Europa-Evropa-Europe: Union of Multinationals or Union of Peoples?

French troops in Mali.

(Gaither Stewart in Rome) The upsurge of Islamists in the north of Mali and the French expeditionary military force in support of the Mali government has opened the Pandora box of the future of the European Union (EU), its nature, and its relationship with the USA.

The EU nations are in agreement that “Europe” needs real political clout. Now a growing number agree with France that the EU needs also its own military clout. The continental big five of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland are backing the formation of EU military units in support of the creation of an EU military headquarters. Thus far British (read U.S.) opposition to independent EU military operations to rival the U.S.-led NATO command has overridden EU military ambitions.

France is the driving force for the creation of a defense structure separate from NATO. Its creation requires unanimous consent of EU member nations. Last September, 11 of the EU’s 27 nations voted in favor of scrapping the British veto right over the union’s defense policies. The goal of France and other nations involves the creation of a European army. Other nations fear the elimination of veto rights because it would limit the sovereignty of member states.

French intervention in Mali has provided a pretext for such a structure. The EU is not just talking about whether to send troops to join the French in Mali, but what the duties of the hundreds of troops will be. Italy announced yesterday that it will send 25 specialists to train Mali troops to combat the Islamist insurgents now occupying north Mali, a territory the size of France, including the famous town of Timbuktu. The French want to join the combat as they did in Libya.

The Islamist occupation of the petroleum giant, In Amenas, on the Mali-Algerian border and the taking of hostages many of whom died in the shoot-out with Algerian Special Forces has offered a justification for the dispatch of EU military units to join French forces already in action.

At the same time, no one in the EU forgets the spreading of U.S. military forces across sub-Sahara Africa. The simultaneous EU force and the presence of the U.S. military in Africa signal renewed U.S.-European colonization of Africa. It signals also a potential clash between the U.S. military “occupation” of Africa and the nascent EU military force.

The U.S. Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, announced that the USA would take any actions necessary to protect the population of Africa from North African terrorists, whether of not this means cooperation with “other” military operations underway “down there”. Most likely he means unless the U.S. holds the command “These are matters still to be decided,” Panetta said.

Five decades ago French people commented when an American visitor spoke of “visiting Europe”, as if it were one location: ‘Ah, vous Americains!’ they would say, ‘You think Europe is one country, one day in Brussels, the next in Paris, the next in Rome … all just Europe. But we are French.” Or: “They are Belgians.” Or: “They are Italians.” Or: “They are Germans.”

The old idea of a united Europe was re-launched just after WWII. But until recently the Europe concept has not existed firmly in the minds of contemporary Europeans. Until not long ago Europeans still felt their diverse nationalities, each proud, each nationalist. Just a generation ago, lines of excited travelers at border crossings, stamped passports, controlled visas, strict customs controls, international auto insurance and complex currency exchange were normal moments of European life.

Today things have changed radically. Suddenly, it seems. The European idea is that “Europe” is the homeland. Our heritage. Born in pain, but in any case our destiny.

However, the new-born “Europe” has not taken the direction many of the original Europeanists had in mind. Purely capitalistic-imperialistic concepts of “Europe” have been born. The Union has turned out to be a union of multinationals, not of the peoples. Therefore, not everyone is convinced. New words have been coined: Europeanist on the one hand, and Euroskeptic on the other. New law bills in any one nation are backed up by: ‘Brussels orders this.’ ‘Brussels will not approve of that.’ In these times of austerity, a favorite of European politicians to justify budget cuts and raised taxes is: “Europe demands it!”

National elections in the EU are to a great extent determined by the ‘Europe idea’. No major candidate for the political leadership of EU countries—except the UK—dares a clear anti-Europe program. In every political election, from north to south, Europe is on the lips of all.

In peoples’ minds, “Europe” refers to the powerful, unelected, bureaucratic European Commission in Brussels, i.e. the European Union. Or to that powerless ‘debating society’ known as the European Parliament in Strasbourg. Nonetheless, “Europe”, in one way or another, is in the minds of all.

Italians tend to be proud of their modern passports marked “European Union” and only secondly, “Italian Republic”. It is pleasant to travel from Italy to Spain or France or Belgium or The Netherlands or Germany with only the Euro currency in your pocket. And know what price you are paying for hotels or meals or souvenirs.

Though there are advantages—like financial controls and balanced budgets of each country making up the European Union—for many, “Europe” is perfidious, dictatorial and impoverishing.

The problem posed by one branch of Europskeptics is that “Europe” has no political power. The union today is purely economic and financial. To all effects, today’s “Europe” is a union of unelected bankers and financiers. Not the social or political union of peoples some of its founders had in mind.

The original dream of “Europe” for many was a Europe of the people, socialist and democratic. Not a capitalist Europe of bankers filling the pockets of their caste. For many Europeans the missing element is political clout.

By way of example, the legality of matrimony between two persons of the same sex does not enter the sphere of “Europe”. The union has no power—or does not exercise the persuasive powers it has at its disposal—to defend the rights of its peoples against the interference of churches and sects against “gay marriages”—let’s say a direct concern of 10 per cent of all Europeans.

“Europe” does not have the power or does not exercise its power to defend its minorities, its immigrants from Africa or Asia or its Romani (gypsy) peoples, branches of the 12-14 million Sinti and Roma peoples. The Romani peoples constitute a nation more numerous than Belgians, peoples who have never declared war on anyone. Yet peoples widely treated as beggars and thieves. Peoples for reasons of survival forced to leave their East European origins in Romania or Hungary or Bosnia.

One should recall that it was only a few years before the creation of the European Union that Fascists simply decided to eliminate both homosexuals and gypsies from the demographic map.

Today, “Europe” decides by its discretionary use of its economic powers which countries may survive and which are destined for exploitation and eventual elimination, nations like Greece, the cradle of European and thus also American civilization.

Capitalism has never before enjoyed such power as today via the EU, without the use of marching troops over borders. The EU has become the instrument for the economically rich nations to control and rape weaker societies. In their attempts to unify Europe, neither Napoleon nor Hitler ever achieved such real power over the lives of the peoples of Europe as has the European Union.

Now it has become clear for those with eyes to see that not all the founders of the EU had in mind a union of peoples. A purely economic-financial union was in the minds of some of its founders and is still in the minds of its bureaucracy. Therefore, its close relations with NATO which serves as its military arm. It is child’s play to grasp that the difference between the EU and NATO is chiefly one of name.

Now one can easily understand that military alliance with the USA—in 1945 victorious and all-powerful after the fall of Nazi Germany—was in the minds of the original founders of the “Community” of Europe. U.S. economic aid offered by the Marshall Plan was not generosity and gratuitous. Europe paid a high price. U.S. troops were not in Europe only to defend it against Soviet troops ready to take the whole continent. U.S. presence in Europe was to support U.S. interests. The Cold War ensued to consolidate that American presence.

The European Union guarantees the perpetuation of the unchanging special relation between the USA and the United Kingdom, and, in theory, with continental Europe as a whole. Today the EU and interlocking treaties between it and NATO provide troops for the widest possible coalition in America’s world-wide wars. The small country of Denmark has suffered nearly 50 deaths in Afghanistan, apparently the highest of any other nation of the Grand Coalition on that distant Asian battleground. Therefore, one notes an increase in anti-war sentiments and a growing reluctance in countries like Germany, Italy, Spain and now The Netherlands to support those wars. One is tempted to conclude that if the USA wants to count on Germany and NATO as a combat ally in the coming years it will have to help the political establishments in those and other countries to overcome public resistance—not to mention the growing political-economic influence of Russia.

Therefore, the EU can dabble with the French idea of a European force de frappe. It may send a few troops here or there. But I don’t believe the EU has the political or the economic power or desire to even try to withstand American pressure and create a military force capable of competing with the firmly U.S.-led NATO.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Gaitherstewart.com. The author of several books on espionage and political intrigue, and personal memoirs, as well as many essays on culture, politics, art and other subjects, he’s currently completing Time of Exile, the third volume of the Europe Trilogy, published by Punto Press. The two previous volumes, The Trojan Spy and Lily Pad Roll are available at Amazon and other leading booksellers.

Sanders: Much more thunder than actual fire?

Three top contenders for the Shameless Hypocrite Award goes to Bernie Sanders, Cornell West, and the American Labor Movement. (no particular order)

What all three have in common is that they often quite eloquently rail against the machine yet their actions keep the engines oiled. Bernie the ‘Socialist’ never once pulled a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington against either Bush or Obama. Even back in Jimmy Stewart’s day it would have been customary to see a politician with a full bladder (or perhaps a jar nearby) ranting and raving about some injustice.

 Now the simple mention of a filibuster or asking for time with that in mind can cause Heaven and Earth to stand still. The Republicans know how to play this game all to well. Or maybe it’s just that the Democrats are so easily cowered into relenting?

Where was Bernie as village after village was being droned in Pakistan? Where is Bernie to stop Obama’s appointments to Treasury or the CIA? He might likely vote no, but it’s a safe vote. Makes him look good that he goes against the President. But he is a smart politician and can count. He knows his nay vote is symbolic only, and symbolic of impotence.

Cornell West: When it comes to civil right and the rights of people all over, who is on the liberal talk shows and media circuit but Cornell?  It’s clear he’s astute enough not to take things too personally. He did get over the Obama snub, after all. Or did he? In an interview with Truthdig in 2011 he called Obama, “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats. And now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it.”  Such powerful words, yet he went ahead and endorsed him so as not to see Romney elected.  Guess he figured that the Democrats would remain impotent with a Romney presidency and give him everything he would want, as Obama has already been doing without any substantial Democratic challenges.

And now we come to the labor movement. Not your father’s labor movement, for sure. Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO rallied his army of union activists to campaign for one of the most anti-union presidents since Reagan. Where was Obama when Wisconsin needed him? Where is he when teachers’ unions are being busted all over the country? That answer is simple: playing basketball with the union-buster in chief, Arne Duncan, Secretary of the Department of Education.  President Obama’s wardrobe has to consist of more than just wing tips and gym shoes. How about those shoes he imagined he had when he said in his first campaign that he’d walk the picket line with us? California nurses did offer to buy him a pair.

The list of shameless hypocrites is never ending. We can round it off with Michael Moore, of course.

So how to stop being such a shameless hypocrite? For one, stick to your principles and don’t play politics. That takes courage. Courage to stand up against the winds of complacency and the courage to be true to yourself every day.

The second way is probably the easiest for those who hold power; those with the microphone and a national presence, those with a movement or organization behind them, or those with big mouths and can do what they want with it. Use endorsements as a weapon to achieve your goal, not as a crutch you’re afraid will be pulled if you go off the scripted path. Have national union leaders, from Randi Winegarten to Richard Trumka, ever said, “This is what you have to do NOW and promise for the future if you want our endorsement. We can wait for an answer.”

How more powerful a message could you deliver if the intended target has to do what you say, not the other way around?  Grassroots Republicans (with millions of corporate dollars behind them) know how to play this game.  That is why they are so effective and why the Democrats try to out-Republican them whenever possible. President Clinton was a master at this.

All three listed above could easily have said, “The clock is ticking, Mr. President. Are you going to even mention the poor in one of your stump speeches? (He didn’t) Are you going to give us economic leadership who works for Main Street and not Wall Street? (Fat chance) Are you going to support a national card check or speak out against State Houses that are removing our bargaining rights? We’re waiting. November 6 is just around the corner.”

If only that was the message then and similar statements today and for future elections/endorsements.

—
“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” Che Guevara
“War is when your government tells you who the bad guy is. Revolution is when you decide for yourself.”  Anonymous

ABOUT  THE AUTHOR
Myles Hoenig is an educational advocate and veteran ESOL teacher with Baltimore City and Prince George’s County public schools. His email is hoenigedu@gmail.com.

By Stephen Feller

Dr. Cornel West called Barack Obama a “Rockefeller Republican in blackface” unworthy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s bible, which the president used during his second inauguration into office. The philosopher and professor at Princeton University said that while he is glad that Mitt Romney didn’t win the presidential election, he also has problems with some of Obama’s policies.

West called it “morally obscene and spiritually profane” to spend $6 billion on an election and not have any kind of national conversation about the major problems the country faces.

“Poverty, trade unions being pushed against the wall dealing with stagnating and declining wages when profits are still up and the 1 percent are doing very well,” he said. “No talk about drones dropping bombs on innocent people. So we end up with such a narrow, truncated political discourse.”

Noting that he is glad there was not a “right-wing takeover,” west said that voters instead elected a “Republican in blackface,” with Obama, “so that our struggle with regard to poverty intensifies.”

He said that King would not approve of much of modern America, or what Obama has not done to change during his first four years in office. Based on King’s past speeches, West insisted that Obama has a long way to go before he is worthy of MLK’s Bible.

“Brother Martin Luther King, Jr., what you say about the New Jim Crow? What would say about the prison industrial complex? What would you say about the invisibility of so many of our prisoners, so many of our incarcerated — especially when 62 percent of them are there for soft drugs and not one executive of a Wall Street bank gone to jail,” West said.

“Martin doesn’t like that. Not one wire-tapper, not one torturer under the Bush Administration — at all . . . Then what would he say about the drones on the precious brothers and sisters in Pakistan, and Somalia, and Yemen. Those are war crimes, just like war crimes in Vietnam, Martin Luther King, Jr., what would you say?”

AlterNet [1] / By Alex Kane [2] Alternet

The world should work to end extreme wealth by 2025 and reduce the massive inequality has has skyrocketed over the past twenty years, the anti-poverty group Oxfam states in a new report [pdf]. [3]

While discourse on inequality has grown more prominent in recent years thanks to Occupy Wall Street and major institutions highlighting the problem of extreme inequality, the focus has largely been on only one-half of the problem: ending extreme poverty. Though Oxfam praises the efforts to eradicate extreme poverty, the group urges people to “demonstrate that we are also tackling inequality- and that means looking at not just the poorest but the richest.”

Oxfam also notes that massive inequality leads to environmental destruction. “Those in the 1% have been estimated to use as much as 10,000 times more carbon than the average US citizen,” the report states. “Increasing scarcity of resources like land and water mean that assets being monopolized by the few cannot continue if we are to have a sustainable future.” And lastly, Oxfam argues that inequality is unethical.

“We cannot afford to have a world where inequality continues to grow in the majority of countries. In a world of increasingly scarce resources, reducing inequality is more important than ever. It needs to be reduced and quickly,” says Oxfam.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
See more stories tagged with:
inequality [4],
oxfam [5]
Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/global-inequality-skyrockets-report-says-top-1-have-increased-wealth-60-over-last
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org
[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/alex-kane
[3] http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/cost-of-inequality-oxfam-mb180113.pdf
[4] http://www.alternet.org/tags/inequality
[5] http://www.alternet.org/tags/oxfam
[6] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

Salvatore Babones

Social Security is the bedrock entitlement program that directly supports over 56 million Americans. That’s over 18 percent of the population.

If you’re receiving Social Security, you know that Social Security benefits are modest. The average Social Security benefit is just $14,800 per year. In other words, Social Security beneficiaries make just about as much as a full-time minimum wage worker. With retirement savings low and private pensions hard to come by, that’s not much after a lifetime of work.

Social Security is the main source of income for the majority of American retirees, so it’s important that Social Security
The 2012 Social Security Trustees Report predicts that the Social Security retirement trust fund will run dry in 2035.
If Social Security retirement funds are used to make up shortfalls in the Social Security disability programs, that date moves up to 2033.

That’s hardly tomorrow, but it’s close enough to be worth worrying about.

By 2033 the accumulated trust funds will be used up, but the Social Security program will still have money coming in every year from Social Security taxes. The Trustees estimate that these ongoing receipts will be enough to pay beneficiaries at 73 percent of full benefits in perpetuity. So even if we do nothing, Social Security won’t disappear in 2033. It will continue, just at reduced benefit levels.

The tap won’t run dry. It’ll just run a little weak.

Put that way, the challenge of saving Social Security doesn’t look quite so daunting. Yes, we have to do something. But we have to do something that will top up benefit levels twenty years from now, not something to stave a complete collapse tomorrow.

One thing we could do is simply make up the projected 27 percent shortfall in Social Security benefits through general government spending. (GGS)

At today’s prices, that would cost about $200 billion per year, or about 6 percent of the federal budget. That’s a lot, but not an unmanageable sum of money for the federal government. It could be done. Another thing we would do is just raise the minimum wage.

Social Security is mainly funded by a flat tax on all wages up to $110,100 per year (going up to $113,700 in 2013). The more people earn, the more tax they pay (up to that level).

There are no deductions and no exemptions. Every additional dollar earned by poor and middle-income people translates directly into higher Social Security tax receipts.

Thus a doubling of the minimum wage from $7.25 to $14.50 an hour would result in a doubling of the Social Security taxes paid by minimum wage earners.

We have at least twenty years to rebuild the Social Security trust fund. If we raise minimum wages now, we can start rebuilding the fund now. Congress should put the minimum wage up a dollar a year every year for the next ten years, starting in 2013.

As with all retirement saving, the earlier you start the easier it is to meet your goals. Social Security taxes paid into the trust funds in 2013 will immediately start earning compound interest. By 2023 the Social Security crisis will be solved.
By 2033 we’ll probably be able to raise benefits a little, too.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Babones (@sbabones) is a senior lecturer in sociology and social policy at the University of Sydney and an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). He holds both a master’s degree in statistics and a Ph.D. in sociology from the Johns Hopkins University. Before moving to Australia in 2008, he worked in financial risk management and taught sociology and statistics at several universities in the United States.