21 July, 2021

Should the EU flag be flown at the Olympics?

Should athletes from EU Member States carry the European Union flag? Let's be clear. There is no distinct EU flag. The flag of twelve-stars on an azure field is the flag of the Council of Europe. It is Europe's senior institution. The EU uses the flag as a subsidiary of the Council of Europe. 

So it makes no sense for EU States to flourish the twelve-star flag, because it is primarily a symbol of the Council of Europe. It includes 47 States, not just the 27 of the EU. 

The EU seems to be attempting to appropriate total use of the flag. It is an attempted act of pilfering, to use a polite term. 

The Council of Europe owns the flag. Decades later, it first offered to it with the European Communities. At first only the European Parliament took up the generous invitation. Other Community institutions then wanted to use it.

The story is a bit like a neighbour borrowing the lawnmower and then after a period of time the neighbour says the lawnmower belongs to me. 

But the question of ownership is even more legally dubious. The flag was offered to the European Communities, not the present EU, which is a different animal. 

The European Council took over control and made the flag part of EU. But ironically in the referendums on the Constitutional treaty that was rejected by France and the Netherlands, the flag was rejected too. Several other countries were set to reject the treaty but their referendums were withdrawn by the politicians. So the EU constitutionally does not have this flag. The people did not want it to represent the EU.

Then, even more ironically, the Constitutional Treaty was re-assembled from a jigsaw puzzle of articles and amendments and turned into the Lisbon Treaty. Did the Lisbon Treaty have an article defining the European flag and the anthem? 

No. The article which was in the Constitutional Treaty was left out of the Lisbon Treaty! Why? Because the British objected that this made the EU appear to be a federal State, which obviously it wasn't.

There is no article in the Lisbon Treaty that says the Flag of the EU is that which is widely flown outside all EU buildings or inside government offices. The best politicians could come up with was a Protocol that was added later to the treaty.  

Flag and Song

In 1986 at the invitation of the Council of Europe the European Communities were invited to use both the flag and the European anthem, Beethoven's 'Ode to Joy' as arranged for it by Herbert von Karajan. This invitation was accepted by the European Council, which was not a Community institution. It was not even a body with a legal personality. That's like the neighbour of the neighbour saying the lawnmower is his. That seems like the EU's European Council is violating a fundamental right -- the right to own and retain property.

The Council of Europe was designed to safeguard human rights after the abuses of Nazism and Soviet communism. All Member States of the European Communities and the EU have to be members of the Council of Europe. They have to respect its Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 

Robert Schuman said in a speech at the signature ceremony of its Statute in London that adherence to this legal system defines 'Europe' more than geography. 

The lesson is that the EU must conform to the Human Rights of the Council of Europe. That is why all early treaties were discussed and passed in the Council of Europe. Schuman himself explained the institutions and the democratic mechanism of the European Community before the Assembly of the Council of Europe in August 1950. 

The ultimate European Court is not the Court of the EU in Luxembourg but the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Who flies the flag? The flag belongs by invention, precedent and law to the Council of Europe. 

The use of the European flag by the Brussels institutions is an act of recognition of being part of Europe based on Fundamental Freedoms. 

These freedoms are recognized by States and their governments. They are not created by governments. Freedoms are given by God, not States. Citizens must be aware that Governments are primarily the entities that wish to curtail human freedoms by abuse of laws and regulations. Citizens need protection against the representatives of the citizens who believe they are better than citizens. The Council of Europe is the body that can do that. Certainly not the Lisbon Treaty's EU that was erected agains the will of the people.

States that stop fundamental freedoms can be suspended or even expelled from the Council of Europe. That was the case of Greece under the dictatorship of the colonels.

Among the Freedoms are: 

  • Freedom  of Speech,
  • Freedom of Assembly,
  • Freedom of religion, 

Origin of the Flag

The European flag was adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 December 1955 following a resolution in the Assembly:

Against the blue sky of the Western world, the stars symbolise the peoples of Europe in a form of a circle, a sign of union. Their number is invariably twelve, the figure twelve being the symbol of perfection and entirety.

— Council of Europe. Paris, 7–9 December 1955.

In fact the question of creating a flag had been raised at the start of Europe's great institution that defines Europe as the zone of free speech and human rights. The Council started its work in August 1949 with 12 signatory States: Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden (the ten signatories of the Statute on 5 May 1949) and two States that signed before the first session from opposite ends of Europe: Turkey and Iceland.

French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman signs Statute of Council of Europe at
St James's Palace, London, 5 May 1949.

















Proposed designs came from across Europe and far beyond. (One, with a single gold star on a blue background, came from a European named C W Raymon in Japan but this design was already in use.) 

The Council's Director of Information, Paul Levy, a Belgian, was in charge of the project, and liked the basic design. In September 1953, the Assembly proposed 15 stars (then the number of States). French deputy  Robert Bichet was rapporteur. But the Germans in the Council of Ministers refused. Among the 15 was the Saar, a disputed territory. 

The Secretary General Leon Marchal suggested 12 stars.  Levy was charged to provide reasons to support it. He replied: 

'Twelve is the sign of perfection and fullness. There were twelve tables of law in Rome; there are twelve apostles; there are twelve sons of Jacob; twelve months of the year; and twelve hours in the day; ... twelve signs of the zodiac represent the entire universe, so why shouldn't twelve stars represent Europe of both sides of the Iron Curtain and both sides of the Pyrenees?'

Leon Marchal drew the case of the twelve stars surrounding the woman of Revelation 12, which biblically represent the twelve tribes of Israel (as distinct to Roman Catholic views). Levy drew up details of the design for public use. Levy must therefore be considered the designer of the flag. 

Was the flag a Marian or Catholic symbol? Not according to Levy who was at the origin of the design. Levy was a Holocaust survivor. Marchal was also keen to have a politically neutral emblem. 

The adoption of the flag on 8 December 1955, a 'Marian' date, was a 'political accident.' (Sauver l'Europe, pp163-8, published 1978.) The Marian idea was a later unsubstantiated fiction.

Meanwhile, officials at the European Coal and Steel Community had created their own flag. It was a not very aesthetic design. It had six stars in two rows of three but on a field divided horizontally between blue (steel) and black (coal). Robert Schuman much preferred the Levy design. Then some decades later, in 1983 the European Parliament decided to take the flag as its emblem. The European Communities as a whole then decided they would also do the same.

For Schuman the synergy that was in the original proposition between the Council of Europe and the Community reinforced the necessity of unity: the Council of Europe was and is the human rights guarantor of the proper working of the Community.

Conclusion: 

The lesson of the European Flag is that all European institutions must come under the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and democratic supervision of the institutions of the Council of Europe.  


15 July, 2021

Reply to Commission President von der Leyen on unpublished Democracy Treaty

In recent days the European Commission has initiated major changes to the European political architecture. The EU has renounced the need for budgetary independence ('balancing the budget') and is becoming willingly subservient to international financial debt markets for the foreseeable future. It is in the process of re-engineering the entire economy on  the basis of a 'Green Deal' that has enormous implications for every man, woman and child in Europe. 


Are citizens and industries in the deal and in agreement with it? Have they ever been able to discuss this in its integrality, in-depth or in detail? Will it hinder and hamstring Europe's economy while China powers ahead with its coal-fired industries? Why are Europeans paying twice the price for energy compared with the USA? 
The European Commission says it is open to criticism and improvement of these gigantic plans and changes. But is it? Can the people of Europe have any influence on these and other policies? The European Council sets guidelines and plans behind closed doors. Why? The Lisbon Treaty (TFEU art 15) says the councils should be as open to the public as the Parliament. The European Commission, more and more, acts as the secretariat for an oligarchy, off-limits to observation. 
Does the EU listen to the people? Does it listen to small and medium industries? Does it respond to requests to cut spending? 
Judge for yourself!
What is the record? The European Commission has refused for seventy years to publish the treaty on how democracy should work in the European system. The principles are outlined in a treaty that its founder, Robert Schuman, called the Charter of the Community (Pour l'Europe, p146). It was signed by the Founding Fathers, plenipotentiary ministers of the six founding States at Paris on 18 April 1951. The name reflects the Magna Carta that formed the basis for democracy not only in Britain but in the United States of America and elsewhere.
If the European Commission was listening to the people it would have long published this treaty both on its website and in the Official Journal.
It has refused.
In April I wrote to President Ursula von der Leyen about this. I received a reply from an official. I enclose my reply to this and the official's letter.
Feel free to publish these letters. I appreciate your support in the cause of press freedom and proper accountability for European institutions that are supposed to be democratic.



Following is the Commission's letter and my letter to President von der Leyen 




From: David Heilbron Price <davidheilbronprice@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 9:42 PM
Subject: My letter of 9 April on the Schuman Declaration and the Charter of the Community


Your ref: Ares (2021) 2498475


                                                                Schuman Project

                                                            David Heilbron Price, Editor   


President Ursula von der Leyen

European Commission


14 July 2021

Dear Madame President,

I am in receipt of the attached letter of 1 July from Dimitri Barua (Assistant to the Director General, Communications) in reply to my letter of 9 April, for which I thank you.  Unfortunately it did not resolve or even deal with the matters I raised: the official publication of the full Schuman Declaration text (not the Proposal) and, above all, the Charter of the Community.

 

These documents, one a governmental Declaration at the origin of European integration and the other a Treaty, are not of mere academic interest but involve the legal basis and in fact the constitutional foundation of Europe and its future. The non-publication of these legal instruments has already led to lost opportunities for prosperity and losses of European funds amounting to millions and, in the case of Brexit, billions of euros. It is not a matter of personal ‘passionate interest’ but acknowledging the legality of documents agreed to and signed by the Founding Governments.

 

I was glad to see the text of the Treaty of Paris on the Coal and Steel Community has been linked to the platform of the Conference on the Future of Europe. This Treaty was long published in the Official Journal and formed the basis for actions in the European Court. 

 

However, the ‘Schuman Declaration’ is mislabelled. The French Government of Georges Bidault decided on a Proposal after Cabinet discussions on 3 and 9 May 1950 (Pour l’Europe, p165).  This is called the Schuman Proposal. Then later on 9 May Foreign Minister Schuman made a Declaration to the public – the Schuman Declaration. This includes his one-page introduction, declaring that the proposal marks the birth of Europe and explaining its worldwide mission of peace.

 

The Schuman Declaration has legal authority and should be published in the Official Journal too. It describes the profound implications of the initiative on a

·      Historical basis (It would bring peace for the first time in several millennia),

·      Geographical: (it was open to all countries including those in the Soviet sphere),

·      Economical: it would bring prosperity as never seen before,

·      Strategic: it announced the creation of Europe as a new entity in world politics,

·      Geopolitical: including its mission to Africa and other trouble spots in need of peace.

 

As for this unpublished first page introduction, I am quite a little puzzled why the Commission made recourse to the 'Robert Schuman Foundation'. The Robert Schuman Foundation is not a depository organisation competent to find the full text of the Schuman Declaration. It makes the same mistake as the Commission. This text can be found at the Centre Robert Schuman at http://www.centre-robert-schuman.org/robert-schuman/la-declaration-du-9-mai-1950?langue=fr and elsewhere. The full text is reproduced in facsimile in the book of the Jean Monnet Foundation, ‘Un changement d’esperance’.

 

Two treaties were signed by Governments on 18 April 1951 in Paris, the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty and the Charter of the Community. The originals of these documents relating to the democratic foundation of Europe can only be found at the French Foreign Ministry, as I mentioned earlier, and as the Treaty of Paris declares in its article 100.

 

Even more importantly, the original of the other signed treaty, the Charter of the Community (Pour l’Europe, p146) is also archived at the French Foreign Ministry. I included html copies of this major, foundational stone of European democracy that I received from the French Minister for European Affairs, Bernard Cazeneuve. It has been on my website, schuman.info , for a number of years. 


Despite my bringing it to the attention of the European Commission a number of times and underlining its importance, it has still not been published by the European Commission on its website or published in the Official Journal.

 

I should inform you that a complaint (number 202101229) has now been introduced with the European Ombudsman about the reluctance of the Commission to publish these key legal documents that are vital for lawyers, politicians, the press and the general public.

 

Madame President, the European Commission as Guardian of the Treaties should have officially published these legal documents during the last seventy years. The course of European history would have greatly benefited. For whatever reason they haven’t. But that is no reason why they should not be published now when the need is great.

 

I look forward to hearing from the Commission about their immediate publication.

 

With my thanks,

 

Yours sincerely,

 

David H  Price

Schuman Project

Schuman.info

 

 

22 April, 2021

EU leaders pledge to publish Founding Fathers' Democracy Documents, for the first time in 70 years!

Wow! 

For the first time in more than half a century our democratic leaders have promised to publish the documents that reveal how Europeans got their democracy. They show how and why Europeans did not fight another war amongst themselves after WW2. In the course of two millennia Europeans would normally have fought a couple of wars in this last three-quarters of a century.

Now the public should get to know how that carnage was stopped. Thank you politicians! A little late but still welcome.

Emerging victorious from the world war with Hitler’s Nazism and facing a Cold War stand-off with Stalin’s Marxist Socialism, the Founding Fathers of Europe left no doubt about how to build Europe in peace. They wanted a secure democracy, not autocracy.


Documents on how Europeans should develop their democracy were signed and sealed 70 years ago. These are perhaps the most important documents of modern times.

Astoundingly the European institutions have NEVER published some of these vital documents.

Now they will be!

The question of the public’s right to know what the Founding Fathers said about Democracy was raised before leaders of the European Commission, Council and Parliament. The date? The day after the 70th anniversary of the signature of the Founding document initiating the European Community on 18 April 1951. That major anniversary, by any account the key date in European history, was almost entirely forgotten and not celebrated by the politicians.


As if by accident, some politicians held a press conference right after the date that allowed them to meet in peace in Brussels.

On 19 April 2021, leaders from three of the five originating institutions spoke about a Conference on the Future of Europe. The question was put baldly about the long, long cover-up.

Success! They all pledged that they would publish these documents… and more. Guy Verhofstadt of the Parliament, Dubrovka Šuica of the European Commission and Ana Paula Zacarias, Portuguese Secretary of State representing the Council were launching a multi-lingual platform so that citizens could debate the Future of Europe. A major conference will open on 9 May. They also said that they would publish – for the first time – the full text of the Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950.


That too has never been published. Instead the European Commission has published a shorter document called the Schuman Proposal and misleadingly called it the Schuman Declaration.

 

The Proposal is the legal instrument of the French government, agreed in Cabinet, that invited the other countries of Europe to join together to form a European Community of Coal and Steel. It made clear they would go to war no more.

 

The Declaration is the speech of Robert Schuman, the French Foreign Minister, to the world’s press that includes this proposal but also describes exactly how momentous and unprecedented this move is in European history. It describes the breadth of the action to be undertaken.

Following this Declaration, six countries sent their best experts in law, government and economics to design a treaty to implement the Proposal. That massive work, changing the destiny of Europe forever, was completed in a remarkably short period of less than a year.

On 18 April 1951, six foreign ministers with plenipotentiary power of their governments signed not one but two documents.

The first was the Treaty of Paris that encapsulated the legal provisions of the European Community and described the five institutions that would manage it, democratically, economically and legally.

The second document is of even more lasting importance. Schuman called it the Charter of the Community, reflecting the eternal principles of human freedom of the British Magna Carta. It has been called the Declaration of Inter-Dependence, reflecting the founding American Declaration of Independence that defined separation from British tyrannical (non-democratic) rule from afar.

The European Community Declaration describes the principles by which democratic nations should join together in a Community. It also describes which nations are unfit to join a democratic grouping of fully working democracies. The Founding Fathers had in mind the fraudulent ‘People’s Democracies’ of the Soviet bloc that did not allow freedom of assembly and thought or the freedom of religion. They also wished to exclude, for the moment until changes were made, Spain and Portugal then under dictatorships.



All these historical documents will be soon available for the public, the press, academics and politicians. The representatives of the three institutions, Council, Commission and Parliament, were also asked to provide a full analysis of how the Founding Fathers’ concepts of European democracy compares with the system we have today.

 

  • The original system described how Parliamentary elections should take place under a single statute across all Member States at once.
  • Elections should also be held in the Consultative Committee representing organised civil society. Today two consultative committees, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions do not hold elections. Their membership is decided behind the closed doors of the Council. Organised civil society – enterprises, trades unions, consumers in their respective European associations – would have decisive powers in creating European legislation. A fully active Committee of the Regions might have avoided the economic and political disaster of Brexit.
  • The European Commission was originally decided by the Member States after each State had nominated a candidate that they considered to be the most impartial and experienced person available. The other States and the public were able to criticise and eliminate any candidate that they thought was beholden to a lobby, an interest group or a political party.

 

While the original treaty was passed with the full consent of the European people, under the watchful eye of the Council of Europe and its Convention of Human Rights, that has not always been the case of the treaties that followed. As Mr Verhofstadt pointed out, the Constitutional Treaty and the present Lisbon Treaty were both rejected in popular referendums in a number of countries.

With the Founding Fathers’ original documents at hand on how to build European Democracy on a solid footing, the debate on the Future of Europe should be able to have an in-depth debate about how Europeans wish to govern themselves.

The full text of the Schuman Declaration is at https://schuman.info/9May1950.htm

The full text of the Declaration of Interdependence / European Charter is at https://schuman.info/EuropeDeclaration.htm


14 April, 2021

Open Letter to President von der Leyen on Europe's Democratic Future

 

Open Letter to President von der Leyen on Europe’s Democratic Future



Schuman Project

schuman.info

David H Price

Editor

9 April 2021

 

Dear President von der Leyen,

It is 70 years since the signature on 18 April 1951 of Europe’s founding document for peace, the Treaty of Paris. This created the European Community. It changed the destiny of Europeans who had gone to war every generation for more than two thousand years.

 

As the European Commission and the other institutions ponder the Future of post-‘Brexit’ Europe in the Conference to be opened on 9 May, I have one request to the leaders, the media and the public.

 

It is necessary to recall the founding principles of that peace and prosperity. This is not hidden. It is not something that can be changed by our generation. It was written in a document, signed by the plenipotentiary representatives of the Six founding States: France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany.

 

What seems shocking to me is that the European Commission and the other institutions have not published this document. Schuman, a life-long student of democracy, called this the ‘Charter of the Community’ (Pour l’Europe, p146). It describes the Community method and the democratic principles that Europe must build on, in the same way as the United States applied the same eternal laws of human nature and worldly politics.

 

Schuman’s use of the term ‘Charter’ reflects that of the Magna Carta as a foundational document for British democracy. It distinguishes democratic Europe from the fraudulent ‘People’s Democracies’ of the Soviet eastern bloc. It is the litmus test of true democracy.

 

About a decade ago I spoke to the French Minister for Europe about publishing this ‘Charter’. He kindly supplied me with a copy from the French Archives. It was published on my website, schuman.info in 2012.

 

Although I pointed out this remarkable and important document to the Commission President at the time, the full text of the Schuman Declaration and the Charter of the Community has still not been published on the Commission’s own website. The lack of full information about the beginnings of European democracy is a disservice both to the general public, academics, the press and political leaders.

 

Secondly, while the European Commission has published the ‘full text’ of the Schuman Proposal, a governmental instrument, it has not published the text of his oral Declaration. The Commission website confuses the two: the governmental Proposal is aimed at other governments. The Schuman Declaration includes the explanation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Declaration includes far-reaching clarification of the original proposal agreed by the French Cabinet and signalled simultaneously to other European States via French diplomats or Schuman’s meetings with ambassadors and parliament in Paris on 9 May 1950.

 

It would be fitting that the foundational documents should be fully published on official websites and recorded in the Official Journal.

 

Madame President, I am therefore requesting that these historic texts about the Future of Europe be published before the opening of the Conference on Europe on 9 May this year.

 

Thanking you in advance for your attention to this matter, I remain,

 

Yours sincerely,

 

David Heilbron Price

 

 

 

Annexes

1.

On 18 April 1951 the great Charter of Europe, as Schuman called it, was signed by all the representatives of the six founding Member State Governments. It was then placed in the archives of the French Foreign Ministry at the Quai d’Orsay.

It is the pledge of European Governments that all European Community future Treaties founding new Community organizations, all Acts and Laws arising from them would follow certain principles. This included such things as supranational values, like honesty, justice and truth. It pledged that all citizens would have to give full democratic agreement to any developments.

After being hidden in the archives of the Quai d’Orsay for sixty years, ignored and kept secret from the public by politicians, this Foundational Declaration was released by the French Government, following a request by the Schuman Project.

 


 

Charter of the Community

Declaration of Inter-dependence Charter of the Community

Déclaration de l’Europe Paris le 18 avril 1951

CHARTE DE LA COMMUNAUTE

(Pour l’Europe, p146)

Statue Foundatrice de l’ Europe

basant sa construction sur les Principes Supranationaux et le libre choix de ses citoyens

 

 

 

 

Déclaration commune des Ministres représentant les Gouvernements signataires du Traité

Le gouvernement de la République fédérale d’Allemagne, le gouvernement belge, le gouvernement français, le gouvernement italien, le gouvernement luxembourgeois et le gouvernement des Pays-Bas :

Considérant que la paix mondiale ne peut être sauvegardée que par des efforts créateurs à la mesure des dangers qui la menacent;

Convaincus que la contribution qu’une Europe organisée et vivante peut apporter à la civilisation est indispensable au maintien de relations pacifiques;

Conscients que l’Europe ne se construira que par des réalisations concrètes créant d’abord une solidarité de fait et par l’établissement de bases communes de développement économique;

Soucieux de concourir par l’expansion de leurs productions fondamentales au relèvement du niveau de vie et au progrès des oeuvres de paix;

Résolus à substituer aux rivalités séculaires une fusion de leurs intérêts essentiels, à fonder par l’instauration d’une communauté économique les premières assises d’une communauté plus large et plus profonde entre des peuples longtemps opposés par des divisions sanglantes, et à jeter les bases d’institutions capables d’orienter un destin désormais partagé,

Ont décidé de créer une Communauté européenne du charbon et de l’acier.

L’œuvre que nous venons de consacrer par notre signature est due à l’intelligence et à la ténacité de nos délégations et de nos experts; nous leur disons notre très grande gratitude.

Avant même d’être entrée en action, cette oeuvre a déjà, par la vertu de l’idée qui l’inspire, créé dans nos pays et au-delà de leurs frontières des espérances et une confiance tout-à-fait exceptionnelles.

En signant le traité qui institue la Communauté européenne du charbon et de l’acier, communauté de cent soixante millions d’habitants européens, les parties contractantes ont marqué leur résolution de créer la première institution supranationale et de fonder ainsi les assises réelles d’une Europe organisée.

Cette Europe est ouverte à tous les pays européens libres de leur choix. Nous espérons fermement que d’autres pays s’associeront à notre effort.

Pleinement conscients de la nécessité de donner tout son sens à ce premier pas par une action continue et du même ordre dans d’autres domaines, nous avons l’espoir et la volonté de mener à bien, dans l’esprit qui a présidé à l’élaboration de ce traité, les projets qui sont actuellement en préparation. Les travaux se poursuivront en liaison avec les organismes européens existants.

Ces initiatives, dont chacune est limitée dans son objet, devront rapidement s’inscrire dans le cadre d’une communauté politique, dont l’idée s’élabore au Conseil de l’Europe. II devra en résulter une coordination et une simplification de l’ensemble des institutions européennes.

Tous ces efforts sont guidés par la conviction croissante que les pays de l’Europe libre sont solidaires les uns des autres, participent à une destinée commune. Nous consoliderons ce sentiment en associant nos énergies et nos volontés, en harmonisant notre action par des consultations fréquentes et des contacts toujours plus confiants.

Telle est la signification de cette journée. Elle sera comprise, nous n’en doutions pas, par nos opinions publiques et par les Parlements qui seront appelés à se prononcer sur le traité. Les gouvernements ici représentés seront auprès d’eux les interprètes de notre volonté commune de construire et de servir ensemble une Europe pacifique et prospère. »

 

 

2.

 

Schuman Declaration – What Schuman declared


 

This is followed by the Schuman Proposal agreed by the French Government of Georges Bidault.

It starts “World peace cannot be safeguarded if constructive efforts are not made commensurate with the dangers that threaten it. …”

Full text at https://schuman.info/9May1950.htm

 

NOTE: What distinguishes Democracies — Free Choice (nations libres de leur choix)

The articulation of the ‘Free Choice’ of the Member States distinguishes them from fraudulent ‘People’s Democracies’ and dictatorships. Free societies decide their Community governance according to the most democratic procedures. A Community is created by the will of free people. It is not imposed like the constitutions of the Communist bloc by a party or parties. The Community, as manager of common resources and guardian against war between members, must be more democratic, fairer and more honest than its Member States. It should be a model of democracy for Europe and the world.

The Charter of the Community declares that all Member States

  • must safeguard the rights of their citizens before the Council of Europe according to the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
  • No national State that does not adhere to these Fundamental Rights may be admitted to ‘Europe’ whose very definition depends on this Convention of Freedom of Speech, Assembly etc
  • The voice of the nation must be respected. For example, Lisbon Treaty and its earlier redaction as the Constitutional Treaty were rejected in national referendums.
  • The free will of the people has not been given to the designation of the Commission President or the Commissioners who by law should be independent of political parties, lobbies and outside interests. The original fair system has been replaced by a closed-door horse-trading meeting of politicians.
  • Elections have not been held for the Consultative Committees (Economic and Social Committee and Committee of Regions) as assemblies of organised civil society,
  • Europe-wide election to the European Parliament (not 27 national elections) under a single statute as repeatedly included in all treaties since 1951 must be held,
  • The Court system should be fully independent of governments and outside interests.

 

How the Founding Fathers designed European democracy,

see https://schuman.info/supra5.htm

Why Brexit? and why do the other, oldest and strongest of Europe’s democracies like Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, not wish to join the ‘EU’? see

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tcJKfuMYCk

Schuman speaks on Europe’s democratic principles for political union at the signing of the Treaty of Paris 18 April 1951.





Signatories of Europe’s founding treaty, 18 April 1951



 


09 January, 2021

EHC4. Germs the ultimate weapon and the European Health Community

Germs have been called the ‘ultimate weapon.’

So when Matthew Pottinger, Deputy National Security Adviser to US President Trump told a global Zoom conference of Parliamentarians that the Coronavirus pandemic originated from the Wuhan virology laboratory, we should take notice. China is using investigations by the World Health Organisation, WHO, as camouflage, he said.

Pottinger was formerly a Reuters and Wall Street Journal correspondent in China. He speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese. His brother is a virologist.

At Wuhan, Shi Zhengli, known as the Batwoman is known to have collected deadly viruses from distant bat caves. The Coronavirus strain in Covid-19 seems to be modified for ‘gain of function‘ that allows it to spread rapidly and genetic modification that requires high technology. In the spring of 2020, Chinese doctors in Wuhan who warned of the coming disaster disappeared or ‘were disappeared‘.

Where did the Chinese learn these high technology and highly dangerous virology techniques?

US agencies were banned from such research at home but then Dr Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease collaborated with Wuhan on multi-million dollar contracts aimed at bat Coronavirus ‘gain of function‘ research. This makes a virus more infectious for humans and can lead to a pandemic.

War as Fear-mongering

Bio-weapons have an extra attribute compared to other systems — spreading widespread fear and panic across continents. Fear of disease can paralyse societies, lockdown the economy and allow an enemy, who knows the secrets, to gain the supremacy of power, production and prestige.

Bio-weapons are potent. During World War II, atomic weapons killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese. Bioweapons much more. In the Middle Ages, Black Death killed an estimated millions upon millions — an estimated 40 to 60 percent of Europe’s population. If weaponised, such germs would be absolutely devastating.

In today’s world of communications and propaganda, the fear factor can have massive repercussions, far greater than the minimal percentage of extra deaths that may or may not have been involved. Taking into account the psychological warfare causing addictions and suicides, the normal death rates in 2020 may well be below average rates in many countries. In some countries deaths by influenza has disappeared from the ‘official’ statistics. Many ask: why is the West in lockdown?

Of all countries, China has real grounds for concern about biological warfare. It learned from bitter experience about biological attacks last century — as a victim.

This experience may have set that nation’s security goals like no other. The means of defence is a priority. Morale at home must remain high, panic minimised, centralised government firm, and official death rates as low as possible.

Korean War

On 25 June 1950, barely a month after Robert Schuman had announced the French proposal for a European Community, the Korean War broke out.

Allegations were made that biological warfare was being used. By whom?

The Chinese Communists said that the Americans were guilty. Captured airmen confessed, they said. The American authorities riposted that they were victims of ‘brainwashing‘.

The Chinese had good reason to be afraid of biological warfare. And with the USA’s victory over Japan in WW2 and capture of their secrets, they had good reason to suspect the Americans had advanced biowarfare techniques. In WW2 Japan was the foremost power that had developed biological weapons for attack and defensive schemes at home.

In December 1952, when before representatives of European States, French Foreign Minster Robert Schuman proposed the creation of a European Health Community, these allegations were still current.

Schuman’s Purpose

Was the threat of a new wave of biological warfare part of Schuman’s project for a European Community of Health to protect its populations? The battle to get such an idea accepted was formidable but so were the consequences if Europe had no defence against such threats. Such an ambitious project with such a variety of opposers required a steady political hand to navigate it through the waters against nationalism, pharmaceutical cartels, and left-wing propaganda allied to the USSR in Europe and the rising Chinese Communist powers in Asia who threatened French interests in Indochina.

Schuman had suggested the European Defence Community to the French Government in mid-September 1950 just after the outbreak of the Korean War. But the idea provoked heavy opposition, both from Gaullists and Communists, inside and outside Parliament.

Why was such a Defence Community necessary when, in April 1949 western leaders had signed the Treaty of Washington creating NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance? NATO was the broad picture for defence against the USSR but it did not ensure full European needs and protection of their interests. The EDC attempted to find an efficient, common approach to a common danger by integrating national armies with a European command against a powerful USSR.

Having the necessary political and military infrastructure was of primary importance. But what if the population itself was held hostage by the threat of biological war? How could civilians be protected? If integrating the national units of the army, navy and airforces into European ones was becoming an almost impossible task, how would politicians be able to find a unified policy to deal with complex civilian threats like disease? Without such a policy Europe could easily fall into the chaos caused by the intentional spread of disease exacerbated by undisciplined refugee movements.

The European Health Community seems tailor-made to deal with these life and death issues. A democratically organised defence including even countries outside NATO would provide solidarity against tyrants with bio-weapons.

Schuman, unfortunately, was unable to see the project through to a signed treaty. He was forced out of office in early 1953 by a combination of nationalists, Communists and Gaullists. What he proposed then should be examined to decide what is needed now.

Making war impossible

Mutual defence against biological warfare and outlawing it inside the Community fits in directly with Schuman’s avowed purpose in creating the European Community system. It was designed to cover a number of problems, all within the theme of ‘making war not only unthinkable but materially impossible‘ among its Member States.

Schuman’s Plan for a European Health Community would have resolved not only the major problems of the health of Europeans but provided a mighty shield of protection against biowarfare.

Today it could have resolved Covid-19 problems emanating from the Wuham biosecurity laboratory in China, according to US authorities.

How?

This was the height of the Cold War. The Community drew on the studies that the European population should expect and design defence correspondingly. The properly functioning Community system enables detailed investigation of fact, submitted to intense questioning by interest groups, and the means to take unified action based on a democratic process that engages all strata of societies.

The Community’s purpose was also to provide democratic, transparent and effective defence against chemical and biological warfare, not to mention the health devastation of radiation that might be caused by atomic war.

Ancient biowarfare

In war the population should expect the unexpected. Civil rules are thrown out the window. Romans bathed their swords in excrement or fluid from corpses to infect their enemies with tetanus.
In second century Hatra, near Mosul, the Parthian inhabitants defended their fortress from the attacking Romans by launching pots full of deadly scorpions onto the legionnaires.
And then came an attack with global consequences…

In 1346 the Mongols catapulted diseased bodies into the Italian trading post of Caffa in the Crimea. The Italians fled in the ships and brought the disease to Italy and Europe. The ensuing bubonic plague or Black Death killed between 30 and 60 percent of Europeans.

Spanish ‘Flu, H1N1

In World War 1, Germans tried to cripple the horsepower of the Allies by spreading anthrax or glanders. At the close of the war Spanish Flu wiped out more people than had been killed in battle. It illustrated the debilitating spread of such a disease, a Corona virus. Known as H1N1, it infected 500 million people, a third of the world’s population. Estimates of deaths range from 17 to 100 million. It attacked young people, at first soldiers in crowded barracks. Fear and panic spread worldwide. If the strongest section of society was stricken down so easily, who could escape this disease?

The disease may have been generated from the spread of disease in animals, to fowl and then to humans by the conditions of modern agriculture and the economy. But what if such a disease was artificially produced for military purposes?

Because of these dangers the League of Nations proposed a treaty banning bacteriological weapons. At Geneva on 17 June 1925, 128 nations signed the ‘Protocol for the prohibition in War of Asphyxiating, poisonous and other Gases, and of bacteriological Methods of Warfare.’

That did not solve the problem. Far from it.


Japan’s Plague Polemology
Lieutenant General Shiro Iishi, supremo of Japan’s bacteriological warfare programme.

In Japan it led to a cynical escalation of bio-weapon research. One Japanese officer took a different view to the commonly expressed horror and revulsion at bio-weapons.

Shiro Iishi (later Lt General) argued that if all nations banned such warfare, Japan must do all in its power to create the most virulent germ weapons and investigate the most effective methods for destroying enemies with lethal diseases.

That was the start of the operation known as Unit 731, a hellish atrocity that plumbed greater depths of depravity than the Nazis and Dr Mengele.
Born of a wealthy family, surrounded by servants, Iishi made a world tour studying bio-war research: major institutions across USA, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Poland, Hungary, Scandinavia, the Baltics, USSR, Turkey, Ceylon and Singapore.
In 1931 General Tetsuan Nagata launched a false flag war on China. An explosion ripped into Japanese owned railway property. The military blamed the Chinese and decimated a Chinese military base. It led to the Japanese take-over of mineral-rich Manchuria.
As Japan conquered Manchuria and parts of China, Nagata called on Iishi to begin his experiments on Chinese human beings. Type A research, said Iishi, was attack warfare; type B, defence, could be done in Japan.
Thus began a decade of human experimentation including dissection without anaesthetics, and production of plague, typhoid, cholera and anthrax. Victims included Americans, French, British, Ukrainians, Koreans and Mongolians. Following the systematic kidnapping of some of its citizens in Harbin, the Soviets took aerial photographs of the vast Pingfan installation where they were kept.
Japanese military squadrons released anthrax bombs over China and poisoned waterways. Use against the USSR when war broke out was planned.

Spanish Flu and Swine Flu
Swine Flu was a respiratory disease like Covid-19. It was another form of H1N1. It hit in 2008 and more people were infected than the Spanish Flu but with less lethality (0.01 to 0,03 compared with 2 to 3 % for Spanish Flu.)
The fact that the historic virus of 1919 suddenly raised its lethal head nearly a century later, raised the question about whether it had been experimented with to produce a gain of function of its transmissibility.
About half a million people died, the same sort of figure as seasonal ‘flu. Like Covid-19 it was more infectious than lethal. The obese and those with other health problems are most often the victims.
Figures for mid October 2020 show similar lethality at between 2 and 3%. In September the European death rate for all diseases including Covid-19 were below the average annual death rate. Thus people were living longer! But in October the number of infections started to increase.
Germs and germ warfare
Germs were obviously a main theme of a European Health Community, but what about germ warfare?
There were already well-established health services in all the Member States. A large sector of the population was employed. Many States had their own pharmaceutical firms. Some, like Switzerland and Germany, had extensive international interests that they wished to protect against intrusion.
In the international sphere there were already world organisation like the United Nations and specifically the World Health Organisation, WHO.

WHO and Europe
Should European nations submit entirely to the WHO? Would that help in the needs and interests of Europeans? That is a question that is still relevant today.
To the latter question Paul Ribeyre replied that for Europe, the action of the WHO was too universal to hope to respond to Europe’s specific needs. Besides, he added diplomatically, a Community (composed of nations who were not part of the Soviet bloc) had to deal with their own special characteristics.
The United Nations at this time was the major scene of ideological battling. The Soviet influence inside the UN could seriously interfere with health issues, especially if an agency like WHO was ‘captured’ by the Communists of the Soviet States and its allies.
Ribeyre went further. He said that the Community needed to set up its own form of authority that would deal inside its own European limits. WHO had already proved inadequate to deal with far lesser problems.
An example of UN incoherent policy was that of narcotics. Some countries had an economic interest in the export of narcotics to the detriment of health of others.
It was not possible to gain worldwide consensus. Countries that had a monopoly control of pharmaceuticals or an economically discriminatory policy across borders had a potential tool in the ideological warfare of the time.
Europe had to define its health interests and protect them.

Schuman to the defence
Schuman was at the forefront in creating a defensive structure for France within Europe. He analysed the various means that could be exploited to ignite war across Europe.
After WW2, Europeans reverted to their own forms of nationalism. The military alliances of the war dissolved. The West had combined with the Soviet Union to fight Fascist German and Italy.
In the early postwar years, Europeans faced two major dangers, Schuman said. First was the uncertain future of Germany, presently divided between East and West. Secondly, the Soviet Union, which retained its massive Red Army, was threatening to invade the rest of Europe.
Schuman expanded the Dunkirk Treaty with UK to create with the Benelux countries the Western Union or Brussels Pact. While stressing the preservation of western values such as human rights, it required the means to resist external aggression. Its military committee was the embryo of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
How should Europeans boost their defence structure and ensure the safety of their citizens?
The European Coal and Steel Community of 1951 had the twin aims of strengthening the means to make arms while overseeing that armament firms did not get into the driver’s seat of government.
The Korean War, required more urgent means to be applied to collective European defence. The invasion of Korea was seen as a dry run for the invasion of Europe by the USSR. However, although the treaty for the European Defence Community was approved in the parliaments of five nations, in France parliament with a combination of communists, nationalists and Gaullists made sure that French approval was suspended. That put the EDC into long-term cold storage.
NATO could provide the defensive umbrella against Soviet aggression. But Europe’s many nations and opposing histories was far different from North America. Europeans had a far more difficult challenge about how to protect themselves in the event of war.
Europeans competed with each other, even wanting to build their own atomic bombs. The question of atomic war was later tackled in the Euratom treaty of 1957.

Germ Wars
But what of Germ Warfare? Protection was evidently something that Europeans had to do for themselves. They could not expect the Americans and Canadians to provide it.
The European Health Community Treaty provides a few possibilities that this could be instigated on a European Community basis with strong Community institutions to safeguard democratic values.
The most obvious gain would be to share expertise and and supplies against all the varied maladies of mankind. Europeans would be stronger and the economy would benefit hugely. But all that could be lost if war broke out or if an enemy tried to infect the population before invasion. So it is logical to surmise that EHC could be the nucleus of means of protection and defence.
Politically this was a very delicate subject. Nations of Western Europe still did not trust each other even though they had fought a war together.

The Democratic Mechanism
How could Europeans get together and trust each other in such a delicate but essential task? The goal to be attained was to create a powerful decisional system but also to find a way to encourage the free cooperation of experts, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical firms and people.
While the countries and peoples were different from the first Community of Coal and Steel, the governance was to be the same.
This shows that in the minds of architects of the European Health Community, there was only one model to that had the potential for this. That was the supranational Community and its already know five institutions.

The plans of the structure of the EHC were published in striking detail in 1952.