ETA ceasefire

ETA has shaped the political character of many Spaniards for generations. I was born in a democratic Spain that lived under fear of what it was reminded from time to time with an explosion in the streets of Madrid, a shooting in Seville, a mass murder in Barcelona or a kidnapping in the Basque Country. Nowhere was safe nor the political environment was normal in a time when politicians had to share their lives with a body guard. In some villages, the air was, and still is, unbreathable for those who dare to challenge ETA or, at a wider extent, nationalism.

That is the reason why this ceasefire relieves us, that's why we face this news with very deep emotions that brings us to our childhood, when some days where turned grey for a sad act of terrorism. Contradictory emotions that leave us doubts... because we have seen these ceasefires before. Who can trust these "people"? How do we know that this is really the end of a dreadful episode in Spanish history? We simply don't know. But I can say what many people, including myself, may be concern about. How are we handling this end, in case that, hopefully, it is the end. Are we giving up to all that we stood by before now that terrorism may be gone? Are we letting some political parties to benefit from this? Do we really have a choice? I just cannot imagine how hard this must be for the victims. Those brave victims that fought their cause under the rule of law, never asking for revenge.

It's soon to say but I can assume that BILDU, ETA's closest political party, will very likely benefit from this in the general elections taking place in just one month. And this is one of the reasons I'm so suspicious about this ceasefire. Because they did this before in 1998 and 2006: a ceasefire, an elections and return to murder. I hope that those ones that say that this time is different are right. My best regards to the victims and my demand to Spanish politicians to stand by democracy and freedom: two principles that, hopefully, have already brought peace to Spain in a very long time.

Death penalty

There’s a common misunderstanding about the death penalty. Many say that is wrong because it may affect innocent people. Based on this premise, many support the convicted based on their innocence and claim for mercy. That’s right, that’s a very strong point: killing an innocent person is nonsense from every point of view, but this point still may let strong the support for death penalty when it affects proven criminals.

Why is the death penalty absolute wrong either case? From a libertarian point of view, which is clearly related to the Human Rights theory and the right to self-determination of every human being, there’s something clearly wrong about the death penalty itself: it assumes that someone, call it State, call it Government, call it official has enough authority to decide whether someone has to die or not for different reasons. And that’s the key mistake: no one can decide that, that cannot be legal in a democratic rule of law that respects human rights because every human being has the right to live no matter what he or she has done, no matter if he or she is a psychopath, a mass murderer or a criminal against humanity. It may sound odd to some that I’m saying this but this is the basics of the European system I’m so proud of. Europe relies on the best system of protection of human rights, with our domestic fundamental rights, our European Convention of Human Rights and its European Court of Human Rights. And it is a system that has been working fine so far proving to be capable of protecting European citizens from their own States’ abuses. The death penalty has been banned in Europe for decades and so have been torture and State terrorism.

Unfortunately, this is something that cannot be said of many other countries in the world, including the US. And this is what happens when you think that someone may have authority to take away the rights of others for whatever reason, when the limits are unclear and the aims may justify the means: Troy Davis was executed last night, the Guantanamo Concentration Camp is still open, people responsible for acts of torture, including those politically responsible have not been judged and sent to prison. Coming from a so called democracy, this is even more shameful, a stain for the Western world that should be internationally condemned and, if the international law really worked, internationally prosecuted. I’m afraid nothing of this will happen. At least, people around the world can show their outrage. So I join them.

Forced to federalism?

There is a huge debate in Europe regarding the issue of fiscal integration, national sovereignty and how that may be affected by the principle of “no taxation without representation” which could lead us to two different scenarios: first, integration does not go further, EU even may give up some competencies, which seems clearly unlikely; second, the fiscal integration is finally done with the political integration required to guarantee the democratic legitimacy of EU institutions. There’s always a third option, which consist of keeping the fiscal integration with the current political structure but that wouldn’t fit in our democratic model and would damage even more the image that EU currently has.

For Gerhard Schröder, for example, is pretty clear what needs to be done: increasing the budgetary competencies of EU institutions giving a special committee within the European Parliament a say. It’s one option and would have some democratic back. It’s, at least, a concrete proposal, because one of the major problems these days is that we are hearing a lot about fiscal, even political, integration without specific measures or reforms mentioned. So, what do we really need and, the most important, what do we really want? Some talk about Eurobonds, others talk about a tax levied on financial transactions but what does it imply? Do we need a European Treasure? And would that solve the core problem? It wouldn’t. At this point it seems clear that what we need is a common economic and political policy but that means having a Federal government or some sort of federal or confederal structure to make decisions on those policies and to enforce them. On the paper, a reform wouldn’t be needed. Council could meet twice a year or even more often as Sarkozy suggested and take those decisions to be put in place by every national government but is it efficient? And what if a country doesn’t want to cooperate? Eventually we’ll need further European government and here is when the other question arises: do we want that? Do national politicians want that? I think they don’t, neither the people.

So we are in that precise moment when the circumstances are telling us that the only way out of this crisis is a deeper integration but we lack the political will and courage to act, which leads us, instead, to improvise solutions while ignoring the root of the problem, which is the lack of integration within the Eurozone to support the currency. It is clear that there’s a general mood in the media that tends to promote that integration, what hasn’t had an effect on national public opinions nor on politicians but there’s a significant change taking place now: USA and the BRICS are showing an increasing concern that this crisis may erase their growth or recovery. Unbelievably, this concern may make those countries to push EU leaders to do what they don’t have the courage to do: integrating the Eurozone even if political integration is then required.

Emerging Giants Look at Europe Aid

Wall Street Journal, 14 September 2011

Commission president Barroso to put forward eurobonds

BBC News, 14 September 2011

Tim Geithner urges Europe to act decisively on debt crisis

The Guardian, 14 September 2011

Eurozone economic government

The Commission or a European finance minister will have to retain the right of initiative, but the control mechanisms will have to be democratized. National parliaments cannot be expected to accept a loss of sovereignty on budgetary matters without parliamentary control mechanisms being implemented elsewhere. The decisions reached by the national parliaments must end up in the European Parliament, as the ultimate authority. A possible approach would be for the parliament to form a special committee, which would consist of the members of the euro zone and assume this control function. The transfer of such parliamentary rights to any expert committees would pose a serious risk, because it would be associated with the curtailment of democracy.

Gerhard Schröder, former German Chancellor,

Der Spiegel Interview, 5 Sep 2011

If you look at the economic data, Germany, as an exporting and industrialized nation, has benefited immensely from the euro. That's just the way it is. We will have to explain to people the benefits we have derived from the euro, economically, socially and politically. We will have to explain that in a common currency zone, you accept a joint responsibility for this currency and relinquish sovereignty rights.

Gerhard Schröder, former German Chancellor,

Der Spiegel Interview, 5 Sep 2011

The decision on the concrete configuration of the economic government can only be made by members in the euro zone, and not by the Council (the powerful EU institution comprised of European national leaders) as a whole.

Gerhard Schröder, former German Chancellor,

Der Spiegel Interview, 5 Sep 2011

It's not a very good time for Europe and when it comes to talk about EU integration, I'm afraid very few speak as clear as the former German Chancellor: Gerhard Schröder. After the last French-German summit in mid-August, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy supported the implementation of an European economic government and, somehow, this is what has been done since the first signs of the Greek debt crisis came to sight. Forced by the financial markets turmoil, European governments have been making tough decisions in Brussels, with surprising effects such as seeing Spanish PM applying the opposite economic policy he had been preaching all his previous years in office.

For a Spanish citizen, not to say for citizens in Greece, Ireland or Portugal, the government is clearly applying European policies, following the dictates of the Council, which is pretty much following Merkel and Sarkozy dictates. Of course, this increases the impression that many already had that democracy have been taken over by a sort of markets' dictatorship put in place from EU institutions. And some of those concerns are justified: for other politicians, not ours, seems to govern our country (Spain). This concern is very well expressed by the former German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, in the interview quoted above. He gives some ideas of what could be some sort of control by a euro-zone Parliament Committee but the key idea, which is be ruled by our own representatives is still missing. I wouldn't say that a Council of Head of State and Government is representative enough to approve fiscal policies, including substantial amendments or a mere approval of national budgets. A control by EU parliament should be only one of the guarantees that we should be given as citizens of free countries. Not to say that we still should claim the right to elect the European or euro-zone government to be in charge of this unitary fiscal policy if that is to come.

Far from that, I'm afraid the European model will be more powers for the Council and the permanent President, who is a mere bureaucrat appointed we don't know how. As long as they don't require national parliaments to give up their formal competences on fiscal policy and the member states cooperate, this could work. But the point is whether we want national puppets to enforce alien policies or a common euro-zone government elected by the people able to make decisions quicker and more effectively with a democratic support. A common fiscal policy seems inevitable so far. How are we going to implement that, what tools will it have and who will be in charge are the questions.

USA & Europe politics

An interesting commentary on “Der Spiegel” by Jakob Augstein gives the insight of what many Europeans may think: despite all our differences, we, Europeans, share an understanding of politics, the role of the state, democracy and equality, some sort of common sense that doesn’t seem so common on the other side of the Atlantic, what also used to be considered Western world but, according to Jakob's criteria, cannot be included in it anymore.

What’s the reason for such a categorical statement? Recent negotiations to raise debt ceiling in the US have shown that a right wing extremist minority has the ability and, far worse, the willingness to blackmail the government of its own country and put international financial stability at risk to enforce its own policies without any compromise. As Jakob states, it’s not everything about this political mood though. Social inequality and government inability to raise taxes are some of the peculiar features that makes the US different to Europe. I’m not saying that raising taxes is necessarily a solution, especially in Europe, but I think I don’t misunderstand Jakob’s words when I see astonished how only 1 % of the Americans make 25 % of the national income despite this percentage involved 12 % just 25 years ago and would be even higher if we looked at the late 60’s figures.

As I learned from “The Conscience of a Liberal” by Paul Krugman, social inequality has been a problem in the US since the conservative movement took over US politics since Ronald Reagan in the 80’s. The conservative agenda included, among other things, diminishing the power of unions in the companies through regulation and this increasing less relevance of Unions within the enterprises in the US led to a decrease in salaries in real terms over the years. This, combined with taxes reductions that only targeted high income tax-payers, has been one of the main drivers of this concerning increase in social inequality. Growth, unlike in the post-war period, didn’t have the same effect as it didn’t really reached the majority of the families, those middle classes that are, more than ever, in risk of extinction.

What lessons must be learned then after this recent episode in American politics put in context of conservative movement and this new brand "Tea Party". On this side of the Atlantic, things don’t seem to go better. I rather see Jakob’s view a bit optimistic, probably enhanced by the point that he's living in Germany. It’s true that the largest EU economy is doing well but the reality is that our European model, despite pursuing the right goals, seems to fail because of an excessive intervention. Back to how politics must be done, there’s something to be taken into account though: we should avoid extremism as seen in the US, keep supporting the values that make us Europeans and, in these times of uncertainty, demand more transparency and a down-to-earth economic reform that enhance growth through more opened markets whilst increasing social equality, mainly, through public education and health systems, which should be kept at all cost.

I apologise for any mistake as English is my second language

***

Regarding this post:

Once Upon a Time in the West, by Jakob Augstein

Der Spiegel, 4 August 2011

The President Surrenders, by Paul Krugman

The New York Times, 31 July 2011

On this site:

The Concience of a Liberal (Spanish), 3 January 2011

Looking at the future of Europe

Translation by Google Translate personally reviewed and amended

The fiscal problems in the Eurozone are a threat to the stability of the EU, including the stability of the global economy. However, it is also an opportunity to wonder what is the way forward, to re-consider the future of the EU and I am not referring to the near future but to the coming decades, to where we really want the EU to go and what measures must be taken.

I consider myself European. I think that in a world of giants like USA, China, India, Russia or Brazil, European localism is absurd. At the moment of truth, the Europeans share many more things than we think. We have very homogeneous political systems, common interests, a relatively homogeneous vision of what we mean by progress and the society in which we want to live. We are only separated by a linguistic and cultural diversity that is extremely enriching and makes Europe one of the most diverse regions to live in the world.

So I think the way for Europe is the federation of states. Not a United States of Europe. That would not work: we are not as homogeneous nor share the lifestyle nor much of the mentality. Europeans are different and a federation should include these differences, but a federal structure itself would help. The greatest challenge is today, by contrast, states. National leaders are taking advantage of an unsatisfactory European experience and a nationalist rhetoric to deter the citizens of the idea of greater integration. The danger, however, does not come from that integration, if done well, but the petty desire to artificially maintain a confederal model in a Europe of nation states that is declining, which has been on the second row on the international scene for a long time.

Anyone who looks at the global picture can tell that the lights are not upon us anymore and that if they are, is for bad: for our sovereign debt crisis that threatens global financial stability and economic prosperity of other countries in the world. Europe must stop to become a frustrated utopia itself and evolve into something new. It is not true that a democracy can not be crowded and with a great diversity of languages: there is the example of India. In Europe we also have something that is not there: a great tradition of human rights protection, an institution like the Council of Europe (vanguard of this protection) and a front line democratic culture in a diverse and pluralistic societies.

COMMON LANGUAGE

It is true that sharing a common language would help. In that sense, I am a strong advocate of promoting a real bilingualism in English in the EU. If the Dutch and the Scandinavians can do it, there is no reason why the Mediterranean peoples should sentence ourselves to ostracism of linguistic isolation. States have in compulsory education a very powerful tool. However, the amount of vested interests and lack of awareness of politicians unable to communicate in a language other than Spanish seems to condemn future generations to the same isolation. A profound reform of education system with immersion in English and Anglophone teachers is the first step.

From there, the demand for video and written content in English is a logical consequence. In addition to facilitating the political cohesion and not to do unthinkable a Czech candidate rally in Dos Hermanas (town in Seville province), this would have the advantage of facilitating the mobility of professionals, opening an unimaginable range of possibilities now. Since language differences are major barriers between people beyond culture, sharing a language would put us in disposition to deal either with a Spanish or an Austrian, greatly enriching our personal lives too, not just our career.

Far from being seen as a threat, bilingualism would be an opportunity. Far from reaching the confusing mix of languages in which there are often people who, like me, have learned a second language as adults, bilingualism would lead to a more natural and more peaceful coexistence of the languages. The only major hurdle would be, again, the status quo and the reluctance of those who do not speak English for fear that future bilingual generations may sweep them in the future. Experience shows, however, that to survive we must be open to change. Neither Europe nor Spain can afford to live apart from English. Bilingualism would improve our trade relations with the outside world and open the doors of our country to a more diverse and enriching immigration, which was not predominantly Latin-American.

FEDERAL STATE

Having said all this, a European federal state appears even more utopian than a Spain or a France where one can open a bank account in English. However, a classical federal structure is essential in terms of democratic health if we keep going forward in the Union. States will be tempted to go further in fiscal integration, which could end up in an European treasure, but they will avoid at all costs European politics: that is, an elected president and a parliament with real legislative powers. The first is, however, impossible without the second. Greater integration will lead, ultimately, to the public perception that Europe is about burning us with taxes and about four presidents of VIP countries managing the show. Such Union would eventually blow up the European dream and end up making politically unfeasible European fiscal Union and, who knows?, monetary union. The structure of this new state would be very debatable, but clearly should be designed in terms of checks and balances of powers and clear rules of transparency.

But most important of all, European citizenship has not yet become aware of all this, and worse, seems to recede more and more of Europeanism. Europe is for many people more than a place to live, a place to go on holidays and sometimes not even that. Nothing of this is possible to carry out without convinced Europeans. Who knows if, after all, Europeans are not up to the mark of a common project? The rest of the world may laugh. Less competition for them. We are to follow our little local issues and our rusty old glories shine. Meanwhile, the world will continue spinning and no longer look at Europe.

Brilliant article about Spanish Royal Academy of History polemic

I couldn't agree more with this article published on Guardian Online... Find some quotes here:

It is the real thing, the royal thing, the actual academy founded in the 18th century to bring the Enlightenment to Spain, and apparently still failing to do so 300 years later.

But surely history is about different opinions, isn't it? Shouldn't we respect this view as valid as any other? Didn't the postmodernists teach us that history is anybody's guess?

No, I'm afraid. History is based on the free discussion of different points of view, but once a reasonable consensus is reached on a topic, those who insist, for example, that Napoleon was a humble man who hated violence are not taken seriously and never make it into a mainstream reference work.

Whatever you think about the past, at least it has the advantage that is gone for ever. The problem is what this dictionary tells us about our present.

It tells us of a Spanish right wing that has been able to embrace democracy but still rejects its memory, preferring that of a fascist regime responsible for a horrible war and years of repression.

Whatever the reasons, José María Aznar's eight years as prime minister between 1996 and 2004 were a great opportunity for his Popular party (PP) to distance itself from its slightly Francoist origins. But the opposite happened: it chose to legitimise Francoism instead.

It was Aznar, in fact, who commissioned the Spanish Dictionary of Biography from the Royal Academy of History. Like a sleeping dragon it has made it through eight years of socialist rule, just in time to wake up for the next PP government, if the polls are correct. As they say: You never know what past awaits you in the future.

F is for Franco but not for fascist, apparently

Miguel-Anxo Murado, Guardian 2 June 2011

Understanding the Spanish Revolution despite international media

José Soldado Serrano

The last two weeks I have seen surprised how international media, specially British media as I live in the UK, misunderstood the real motivations behind the events taking place in Spain. According to the information I got in the UK, people were protesting against government cuts and high unemployment. Not to mention Italian official media, which said it was an anti-Zapatero protest. Unfortunately, reality is much more complex.

I could say that from the first term of the current PM (2004-2008), Spanish people realised that whoever governs in Spain, things are not going to improve in terms of political ethics and economical fairness and equality. But many foreigners may ask: why so late? The reason is clear, Spaniards never saw a non-socialist government till 1996 and socialists did not take power again till 2004, after an exhausting political campaign and several days of fear and unrest caused by the 3/11 Madrid bombings. It was only during that long term when Spaniards knew, after finally trying the same socialist option again, that the structural changes needed were not taking place whoever was in power.

Popular Party and conservative media undermining socialists government legitimacy; governmental negotiations with Basque terrorist group; changes in regional competencies against constitutional consensus; 3/11 trials and conspiracy theories; corruption cases from all parties coming up every day…... Political environment became unbearable and so changed people's political view and hope. That the two main parties were unable to change things and needed to be pushed into a big reform became a motto for many, I include myself. Among all that discontent, a new political party emerged, but Spanish electoral system make it impossible for a third national party to become an important political force and so it has been for now….

Eventually, good times were gone and economic crisis was undeniable just a few months after the last general elections (2008). Zapatero's lies; his late and bad response, and, at last, his sudden conversion into EU/IMF policies only worsened the already terrible perceptions that many had about politicians and politics. Having said this, it seems plausible that the local elections and a raising anger were the only ingredients required to organise a massive demonstration on 15th of May and set up the camps all over Spain the following days. Believe it or not, people are discussing about politics again with a passion never seen. Something completely new seems to be happening and, successful or not, has already made a difference. Citizens organising apart from parties and unions is a new landscape in Spanish politics and so is the concern of the parties in government as for the first time in our democratic history they have been put apart of the discussions, being their main object though. This is what, as Spaniards, we need to keep alive: the same open-minded, democratic, progressive movement that once made transition to democracy possible. This is what all this is about: we want a transition to a better democracy and we want it now.

Brilliant article about the Spanish Revolution:

'Millions of Spaniards Have Lost Faith in Politics'
Spiegel Online International (English Edition), 24 May 2011

#spanishrevolution

***

I apologise for any mistake as English is my second language