Disarmament) movement should take place.

If you say that we can not have unity with people who are FOR the construction of new nuclear power plants, you are basically right. But in reality, those people tend to be the same criminal politicians, who are also formally responsible for the further construction and "modernisation" of the nuclear weapons systems of France, the UK and NATO. They are our adversaries.

But the many citizens and scientists who are not taking a general negative stand against the civil nuclear energy are certainly not to be considered our adversaries.

Everybody tends to be against new nuclear power plants for NIMBY-reasons (not-in-my-backyard), but to realize that the civil nuclear energy has been and is a general historical mistake that needs to be corrected, is a different and complicated matter. Therefore, our only possibility is to moderate, elaborate and explain our own positions on the civil nuclear energy and its alternatives. Our positions should be, as far as possible, guided by scientific research and technological know-how. (As everybody who has tried to study the issues know, this is difficult, because the researchers and scientists are often in strong disagreement between themselves.) Moderation is required by the simple fact that several Eastern and Western European countries are already heavily dependent on electricity produced by nuclear energy. And the final disposal of the radioactive waste is an enormous global problem anyway, which remains to be solved.

The Finnish politicians and authorities believe that they have solved the radwaste problem. You may want to disagree with a letter to the ministry of labor and the economy of Finland before July 25th, 2008.

The situation regarding the nuclear weapons systems is very different from the situation with nuclear energy, because those who opt in favour of such systems lack any scientific ground whatsoever. They build their case not on science or on wisdom, but on fear and self-interest, which are usually paired with some kind of fundamentalism and racism. They are already morally bankrupt, and utterly so, but they have yet to be defeated politically, so that they cannot continue to stay in power and impose their criminal policies. It is a complicated question of changing the political relations of power, because European Nuclear Disarmament will not happen as a result of lobbying only; it requires a historical bloc of social and political forces.

Mikael Böök

The theme of these notes is that European Nuclear Disarmament (END), which enjoyed wide popularity in the 1980s, ought again to become prevalent in discussions about the European Union and its future. The author sets out to deconstruct the mental barriers which separate the European constitutional debate from the strategic issue of the nuclear weapons. He quotes among others Altiero Spinelli , who envisaged a denuclearized EU from which the United States had militarily disengaged itself. Mikael Böök, May 2008

European Nuclear Disarmament - A Constitutional Issue for the EU? [HTML] [PDF]

La question du désarmement nucléaire en Europe et la Constitution européenne [PDF]

The Saintes Appeal   |   L'Appel de Saintes

../..

Wayne Hall, in his comment to a previous entry on the subject From Lisbon towards the EU via Spinelli, asked:

Is this the place to mention another EU resolution was not adopted, namely that of Maj Britt Theorin, in 1999, on The Environment, Security and Foreign Policy?

My answer is yes, although the  Treaty Establishing the European Union (1984), drafted by Spinelli, was not exactly "a resolution".  

The Lisbon Treaty, which is the most recent variety of "Treaty on EU",  is particularly bad and dangerous on security and defense policy. For instance, it commits all member states to increasing their military spending. Just imagine that it would instead tell each member state to invest in, say, renewable energy sources and public transport!

Now, a switch from militarism to environmentalism is precisely what Finnish MEP Elisabeth Rehn, later followed by Swedish MEP  Maj-Britt Theorin, proposed in the  European Parliament back in the 1990s.

On May 19, 1995, MEP Elisabeth Rehn,  the former minister of defence of Finland,  pointed to "unexplored possibilities opened by the new international situation and the political detente and military de-escalation". Ms Rehn said: "for the European Union the initiative in integrating  military-related resources  inte environmental strategies  would be an opportunity to take the lead in new and peaceful means". Based on these and other arguments,  Rehn tabled a motion for a resolution "on the potential use of military-related resources for environmental strategies" (B4-055195).

This resolution was later followed up by an extensive report on the environment, security and foreign policy, from the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy (CFDP). The Rapporteur, Maj-Britt Theorin, is well-known for her engagement in favor of nuclear disarmament and the conversion of the military industry to peaceful ends.

Theorin's report, dated January 14, 1999 (A4-0005/99) calls on the EU Commission to present "a common strategy" which " brings together the  CFSP  aspects  of  EU  policy  with  its trade,  aid,  development  and
international environmental  policies between 2000 and  2010". The report stresses, notably, that  "preventive environmental measures are an important instrument of security policy".  In short, the report recommends that the Member States seek to utilize military-related resources for environmental protection.

When I read the Theorin report today, and compare it to the spirit and letter of the Lisbon treaty,  my heart is only filled with sorrow and indignation. 

In reality, the militarism of the Lisbon Treaty makes the EU disintegrate politically.  Only some kind of latter-day Fascists might want the EU to become a new superpower which crushes the rest of humanity under its economic competition and weapons of mass destruction.

After all, the EU can also become a democratic power and a real political union. The first condition for that to happen is that the EU replaces its plans for economic and military domination with an environmentally and socially motivated strategy. And here, obviously, the proposals of Elisabeth Rehn and Maj-Britt Theorin are constant sources of inspiration, precisely like the original EU-project of Altiero Spinelli.

The strength of the END Appeal. The strength of the European Nuclear Disarmament Appeal of 1980 was that it provided at the same time a concrete antinuclear proposal (on the euromissiles) and a valid expression of the European Zeitgeist. So it is today: we must give, in one and the same statement, 1) a practically feasible antinuclear proposal; perhaps a European "freeze" proposal? ; 2) a vision of a possible other EU from the Atlantic to th Urals.

The people who wrote the END Appeal were courageous and open-minded enough to envisage a Europe beyond the Cold War. Who the hell believed, in 1980, that the Cold War was about to end? Well, E.P.Thompson and Co.  evidently did, or at least, they invested all their intelligence and all their energy in that possibility.  So they were scorned, ridiculed, declared mad, rockers of the boat, dangerous, agents of the CIA or the KGB etc.

That is were we also stand today. Who the hell believes that the "war on terror" is about to end, and the world political constellation is about to change profoundly - although we should have learned from the great changes and transformations taking place during our life-time?

In the face of the nuclear madmen of the West and of the East, who are now repeating their insane doctrines of pre-emptive nuclear strikes, we will declare that the EU must set an example of mental sanity and freeze any further development of its "force de frappe"...and the national nukes, and that lunatic missile shield ..  and that criminalization and abolition of the WMD must be a key feature of the Constitution of the European Union.

Network-Centric. At the end of the first decade of the 21st Century, "Network-Centric Warfare" has become one of the buzzwords of the military. This reflects the profound implications of the digitalization of information and the internet for all human activities, warfare and military strategy included. We start from the double hypothesis that a) the existing military doctrines (in particular, the doctrines on WMD) are obsolete (because they are "Weapon-Centric" instead of Network-Centric), and b) through European Nuclear Disarmament (END) and the building of a common Network-Centric strategy, the peoples of Europe have a chance to form a real political and military union as envisaged by Altiero Spinelli, 1907-1986,  a historical founder of the EU.


Sarkozy and the Gaullist Bomb. History sometimes tends to forgive a folly of a statesman at the very moment when the mistake becomes evident to most people.  That may also be the case with de Gaulle and the atomic arms of France. That France developed a nuclear weapon - the  Gaullist Bomb - was a terrible  mistake whereby France, too, "parvenait à son dernier degré de sauvagerie" (Camus, 1945).

However, at a certain distance in time (the first French test explosions occurred in Algeria and in French Polynesia in the 1960s)  it is  easier to understand why de Gaulle, driven by his patriotic motives  could make such a gross  strategic miscalculation.  De Gaulle became, in a sense,  a victim of his own militant career.

It is, however,  totally inadmissible that Sarkozy should continue on the same mistaken nuclear road in our new and inedited situation at the beginning of the 21st century. Compared to his great although erroneous predecessor Sarkozy only looks like a cretin and a clown.

L'heure a sonné de reprendre la Résistance, unis et décidés. (Appel pour la création de la ligue nationale contre la force de frappe, 1963)

My END archive consists of 6 thick archival cases, one for each one, or two, of the END Conventions. I attended all the END Conventions except the one in Vitoria Gastiz 1989.

True, the original END appeal (April, 1980) saw the day during a historical period which came to its end in 1989. Yet the atomic age continued, and it still continues. Our children, our students, are about to discover this continuity.

Thus a young student of political science and diplomatic history spent a couple of hours in my study today in order to consult my END-archive for her masters thesis.

The visit of the student reminded me of the the years 1985-1987, when I myself used to pay visits to Frenchmen of the previous generation, who had been active in the earlier anti-nuclear peace movements. One of the persons I met and interviewed for my own research (on the nuclear opportunism of the French Left), was Maurice Kriegel-Valrimont, a historical leader of the French Resistance. At the beginning of the 1960s, Kriegel-Valrimont had been one of the founders (together with Jules Moch) of the Ligue nationale contre la force de frappe, which organized popular demonstrations against the national French atomic bomb project. (The first French test explosions were being carried out in Algeria at that time.)

My interview with Kriegel-Valrimont, of which I have made a transcript which I shall publish one day, ends with a note on the atomic bomb and military-political theory. ''"The nuclear means must be removed from the relations of forces", says the old warrior. " The search for a way to suppress the nuclear arms is the base on which any serious policy must rest"''.

The European Nuclear Disarmament Appeal of 1980 is one formulation of "the serious policy". It is a manifesto for a free and united Europe. Its actuality is even greater today than in the era of the Cold War. It used to be a Utopian vision in the desperate situation of 'Exterminism', as E.P. Thompson labeled the insane nuclear arms race over Europe in the 1980s. Today, getting rid of the nuclear weapons is the only alternative to Dystopia.

The relation of forces in Europe and in the world will change when Europe becomes a nuclear free zone from Poland to Portugal. For the peoples of Europe, it will be a change for the better, a true liberation, spiritual - because atomic weapons are mad and criminal, and a burden on the conscience of every single citizen; material - because the nuclear weapon systems are the symbol of wasted resources and environmental destruction.

Build a social and democratic Europe, invest in schools and healthcare, develop the public transport systems, guarantee universal access to internet, support the development of free software and public libraries! In other words, convert the nuclear complex into public services for the people!

The belief that nuclear disarmament will ever come about as a result of negotiations between the leaders of the great powers is vain and naive. Nuclear disarmament is a revolutionary process, which starts when the political pressure from below becomes irresistible.