Transatlantic Politics

Norwegian blogger Fjordman criticizes the failure of the West in condemning Marxism as a failed ideology after the collapse of the Soviet Union and sees similarities between the new cause of the European left - "political correctness" and the Soviet social experiments:

What happened is that while the “hard” Marxism of the Soviet Union may have collapsed, at least for now, the “soft” Marxism of the Western Left has actually grown stronger, in part because we deemed it to be less threatening. The “hard” Marxists had intercontinental nuclear missiles and openly said that they would “bury” us. The soft Marxists talk about tolerance and may seem less threatening, but their goal of overthrowing the evil, capitalist West remains the same. In fact, they are more dangerous precisely because they hide their true goals under different labels. Perhaps we should call it “stealth Socialism” instead of soft Socialism.

One of the readers of Fjordman blog once pointed out that we never had a thorough de-Marxification process after the Cold War, similar to the de-Nazification after WW2. He was thinking of the former Soviet Union and the countries in Eastern Europe, but he should probably have included their Marxist fellow travellers, their sympathizers and apologists in the West. We never fully confronted the ideology of Marxism, and demonstrated that the suffering it caused for hundreds of millions of people was a direct result of Marxist ideas. We just assumed that Marxism was dead and moved on, allowing many of its ideals to mutate into new forms and many of its champions to continue their work uninterrupted, sometimes filled with a vengeance and a renewed zeal for another assault on the capitalist West.

We are now paying the price for this. Not only has Marxism survived, it is thriving and has in some ways grown stronger. Leftist ideas about Multiculturalism and de-facto open borders have achieved a virtual hegemony in public discourse, their critics vilified and demonized. By hiding their intentions under labels such as “anti-racism” and “tolerance,” Leftists have achieved a degree of censorship of public discourse they could never have dreamt of had they openly stated that their intention was to radically transform Western civilization and destroy its foundations.

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

In Romania, EU's newest member state, if you want to get a public tender fixed, the minister might ask you for some euros. Also some sausages and plum brandy, writes The Economist.

Just weeks ago, the agriculture minister Decebal Traian Remes was shown on public television in what appeared to be the act of taking an envelope with 15.000 euros. His middleman, also a former minister, was then videotaped going to Remes' house with boxes of sausages and gallons of plum brandy. The tape included phone recordings in which Remes was asking the bribe-giver, a local businessman, about the exact registration numbers of the tenders he wanted to secure for himself.

Within two days of the tape being shown, Remes was asked by the Premier to resign. The moment couldn't have been worse for Romania:  The European Commission is threatening to cut 25% of the agricultural subsidies worth 100 million euros if the Government doesn't set up a functioning and transparent agency for distributing said funds to Romanian peasants.

As for the fate of Mr. Remes and a handful of other former and present ministers suspected of corruption (including the current Justice Minister!), things look brighter than could be reasonably expected in any other European country.  An “emergency ordinance” was recently passed by the Romanian government; an extraordinary legal procedure usually concerning urgent matters that enables the government to enact decrees without the usual parliamentary procedures.  As a result of this ordinance, the government dissolved the commission which conveniently happened to be in the process of lifting the ministers' immunity, which would have enabled prosecutors to actually investigate all of this purported corruption. The new commission is unlikely to resume activity this year, since there are ongoing appeals against the ordinance.

These delays to corruption trials are, unfortunately, not the first or only instance of such "politicking". Since Romania became an EU member on January 1^st,  the political class has been  working on all levels to restore the privileges and impunity mechanisms it lost during the accession process. Changing the rules during the game seems to be the motto of the current administration. All sorts of legal exceptions, new amendments and bills are meant to undo what the former Justice minister Monica Macovei, broadly appreciated as a true reformist, succeeded in instituting. Unfortunately for Romania, Macovei was replaced during a government reshuffle in April.

 
Public perception of corruption is high: according to the last Transparency International corruption index, Romania is perceived as the most corrupt country within the EU.

The current Justice Minister Tudor Chiuariu, a former lawyer of a prominent regional party-boss of the governing Liberal Party, blames it on the prosecutors. In Chiuariu's eyes, it's not the MPs who change the laws during the game who are to blame, not the Government who sometimes rules by decree, nor the judges who are by large majority inherited from the Communist era, when they served as a mere branch of the political police. No, in Justice Minister Chiuariu's eyes, this latest bout of corruption is the fault of the prosecutors!  Unlike in East Germany, when upon reunification, all judges were evaluated and further employed only if it was certain that they would not act upon political commands, in Romania judges were automatically “recycled” by the post-Communists.

For Chiuariu, the activities of the Anticorruption Department, although praised in the EU Commission’s reports, are just “political commands”. Just days after his appointment earlier this spring, Chiuariu asked for one of the top prosecutors to be replaced – the head of the department dealing with top-level politicians. Even after the Superior Council of Magistrates audited the activity of that prosecutor and found that there are no grounds for him to be dismissed, Chiuariu persisted and asked the president to replace him, only to be refused again. If Chiuariu's (and Romania's) history is any indication, Chiuariu's next step will probably be a draft amendment in order to limit the presidential powers in this regard so that Chiuariu can expel those prosecutors he deems dangerous.

On the EU side, the Commission has some leverage left – the so-called “EU Cooperation & Verification Mechanism” for Justice and Home Affairs - is a unique post-accession monitoring program for Romania and Bulgaria that was designed & instituted in order to ensure the proper functioning of the rule of law and help these two country's fight against corruption. If the progress is unsatisfactory, the Commission can apply a safeguard clause that would block any Romanian verdicts from being legally binding in the EU.

If the Romanian justice system continues its current trend, the EU might very soon have to deal with a failure on the scale of the failure of the EU Constitution in 2005:  Romania would become the first EU member state with a dysfunctional rule of law and unchecked corruption. Such a scenario would be a disaster for both the EU & Romania. 

 This should at least be a lesson for the next EU candidates in line: No EU accession without a real reform of the political class and judicial system.

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

There is a spectrum haunting Europe: the EU Constitution. Despite all appearances, it's not quite dead. Au contraire. After two identity changes, some face lifts and a heavy dose of make-up, the "undead" Constitution  was first re-baptised as the "Reform Treaty" and now lives on as the "Lisbon Treaty". The final deal was struck on Friday in Lisbon, Portugal, where all the EU member states agreed that the new Treaty would be ratified by parliamentary procedures. No more referendums (except for Ireland and possibly the UK if Gordon Brown caves in to the Tories).  The EU learned its lesson the first time after France & the Netherlands rejected the Constitution.  Democracy is a bitch and it is better to keep the role of deciding the new shape of the European Union out of the hands of the voters. 

Why the dull name "Lisbon Treaty" instead of "EU Constitution" or even the "Reform Treaty"? First, the name will simply join the list of the other confusing names of EU institutions and projects: The "European Council", which is the main decision maker in the EU and features a gathering of the heads of all member states.  This is not to be mixed up with the "Council of Europe", which is a UN-like, human rights watchdog that includes "democratic", non-EU countries, such as Russia.  Confusing?  All the better!  The populace of the EU isn't supposed to be able to tell the difference between the myriad of EU institutions!

The EU knows better than most that a lack of understanding leads to a lack of accountability. This is part of the reason why the EU Constitution has been renamed the "Lisbon Treaty", a name that is easily confusable with the unrelated "Lisbon Agenda".  What is the "Lisbon Agenda" you ask?  Well, it is another "bold" project of the EU adopted in 2000 and aimed to "make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world".  Funny - perhaps.  Ambiguous - absolutely. Confusing - most definitely.

In fact, the name "Lisbon Treaty" is designed to suggest that the new document is part of a series of Treaties all signed in nice touristy locations that have come to define the competences of the EU institutions: the "Rome Treaty", the "Maastricht Treaty", the "Amsterdam Treaty" and the "Nice Treaty". In no way is it designed to remind the populace of the failed EU Constitution (even though that is what it is). 

In order to achieve the EU Constitution's goals without the Constitution's language, the document itself has been made almost unreadable.  Here is an excerpt of the  "Lisbon Treaty", to be enacted on January 1st 2009: 

4) Article 2, renumbered 3, shall be replaced by the following: Article 3

1. The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.

But what are its values?  Well, in order to understand that, you would have to refer to at least three other tomes of previous drafts and treaties to go with (including the EU Constitution).  In fact, each term has been so longly debated and negotiated that some sentences don't make a lot of sense anymore.. 

The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment.

I'm not an economist, but who would prefer "balanced" economic growth to "economic growth", "highly competitive social market economy" to "highly competitive market economy", who would aim for "full employment", "social progress" and a "high level of protection"? Bingo! The French.

It's not a joke, it's a reality. All this gibberish is Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy's work of art. Oh la la, quelle economie, quel protectionisme! But since Germany isn't too keen on free market economics either and while Gordon Brown was busy bargaining Great Britain's opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights (which is to become legally binding in all EU member states except UK and Poland) nobody really fought against Sarko..

On the Eastern front, a humble going-along attitude was prevailing, with two notable exceptions: Poland and Bulgaria. The Poles fought and finally got their veto mechanism called the "Ioannina Clause", while the EU freshman Bulgaria, a member only since January 1st, 2007, obtained the right to use the spelling "evro" instead of "euro".

But overall, the "Lisbon Treaty" enforces many of the ideas set out in the EU Constitution, even if under less sensitive terms. There will be a President of the EU, elected for 2 1/2 years by the European Council, there will be a Foreign Minister of the EU, called "High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy". The EU gets more powers especially in the field of justice, home affairs, counter terrorism and foreign affairs. The EU Parliament becomes equally powerful with the European Council, it will have co-decision powers in virtually all areas. Biggest loser of the Treaty: the EU Commission, the technical, "executive" branch of the EU which has the power of legislative initiative. So far, every member state was represented in the Commission. But the "Lisbon Treaty" provides the number of EU commissioners to reflect only two thirds of the member states, invoking the "efficiency" criteria. Nevertheless, the number of Commission bureaucrats stays the same. Also the number of directorates and units. The ones who lose the most are the small countries, especially the new members from the former Communist block. One EU official I talked to told me following:

The Commission works in most areas with ridiculously thin resources. So whatever the initiative, you can usually trace it down to one or two desk officers who are doing the real work. These people, with no ill will, just as a resource constraint consequence, may very well work and prepare a proposal without full awareness of the implications that that proposal will have in every member state. I think the fact that around the College table and in the final stage of preparation, at the cabinet level, there is somebody who is looking from a national perspective, is healthy for the system. This is the only way  the Commission as an institution can take its decisions fully aware of the impact they will have everywhere in the Union.

I think it’s a big shame especially for the small member states. The four big ones can be comfortable. They know that the machinery is such that it will always act taking into account their concerns and preoccupations, even if they’re out for some years. But the small member states made a fundamental mistake in accepting it.

Ultimately, one might argue that it doesn't really matter what this Treaty is all about, since in 6 or 7 years there will probably be another one, just as incomprehensible and contradictory. Somewhere between The United States of Europe and a community of free nations, somewhere between a super-state with super-bureaucracy and the advantages of the common market, at some point some member states might consider an exit from the EU. And let the French be the last to shut the lights off. 

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

State-owned businesses are inefficient, expensive and, more importantly, subject to political change and decision-making.

Yet the European energy market is mainly state-owned. A perfect environment for the Russian strategy of dividing and conquering Europe, not with tanks, but with oil and natural gas.

Today, September 19, the European Commission is set to put forward an “unbundling” package, in order to weaken the hold of big energy companies in Europe like Gas de France or E.oN and make the market more flexible and consumer-friendly.

more here.

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The complacency of EU institutions regarding property rights in Eastern European countries cements the post-communist oligarchy, argues Karl Peter Schwarz, journalist at Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, in a speech held at the European Ressource Bank in Bucharest on September 14.

There is no doubt that the communists robbed properties, killed the owners or put them in prisons, annihilated a whole class and thus violently destroyed the spontaneous order of the free market society. The only way to address this injustice after the failure of their bloody social experiment would have been the restitution of the stolen property to the legitimate owners or their heirs, a real and fair restitution, with no restrictions, regardless of nationality, ethnicity, language or religion. Eleven years ago, the Council of Europe adopted a resolution (no. 1096) and warned against the dangers of a failed transition process:

At best, oligarchy will reign instead of democracy, corruption instead of the rule of law and organized crime instead of human rights. At worst, the result could be the "velvet restoring" of a totalitarian regime, if not a violent overthrow of democracy. In the worst case, the new undemocratic regime of a bigger country can also present an international danger for its weaker neighbors.

Regarding restitution, the Council of Europe advised

that property, including that of churches, which was illegally or unjustly seized by the state, nationalized, confiscated or otherwise expropriated during the communist totalitarian regimes in principle be restituted to its original owners in integrum, if possible, without violating the rights of current owners who acquired the property in good faith or the rights of tenants who rented the property in good faith, an without harming the progress of democratic reforms. In cases where this is not possible, fair compensations should be given.

Unfortunately, this didn't happen, or it happened only partially. 

The European Union has no problem with this: it excluded the monitoring of property and restitution legislation from the political criteria imposed to EU candidate countries. The denial or restriction of restitution leads to several negative consequences. If you don't give back the property to the legitimate owner or their heirs, you make way for greedy former communists who try to compensate their loss of political power with economic dominance. This contributes to the lasting power of the communist establishment in post-communist countries, which distorts competition and allows corruption and graft to flourish. 

Yes, there is no more communism, but the communists are still in power. Sometimes they call themselves socialists, or social-democrats, sometimes liberals or even conservatives. In the meantime the old communist ties between state and companies have been inverted. Before, it was the party and the state which controlled and captured the economy. Now, the network of oligarchs captures and controls the state, the government and the political parties. This is one of the real successes of graft and corruption, the second being of course Big Government.

Post-communist oligarchies represent a collective security risk as well. They can be used and they are being used by a foreign power which tries to regain the influence it once had in this part of Europe. The old communist networks are the natural partner of this foreign power. We have witnessed these days how a Romanian oligarch sold an oil company to the state-run energy company of a foreign state. (see also Kazakhstan sets foot in the EU and Who is behind KazMunayGaz?) What happened was the re-nationalization of the oil company, the only difference from the communist era being that this time, ownership was given to a foreign state. 

Last but not least, the denial of property rights to the legitimate owners undermines the legal order and the rule of law. In order not to give back stolen property, the state does not hesitate to manipulate and undermine the legal order. The government interferes in court proceedings, falsifies documents, controls and puts plaintiffs and lawyers under surveillance. All this doesn't bother the EU institutions, which cover these crimes with a veil of silence. Whoever acknowledges that liberty reigns only in a society where no one's property is molested, violated or taken over by someone else, will understand that the battle for private property rights and the rule of law is all but won in the European Union.

Karl Peter Schwarz offers several examples form the Czech Republic, among which the most prominent is that of Prince Kinsky. Born in 1936, the prince was a child when he inherited the fortune of his family. His father died in 1938, his mother emigrated in 1940 to Argentina, with all her children. Among her papers, after she died, Prince Kinsky found his Czechoslovak passport, based on which his Czech citizenship was re-confirmed. 

The first 5 of 157 claims were successful. The Czech Civil courts confirmed in 2003 that the state had assumed ownership with no legal grounds. Then the socialist Minister of Culture rang the alarm. Politicians from all political parties got together to debate what to do in order to avoid the misuse of what they called "a few formal discrepancies". The Government created a 30 man Special Unit, named "Majetek" (Property) to block all property claims. This specialized police unit focusing on aristocratic restitution investigation asked the intelligence service in 2004 to collect evidence in Austrian and German archives against prince Kinsky. Czech police wiretapped in 2004 not only Frantisek Kinsky, but also lawyer Jaroslaw Capek and recorded the calls between Kinsky and his lawyer, which are considered inviolable. A Czech court approved the wiretapping.  In the meantime the Parliament passed a so-called Kinsky law which enables the state to interfere in ongoing court proceedings with restitution plaintiffs, who are so rude to request properties from municipalities. Now the municipalities get legal aid payed from public funds, something the other party doesn't have the right to. Needless to say, the Czech Republic doesn't have a legal basis in order to allow free legal aid for those who cannot afford to fight for their civil rights. It is therefore an obvious discrimination of individuals and an act of favoritism towards state entities.

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!