Spinelli's Footsteps

To content | To menu | To search

Tag - attac

Entries feed - Comments feed

Saturday 1 May 2010

Responses to the Open Letter on the Greek Crisis from Economists at the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI)

Below you may read my message (posted April 29, 2010) to the mailing list of the NIGD and the subsequent reply by Matti Kohonen, plus my reply to Matti Kohonen

Dear NIGD,

after this message, you find a copy of my personal signature to the open letter, which a group of economists, including Andrew Watt at the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI), has written to European policymakers, criticising their collective failure to address the Greek crisis as a European crisis.

As my "Organisational affiliation", I decided to enter "NETWORK INSTITUTE FOR GLOBAL DEMOCRATIZATION".

I can only hope that you will find my behavior to be appropriate and to accept it.

The text of the Open Letter from the trade union economists is found here:

http://www.etui.org/en/Media/Files/Open-letter-to-European-policymakers-The-Greek-crisis-is-a-European-crisis-and-needs-European-solutions

Actually, I am far from enthusiastic about the content of this open letter; I only find it to be barely acceptable as a statement on the immediate Greek financial crisis. An ironical comment on this letter would be, that it represents a tradeunionistic point of view. If there would at this moment exist a European political force with the necessary power and authority to intervene positively and constructively in the present situation, it would no doubt start from the demand that Europe must unilaterally abolish its nuclear weapons.

"Stop there", I can hear some of you object, "and don't mix up things which must necessarily be kept apart!" My answer is, that the widespread mental habit of keeping economics and finance apart from politics and military strategy is based on sheer illusion, and that it shows a lack of intellectual courage, which is unadmissible on the side of those who make their living from research on human history and the social reality.

As the tradeunion economists write, the increased exports of Germany, Austria and the Netherlands has corresponded to a demand expansion in Greece, Spain, Ireland, and other members of the eurozone. "The problem is symmetrical and the solution must be as well."

However, "the solution" requires more than a common market and a common currency. Europe must become a real political union, a democratic federal state. And this, in turn, requires a basic political consensus concerning, in particular, the foreign policy and the military strategy. At the center of this issue are -- since 1945 -- the global weapons systems "of mass destruction".

What is to be done? One thing is clear: we should only undertake such tasks which are in our power to carry out. The denuclearisation of Europe certainly is one such task, because the European nuclear armaments, and the power plants based on the nuclear fuel cycle, are *solely our responsibility*, something which, if you excuse the dramatic example, could never be said about the climate on this earth, or the development of its general temperature.

Therefore, let us raise the demands put forward in the Appeal of Saintes: "

  • # 1. From the Atlantic to the Urals, no nuclear weapon must be stationed or installed in Europe any longer.
  • # 2. Nuclear weapons must not threaten Europe or any other part of the world.
  • # 3. Europe must initiate, pursue in good faith, and bring to a successful conclusion the process of abolishing nuclear weapons everywhere, as required by Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
  • # 4. The Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament must achieve this result by whatever means are required.
  • # 5. The Vienna-based IAEA must cease its promotion of nuclear energy and devote itself exclusively to monitoring civilian and military nuclear installations, preventing the diverting of fissile materials towards the building of new weapons, and aiding in the dismantling of existing weapons and nuclear plants.
  • # 6. The Vienna-based Organisation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty must become operational.
  • # 7. All possible light must be shed on the real causes and consequences of nuclear catastrophes such as Cheliabynsk and Chernobyl.
  • # 8. The 1959 agreement between the IAEA and the WHO, which forces the WHO to spread disinformation and lies about nuclear matters, must be abrogated.
  • # 9. The EURATOM Treaty must be abrogated and no new nuclear plant must be built.
  • # 10. Europe must become a totally nuclear-free zone, so as to contribute to total denuclearisation of the planet without waiting for similar action by other states or continents.
  • We call on Europe's citizens, NGOs, states and people to unite and take action to achieve these objectives in the shortest possible time.
  • Saintes, France, 11 May 2008 "
  • (http://acdn.france.free.fr/php_petitions/index.php?petition=12)

Who are the European nuclear armaments meant to "deter", if not the peoples of the global South? During a pause in the preparatory seminar in Dakar last November, I shortly discussed the issue of European Nuclear Disarmament (END) with Samir Amin. He agreed vividly to my opinion, that END is very much in the interest of the peoples of the global South, and should be placed high on the political agenda. So let's not be fooled by the efforts of the Western political establishment to focus everybody's attention on the Middle East. As far as "the nuclear issues" are concerned, Europe should still be our focus.

All the best,

- Mikael

Open letter to European policymakers: The Greek crisis is a European
crisis and needs European solutions

We urge you to read this open letter (see below).

If you broadly agree with its content, please manifest your support by
sending the following details to: openletter@etui.org
Please copy and paste this table in your email

First Name* MIKAEL
Family name* BÖÖK (BOEOEK)
E-mail* BOOK @ KAAPELI dot FI
Organisational affiliation
NETWORK INSTITUTE FOR GLOBAL DEMOCRATIZATION (NIGD)
Address
EDOEVAEGEN 20, 07750 ISNAES
Country
FINLAND
* Response necessary for us to include you.

 

To the above letter, Matti Kohonen replied as follows:

 

Dear Mikael, and NIGDers,

The Greek crisis is a major step in the global financial crisis as it enters its second year. I fear this the beginning of a second phase of the crisis where major states may start to have serious fiscal difficulties, as the stimulus packages are running out and fiscal deficits show some of the structural weaknesses of the global financial system which caused the Greek crisis, with rampant Greek corruption as the local link.

However I can't sign this petition, it has 100% wrong analysis on the crisis, is based on Neo-classical economics, and I don't agree with the 4 preambules of the petition.

" Greece's fiscal catastrophe has four causes. First, there is the past fiscal weakness of the Greek state, in particular the inability to generate tax revenues, as a share of GDP, in line with its European neighbours, but also inexcusable statistical manipulation. Second, Greece's relative competitiveness has steadily worsened, especially within the euro area, as reflected in a sustained current account deficit as a result of above-average increases in unit labour costs and prices and a stronger economic growth dynamic. Third the economic crisis - which, given the country's conservative banking sector was a classic external shock - has ravaged public finances, just as in other countries. And last but not least, fourth, the interest cost burden has dramatically increased, as genuine concerns about fiscal sustainability combined with speculation and misinformation to dramatically raise the rate of interest on new Greek government bonds."

  1. fiscal weakness of the Greek state is true, it has a tax per GDP of 32%, and only 8% for direct taxation while e.g. Germany manages to collect 12% in direct taxation (this explains the main part of the gap). This points to rampant corporate and self-employed tax evasion, meaning that the crisis in greece is of their own making in great part.
  2. since when are NGOs and trade unions asking for a reduction in unit labour costs, current account deficit may not be good, depending how much foreigners have your bonds and at what interest rate. Calling for lower labour cost for me is out of line.
  3. this is 100% wrong, the Greek banking system is rotten to core, as most banking systems in Europe that facilitate criminal capital flight to tax havens, and support offshore banking centres like Cyprus that is also a flag of convenience with little or no regulation on shipping labour, tax, safety, etc. The Greek banks have happily opened offshore accounts for Greek millionaires and billionaires assisting them to pay no tax, there you have the Greek 'tax gap'. Sure they don't have their own banking crisis based on lending, maybe this is the 'conservative' side of it, but for me I'd call that 'prudent' which is a virtue in banking, but 'conservatism' means you assist the wealthy to do what they want.
  4. speculation may have a role, but the rating agencies have done right to downgrade bonds of a government that runs a long-standing fiscal deficit without any idea of how it's going to be paid, it's a recipe for disaster. The problem is that they do it so abruptly, and not gradually as the secretive public finances in Greece, helped with Goldman Sachs have assisted in hiding the debt mountain, just like Lehman did in the banking world. This is totally corrupt from the Greek government's side, and they should be the ones responsible.

Just like the financial crisis in Finland in the early 1990s, Asian financial crisis in late 1990s, and now esp. the East European countries where salaries have been cut to bring fiscal balances... it's the ordinary people who are suffering from this, with unemployment, lower wages, so we should call for an end to the casino economy that plays on the fortunes of ordinary citizens.

This petition doesn't address the issues, and I have to say that trade unions should stop hiring orthodox economists so that we'd get better advocacy material to work on.

Mikael's petition seems much better on stopping the nukes!

Best,

Matti

 

My reply to Matti's answer follows here:

 

Hello Matti and all,

the open letter from the trade union economists addresses one issue, which you seem to miss completely, namely, that "The Greek crisis is a European crisis and needs European solutions". Would you agree that "a coordinated [European] economic policy" is needed? Or do you (and I do not mean only you, Matti) think that it would be better if the European Union disintegrated and disappeared altogether?

It also seems to me that you (Matti) misinterpret the economic analysis of the trade union economists, not taking into account their main argument, which concerns the economic imbalances within the EMU. They write:

"Due to strong differences in wage setting, Greek nominal unit labour costs increased by more than 30% since the start of EMU - and the increases in Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland were even higher - whereas in Germany they rose by just 8%."

The ETUI economists here join the analysis of former German deputy finance minister, UNCTAD economist Heiner Flassbeck, who is of the opinion that Germany has for long been outcompeting the PIIGS countries (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain) by means of wage dumping. (Read the short article "The Greek Tragedy and the European Crisis, Made in Germany", by Heiner Flassbeck in the webzine of Monthly Review 13 March 2010, http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/flassbeck130310.html ).

As far as I can understand, the ETUI economists are not, as you seem to suppose, calling for a reduction in the wages of Greek workers and employees. They write:

"Greece must not be forced into massive demand deflation: having avoided the mistakes of the Great Depression at European level it makes no sense to repeat them at national level. On the contrary it is in Europe's vital interests to resolve the Greek crisis on the basis of rising incomes across the continent and to put in place the needed machinery to cope with competitive and fiscal imbalances in the future."

However, my own critique of the ETUI is based on my conviction that many of the economic and financial problems of the EU and its members are political and military in nature, starting from "the nuclear issues" (which also have strong ecological dimensions). Thus it is simply not possible for the EU to formulate a "coordinated economic policy" until it has settled for an independent foreign policy and security policy. Independent from the USA, that is. Denuclearization is not the panacea, it would not bring the solution to all problems, but it is a keyword, and the condition without which no favourable European economic, political and cultural solutions will be found.

In the discussion on the present Greek financial crisis, the excessive military spending of the Greek governments is rarely analyzed more closely. The ETUI economists do not even mention that 4-6 percent (?) of the Greek budget has for years been reserved for the military, e.g. for buying fighter jets and high-tech systems from coporations like Lockheed and Raytheon for thousands of millions of dollars. All too often, trade union economists avoid taking on the military-industrial complex, because the complex "creates jobs". For similar reasons, they keep silent about the necessary denuclearisation.

The weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and the missile defence and space war systems which have been constructed around the WMD, form the heart of the military-industrial-academic complex which plays such a big role in our social, economic and cultural life. That monster has to be killed.

Greetings from Finland,

- Mikael

PS "Greece remains among the top five largest recipient of major conventional weapons for 2005-2009, but has fallen from third place for 2000- 2004. The transfer of 26 F-16C from the United States and 25 Mirage-2000-9 combat aircraft from France accounted for 38 per cent of the volume of Greek imports." (SIPRI ).  Aucun rapport avec la crise financière et budgétaire de la Grèce ?

Monday 14 December 2009

SWIFT Action Needed

Yesterday, I invited a number of people to join the Facebook-group "Keep our banking data private - no automatic SWIFT data transfer to the US!". I added that it would be a different story if all those SWIFT data were available from the public library. One of my Facebook-friends replied:

Mikael I have so little money in the bank that this is not a group I would spontaneously join unless someone could provide me with pretty persuasive reasons why I should.

As an introduction to the issue, I suggested to read the article in Der Spiegel, 27 November :

"As part of the war on terror, American intelligence services have been monitoring European bank transactions since 2001. When the EU found out about it in 2006, they were outraged. But now it looks like the bloc will agree to a controversial deal that will allow the covert data transfer to continue".

At the beginning of this millennium, Ernest Backes and Denis Robert published an inquiry into the activities of Clearstream in Luxemburg. The book also contains interesting facts and thoughts about SWIFT, and about banking in general (se Robert & Backes: Révélation$ (Les Arènes, Paris 2001) this book was followed by La Boîte noire (2002), and other books by Denis Robert). Perhaps because I have worked with computer-mediated communication since the middle of the 1980s, Révélation$ made a stronger impression on me than on many others. The story which was told by Backes and Robert bears witness on the extent to which the world's financial system has become a software project. And this, in turn, gave the sociologist and librarian in me some food for thought.

As the banks increasingly become digital information management centers, how shall we distinguish between what is called "a database", or a "data bank" (a collection of databases) and what we intend with an "archive" or a "library" ? The digitalization of money and financial securities (documents concerning property and ownership) makes it necessary to re-think not only our concepts of 'bank' and 'library', but also the relation between these two old institutions. In the so called information society, who are to be the guardians of information: The private bankers or the public librarians? Or the secret intelligence agents of the USA?

In ATTAC, we call for regulation of the financial system, and for greater transparency. We need to remember, however, that the lack of transparency is not absolute. What the citizens, their political representatives, and the reporters of the financial press do not know, is indeed knowable and known by certain book-keepers and the CIA. The management of the financial data with fast computers and sophisticated software actually raises the financial transparency to an unprecedented level - for those who have access to the "collected works" of the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT).

The questions concerning the availability of, and the access to, the huge financial libraries of SWIFT and Clearstream is undoubtedly of immense social and political importance. These questions are closely related to our proposals on financial transactions taxation to aid the Citizen. In order to collect the tax properly, many loopholes must be filled, and the tax havens abolished. This can only be achieved if SWIFT, Clearstream and other central financial archives are controlled by the peoples. The private, digital, financial libraries should be turned into public ones. The transition from transparency for the few to transparency for everybody will no doubt require a thorough public debate and much democratic decision-making.

The de facto spying on the SWIFT books by the CIA has been known for some time, more precisely since the Bush administration loudly bragged about it in June 2006. What is at stake in the "SWIFT agreement" between the EU and the US, is not primarily if the CIA has or does not have access, but whether that agency shall henceforward be allowed that access by European law-makers.

The distinction between what is actually done, and what is done legally and thus with explicit consent from the representatives of the people, is by no means unimportant. Do we continue our fight to change our government and its malpractice? Or do we give up and give away the rights we are granted by our basic laws? On 1 December this year, the European constitution changed a little in this respect when the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force. The European Parliament should now greater power to stop the "SWIFT agreement" than previously, if there is a will to do it.

I enclose a couple of passages from the well-informed "Brussels blogger" 26 November 2009:

"SWIFT is now moving all its data centers outside the EU and the US, to Switzerland. In order to continue allowing the US authorities accessing all banking data a high level agreement between the EU and the USA is currently being negotiated. It is likely to be agreed on in the EU council of minister meeting next Monday, 30 November 2009.

The move of SWIFT the data server to Switzerland would be an excellent opportunity to stop the nearly unlimited access of US authorities on EU bank transactions. But EU justice and interior minister are apparently keen agree a deal as soon as possible, on 30 November. Why 30 November? Because one day later, on 1 December 2009, the EU's Lisbon Treaty will be in force and would allow the European Parliament to play a major role in the negotiations of the deal with the USA. A deal one day before will be a slap in the face of democracy in the EU.

SWIFT handles 15 mio bank transactions daily for more than 9000 banks worldwide. Nearly every transnational bank transaction within the EU is recorded in the SWIFT data centers, including amount, sender, recipient, and transaction comments. The agreement will even allow to transmit "other personal data". "

See also the press release from the Council of the EU, Nov 2009, which says:

By the end of 2009, SWIFT will implement its new "systems architecture". For this purpose SWIFT will retain its existing EU-based and U.S. servers and will bring into operation a new operating centre in Switzerland. The net effect of this new arrangement is that a significant volume of the data which are currently received by the U.S. Treasury Department under the TFTP will no longer be stored in the United States. In order to ensure that the TFTP continues to produce the above- mentioned EU - and wider global – security benefits, it is necessary to put in place an international agreement that allows for data needed for the TFTP to continue to be made available to the U.S. Treasury Department. This is why in July of this year the 27 Member States of the European Union unanimously gave the EU Presidency a mandate to negotiate an agreement with the United States to ensure the transfer of the data and thereby the continuation of the TFTP. In July, it was not known when or indeed whether the Lisbon Treaty would come into force. Accordingly, the mandate is based on the legal mechanism of the EU Treaty which will cease to exist on 1 December when the Lisbon Treaty enters into force. To ensure that the European Parliament is able to exercise its new powers under the new Treaty in this regard, the envisaged Agreement is for a maximum duration of 9 months. The Commission will come forward with a new proposed mandate in early 2010 for a subsequent agreement based on the Lisbon Treaty. In the meantime, an interim agreement is needed to ensure that there is no lapse in TFTP coverage that would deprive the EU of important information related to terrorist attacks or investigations.

TFTP = the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme of the the United States Department of the Treasury

Sunday 8 November 2009

No Taxation without Denuclearization

(The writer of this article is attending an international NGO Conference in Stockholm on Nuclear Disarmament and Non-proliferation. See www.nucleardisarmament.se. The goal of the conference is to gather the International Movement against Nuclear Weapons and to facilitate coordination of strategies that will lead to a successful NPT Review Conference in 2010.)

Today's news is that Gordon Brown has proposed a global tax on financial transactions at the meeting of the finance Ministers of the G20.

They call it the Bank Tax, which may be OK, considering that Brown goes further than Nobel economist James Tobin in his original proposal at the beginning of the 1970ies. When the US abandoned the gold standard and let the dollar float against the other currencies, Tobin suggested a 0,5-1 percent tax on the trade in money. The rate of the tax which Brown now proposes would be just a fraction of 1 % (perhaps 0,001 % , or even 0,0001 %), but it would also cover the so called derivatives business in addition to the buying and selling of money.

What are the derivatives? In his movie Capitalism - A Love Story, Michael Moore has a scene where a Wall Street banker tries to explain the matter to a man from the street. The more the banker explains, the bigger the confusion and disbelief of the listener.

The Bank for International Settlements in Basel (BIS), which produces the statistics about the global trade in currencies and derivatives, describes derivatives as 'OTC foreign exchange and interest rate contracts'. The BIS estimates that the daily turnover of the trade in derivatives was $4.2 trillion in April 2007, while that in traditional foreign exchange markets amounted to $3.2 trillion. (1 trillion = 1000 billion = 1 million million.)

What these staggering figures mean is that even a very minimal "bank tax" could raise a yearly revenue of tens of billions of dollars.

But here we meet the fundamental problem of the global tax proposals of Gordon Brown and the other G8 leadres. The crux of the matter is that global taxation requires global representation.

The old slogan "No Taxation Without Representation" is still valid today, more than 250 years after the British colonists first used it in the 13 American colonies.

Who shall have the right to decide about the tax rate? The global taxation may raise tens, maybe hundreds of billions in revenue. Where and how to invest these billions? Who are to decide? Will it be a consortium of bankers led by Gordon Brown?

It seems that the "bank tax" will be more or less just that. It will be a tax that is implemented not only by the bankers, but also for the bankers. The tax management will most probably be trusted to The International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Freely, the IMF takes its decisions by vote. There are 2,216,193 votes in total. Of these, the USA has 371,743 (17%), the twent-seven EU countries have 710,786 votes (32%), Japan has 133,378 (6%) and Canada has 63,942 (3%). Major decisions require an 85% supermajority. Therefore, both the USA or the EU (on the condition that the European countries reach agreement among themselves) have voting power enough to block any important decision.

What could be more important in our global political economy than global taxation and the redistribution of the global tax revenue?

The question should probably be put in a slightly different way. Why can we not have a new Financial Transaction Tax Organization (FTTO), where decisions can be taken in a democratic way by representatives of all the nations who, each one, have one vote, and where also the organizations of the civil society can have a representation? (1)

The reason is our obsolete world political system. People now have have begun to understand that the common ecological problems, such as the climate crisis, require global political solutions. Humanity now also, for the first time, has an Internet, which may be a necessary precondition for a common human understanding, and, therefore, of the common solutions.

Since 1945, the world political system has been dominated by powers who build and maintain weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The WMD has stood in the way of the development of the United Nations. They are still one major obstacle to global democratization, and to the necessary global redistribution of common gods and public services. Therefore, we must tell Gordon Brown and the the other leaders of the triad of North America , Europe and Japan, which dominates the world of finance and the IMF: No Global Taxation Without Denuclearization.

Denuclearization means, firstly, the abolition of the WMD. Gordon Brown and the UK could start by abolisihing the Trident missiles, painting the nuclear submarines yellow and turning them into a Museum. France is also well placed to take the lead in this. In my view, contrary to what we constantly hear being repeated in the media and by the official experts on nuclear disarmament (2), as well as, unfortunately, by the present political leaders of the EU-countries, neither the United States nor Russia are very likely to lead the world in the right direction. (When presidents Obama and Medvedev put forward visions of a world without WMD, then we, who are not Americans or Russians, should of course be happy and support them, anyway.)

Whoever wants to take the lead should abolish his WMD, unilaterally. Unless at least one of the present nuclear states decides to break the link between its kind of power and its own WMD, the process leading the goal we all want to see reached, the agreement and implementation of a global nuclear disarmament convention, will probably never take off.

Denuclearization, it must be added, is not only about abolishing the existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

Firstly, the production and proliferation of new robotics, genetics and nanotech WMD now also has to be prevented (3). These new, and all future WMD must be included in our vision of a denuclearized world.

Secondly, no new nuclear power plants must be buils, and the existing ones must be dismantled. For heavens sake, from where does all the plutonium come, for the bombs and the proliferation of the bombs? Here, again, the denuclearization initiative could, and should, come from Europe.

To sum up: Don't Nuke the Climate! No Global Taxation Without European Denuclearization!

References:

(1) (Political scientists and lawyers have indeed drafted treaties on global transaction taxes, with proposals concerning democratic tax management; see e.g. www.nigd.org/ctt.

(2) See, for instance, the 60 Recommendations by the WMD Commission in the report "Weapons of Terror".

(3) See the article "Will the Future Need Us?" by the computer scientist Bill Joy, in Wired 4:2000.

Monday 21 September 2009

When A Fake European Union Discusses a Fake Tobin Tax

The EU governments have been discussing a plan to put some kind of financial transactions tax on the agenda for the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh on 24th-25th September.

James Tobin, who in the 1970s advanced the concept of a global tax on currency transactions, himself thought of it as sand to be thrown in the wheels of the runaway financial system that had resulted from the abandonment of the gold standard (1971). Tobin hoped that the currency transactions tax (CTT) would stabilize the system and save it from crisis. Now, when the governments are coming round to Tobin's idea, the crisis is already a fact. At this stage, then, the CTT is about covering the costs of the crisis, as former Lehman-banker Sony Kapoor puts it in his fascinating interview with The Real News Network.

Officially, the governments are looking at the CTT as an innovative means for obtaining development finance. Precisely how the tax revenue would be used for the benefit of the development of developing countries, we do not yet know. Perhaps, it could be used to finance the Millennium Development Goals of the UN.

According to Bernard Kouchner, the French minister of foreign affairs, the rate of tax could be set at 0,005 %, in which case the expected revenue would amount to 20-30 billion dollars per year. Kouchner's proposal is actually more than a CTT, in the sense that the international trade in assets and derivatives would also be taxed. It would, in other words, be a Financial Transactions Tax (FTT).

A number of European government ministers and heads of states, including Sarkozy, Merkel and Barroso, have stated willingness to support on FTT of the kind Kouchner has proposed.

For their part, leaders of the Association to Tax financial Transactions to Aid Citizens (ATTAC) have pointed out (although perhaps not with the desired clarity) that Tobin's original tax-rate was 0,5-1 %, and thus 100-200 times higher than Kouchner's. While Tobin actually wanted the CTT to intervene in the speculative movements of capital, Kouchner &Co definitely wish to let these movements continue unhampered. Ironically, James Tobin paid very little attention to the tax revenue, because he was after stability, not 'development finance'. On the other hand, the money trade has grown with two orders of magnitude since Tobin's time, as has, of course, the potential revenue from a global "Tobin Tax". In the present situation, therefore, the proposal to use a FTT to "aid the citizen" of the South, might well be feasible.

The French ATTAC leaders Aurelie Trouvé and Jean-Marie Harribey stated last Friday, that the EU governments are deliberately putting forward a proposal that they know will not be accepted by the US government. (Note also that Mr Reinfeld, the leader of the Swedish EU presidency, and Mr Juncker of Luxemburg, have given the thumbs down to the FTT proposal.) For ATTAC a FTT could anyway only be a first step towards genuine regulation of the financial markets, to be completed by measures to close down tax havens and forbid the speculative trade with complex derivatives and contaminated assets.

But nobody, even within the ATTAC movement, now seems to remember the precise and politically mature model Treaty on Global Currency Transactions Tax that Finnish political scientist Heikki Patomäki and Belgian lawyer Denys Lieven presented at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre 2002. Under this proposal the governments who want a CTT or FTT would form a new CTT Organisation, if necessary independent of the USA. It would be possible to do so already if these countries accounted for 20 % of the global financial markets. The CTTO would have democratic decision-making bodies for the decisions about the tax-rate and the use of the revenue. The European Union alone would not be capable of setting this up; but several countries of the Global South would probably be willing to join. (The Draft Treaty on Global CTT is available online ,in a number of languagues, at http://www.nigd.org/ctt.)

The issue of the CTT and/or FTT obviously leads back to the question of the European Union. What we have today is a fake union, divided on most strategic issues and therefore also incapable of making a worthy contribution to rectifying the world's financial system. A genuinely independent EU would certainly be able to help, and the USA would have to follow, because the USA has exhausted its capacity to provide world leadership. It is still a military giant, but a giant with feet of clay. Hopefully the day is drawing closer when the peoples of Europe decide to put away the 'nuclear umbrella' and  start the process of nuclear abolition on their own. When that day comes Europeans will at long last acquire the ability to form a real Union and, therefore, also to contribute to the building of a new financial architecture.

Saturday 11 July 2009

Support the new Irish "No to Lisbon" campaign!

An appeal to SUPPORT THE NEW IRISH "NO TO LISBON" CAMPAIGN  is circulating  through Susan George and others. I have just forwarded it to the board of Attac Finland with a wish that it be translated into Finnish, too (glad to see that a translation into Swedish, my first language, has already been done).

Although I support the campaign against the Lisbon treaty, I stay convinced that our YES TO EU must be clear and loud. Hence it feels good to read the two sentences at the end of the appeal: "We share the same vision of a Europe where the economy works to serve the needs of ordinary citizens - not corporate power or military ambitions. We seek a peaceful, social, democratic, demilitarised and ecological Europe."

However, the vision of a peaceful and democratic Europe was already found in the manifesto of Ventotene from 1941 and in the draft treaty from 1984, which introduced the concept of "European Union" and was approved by the elected European Parliament, but rejected by the ruling European elites. We should say so, and use the original Spinellian idea as a weapon against the Neoliberal idea of the EU. Otherwise, we cannot break the hegemony of the Neoliberals and take the lead.

To demand the "demilitarisation" of Europe, on the other hand, is not realistic. The EU has to constitute itself independently of the other powers; its military status could hardly be that of "a demilitarized zone" guaranteed by international treaty, like the Åland islands. But a European conscription army for territorial defence, in some respects resembling the Swiss army, is a realistic alternative to the European military forces envisaged by the Lisbon treaty, which in reality would subordinate them to NATO and the USA, and which engages them in perpetual wars of the West against the rest.

Therefore, I would have written 'denuclearised' instead of 'demilitarised'. In a world situation where nuclear weapons are proliferating and the nuclear powers play their bilateral and multilateral arms control games while they all, without exception, maintain and modernize their own WMD, it must be our top priority to revive the movement for unilateral European nuclear disarmament. Europe must be the exception!

The "ecological Europe", finally, implies a decision to successively dismantle the nuclear power stations. Attac has already adopted that anti-nuclear position, I think, and Ireland has no nuclear power plants. "The last thing any country needs, let alone a beautiful place like Ireland, is Nuclear Power", I read (on a website called "The good life - self-reliance in an uncertain world"; see http://the-goodlife.blogspot.com/2007/03/nuclear-power-in-ireland.html). So the Lisbon treaty should promise to keep Ireland nuclear-free. Does it?

Thursday 10 April 2008

Preparing for Attac's European Summer University in Saarbrücken, 1-6 August, 2008

A workshop with the title RE-CONSTITUTE SPINELLI'S CONSTITUTION OF THE EU?
has been proposed for the European Summer University in Saarbrücken, 1-6 August, 2008.