31 May, 2011

Truth 14: The Right to Choose is at the foundation of Human Rights

Having received a reply from the European Commission again refusing to publish the Great Charter of the Founding Fathers of the European Community, I was invited by the European Ombudsman to give my reactions.

Background The Founding Fathers of Europe defined 18 April 1951 as the day which was the Birthday of Europe. Their signatures of the Treaty of Paris and the commitment of Six Founder States, they said, was the 'REAL FOUNDATION' of Europe. It was to be based on supranational democracy. They provided a Great Charter defining as the principal right of citizens the right and freedom to choose. This is necessary to distinguish TRUTH. This excluded the so-called 'People's Democracies' where the political parties were in control and free organized civil society was banned or gagged. It excluded religious autocracies. It excluded any form of political dictatorship. Recently European politicans European politicans refused to recognize referendums saying NO to their shoddy Constitutional Treaty designed to give parties more power. They changed its name to the Lisbon Treaty  and parties forced it through. They have spent more than 4 million euros (plus untold millions indirectly) in deceitful propaganda like the 'Together since 1957' programme. The aim was to try to convince European citizens that the European Community began in 1957 with the treaties of Rome. They mention only one treaty -- the Economic Treaty -- and say that all the EU today derived from the Market. This is FALSE. First came reconciliation then Europe's democratic political structures. Europe began with the European Community system in 1951, the first Community being the European Coal And Steel Community. It created Europe's first Single Market in 1953 and created the need for further democratic Communities. Since the time of de Gaulle in the 1960s these Communities have not been able to function democratically because of the centralizing position of the Council of Ministers and now the European Council.

Here is my reply.

Schuman Project
David H Price, Editor

30 May 2011
Director General, Communication
European Commission

Re: Ombudsman refs 1200/2010/RT and 663/2011/RT

Dear Mr Sørensen,
Thank you for your letter of 15 April 2011 relative to my long correspondence about the EU’s plans for celebrating the 60th anniversary of the founding of the European Union on 18 April 2011.

I am glad to receive confirmation that Mr Robert Schuman’s Declaration of 9 May 2011 will be published in its full form, that is, the Commission publications will be corrected. That implies correction according to a certified copy from the original held by the French Foreign Ministry. Does this ‘corrected’ Commission publication include the preliminary, strategic paragraphs placing the French government decision in its world political context? I would be grateful to know if you have received an official copy from the French Foreign Ministry. If so, I would be grateful to receive a copy.

I wish to renew my request for the immediate publication of the Charter of the Founding Fathers, the Declaration made on 18 April 1951. Notwithstanding the remarks of the Ombudsman in 1200/2010/RT, I believe it is the Commission’s legal responsibility to publish Europe's great Charter, establishing the ‘true foundation’ of Europe, based on supranational democratic principles. The argument about its absence in the archive of EUI at Florence is irrelevant. This is based on a misunderstanding of the dating {it starts officially in August 1952} and mission {it covers internal bureaucratic files only}of the Florence EUI Archives, as I described in my letter of 16 February 2011.

The reasons the Commission is legally and morally obliged to publish the Charter include the following:
  1. The Declaration of the Founding Fathers acting as Plenipotentiaries of the Six is an official document of the European Community. It is a concomitant part of the foundational Treaty of Paris that was ratified in all parliamentary chambers of the Founder States.
  2. The Commission believes it right to publish the foundational Treaty of Paris, even though it does not possess an authentic copy from France in Brussels or in its archives at Florence. France gave official copies only to Member States. The Treaty is the original basis for European law. All the Community institutions should publish this Charter as a concomitant part of the Treaty. The Charter is also part of Community law, defining rights and duties of States, organisations and individuals, as well as those of the European institutions. The principles of the Charter are not time-limited in any way.
  3. This legally important Charter contains elements and principles dealing with Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of all citizens. There is no excuse as to why it has not been published by the Commission. This is a major oversight. It denies citizens proper knowledge of how the European States and institutions have recognized their rights.
  4. Being published on an unofficial Luxembourg website (which is not always working properly) is not an argument to relieve the Commission of its dereliction. The Commission has legal responsibilities to publish it as a founding document. It is a legal responsibility of the Commission and the other institutions to make known to citizens their rights and privileges as being part of the Community. This Charter document is a succinct legal document describing those rights. One of the obligations spelt out prominently in the Charter is that it must be properly published, specifically by the governments and others organs. (See inter alia the first paragraphs and the last line of the Charter.)
  5. Other documents such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Lisbon Treaty have been published. Yet this 1951 Great Charter is the foundation for those rights in the Lisbon Treaty Charter. It is all the more reason why the Commission should not only publish it but give it great prominence.
  6. It is a legal document of the Community signed by Plenipotentiaries, and ratified by Parliaments. It should also be introduced into the legal database of documents of the EU such as EurLex.
  7. It defines the conditions by which the two halves of Europe, divided by the Iron Curtain, or military occupation such as Cyprus can be fully active members of the European Community. It provides the philosophical basis for the Community’s foreign policy. This is of major importance in relation to the ‘Arab Spring’ and events in the Middle East, Africa, China, Russia and elsewhere.
You write that ‘The celebration of other important historical dates, such as the 60th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration or of the Treaty of Paris, were not selected by the European institutions as communication priorities.’ {My emphasis} Can you tell me how this was decided? Who authorized spending ɛ4.2 million on the ‘Together since 1957’ project and that this date should be acclaimed as Europe’s 50th birthday – when clearly it was not? Which committees were responsible for checking, controlling and passing a multi-million euro programme based on false historical information?

How much was spent on the Robert Schuman Declaration celebration in May 2010, how was it selected, who authorized how was it spent?

Who decided that the real 60th birthday of Europe, as defined by the Founding Fathers, 18 April 2011 should not be ‘selected’? Which officials decided that nothing should be spent on it and that not even a press release should be issued? Who was on the committee? Were the concepts in my long, two-year correspondence saying that it should be the major celebration of recent years discussed? Mr Schuman declared that his great initiative ‘would make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible’. That has happened. Europeans are now living in the longest period of peace in more than 2000 years of history. Why was this date, not only not selected but being a hugely important and well-known calendar date, DE-selected from any celebration, mention or the slightest communication? I enclose a recent article I wrote about it, published on several websites in Europe and North America. http://democracy.blogactiv.eu/2011/04/18/mr-barroso-where-is-europes-celebration-of-the-first-real-peace-and-democracy-in-2000-years-today-18-april-2011-is-the-60th-anniversary/

Thank you in advance for your replies to these questions. I am enclosing a copy of this letter to the Ombudsman as the above questions were raised and not answered or dealt with even after the above referenced complaint.

Yours sincerely,

David Price

10 May, 2011

Research1 FP8. Is the EU too proud, too atheistic, to scientifically research its origin and Europe's future?

What is the scientific topic that is of most vital interest to the entirety of European research? What is the European scientific discovery that countries around the world look for with green envy and wish they had it?

It is a scientific achievement that has the world gazing in open-mouthed wonder.

Clue: it is the topic that the present European leaders refuse to fund as part of the Framework programme for research. Not only in the present programme, but I know of no funded research in any of the multibillion euros programmes in the past.

That intellectual question, of course, is:

How did Europe create a system that brought PEACE to the warring, bloody states of Europe? After exporting its quarrels and creating two world wars, how is it that today Europe is now living in the LONGEST PERIOD OF PEACE IN 2000 years? Why are there continuous wars and violence, authoritarianism and misery to the north, south and east of the European Union? How did the European Community become a prosperous ZONE of PEACE?

Robert Schuman called it Europe's great SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT. The Framework Programme for research, however, has become an iron box constraining all research into the materialistic scientism of our deformed educational system and the economic egotism of politicians. Politicians want to set the goals of research -- and in the 2020 and 2030 programmes they want no more talk of democracy! They have other goals wrong too, by any impartial analysis. Research by its very nature should be open to new ideas. The European Union, if driven by these false motives and fed by billions of taxpayers' money, is directed to goals away from the noblest achievement of European history.

Why? Because both the atheistic educational system and the vanity of politicians is scared of addressing the miracle of our times.

How did nations and peoples who for 2000 or more years have for every generation killed and conquered each other, how did these warlike people suddenly embark on PEACE?

Robert Schuman attributes it to two factors: a scientific study of the history of humankind in various sectors and the revelation of Christianity. It is the latter -- or rather the combination of science and religion that that sends the politicians and the scientists into a tizzy.

Their reaction is irrational, emotional and unscientific. Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist of modern times, acknowledged as such by Einstein and others, spent more of his time studying the Bible in Greek and Hebrew than he did on the experiments and theories of gravitation, optics and the creation of mathematical tools like calculus. Why? Because by studying the Bible he drew inspiration for solving the deepest mysteries of the physical world. His motives were not scientific discovery alone but the quest of personal truth and understanding his place in the Creator's universe.

The same is true for Michael Faraday, the chemist and great experimenter of physics who discovered electromagnetism and its invisible fields. Without his work on electric motors and dynamos, modern society could not function. The theoretician of electromagnetism, James Clerk Maxwell, also drew his inspiration from the Bible and his belief and faith in his Creator.

These men made great discoveries. Their faith taught them humility and they often refused honours and decorations. Humility and the search for truth is necessary in establishing scientific facts from myths and errors.

They described physical processes that had escaped the wisest men of antiquity. Our universities teach Aristotle, Plato and many other ancient pagan philosophers. They were undoubtedly smart, perhaps they were even cleverer than any of the present generation. Yet they never discovered the physics of gravity or were able to apply the principles of electromagnetism. Without a spiritual revelation the material characteristics of the physical world around them remained a mystery.

In our times a great mystery has been revealed. Yet when it comes to the miracle of our times -- the means to make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible -- the EU is silent and dumb. It wants its research to pursue dumb projects that have nothing to do with Man's purpose on this planet. Where did Schuman gain his insights? Is it a coincidence that he also studied the Bible on a daily basis? Is it not worth scientific study that if the greatest innovators and scientists of our age say they drew their inspiration from the Bible, then we should study whether this is coincidence or divine revelation? To dismiss the remarkable 'coincidence' is a sign of prejudice not science. It is a manifestation of the pervading religion of our times -- arrogant, materialistic scientism with its own atheistic dogmas and ideologies.

What did Schuman say about the philosophers he had studied at universities and which he continued to read in the original Latin and Greek? 'The Book of Proverbs in the Bible is richer in sense than all the vast tomes of philosophy.' Was it practical? Was it useful for a statesman and Prime Minister who had steered France through its greatest external post-war threats (Soviet expansion, an attempted Communist coup d'Etat and the resurgent German problem), resolved its financial crises (massive inflation combined with enormous deficits), and set the foundation for a new age of peace in Europe? 'My long experience allows me to confirm how correct it is,' he told his colleague Rene Lejeune.

If this phenomenon is thus proven, if the results are confirmed by the greatest scientists, including Schuman, shouldn't Biblical philosophy be studied? Shouldn't it be part of the European research programme?

Woaah! That would shock the advisers and experts of the FP8! Why? Because the scientific research programme of the EU is not scientific. There are No Go areas. Set by whom? An anti-religious minority. The entire programme it would seem is in the control of atheists or sympathizers who do not call them out, who ban any research into the study of any philosophy that is not atheistic or comes from pagan Greek philosophers. These experts apparently are cleverer than Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Einstein and Schuman combined!

Pagans? OK! Christianity? You will get NO money, only ribald laughter. Jewish philosophy and the Hebrew Bible? Huh. Do not even ask the question! Yet there are proportionally more Jewish Nobel prize winners than any other race or religion.

Why does the EU exclude what it despisingly calls the 'religious' that is non-pagan philosophy from the techniques and requirements for scientific discovery? Prejudice. Totally unscientific. One in five of the around 800 Nobel Prize winners have Jewish blood. Yet Jews amount to only one in 500 of the world's population. They make a extraordinarily disproportionate, rich and varied contribution to the scientific culture of the planet.

They come from all countries of the world. Babies start with zero education. Surely there must be something in the Book and culture that the Jews have preserved in all these environments for three or four thousand years. Even in the USA, those of Jewish origin gain 27 percent of the Nobel prizes, (3 % of the population) Protestant origin 72 percent and Roman Catholic 1 percent (with a quarter of the population). Einstein had a passionate zeal for ancient Jewish Solomonic philosophy in his youth and interestingly his theory of relativity draws on concepts of time and space long exposed in ancient Jewish writings.

With the EU's outdated, false ideas of the war of science and religion, it is no wonder that Europe's research is entering an impasse of its own making, and that of its unenlightened political leaders.

The Research and Innovation Directorate General of the Commission is requesting opinions on their latest Framework Programme and a Green Paper. Here are the replies of the Schuman Project.

Consultation on the Green Paper –

"Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU research and innovation funding"

The name of my organisation is
Schuman Project on the origin, purpose and future of the supranational European Community system and Robert Schuman's thought and action

Have you or your organisation received funding in the last three years from EU FP7, CIP or other EU programmes? ... None of the above

Have you or do you intend to submit a separate written response to this consultation ... Don't know

Working together to deliver on Europe 2020

1. How should the Common Strategic Framework make EU research and innovation more attractive and easy to access for participants? What is needed in addition to a single entry point with common IT tools, a one stop shop for support, a streamlined set of funding instruments covering the full innovation chain and further steps towards administrative simplification?

The European Commission's 2020 paper and the 2030 report have major flaws which are outlined in commentaries at http://www.schuman.info/2020-1.htm and /2020-2.htm plus /2030.htm dealing with the Gonzalez Report. These analyze the inadequacies of the Commission's position in relation to (1) democracy in a supranational Community of Europe (2) Energy security and the need for an Energy Community based on supranational democratic lines outlined by Robert Schuman and others in the past plus the need to set energy independence as a strategic goal. The criticism of the Gonzalez Report deals with (a) the lack of research in Security and Defence and in particular how the European Community system developed a security Community that 'made war not only unthinkable but materially impossible'. Those are the words of the Schuman Proposal of 9 May 1950. Schuman said his proposal was like 'a scientific experiment'. He had proved the theory and applied it. The result? Western Europe now has the longest period of peace in 2000+ years while neighbouring States still go to war. http://democracy.blogactiv.eu (b) the Energy problem and supply blackmail (c) democracy (d) the financial crisis and supranational solutions. The major question for the Commission is whether it wishes to get involved in the supranational question since it has avoided this research over the last decades. This is bizarre as the supranational system has produced the most beneficial outcomes in Europe's entire history

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

2. How should EU funding best cover the full innovation cycle from research to market uptake?

The EU should first acknowledge the area of research of the supranational which provided innovations such as 1. Europe's first Single market 1953, yes 1953! 2. Peace system is vital for research 3. Economic unity comes from this supranational process 4. Monetary union is possible but this needs to be coherent with supranational principles and at present it is not. The above are far more basic than usual considerations of the innovation cycle.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

3. What are the characteristics of EU funding that maximise the benefit of acting at the EU level? Should there be a strong emphasis on leveraging other sources of funding?

Funding is secondary to a healthy policy orientation. Funding without correct orientation can reinforce errors such as over-reliance on inter-governmentalism and disparaging of European democratic structures, including the proper place for organized civil society.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

4. How should EU research and innovation funding be used to pool Member States' research and innovation resources? Should Joint Programming Initiatives between groups of Member States be supported?

The structure of inter funding and cooperation should be coordinated with the properly set up supranational political and democratic structures rather than ad hoc committees.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

5.What should be the balance between smaller, targeted projects and larger, strategic ones?

In the applied research area coordination is necessary. In the pure research it is a matter of judgement of the results. In other areas planetary targets are necessary, comprising both small and large projects. This requires a system able to tackle complexity such as the supranational system.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

6.How could the Commission ensure the balance between a unique set of rules allowing for radical simplification and the necessity to keep a certain degree of flexibility and diversity to achieve objectives of different instruments, and respond to the needs of different beneficiaries, in particular SMEs?

Bureaucracy is a drag on research. The administration should be light and controls against corrupt practice should be managed via a multi-layered approach where appeals for analysis and inspection can be made when various alarm bells ring and help can then be sought from expertise to resolve problems. It is necessary to have a political decision that allows smaller amounts of money to be free of strings to allow and encourage research participation where innovative ideas are involved. Some other funding requires strict control. The supranational system provides possibilities for a democratic GosPlan of vast complexity. It could be more efficient than China's innovative approach and more flexible.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

7.What should be the measure of success for EU research and innovation funding? Which performances indicators could be used?

The concentration on economics is often counter-productive. The Schuman system took a Maslovian approach starting with creating peace, not war. Then economic gains can be made, followed by social and political innovations, then monetary union with corresponding enlarged democratic control (which we do not have). Further stages of development deal with ontological questions and human happiness (rather than the present politics of greed and selfishness). Thus a hierarchy of performance indicators is required involving the accumulation of wisdom, the principal matter.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

8.How should EU research and innovation funding relate to regional and national funding? How should this funding complement funds from the future Cohesion policy, designed to help the less developed regions of the EU, and the rural development fund?

The European institutions are at present still undeveloped. The Council does not act as an open forum as treaties require, nor does it integrate properly with national parliaments and other national bodies in free and open debate. The Committee of the Regions is not yet even democratically elected. it shoudl have its own elected sub-committees as well as the Economic and Social Committee which also has never had an election in its more than 50 years of existence. The reaction to this democratic tardiness is to create alternative committees while waiting for these institutions to gain the democratic spurs is often anti-progressive as it increasing the comitology. All decisions should have democratic legitimacy by elected representatives not by bureaucrats or their invitees. Money should not be earmarked by technical committees. Elected representatives should coordinate policies inside the well-designed Community system, not the horror we have today.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

Tackling Societal Challenges

9. How should a stronger focus on societal challenges affect the balance between curiosity-driven research and agenda-driven activities?

The focus of societal changes has not been properly addressed as the European Council issues its own pronoucements without full democratic consultation. It has returned to closed door intergovernmentalism. Thus full democracy is necessary BEFORE goals can be set. If ministers refuse to recognize referendums, if the elections get ever-declining turn-outs, if there is more and more discontent about the budget handling and if the support for political parties decline further (it is already far less than half of the popualtion), then the main work needs to be focused on democracy not artificial goals (sometimes lobby-driven) of the European Council.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

10. Should there be more room for bottom-up activities?

There should be adequate activities for democracy at all levels: 1. European with an eye on the planet, 2 national, 3 regional 4 economic and social (organized societies), 5 individual and 6 legal.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

11. How should EU research and innovation funding best support policy making and forward looking activities?

This is vital as politicians in an intergovernmental approach think short term, companies think about balance sheets. Inadequate interaction occurs on global issues which can seriously affect the EU, eg North Africa revolts, wars, energy embargoes, price hikes of oil/gas (greater than the EU budget!) China, US debt, climate change, population and food problems. All five original EU institutions should be the coordiantion agencies for dealing with certain aspects of such problems and challenges. This provides for the management of complexity. The Community provides a sectoral approach which provides clearer answers to vital questions. The Lisbon treaty's one-size-fits-all has proven inadequacy.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

12. How should the role of the Commission's Joint Research Centre be improved in supporting policy making and forward looking activities?

The JRC has huge potential but is not always able to deploy it. I say this as one who has worked there. In short it should act as a research arm for the five institutions as judged necessary and as agreed democratically.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

13. How could EU research and innovation activities attract greater interest and involvement of citizens and civil society?

Public involvement will come from democratizing the institutions as the Founding Fathers declared was necessary in their Charter declaration of 18 April 1951 (www.schuman.info/europedeclaration.htm ) and in developing the five outline structues they defined to improve supranational democracy of the Community system. Example, the European Parliament has not had a single election conforming to the articles in the treaties of Paris or Rome that say a single electoral statute should be passed valid for all States. www.schuman.info/election1.htm Elections of the EP and the EESC and CoR should be on a Europe-wide basis, according to the treaties we already have. www.schuman.info/schoolreport.htm The Economic and Social Committee has statutory powers of legal assent to legislation. Its legitimacy would come if it was elected on a European basis as the Founding Fathers said. It would provide a consensus decision combining viewpoints of 1 Enterprises, 2 Workers, 3 Consumers. Each grouping has a third of the votes.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

Strengthening competitiveness

14. How should EU funding best take account of the broad nature of innovation, including non technological innovation, eco-innovation, and social innovation?

By taking into account democratically formulated policy in all areas of human activities falling within Community treaties, the risk of technocratic decision-making can be minimized. The five institutions need to be fully working for this.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

15. How should industrial participation in EU research and innovation programmes be strengthened? How should Joint Technology Initiatives (such as those launched in the current Framework Programmes) or different forms of "public private partnership" be supported? What should be the role of European Technology Platforms?

Refer to my answer to 13. Inventing further committees without legitimacy of democracy is counter-productive and makes public support more difficult.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

16. How and what type of Small and Medium-sized Entreprises (SME) should be supported at EU level; how should this complement national and regional level schemes? What kind of measures should be taken to decisively facilitate the participation of SMEs in EU research and innovation programmes?

Support is a loaded word as it implies directing the goals of SMEs to something other than they would have chosen. The best motiviation is self motivation. The best goals are those where the SMEs feel they are making a positive contribution to a common useful, human, strategic goal of planetary importance. Recycling tax payers money via bureaucrats is sometimes the least efficient way for a society to achieve important goals. Helping SMEs to use their own profits wisely helps the whole of society.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

17. How should open, light and fast implementation schemes (e.g. building on the current FET actions and CIP eco-innovation market replication projects) be designed to allow flexible exploration and commercialisation of novel ideas, in particular by SMEs?

See my answer to 13.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

18. How should EU level financial instruments (equity and debt based) be used more extensively?

Financial solvency should not be compromised by offering credit where it would undermine the economy as we see not only in Ireland. it would be a healthier step to initiate sound financial practice rather than for the EU to be unthinking instruments of banks either directly or indirectly. See 16.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

19. Should new approaches to supporting research and innovation be introduced, in particular through public procurement, including through rules on pre-commercial procurement, and/or inducement prizes?

All these schemes involve goals with little democratic basis and furthermore open to corrupt practice and lobbying. Public procurement for example requires tax money be used after interactive democratic discussions not the whim of a party politician. This also begs the question as to why ever increasing emphasis on R&D is made when little discussion is had on the goals and outcomes of an ever acquisitive, ever-competitive society. Research for what? Prizes for what? A more humane society, a more spiritual society or a more selfish society?

How important are the aspects covered in this question?

20. How should intellectual property rules governing EU funding strike the right balance between competitiveness aspects and the need for access to and dissemination of scientific results?

Patent monopolies and abuse was a major factor in World Wars eg IG Farben and Exxon. China is aiming to corner some intellectual property rights of major industries. As yet a full discussion of such issues has not been had. Discussion of patent cartels and monopolies must be opened up. This is a very specialized topic and a complex one. That is why the Founding Fathers created a Consultative Committee that would bring three sections: enterprises, workers and consumers together to take decisions on such matters. The outcome depends on my answer at 13.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

Strengthening Europe's science base and the European Research Area

21. How should the role of the European Research Council be strengthened in supporting world class excellence?

See my answer at 13.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

22. How should EU support assist Member States in building up excellence?

See my answer at 13.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

23. How should the role of Marie Curie Actions be strengthened in promoting researcher mobility and developing attractive careers?

How important are the aspects covered in this question?

24. What actions should be taken at EU level to further strengthen the role of women in science and innovation?

Gender issues as well as many others are part of my answer in 13.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

25. How should research infrastructures (including EU-wide e-Infrastructures) be supported at EU level?

See answer to 13. This involves as it has for the last decades since Euronet in the 1980s the laying of fast telecom lines and data structures but the ultimate need is for democratic interactions.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

26. How should international cooperation with non-EU countries be supported e.g. in terms of priority areas of strategic interest, instruments, reciprocity (including on IPR aspects) or cooperation with Member States?

Policy issues need to be formulated using the Community method. Some international interactions are downright dangerous for Europeans. For example exports of fissile material and dual use technologies to Iran and other countries should be assured through the controls of the Euratom treaty which have never really been implemented (see www.schuman.info/euratom.htm ) The same is true of other sectors and areas that should be coordinated and policy defined via active European institutions such as the Commission, EECS, CoR, EP and the Council. Companies and consumers working with non-EU countries bring a huge amount of intelligence about ways to cooperate with them and their cultures. That is why institutions like the EESC were created so that this knowledge can be shared.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

27. Which key issues and obstacles concerning ERA should EU funding instruments seek to overcome, and which should be addressed by other (e.g. legislative) measures?

All issues and goals should be subject to proper democratic debate BEFORE there is talk of taxpayers' funding of projects and Legislation. It is for ddemocratic instances to declare the direction. At present there is a great risk that these choices are made by over-active lobby groups without adequate debate taking place in the Council and that behind closed doors. National parliaments have to pass block legislation and there are still no adequate debates and simplifications procedures. Rather politicians are subject to legislative and funding gluttony in attempts to show they are active and have worthwhile careers. Then the legislation or the projects are found to be wrong-headed, the laws indigestible and incomprehensible. Democracy is lacking in the conception of goals, in the process of initiating funding and the writing of laws.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

Closing question

Are there any other ideas of comments which you believe are important for future EU research and innovation funding and are not covered in the Green Paper?

Actual research of the supranational system, its origin and purpose as well as the means to redress against corrupt practice have not been part of the EU research, mainly it would seem it would collide with political goals. This is a sad commentary on the present politics of Europe. After 50 years where nationalists such as de Gaulle tried their best to destroy the Community, and milk the system (CAP meat mountains and milk lakes, secret funding of nuclear projects etc), it is now time to realise that the Community system will not turn over and die. Corruption in all its forms still needs to be addressed. The Community systems still survives because it has a moral base. Supranational democracy represents the major chance and benefit for Europe and for the planet.

03 May, 2011

Jihad4 : Europe must reverse its Nazi-like support for Holocaust-denial, Jew-hatred and jihadi terrorism!

Human Rights in the Middle East and North Africa? The European Union is going the right way -- the extreme right way -- to encourage Nazi ideology all along its southern borders. It spends millions of tax-payers' money in supporting a regime that is outrightly anti-Semitic and jihadist, that follows the Nazi model on racial supremacy and glorifies the extermination of the Jews as part of its programme.



Consider! THINK!

* If one of EU's Member States demanded that all Jews down to the last man, woman and child must be cleared out of its territory, would it get EU funding for the project?

Yet this is exactly what the EU is doing abroad. The Council of Ministers gives political and diplomatic support and millions of euros -- European taxpayers' money -- to do so.

* If an EU Member State named a football tournament after a jihadist who had hijacked a bus and then murdered the passengers, 37 people including 12 children, would the EU continue its political support and funding?

Yet abroad EU politicians are strongly propping up this regime with diplomatic support and the Europeans' own money.

* If an EU member State refused to recognize another member State, let us say Denmark, Luxembourg or the Netherlands, or even a neighbour like Switzerland and said it should be part of greater Germany or an aggrandized France, would it get EU funding and support?

Yet this is exactly what the EU is supporting abroad with all the political and diplomatic power at its elbow.

* If a member State had official textbooks that preached hatred and war against another member State or a minority inside its borders, would it get OFFICIAL EU funding?

Yet this is exactly what official EU Foreign Policy supports. Other funding is coming directly from Member States budgets.

* If a terrorist organisation was found to be largely sustained because of public funding inside the EU, would it get extra aid and encouragement from Brussels? If the entire population of a region voted in elections to declare war and kill the population of a neighbouring country, would it get EU funding? Is that democracy?

Yet this is what is happening abroad according to EU policy.

* What would the EU do if one of the political parties in the European Parliament made a political merger with a terrorist organisation responsible for countless deaths, bombings and stabbings? Would it continue to give them support, pay its 'politicians' and expect them to attain high office in government?

Yet that is exactly what the EU is doing abroad.

Let us take those points one by one.

1. The EU is providing half a billion euros to support 'ministries' and 'administrations' of what could be the latest neo-Nazi racist and apartheid state. The Palestine Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas said that if he had a state 'I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land". He would exclude any European of Jewish origin setting foot in 'HIS' territory. In published sources he is quoted by the official Palestinian agency, Wafa as saying: '"I'm willing to agree to a third party that would supervise the agreement, such as NATO forces, but I would not agree to having Jews among the NATO forces, or that there will live among us even a single Israeli on Palestinian land.” This makes it clear that when Abbas says Israeli he does not mean Israeli Arab, Israeli Christian or Israeli Baha'i. He means Jew.

Later Wafa published the following correction: ' I will not agree that an Israeli, even if he is a Muslim, will be present on my land.' That implies war against any who collaborate with Jews. This is worse than any apartheid state. It is pure racism of the Nazi type -- Judenrein, free of Jews. That is the term the Nazis gave to conquered territories where all the Jews had been murdered or sent to concentration camps elsewhere. Is the Council of Ministers now funding this Nazi policy abroad? Why is there no debate on the subject? Will the EU demand that Abbas repudiate all of these statements before he gets another cent in support?

In any European Member State Abbas would not be allowed even to be a politician. Why then is he recognized at all? What are the EU's rules for talking to anti-Semites? Where has the European External Action Service published its rules? Abbas is the author of a Holocaust denying thesis, passed in Moscow in Cold War days. It says that Zionist leaders conspired with Nazis in the killing of thousands of fellow Jews. It describes as “the Zionist fantasy, the fantastic lie that six million Jews were killed”. It maintains that the gas chambers were built and used for disinfection and control of disease. The Palestinian Authority has steadfastly refused to remove this Holocaust-denying book from all its libraries. It is scarcely surprising that so many Arabs deny the Holocaust. Is the EU also encouraging this in supporting Abbas and 'former' terrorists, now residing in their plush villas? Abbas was once elected but when his term expired declared himself an extension. That puts him in the same category as a dictator, following the German pattern in history. In any EU State he would be boycotted for fraud.

2. Yes, the Palestinian football tournament is named after a bloody murderer, whose war name was Abu Jihad, or Khalil al-Wazir. He was a founder of the Fatah terrorist group which saw killing of defenceless children and civilians as the type of combat to which he was best suited. He was acclaimed by the Palestinian 'peace' leaders as prince of the shahids or martyrs. This is not unusual. The Karate championships are named for Abdallah Daoud who was responsible for many terror attacks. It is sponsored by an organisation wanting the 'repatriation' of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Daoud was one of the terrorists who stormed the Church of the Nativity in 2002, continuing to fight against Israel for several weeks while using the monks and the religious site as shields

What is the EU's policy on such 'sport' ? Does it encourage interchanges with people who glorify the idea of using force against churches? Christians, mainly educated Arab Christians, who used to be the majority of around 75% in Bethlehem have now mainly disappeared to around 23% under the PA 'administration'.

Why is the EU supporting regimes that glory in the destruction of synagogues and churches and anything that opposes a dictatorial Islam? Why is the EU supporting an Arab Palestinian entity that has declared that it wants a state totally dominated by Sharia law where all other religions are banned or subjugated to Islam? All members of any Palestinian parliament would have to be Islamic sectarians and swear allegiance before 'Allah'. "I swear by Allah Almighty to be faithful to the Homeland, and to preserve the rights and interests of the people and nation, and to respect law and perform my duties in the best manner, as Allah is my witness". That is the equivalent term jihadis and other politically brainwashed Islamists use when killing, maiming or stabbing those who disagree with them -- Allahu Akhbar, the takbir, used by various killers including those suicidal jihadi maniacs of 9/11, and the bombers in Europe's capital cities.

Do these so-called Arab 'democrats' expect Europeans, do the expect ME or anyone else, to pay them from our taxes for such bigotry? After they have already eliminated any Arab wanting real friendship with Jews, do they expect EU support? Why? What if someone believes this 'Allah', is a false god. The name is used for bloody and bigoted conflict that also permits witnesses to lie. It is clear, he says, it has nothing to do with the true God, the creator of the universe, who says: you shall not bear false witness. Must that honest person lie or submit to be part of this bigoted, sharia state? Such a constitution is a recipe for increasing aggressive Middle Eastern politics-- which will envelop Europe in more bloody wars.

3. We have already quoted the self-proclaimed 'President' Abbas on the Judenrein Palestine. What is its policy towards Israel, a full member of the UN? The PA issues maps where the State of Israel has been left out altogether. All the land is Palestine, according to the PA. That rather makes nonsense of any peace process. Amendments to the Palestinian Covenant of the PLO that denies Israel's right to exist have been promised many times. The articles on a new Holocaust have never been revoked. Despite promises by Arafat to the press conference that it was 'caduc' and misleading statements by others such as US President Clinton, Palestinians and their documents confirm that all they have agreed to is that sometime in the future they might amend the articles on their policy of Israeli ethnocide. In the meantime such murderous sentiments as were written into the covenant dating back to PLO's Nasserite origins remain. Why is the EU supporting an entity whose official policy is still the extermination of the Jews?

4. According to a monitoring report by EUfunding.org, research which is confirmed by other organisations, the EU and its Member States are funding hatred in school books. Five key points are listed:

* Palestinian children are forced to learn from inflammatory material, much of it containing hidden and/or violent directives. This is an abuse of their basic student rights, as laid down by UNESCO.

* It is evident that the texts are designed not to include the name of Israel. When this rule is breached, Israel is only referred to in a negative context. Any connection between Jews and the Holyland is denied emphatically.

* The result is that the Palestinian children are encouraged to hate their neighbors. This culture not only fans the flames of violence; it significantly reduces the chances for peace among the next generation.

* These books are funded by foreign governments and respected international agencies; in particular Belgium, Italy and UNESCO.

* The institutions of the United Nations, in particular UNESCO and UNRWA, are clearly providing services, which only deepen the fostering hatred directed at Israel.

What about teaching Human Rights in Arab schools? Do the teachers and the workers in Palestinian Arab schools learn the facts about the Holocaust? It is forbidden! Verboten! This is what the Arab daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, published on 14 April 2011.

Headline: "The [UNRWA Workers'] Union emphasized its opposition to teaching the Holocaust of the Jews as part of the curriculum in the [UNRWA] Agency's schools..."

"The [UNRWA] Workers' Union emphasized its adamant opposition to teaching the Holocaust of the Jews within the educational curriculum of UNRWA schools, as part of the topic of human rights. The union said, 'We emphasize our adamant opposition to confusing the thinking of our students' by means of Holocaust studies in the human rights study curriculum ... (emphasis added)

Confused from what? Perhaps the constant encouragement of young people on television and throughout the media to prepare themselves as shahids that is suicide bombers, martyrs and guerrillas against civilians, like Abu Jihad.

5. The EU is sustaining and has sustained this squalid political mess where terrorists -- not democrats -- run the administration. The PLO terrorized any Arab who wanted to collaborate or had collaborated with the Israelis. Why did the EU let that happen? Then the EU encouraged elections in Gaza between two terrorist organizations, the PLO and Hamas, which is still on the EU's terrorist list. Hamas states its goal as Jewish ethnocide. As discussed in the earlier commentary, Hamas sets their goal as the destruction of Israel and the subjection to the whole population to militant Islam 'which will abolish {Israel} as it abolished all that preceded it.'

UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, is mainly paid for by the EU. It pays nearly two-thirds (62%) of its budget. Europe has been paying for more than 60 years! Why? because the Arab refugees in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan refuse to be integrated into those States and the States refuse to integrate them. That was the case when Egypt was in charge of Gaza from 1948 to 1957 and when also Jordan had invaded and controlled Samaria and Judea. They did absolutely nothing for the refugees and kept them in tents.They could have solved the problem then. They refused.

Who are the refugees? They are like no other refugees in the world and they get more more per capita than the really needy elsewhere. They are also permanent. In 1948 there were an estimated 8 million Indian refugees expelled from Pakistan following the independence conflict between Pakistan and India. Where they re-settled? Yes. Is the Palestinian Arab problem an issue about Islam? No. There were six million Islamic refugees from India who went to Pakistan. Were they re-settled? Yes.

Those 14 million refugees have all been re-settled. So have the millions and millions of refugees in Europe after World War 2. But not the much smaller number of Arab Palestinians, half a million maybe three-quarters. Why? Because the other Arab States wanted to create a permanent problem for Israel. They did so because of the humiliating defeat of their seven national armies illegally invading the sovereign State of Israel in 1948. There are now some 4 million refugees!

They created a special definition of 'refugee' like no other in the world. An UNRWA refugee can not only be the person seeking refuge but his children and his children's children and so on ad infinitum. It will never end. UNLESS the EU and democrats take the problem in hand. A Nazi-like Judenrein State with no agreed borders, with terror weapons financed from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and perhaps Egypt is no solution. It is an invitation for disaster for Europe too. Europe needs to use its influence to create a real DEMOCRATIC solution based on the European Human Rights Convention.

What defines a refugee? He has to be displaced from a dwelling -- where he lived less than TWO years -- before 1948. They had to be in residence from June 1946. An UNRWA refugee is one whose "normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict." And now this is 'inherited' by his many, many children, unlike other refugees.

Many of the original refugees were itinerant workers from Egypt, Syria and neighbouring countries. That definition was not a serious proposition in 1950s. It is ridiculous today where we see the scores of great grandchildren of one wandering agricultural worker from Syria claiming they are Palestinians. Yasser Arafat, despite his claims to the contrary, was born in Egypt as his birth certificate proved.

At the beginning there were many Jews who had been displaced. Some had lived there for generations, despite long persecution under the Ottoman empire, and then through the British Mandate -- the system where the nations of the world promised the conquered land from the Ottomans to the Jews as a national home. All coins and all stamps during the British Mandate period (1922-1948) already bore the designation in Hebrew for Land of Israel, in conformity to the international law of the League of Nations. This law had been passed by all Member States of the League and ratified by all their parliaments. It was re-confirmed by nations joining the United Nations.

The score of Arab States, some immensely rich from oil and including those that illegally invaded the land of Israel, did not deal with the Arab refugee problem. All the Jewish refugees under UNRWA were long resettled -- half a century ago. So have the 900,000 Jewish refugees expelled at that time from Arab lands of the North Africa and the Middle East.

6. The Fatah is taking a two stage solution of trying to obtain concessions and undermine Israel's security and delegitimize it by any means. That will make it weaker for armed attack. That is proved by their refusal to remove the following articles and others from its Covenant:

Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it . They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it.

Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. Absolute responsibility for this falls upon the Arab nation - peoples and governments - with the Arab people of Palestine in the vanguard. Accordingly, the Arab nation must mobilize all its military, human, moral, and spiritual capabilities to participate actively with the Palestinian people in the liberation of Palestine. It must, particularly in the phase of the armed Palestinian revolution, offer and furnish the Palestinian people with all possible help, and material and human support, and make available to them the means and opportunities that will enable them to continue to carry out their leading role in the armed revolution, until they liberate their homeland.

The PLO also want apply their peculiar version of Arab anti-capitalism, coordinate all the destructive forces of Arabs worldwide and to re-write history, presumably also in the law texts of Europe.

Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.

Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization.

Hamas has the simple idea of destroying all of Israel by terrorism, with the thousands of rockets it has fired and the support of the jihadist network of the Moslem Brotherhood, plus bombs, rockets and hate from Shi'ite Iran.

If the EU recognizes and pays for part of the Palestinian Authority, a covert terrorist organisation, should it continue to do so if it combines with an overtly terrorist group like Hamas? Does adding more poison make a bilious drink more appetizing? Hamas is already on the terrorist list of the EU. If Fatah wants to blow its cover and join forces with an openly terrorist group, then the only question to ask is:

Why hasn't the EU placed Fatah and the PA, open collaborators in Hamas terrorism on the terrorist list too?

It is time for the EU to take stock of their policies. Appeasement with terror in Czechoslovakia in 1938 strengthened the Nazis and led to World War. The EU has ample means to act. The EU is paying for the Palestinians. It should now begin to expect them to implement democratic practices. If politicians have forgotten what they are, they include:

Human Rights, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly ... in fact why don't they just check the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It was created at the initiative of Robert Schuman and the Founding Fathers of modern Europe.

Why did they create it? To stop States and governments becoming like Nazis. They experienced that. Unless a determined moral stance is made a democratic government can slide from bad to worse. It becomes a gangster state, threatening everyone.

Don't just believe me -- listen to what Schuman's friend and colleague, Pierre-Henri Teitgen, said when he introduced the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the Council of Europe.

'Democracies do not become Nazi countries overnight. Evil progresses in an underhand way, with a minority operating to seize what amounts to the levers of power. One by one, freedoms are suppressed, in one sphere then another.

Public opinion is smothered, the worldwide conscience is dulled and the national conscience asphyxiated.

And then, when everything fits in place, the Führer is installed and this evolution continues right on to the deadly gas ovens of the crematorium.

Intervention is needed before it becomes too late. A conscience must exist somewhere which will sound the alarm to the minds of a nation threatened by this spreading gangrene, to warn them of the peril and to show them that they are committing themselves to a crooked road leading far, sometimes even to Buchenwald or to Dachau. An international jurisdiction within the Council of Europe, a system of surveillance and guarantee, could be this conscience, of which other countries also maybe have special need.’