Jihad3 : How can Europe encourage Democracy and Human Rights across the southern Mediterranean?

How do you turn a country that has been ruled by a tyrant into one that respects human rights and is based solidly on democracy? That is more than possible. There is a positive example about how to bring it to success. Recently one country was rebuilt from a broken tyranny, ruined cities, and utter denial of human rights. It was violently anti-Semitic, intolerant to minorities, anti-homosexual and ruled by a leader given to raving hysterically about his ideology.

It changed completely. It soon became prosperous, trusted by its neighbours, the world's largest exporter and a model democracy. It is today a strong supporter of human rights both at home and abroad.

That country was of course Nazi Germany. In 1945 the cities were destroyed. In 1932 the people had brought Nazism into power by a democratic vote and lost democracy. The young were the most fervent Nazis. For more than a decade they had never known anything but Nazism.

If such an exemplary feat of change to democracy and human rights was possible in Germany, is it possible on the south coast of the Mediterranean? There the young people are in the first rank of those demanding democracy and human rights. They want a life like young Europeans have across the Mediterranean. That would seem a good start.

What is democracy? For Abraham Lincoln it was government of the people, by the people for the people. Schuman had a more incisive and scientific definition. He said:

What characterizes a democratic State are the objectives that it proposes and the means by which it seeks to achieve them. It is at the service of the people and it acts in agreement with the people.

For long years, the citizens of the countries from Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Morocco have asked why they could not lead the same lives and have the same privileges as Europeans. They asked. Why did the Europeans not respond with the correct answer? It requires a good understanding about what 'service' means. In particular, what does it mean to serve peace?

Why did both sides of the Mediterranean not boom with the jobs, the industry and the innovation of Europe? Graduates come and work in Europe and the USA, but jobs are lacking at home. Why is illiteracy so high for much of the population?

Why can't the south throw their tyrants into prison for obvious violation of human rights? Why can't they put them on trial in court? To the north of the Mediterranean the French can bring a president to answer alleged abuse of power in court. To the east in Israel a prime minister or even a president can also land up in Court. Why does that not happen on the south side of the Mediterranean?

Why can't the North African countries also have the freedom to speak the truth in the press? Why are so much of their media, one-sided, full of propaganda, race hate, anti-Semitism and obvious lies? The south Mediterranean revolt showed that the problem was not Israel but their own leaders. The 'Palestinian problem' is largely a distraction imposed on their media by ruthless leaders wanting to divert their own subjugated, unemployed and often starving masses.

After World War 2 all of Europe faced far bigger problems. It entire economy was in ruins, balkanized by nationalism, as well as riven with hate and distrust. A crushed Germany was starving and no one, it seemed, cared. Why should they? The victors had rationed food. What was the way forward? They all knew one thing. Fundamental to a free society is freedom of thought in all subjects. That requires a process to develop balanced rules and procedures. Post-war Germany, drenched in Nazi propaganda, went through a short period of apprenticeship to reinforce these liberties with discipline. But it did not do it alone.

In the immediate postwar period Germany was occupied by the Allied armies. After a couple of years, the Allies led by the US encouraged local elections and then provincial elections.

Robert Schuman who became Prime Minister in 1947 encouraged this move that was contrary to the previous unrealistic Gaullist policy. De Gaulle wanted to control the Germans by the permanent occupation of Germany and the annexation of the land up to the Rhine. Constitutions for the provinces had to be forged. Then the heads of the provinces, the Minister-presidents, were allowed to make the first steps for the Constitution or Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany. This had provisions for safe-guarding human rights and fundamental freedoms.

For French leaders like Robert Schuman who knew nationalistic Germany well in peace and in war, this was not sufficient. Schuman initiated a process to create a new legal and political instrument -- Europe's first international parliamentary assembly and the Council of Europe. This was to be the framework body that was to create the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. As he made clear in public speeches and at the United Nations, Germany was to have its own role in the organization provided it proved itself trustworthy of the removal of military controls.

Thus a strong framework was needed before the new Constitution was written and the respect for human rights was put in place. For Germany it was the Allied military force. Gradually this military security could be loosened as trust and confidence between the Germans and its former victims grew.

Schuman's analysis as French Prime Minister in 1947 has many parallels with the problems facing the southern Mediterranean today:

Governments are faced with grave and difficult material problems: food supply, production, salaries and prices. They see peace being compromised among the nations by prejudices of race, by the rivalry of force and the rivalry of interests. Inside countries, people are seeking the way to conciliate liberty with authority. They seek understanding between social classes.

To be able to reach such a result in all these fields, we certainly need studies and technical remedies, as well as the scientific development of material energies.

But is this all? Was it a matter of simply providing the systems and democracy would flourish? That had been tried. Nothing like this new era of European peace -- history's longest -- had happened after the previous wars. Was there another dimension? Clearly former Nazis would have been the first to subvert human rights. They would have undermined democracy and seized power.

What happened? The first step was moral reform. Democracy cannot be built as a nest of crooks, fraudsters and mass-killers. This moral renewal was the first stage of creating the European Community. Robert Schuman was among the great leaders that supported this effort. When? Not years after the war but right after the war was finished. During the war he told his friends that reconciliation was necessary after the Allied victory -- which he said was certain. That took vision and strong courage in the postwar years when cities were still in ruins, when hate and revenge were rife and the populations were mourning their dead and tending their wounded.

Prime Minister Schuman said:

All these efforts, however, are insufficient and in vain if they do not stand on a solid moral foundation. The real source is the morality of the individual, of the family and of the State. And at the same time it is the guarantee of peace and wellbeing.

Among those re-animating this moral re-armament was the Swiss center at Caux, where perhaps half of Europe's most active postwar leaders learned about reconciliation, honesty in politics and the home, selfless service and public and private morality. Resistance leaders confronted former Nazis about the future of their countries and Europe. Trade unionists and their bosses washed the dishes together. It was, said Schuman, a school for training Europe's statesmen and women by mutual initiation to create 'a moral climate favourable for a fraternal union.' He commended those who acted like 'apostles of reconciliation and workmen for a world renewed.'

The Swiss and their teams helped re-animate Europe's heart. To the shame of Europe's institutions, they have largely forgotten this important spiritual foundation of the European community. Yet without it, European reconciliation would not have happened. The institutions would not exist. Nor would democracy, human rights and the prosperity Europeans enjoy today.

What is the lesson for the southern Mediterranean? In Egypt six out of ten people say democracy is best for the country. But do they know what it means? Some 95% say that Islam should play a role in politics. Yet there is no Islamic country that of itself has created a democracy.

More than four out of five Egyptians say that Islamic apostates should face the death penalty. Tolerance is the necessary foundation of democracy. It is impossible for any Muslim to announce publicly his conversion to Christianity. Imagine indeed what explosion of emotion and violence would be unleashed if an Egyptian announced his desire to convert to Judaism.

Without real understanding of how democracy is founded Western leaders have too often acted naively towards the Mediterranean. They encouraged a so-called democratic vote among the Palestinian Arabs only to find themselves faced with what others saw as the obvious outcome: a gangster organization in charge. Gaza was taken over by a terrorist organization, Hamas. It is largely funded from Saudi Arabia with in the last few years hundreds of millions of euros coming from Iran.

This 'charity' organization of soup kitchens and AK47s then went about in declaring war against Fatah, killing them in the streets and humiliating any opponents to its rule. Its vowed intention in its constitution is the destruction of Israel.

This is what the EU naively reported after the Palestinian elections of January 2006:

'These elections were notable for the participation of candidates linked to extremist or radical groups that have advocated violence as a means to solving the problems in the Middle East. It is hoped that this participation is an indication of the movement of such groups towards engaging in a truly democratic process, which would be in fundamental contradiction with violent activity.' (my emphasis).

It is as if they were applauding the vote for the Nazi party and some other equally nasty fascists competing to seize power by the ballot box. Is it too much to remind them? Normal democracies do not encourage or involve warlike parties but political parties. Gangsters like Hitler made alliances, even submitted to elections, until they were powerful enough to take over and gaol or kill their opponents and critics. Real democrats must have forsworn violence. They must have said they would never use threats, blackmail, mobs, public hangings and torture. This report supposedly came from experienced politicians. Did Europe's politicians ever read what the Hamas stood for? It is on the EU list of terrorist organizations. Did they check up on Fatah? Do they analyze the Fatah media and its glorification of death?

Did they ensure that peaceful parties or groups that wanted to live and work with Israel were allowed to have a fair participation? Take one example. Did Europeans say loud and clear that they would have absolutely nothing to do with people who passed a decree to execute people who wanted to (horror of horrors!!!) sell a house to a Jew? What would the EU say if Jews declared that they would do exactly the same as the Arabs? Is the EU's silence and financial support the same as Hitler's policy to make the land Judenrein, (Free of Jews)? How disgusting can European foreign policy get?

Today even the majority of Arabs do not want to live under Fatah, the Palestinian Authority or Hamas -- if given a free choice. If ever there were an Arab Palestinian State only a quarter of those in East Jerusalem would move. Most wanted to stay Israelis or become Israelis. If that is a fact, why isn't the EU supporting them. These Arabs obviously know their own and the Israelis well. Do they want to live in Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia? No the majority of Arabs polled wanted to live in Israel where they at least have elementary freedoms, laws and justice equivalent to those of Europe.

Do European politicians lose all sense of Human Rights when it comes to countries associated with oil? Does the smell of petroleum addle their brains? Does this oil addiction render them blind and immoral?

Apparently so -- ever since the 1973 Middle East war when Saudi Arabia, OPEC and the Arab League insisted that the European Community countries must change their foreign policy or else they would suffer from an oil embargo. Actually the oil-exporters said the same thing in 1956. It remains a threat, especially with Iran heading OPEC.

Part of the 1970s oil embargo blackmail was that Europe would pay for the Palestinian Arabs. The Venice agreement also forced Europe into a dereliction of responsibility in encouraging violence not peace. Scrutinizing the ballot of two violent groups is not the way of peace. The EU fails to understand its own peace miracle and compounds the error by refusing to do even the most elementary investigation about the groups they were encouraging to gain power by the ballot box.

If you don't believe me that apparently sensible European democrats could encourage such dangerous nonsense, check what the peace partner, the PA, teaches its children: -- that 'Zionist gangs stole Palestine'. It broadcasts on TV and continues to publish maps without any trace of Israel on them.

Read the Hamas Charter. It states that

"Israel will exist, and will continue to exist, until Islam abolishes it, as it abolished that which was before it."

Note 'That which was before it.' That destruction programme would include Christianity in its sights. Egypt and north Africa were the home of major Christian communities before the arrival of the Islamic sword.

Article 2 of the Hamas Covenant reveals a plain contradiction to what representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood are saying in Egypt. There they say that would never hurt a fly and that no one will vote for them any way. Hamas declares that it is a jihadist-terrorist movement with a global agenda. It says that the Muslim Brotherhood is the mother of all such organizations.

Article Two

The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) is one of the wings of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood movement is a global organization and is the largest of the Islamic movements in modern times.

Article Four

The Islamic Resistance Movement welcomes every Muslim who embraces its creed, adopts its ideology, is committed to its way, keeps its secrets and desires to join its ranks in order to carry out the duty, and his reward is with Allah.

Hamas lays out its long-term, worldwide strategy as clear as possible. It is not peace.

Article Seven

Muslims who adopt the way of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) are found in all countries of the world, and act to support [the movement], to adopt its positions and to reinforce its jihad. Therefore, it is a world movement, and it is qualified for this [role] owing to the clarity of its ideology, the loftiness of its purpose and the exaltedness of its goals.

The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) is one link in the chain of jihad in confronting the Zionist invasion. It is connected and linked to the [courageous] uprising of the martyr 'Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam and his brethren the jihad fighters of the Muslim Brotherhood in the year 1936. It is further related and connected to another link, [namely] the jihad of the Palestinians, the efforts and jihad of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1948 war, and the jihad operations of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1968 and afterwards. Although these links are far apart, and although the continuity of jihad was interrupted by obstacles placed in the path of the jihad fighters by those who circle in the orbit of Zionism, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to realize the promise of Allah, no matter how long it takes. The Prophet, Allah's prayer and peace be upon him, says: "The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,' except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews." (Recorded in the Hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim).

It adds: Any measure which does not conform to this Islamic law regarding Palestine is null and void.

Europe helps pay for the education of the Gazan youth. What does it get: race hatred, lies and the incitement to another holocaust. What right has the EU to use the European taxpayer money for such infamy? Will it teach the truth of history? What about, for example, the Nazi Holocaust? Verboten. Just recently the Hamas regime declared that it will 'never allow Holocaust teaching to Gazan refugee children'. Thus they refuse to teach about one holocaust while in their own constitution inciting the whole Gazan population to a future Israeli Holocaust.

Gaza has become a client statelet of Iran, firing thousands of Qassam rockets and mortars into Israel whom it has declared its intention to destroy.

Now compare this with what fooled the naive democrats of the 1930s. Even though Hitler was astute in lies, twisting the facts and hiding his intentions, not everyone was fooled. Some analysts saw through the subtle clauses in his party programme. It was clear to them that he was about to murder many Jews, Christians and political dissenters. What was the evidence? The Nazi Party (NSAPD) wrote up their policy intentions in the following words of the Nazi party programme.

24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations, provided that they do not endanger the existence of the State or offend the concepts of decency and morality of the Germanic race.

The Party as such stands for positive Christianity, without associating itself with any particular denomination. It fights against the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us...

They understood it. Those words meant an end to religious dissent and the extermination of the Jewish race, the physically unfit and minorities. Today's politicians have no excuse. The programme of Hamas as part of the worldwide Muslim Brotherhood and Fatah is much clearer. Iran's religious leaders keep repeating that their main goal in life is to destroy America, Israel and all infidels in Europe.

Yet for some curious reason Europe's politicians think they should give them the benefit of the doubt that they at really good boys and will not cause anyone harm. They seem to think like their naive grandparents that Hamas and others will like Hitler become good democrats after a ballot. They believe that a signed piece of paper will be a guarantee of good conduct.

Lesson: ignorance by so-called democrats about the roots and functioning of real democracy can lead to even worse situation where terrorism festers and war plans are hatched. Europe will get more than its fingers burned in the next Middle East war.

Can Europeans then realistically prevent a new war in the Middle East? What did Schuman do? As Foreign Minister, he pursued a policy that at one side encouraged the independence of the southern Mediterranean states then under France's control and ensured the survival of Israel as a democratic State.

There are basically two ways to ensure democracy in Egypt. One is to retain a major role for a neutral military that would maintain order, and retain the confidence of the people. A non-ideological force is required to keep terrorist-jihadists from gaining power.

Only when order and stability are maintained would the second stage be possible. That is the signing by the nascent Egyptian democratic parliament in conjunction with the stated will of the people of a Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms similar to Europe's. It could even make it clear that it would abide by the rulings of the judges in Strasbourg in the case of any dispute about democracy including religion.

Is that possible? Is that realistic? The answer must be Yes.

Why? Because the experiment has already been carried out with both the Nazi regime and the atheistic Communist regimes of the Soviet Union's orbit. Both Germany and Russia are now signatories of the Strasbourg Convention. That would have been written off as impossible in 1945 or 1946. Yet it happened.

Europeans need equal courage and faith in their democratic experiment. We have experience. It happened first because Statesmen and courageous members of the public thought it was just possible and they brought it into reality.

How should Europeans go about it today? Europeans should have learned that supporting and giving financial subventions to tyrants and dictators without a plan is not a good idea. If the European Union makes any further subventions to Egypt and the southern Mediterranean countries it should ensure that they make the first steps to democracy. What is that?

Firstly, religious tolerance. Democracy is based on Christian principles, according to Schuman. It involves the full respect of the other. Neither Nazism nor Communism can achieve this. For centuries Ireland was continually in a state of religious war and then it stopped Why? Ireland signed up to the Convention of Human Rights. Previously, strife was stoked up while one side or the other insisted that (1) religious discussions could not take place in peace; (2) religious information of the other side was forbidden; (3) conversion must take place before marriage of mixed couples. (This is clearly contrary to the principle of free religious determination.) (4) Children could be brought up according to sectarian rules not their free will.

Truth, and the freedom to search for truth are at the core of civilization. Specifically the freedom of religion and the ability to change one's religion are fundamental to a functioning democracy. Violence and the threat of violence must continue to be outlawed for religious discussions.

Among these rights must be the right to free information about religion without any group or individual inciting violence. It has been vitally important for Europe. The Mediterranean Litmus test must be the same as we apply to ourselves. In Ireland, it is no longer mandatory for Protestants to convert if they wish to marry a Roman Catholic. Nor must the children be forced to be educated as Roman Catholics. The same goes for those of the Roman faith in Protestant countries.

Secondly violence in politics should be outlawed. Freedom of information does not include incitement to violence and murder. Incitement to violence is a crime in democracies. That should be part of the EU's foreign policy. Should the EU be supporting a country where the Nazi propaganda like 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' and 'Mein Kampf' are recommended by the Muslim Brotherhood and in the mosques? Why aren't these institutions educating people about how to prove them to be (1) fraudulent and (2) ridiculous?

Europe must assure that its foreign policy is based on encouraging peaceful political parties. It must make sure that not a single cent goes to parties or groups that do not believe in the freedom of religion.

Jihad2: Iran's warships to transit Suez on 'anti-pirate' mission. Is it really Mission Europe?

For the first time in decades, two Iranian warships plan to transit the Suez Canal on route for Syria. Israel has denounced this as a provocation. At a time when Egyptians are in a delicate state of political and religious turmoil this is a brazen signal of growing Persian outreach. It is directed at the popular revolts igniting regime-changes across the southern Mediterranean.

Iran wants to show itself powerful and sympathetic to the religious masses. But not at home. Iranian mullahs have ruthlessly crushed popular demonstrations in Iran. Their aim is to stoke up problems elsewhere and train aggressive bandit regimes like Hamas in Gaza, HizbAllah (Party of God) in Lebanon (armed to the teeth with missiles and rockets) and spread war tensions in Syria and Jordan and now boost its influence in Egypt. Non-Iranian cargo ships loaded with Iranian missiles, arms and ammunition have previously been stopped for violating UN resolutions against this traffic.

It has a clear goal to antagonize Israel. But is it part of a larger goal -- Europe and whole of the European Sea, the Mediterranean?

The ships -- a frigate and a supply ship -- are symbolic of Iran's entry into the area where it has been banned or barred for thirty years. It has little military significance but huge propaganda value. It reinforces a religious message that is at the same time a political one. As exposed in the last commentary, Iran resumed plane flights to Egypt after three decades. The resumption occurred just a few months before President Mubarak was forced to resign. It indicated Iranians had already grabbed new powers to change policy inside Egypt. Mubarak was loud and outspoken about the 'Persians' who he called the greatest enemy of the Arabs. Some Iranians have a dream — 1500 years ago Persians under Darius 1 once controlled the pre-Suez Canal linking the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean. A continuous struggle for supremacy occurred under competing Islamic flags.

For Iran, which today holds the chairmanship of the oil cartel OPEC for the first time in 36 years, the latest story has had a very profitable effect. Oil prices moved to their highest in more than two years, rising 2.40 dollars in a single day. That rise was more than a whole barrel cost before oil became the plaything of the cartel. In 1973 oil was transformed into the Oil Weapon in the war against Israel and the West.

Why does the Iranian regime say it wants to make an armed naval entrance into the Mediterranean? Hold your breath! Ostensibly to tackle bandits -- that is pirates. Have the Iranian captains lost their way? The pirates in question are 5000 km away — off the African coast of Somalia.

"During the mission the Iranian Navy cadets are due to be trained and prepared for defending the country's cargo ships and oil tankers against the continued threat of attack by Somali pirates," the semi-official Iranian Fars report said.

Why don't they try 5000km in the opposite direction -- the Antarctic?

Will the presence of Iranian gunships help the Mediterranean States build democracy? Will it help build respect for human rights and religious harmony?

If we turn to the source of the Iranian religio-political philosophy, it is clear that Europe is in the middle of an ideological war. Europeans with wishy-washy ideas are in no position to fight. The European Community is based on firm, supranational values, that is, absolute values such as telling the truth in national statistics, honest money, correcting corruption and requiring democratic backing for public decisions. Robert Schuman the founder of European democracy said that it must be based on Judeo-Christian foundation such as the search for truth, not dogmatism. A clash is inevitable.

This is what the Iran’s revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Khomeini said:

'We know of no absolute values besides total submission to the will of Almighty.

(He meant his own ideas of the Almighty, his politics and human conduct.)

'People say: 'Don't lie!' But the principle is different when we serve the will of Allah. He taught men to lie so that we can save ourselves at moments of difficulty and confuse our enemies.'

The WikiLeaks indicate that the Gulf States -- now under pressure again -- recognize this mendacious Iranian tongue. 'Don't believe one word in a hundred of what the Iranians say.' That was what thirty years of experience taught the emir of Qatar. The world has only to observe the reality of today's Iran.

World peace requires either peacefully agreed common values or armed and verbal resistance against untruth. Human rights and responsibilities are a goal to attain for all societies. In Europe, the first legal convention for free States was created in 1950 when Robert Schuman and other Founding Fathers signed the Council of Europe’s Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Europe’s initiative arose because in WW2 much of the Continent was under a slave system — forced labour, extermination camps and destruction of religious values. Slavery was applied under both the neo-pagan Nazi regime as well as the atheistic Soviet regime. Those two systems had their own propaganda systems that twisted and distorted the truth. In the West many people were duped in the years before WW2 and during the Cold War. Free media including electronic media help make that difficult today.

The Convention guarantees that all signatory States must assure freedom of religion and the freedom to be able to change one’s religion as well as the freedom of conscience and the freedom of communication including criticizing religious and political ideas.

Schuman maintained that only a society based on Christian principles that recognized the potential of all individuals for salvation provides the basis for equality under law or democracy. A society based on Christian principles allows open discussion for Atheists, Jews, Christian sects, Muslims, animists, Buddhists and Hindus. The same applies to the Jewish State of Israel where there is freedom for Christians, Baha’is and Muslims and all who do not revert to violence. This contrasts starkly with the Palestinian Authority and Hamas in Gaza. Both demand a Jew-free territory with a death penalty to any Muslim or Arab who would sell a house or land to a Jew.

Atheism treats religious believers of all types as second-class citizens. Nazism treated Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the confessing Lutheran Church as enemies to be destroyed. Islamic States are in the logical impossibility of maintaining a democracy because non-believers in Islam are treated as second-class citizens, either as outright infidels or at best people of the Book, (the Hebrew Bible which is not generally read or available in Islamic societies, only mixed ones). They are then granted second-class citizenship involving higher taxes etc as dhimmis. That is not democracy.

While one can applaud a call for freedom, one should also be aware that too often in history the removal of one ‘tyrant’ leads to another sort of tyranny and the loss of freedom again. The criterion in Egypt is that the Muslim community should recognize the possibility of individual Muslims changing their religion to that of the Coptic Church. According to a recent survey, four out of five Egyptians are of the opinion that any so-called Muslim ‘apostates’ should be executed. That is far from democracy.

Tyrants do not like free media. Religious tyrants are especially edgy and cry blue murder when critical questions are raised proving that they are talking rubbish. Today we have the extra facilities of the electronic media but we should be under no illusion that this will provide a freer society in dictatorships. Egypt was able to close down Internet in the first days of the popular revolt. This is also a possibility in many of the Mediterranean despots, such as Syria.

Europe's leaders are fast asleep while a major attack on European values is under way. The Suez Canal is vital for 8 per cent of world trade and 5 per cent of its oil. China is now making massive purchases for future oil. That alone would render oil much more expensive for Europe. According to WikiLeaks Saudi government say their oil reserves are possibly overstated by 40 %. The world’s largest exporter of crude will not be able to bail Europe out much longer. An oil crunch is inevitable.

If together with this easily foreseeable price hike, oil is again used as a religio-political weapon as it was in the 1970s, Europe could find itself in dire, dire straits.

Energy shortage is Europe's most urgent danger. It needs to establish energy independence. It can do it within a decade. Energy penury lays us open to energy blackmail. The extra short European Council on Energy of 4 February 2011 will go down as one that refuse to provide a vision. It created a new sleeping pill. Instead of initiating something real like a supranational Energy Community to mobilize the whole population, it devalued the whole idea. An energy community was a ‘brand name’ in the words of President Jerzy Buzek of the European Parliament. In other words it is an unrealistic dream of the inter-governmentalists. They have no intention of opening their eyes to the mortal danger Europe is facing, and acting. They are afraid of proposing the new, democratically-agreed treaty that is necessary for a real Energy Community.

Is energy more important than the euro crisis? Listen to what the International Energy Agency told the European Commission at a meeting inside the Commission’s Berlaymont recently. 'The rise in price of oil in 2010 cost the EU more than the combined budget debt of Greece and Portugal!' That was when oil rose from the 75s to the 90 a barrel mainly in the last quarter. Now it is above one hundred dollars and still rising.

The rise in oil prices in 2010 amounted to an additional cost for Europeans equivalent to HALF of the entire budget for the European Union in 2010. That is the RISE, not the total cost. Imported Energy (oil and gas) amounts to two and a half times the entire EU budget.

Oil is on a move upwards which represents a theft from the pockets of every European. Why theft? Because it is not a free market. It is being run by a multiple cartel system that ensures that the cartel-owners get the maximum price. In the early 1970s oil price was $2 a barrel. It was quadrupled by a political decision in 1973 using the oil weapon against Europe. In 1979 it was quadrupled again using the same method. A free market is when everyone is free to supply the demand on the market without secret cartels switching off the tap. All cartels involve theft by restricting supply, production, transport, financing, refinement and outlets. The Suez Canal is vital for Europe. It is becoming another tool for a global cartel.

Why has the European economy hit the doldrums? Part of it is dishonest politics and economic cheating. The other part is that the European economy is being sucked dry by ever-rising energy prices. Europeans need to use their native intelligence to create both energy independence and foreign policy independence. Strength comes through the democracy of the supranational Community system not inter-governmentalism.

Over the past year the oil import costs for the 34 mostly rich countries that make up the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have soared by $200bn to $790bn at the end of 2010, according to an analysis by the International Energy Agency. It cost the USA $72 billion, the EU $70 billion.

The increase, due to high crude prices, is equal to a loss of income of about 0.5 per cent of OECD gross domestic product, according to the IEA. Oil consuming nations, meanwhile, need to accelerate their efforts to reduce their reliance on oil, especially for transportation, the IEA said.

Europe’s first priority must be to cut oil and gas imports. I asked the director of one of Europe's most advanced technological firms the following question:

'If politicians and the people set as their goal to have energy independence in ten years, is it attainable?'

His answer is quite different from politicians and others who think they know.

He said that it was possible that over the course of the year Europe could be energy import neutral. That is on average it could cut its imports to zero. In the winter it would need some energy but at other seasons it could export energy.

Which politician has told you that? None that I know. Why? Is it possibly because the extra billions from the oil price scam is being used to persuade them that it is not possible?

Who would gain most if Europe ran out of power? Consider the exaltation of Iran in the Arab world if it did it. Europe should be aware! Iran is not a coy friend. What does a child do if you take away its toys. It tries to take yours. Europe has been talking to Iran about stopping its bomb-making programme. It has tried sanctions. Some of the Iranian nuclear programme has been sabotaged by the Stuxnet computer worm malware.

Will Iran take this lying down? Are the Iranians worried if European sanctions ruin their own country? Do they want to launch some sort of religio-political malware against Europe in revenge? Politicians assume sanctions would stop the mullahs in their religio-political goals. They should not rely on wishful thinking. They should rely on the facts.

How do you influence people who are mass-murderers of children? Consider the words of the leader who sent hundreds of young children to march through mine fields to explode them. Khomeini ordered half a million plastic keys to give to such children. Tied round their neck the key was a symbol to open the gates of paradise. Did he sacrifice other families' children for Iran or for a religious idea? War with Iraq he said was 'a divine blessing'.

‘We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another word for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam triumphs in the rest of the world.’

That world, that target, includes Europe.

Jihad1 : 'Islam awakes!' Europe falls asleep, comatose on its Energy addiction

'Islam Awakes!' That's what the news ticker said on the monitors of the press area of the European Council building on 4 February. Mubarak had already announced he was going. The European Council was in its usual secret session, closed to the press and closed to the public. On its agenda the topic of most vital interest to the public: Energy.

The European Union is the world's greatest importer of energy. That is not a boast. That is a mark of shame. It is also a sign pointing to Europe's greatest danger: Energy Blackmail. Europe has already experienced the effects of an oil embargo in the 1970s.

The EU pays 2.5% of its GDP on imported energy -- money that could be used stimulate its own innovations, an energy efficiency economy and native energy production. On oil alone the EU spends an enormous 270 billion euros. It cost only a fraction of that to produce, as it flows freely from wells. The surplus profits are used too often against the welfare of Europeans and Americans. Instead Europe's economy is still driven by Arab oil. Moreover it mostly comes from the Persian Gulf countries and is exported through a narrow and dangerous strait.

The poorer Arab States are now being aroused by their richer religious cousins. North African States are now much more mosque-orientated than only a decade ago. Daily habits and clothes have changed. More than piety is involved. Egypt is a key State between Saudi and Iranian power grabs. No wonder that the 86-year old Saudi King Abdullah was reportedly apoplectic at naive American attempts to unseat Mubarak.

'The events in Tunisia and Egypt are the sign of the Islamic Awakening' and 'an Islamic liberation movement' -- these were the words of Iran's Supreme Leader Khomenei. He addressed the Friday crowds for the first time in seven months. These movements will spell an 'irreparable defeat' for the United States, he said to cheering crowds raising their fists and shouting 'Death to America! Death to Israel!'.

Did the Europe's 27 leaders closeted in secret hear about Iran's pronouncement on the Mediterranean revolution? Did anyone tell them that the leader of nuclear Iran was laying ideological claim to Europe's southern frontiers? Are they talking about it now the Council has dispersed? We don't know.

Through Egypt by ship and pipeline comes 5 per cent of the world's oil and much of it destined for European and American consumers. Around 8 per cent of the world's exports comes through the Suez canal. It is the major umbilical that attaches marine trade of Europe, the Near East and Asia. Who is behind this revolt? There are many factors, such as wanting the freedoms of the West across the water, a sense of purpose, work and an end to grinding poverty.

Others are more dangerous, including the Muslim Brethren, an organisation that for decades has spawned jihadi spin-offs worldwide. It has been called the mother of modern jihadis, including Iran and Al Qaida. Like Communism, Nazism and other isms, it is ideological to the core. It still retains its poisonous ideological connection with Nazism and the Arabic version of Hitler's Mein Kampf and the fictitious propaganda The protocols of the Elders of Zion are widely published. Danish cartoons are not.

Its slogan is Islam is the Solution. But what is the question? What is life's purpose? To die as a so-called martyr? It has not brought happiness, peace, satisfying work, productive industry or the conservation of Nature and the ecological betterment of the planet. Europe has rejected the Islamic solution intellectually and physically with great loss of blood at Tours, Vienna and many other times over a millennium and half. Internal documents of the Brotherhood cite that the goal is a kind of 'grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.'

Is the only way to show this solution to destroy the successful alternatives? How about a good example? A weak ideology turns to immoral action and illicit expansion, often by violence, intimidation or sabotage. That distracts people from deeper analysis that exposes its false assumptions. The weakest spot of such an ideology is exposed in a public debate.

Why do these 'solutions' require the death of Israel? Because Israel has allowed freedom of worship. The Israeli government also pays for the maintenance of mosques. It did not desecrate them or build synagogues on top of them. It has produced a high tech society out of penniless Jewish refugees expelled from Arab lands. It has turned a barren land into an exporter of food. It is an example that many tyrants want to hide from their populations.

The interest of Iran should be kept in mind. Its regime can only stay in power at home by attacking and eliminating all its opponents at home and attempting to expand abroad. Its propaganda is powerful and contrasts with the weak reply of the West.

Consider how Iran has created a sphere of influence and propaganda in the Near East in the last few years. This now nearly surrounds Israel. It has gained a decisive interest in Gaza where it has often supplied arms and rockets by sea and by land. This has overexcited the whole of the Muslim world. Iran has also paid for and trained the militant Hizballah movement in Lebanon and has succeeded to make this militant Shi'ite jihadist army an integral part of the government of the once peaceful country. Iran's influence in Syria is also growing.

The Jordanian authorities are faced with a stark existential choice -- bend to Tehran or be broken. That seems to be the ground why they have urged America to go to war against Iran, even though this would bring war and destruction to the entire region. The Jordanians see this catastrophe of war as a lesser evil than an inevitable total Shi'ite take-over of the whole region through intimidation and small arms. That would only lead to further major war elsewhere, a global jihad. The Iranian theocracy has as its avowed aim the destruction of America and Europe as the great satans.

Is Iran behind the troubles in Egypt? Is it taking an opportunistic hand in the uprising against Mubarak? Iran rather gave its hand away. Last week it accused Israel of supplying plane-loads of anti-riot material to Mubarak's regime. That was swiftly denied by Jerusalem as nonsense. The fact of the matter is that in October last year -- for some unknown reason -- plane flights were resumed between Tehran and Egypt. Who authorized it? Strangely no one seems to know. Why is it significant? Simply because plane flights between the Shi'ite state and Egypt have been stopped not for a year or two but for thirty years.

For years President Mubarak had already warned the Muslims in neighbouring countries of the plans of the sectarian leaders of the Iranian Islamic Republic. 'The Persians are trying to devour the Arab states,' he said. 'A nuclear armed Iran with hegemonic ambitions is the greatest threat to Arab nations today,' Mubarak told the Arab Summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 2009.

Now we know from WikiLeaks that all the neighbouring States are worried about what they consider the malevolent influence of Iran. The Saudis are calling Iran a 'snake' whose head needs to be cut off. Why then did the Egyptians -- the fiercest enemy of the Persians -- do this most extraordinary thing? They chose this moment to agree to resume airflights with Tehran. They were cut in the days of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the Revolution of 1979-80. At that time the Shah left Iran and in a final trip between the capitals took his plane to Egypt. It is an indication of the growing power of Iran in Egypt.

The revolutionaries have a longer memory than many European leaders -- the Crusades are common talk. Are Europeans equally familiar with their past struggles with militant jihadis over 1500 years?

The Iranians can recall the vital need to control supply routes. At one stage, 2500 years ago, Egypt fell under the sword of the Persian monarchs Darius 1 and Cambyses of Persia. A three-language monument, unearthed by de Lesseps and now in Paris, declares the words of Darius that his men re-excavated the canal that links the Mediterranean with the Red Sea.

King Darius says:

I am a Persian; setting out from Persia, I conquered Egypt. I ordered to dig this canal from the river that is called Nile and flows in Egypt, to the sea that begins in Persia. Therefore, when this canal had been dug as I had ordered, ships went from Egypt through this canal to Persia, as I had intended.

This was when the natives of the land were mainly Egyptians -- that is Copts, whose language is similar to ancient Egyptian. Only later when the Egyptian Empire had been destroyed did the Greeks, the Romans and then the Arabs take over the land. Prior to that Egypt was one of the world's greatest Christian countries. Many Arabs tend to believe civilisation only existed with Islam. The Persians remember they not only had a great civilisation but were controlling Egypt long before the Arabs arrived.

The Suez Canal itself can be seen as a historic goal for the Iranian regime. Today the Iranians have decisive influence in all the countries surrounding Israel, the only democracy in the entire Middle East.

The Iranians have no reason to be nice to those trying to thwart its nuclear plans. Europe is trying to impose crippling sanctions on the regime. If the Iranians gain influence on the Suez Canal they will have an additional stranglehold on Europe and its oil imports. The other route for oil from the Persian Gulf is by super-tanker around Africa. This too is becoming more dangerous. Witness the capture of hundreds of ships including a couple of tankers with enough oil for a fifth of the daily needs of the USA.

Who are these Somali pirates? They told Reuters: 'We are Muslims. We are marines, coastguards -- not pirates.' Really? They are jihadis. They are at war. One terrorist leader of the al-Shabaab-linked Mu'askar Ras Kamboni (also designated by the US State Department as a terrorist) said on Somali radio: 'I can say the pirates are part of the Mujahedeen [religious fighters], because they are in a war with Christian countries who want to misuse the Somali coast.' Guilty people have poor reasoning. Stealing super tankers worth hundreds of millions of euros shipping oil peacefully hundreds of kilometres out in the Indian Ocean has nothing to do with the coast guards. Osama bin Laden was more frank when he praised the Somalis' war of Islam against Christianity.

Maybe Europe's leaders in the European Council briefly discussed the rising demand for 'democracy' across North Africa. 'Democracy'? Islam? Who is right? They cannot both be right because there is no example of Islamic democracy in history. Democracy-- that is the equality of everyone under law -- is based on Judeo-Christian principles. Islam is based on the supremacy of the Islamic believer over the unbeliever. Effectively the voter may get one vote as in late Weimar Germany but only once. Iran shows that once the theocratic power has taken over they are not willing to give it up regardless of what the people vote. Hamas in Gaza is another example where those voted in to power then proceeded to kill and attack their electoral opponents of the Palestinian Authority. Gaza is one of the tentacles of Iran's Shi'ite octopus -- to use the Jordanian description.

The other Sunni countries have not been willing to allow overtly religious political parties (who might take over forever) or anti-religious parties (that religious fanatics oppose with suicide 'martyrs' as it would expose their methods, logical deficiencies and intolerance). With no philosophical or constitutional separation of secular from the religious powers, usually the military is needed to separate political competitors. The sword of Islam has been used frequently against unbelievers but also believers of the wrong hue.

Democracy as we know it is based on a religious or spiritual concept. Europe's democracy allows atheists or secularists to survive and even thrive. It allows them to pose the most probing questions and make even blasphemous criticism of Christianity. A Judeo-Christian society thus provides tolerance of antagonistic views of its own religion. The reason is that truth is valued above all and must be examined with all critical faculties. Truth will out. The results are clear. Christianity in all its multiple human imperfections is growing worldwide without the sword, intimidation or blackmail.

That is not true for an atheist State. A secular regime like Soviet Communism was at war with spiritual values and the freedom of religion. Only a Judeo-Christian system can produce democracy. Atheistic 'people's democracies' were hollow and false. The core of dialectic materialism was intellectually rotten.

As Schuman explained, democracy is not something that arises by spontaneous generations by mobs, by demonstrations or by revolt. It requires a moral base and a soundly founded concept of where ultimate authority comes from. That is not a false god or false religion.

Democracy is above all not something made quickly; Europe has taken more than a thousand years of Christianity to fashion it. In Africa we were forced to burn our bridges. Not only did we give the vote to an often illiterate population but what is worse, we turned power over to men who often had no training and who were exposed defenceless to all temptations of capriciousness and injustice. We tried to slacken the rhythm, to bring in controls; these were only frail preventive measures against the thrust of nationalism. I would like to be able to quote on this subject what Jacques Maritain, following Bergson, wrote more than twenty years ago, at the time when a more generous and Christian policy on our overseas territories was being elaborated. I will just keep to a few pertinent phrases:

'We must realise that the part that instinct and irrationality plays is much larger role in the animation of a group than an individual. At a time when one people enters history claiming their political and social adulthood, large sections of mankind remain in a state of immaturity or suffering from an unhealthy reactions accumulated during the course of time and are still only sketching out or preparing themselves culturally to be called a people. Let us understand that to enjoy one's privileges as an adult person without the risk of bankruptcy, a people must be capable of behaving as adults...

'Nothing is easier for political fraudsters to exploit good principles for an illusion, nor is anything more disastrous than good principles badly applied...'

I conclude with Bergson that 'democracy is essentially evangelical as it has love as its motor.'

Schuman summed up several thousand years of history: 'Democracy will be Christian or it won't exist. An unchristian democracy is a caricature which sinks into tyranny or anarchy.'

We should have no illusions about installing a real democracy or where a tyranny or anarchy in the Mediterranean can lead.

Avalanche5: Is the euro crisis about olive-growing States or politicians' fingers in the nation's piggy bank?

Is the EU and the euro suffering from a southern problem? Is it a problem of olive-growing southerners against the cold, industrialized northern countries?

Not at all. The disapproving idea behind the epithet PIGS, that some Mediterranean countries are somehow genetically or geographically inferior, is a nonsense. For a start these countries led the other European States at certain times our common history. They were pioneers for Europe, whether it was trade or exploration of the world or inventions. There were also powerful bankers that led the world when northern Europe was still somewhat lacking.

Yet something is seriously missing and it is not climate. Spain and Portugal are not too warm for innovation and industrial prowess in the twenty-first century. Why then is Portugal not the equal to those on the same climate zone like California's Silicon Valley to the West or Israel's vibrant technological wonder to the East? Portugal has the advantage of a bigger internal market than the USA. This incongruity is even more apparent to the Mediterranean natives who migrate this latitude to the East or the West. They will tell you: 'There is something wrong at home.'

Is it then a matter of Europe's geography? Not at all. Europe’s most southern State is doing rather well and has not had problems in attracting long term finance. What then makes Malta superior to Greece and Portugal at the moment? Clearly Europe’s problems have nothing to do with whether the State is south or produces olive oil or not.

It is about oily hands where they should not be. Political hands. How do politics and politicians make currencies weak and sap innovation?

A major factor is the interference of politicians in the machinery of monetary affairs. The national bank should be independent of politicians. A European Bank should be independent of European politicians. Banks should be run without any interference. The Statistical Office should also be a forbidden zone for politicians. They can't resist tweaking the figures to say how great they are.

Look what happened with one member State —- Greece. This is not to say that Greece is the worst example. Every State has its own breed of corruption. Most are more sophisticated. Some facts about Greece however are in the open. They are instructive.

When Greece applied for membership, the European Commission — which was not then stuffed to the gunnels with party politicians but had a few people of honest and independent character — had to make an assessment according to the law of the three treaties. For the Economic Community, article 237 applied. The Commission delivered this Opinion in January 1978. What did it say? It said that while a positive response to the eventual application should be given, Greece was not ready.

Was it because it was poor or grew too many olives? Nope. The Commission said that an accession transition period was necessary in order to undertake ‘economic reforms.’

That was a polite way of saying it. After the years of the dictatorship of the Colonels, Greece was still in a chaotic and corrupt situation. Everyone knew it. But the Greek political leadership made political appeal to their brother politicians. What was a technical matter about bad bookkeeping leading to corruption became a hot political issue.

Roy Jenkins, who became Commission President the next year was quite frank about this. Three countries had applied for membership. Greece was ‘the least qualified for membership, but it was too late for that view greatly to signify’ because of the political influence of the Greek Prime Minister Karamanlis. Guess who became a full member first?

At the time the population of Greece was 10 million and they were promised a few billion in accession funds. Later they got more munificence in the Integrated Mediterranean Programme. That looked like a politically agreed inducement. Why were European funds amounting to a few thousand for each man woman and child necessary? It doesn’t take that much to make sure the book-keeping systems are working properly. It requires hiring some honest professionals, probably at a lower salary. Investment and venture capital wings its way into any environment because it finds the right combination of active intelligence and trust.

In the Community system it is not necessary to bribe the voters. That destroys trust. If the people do not want to join, then it’s up to them. So it is not necessary for the Brussels authorities to supply other people’s money to do this bribing -- especially when the taxpayers are not asked about providing it. However if the enterprises and the workers of a country want to join there are several Community bodies with which they can establish contact and that should provide impartial and useful information. Citizens should be educated to discern the facts. They should not be the targets of a public relations campaign. It would be far better to supply funds so they could learn to detect political hum-bug on a European scale.

Politicians too often prefer to dispense money in favour of their own ideological policies. Not their own money of course. They like to be considered public benefactors but that is not really their job description. Whose agreement is necessary for representatives of the people to give away public money? Surely the public, the non-political tax-payers! The taxpayers in the other parts of the Community were not asked to provide financial supervision like the Community is supposed to do. Each of the three Communities has a consultative committee, a chamber for organized civil society, unfettered by political considerations. Their role was frozen out in the secret deals done by politicians.

Did this largesse help Greece with the ‘economic reforms’?

Judge from what happened in Court.

At the vortex of the public scandal was the Bank of Crete. This was a major bank in the Greek system, being originally an emitter of banknotes. It became a siphon for Brussels funding. Then in the 1980s one of its employees, yes an employee, an accountant working there for only two years, raised a loan from the bank and bought it! A remarkable feat pioneering criminal operations that banksters seem to have emulated elsewhere. With European and depositors’ money at his disposal, he then proceeded to create a banking and publishing empire. It controlled three daily newspapers, other publications, a radio station and a soccer team.

Of course when you buy a bank like that you think it is your own personal piggy-bank. Oily fingers dip into the till. When things got hot, the bankster fled to the USA. He ended up in jail. He was charged with forgery, bribery and embezzling more than $200 million from the Bank of Crete. Note it wasn't the Greek politicians that threatened to take him to Court. In fact when he fled Greece, a minister had to resign for this 'carelessness'. Safely in the US after a detour in Brazil, he said that operatives were out to kill him. Who did not want exposure?

Then he sang. The Greek people and other Europeans were spell-bound.

He claimed that the prime minister ordered state companies to deposit funds with the bank and took bribes from stolen money. The allegations resulted in the resignations of several ministers and demands for a vote of no confidence in the government of Prime Minister Papandreou. A court case lasting ten months astounded the public with the exposure of ministerial goings-on. Thus in 1992 several years after the event, Mr Papandreou was cleared of all charges by the Greek Supreme Court (with a close 7 to 6 vote on the most important charge). Two of his former Cabinet ministers were found guilty of related charges.

Of course there may be many such scandals hidden under the surface. Not every one is exposed in court. If one person can get away with such outrageous conduct, no doubt many others try and succeed. Did Greece and the European institutions learn a lesson? Did they install great anti-corruption measures?

The very next year Mr Papandreou was re-elected as prime minister. The Council of Ministers decided to provide even more money for the Mediterranean region.

Where did Greece and Europe go wrong? Clearly if Greece had reformed its finances to Swiss, German or Dutch standards the euro would not be in the pretty pass it is in today. Who is to blame? Clearly a succession of politicians did not do the cleaning job.

But what of the floods of European money that streamed into the banks and into the politicians pockets? What of the money that was used to bribe voters, rather than proper reconstruction and ‘economic reform’? Why was there no case to answer for this debacle in the European courts? One indication would be that the only active institutions at the time were full of people brandishing membership cards of political parties. They were already a sort of cartel.

The responsibility still lies with the European institutions. In this post-Gaullist period Europe was already creating its political buddy network where each scratched each other’s back. What’s the problem with political friendships? Nothing for the politicians but it does not get rid of the fleas.

A governance system controlled by a political cartel is a big problem for the public and the survival of independent media who criticize them. It is no coincidence that the crook in this case bought heavily into the media and offered free gifts to journalists. The politicians too often did not have the courage to clean up their own mess. Why? How can you be hard on political friends that you meet all the time at European party meetings to work out policy together? You need their vote and support to advance your own political ideas in Europe. Political parties open their doors to every lobby group in the telephone book and a few more besides. Parties can easily be captured by such lobbies. That is why the Commission should function in total independence of political parties and national governments.

Only an independent, supranational authority can cure this type of corruption that Europe is presently suffering from. The best way to achieve it is to examine the politicians’ interests in an open debate with non-ideological sections of society like enterprises, workers, consumers and the regions. Five independent bodies should provide a modicum of practical sense.

So how did Europe get into this fix with a party political cartel replacing de Gaulle’s paternalistic system that subsidized the French farming systems and others?

The biggest area of corruption occurred when the Commission became more and more the instrument of the political parties. The Treaties say the opposite. The members of the Commission should be absolutely independent. They should not talk to governments except in the Council of Ministers where there are witnesses and the public can see and hear. Yes, where the public can hear everything going on. After many years of abuse of secret political deals with their wine lakes and meat mountains, a clause was specifically written into what is now the Lisbon Treaty. It says in article 15 that all sessions of the Council must be open when they are considering money matters and any legislation. That was obvious before. Money is a public matter. Now it is written clearly in law.

After saying goodbye to de Gaulle, Europe must straighten out the party political seizure of the Commission. The treaties still say that the same thing. In the early days party politicians had the honesty to resign from parties when the joined the Commission. They said it was to ensure that they were independent but also seen to be independent.

Recently however after one secret night session, the politicians of the European Council decided without asking the people that the Commission should become their intergovernmental party political secretariat. The Council decided to prolong what was a temporary, transitional arrangement. They now stipulated that Commission members must be nationals, one each for the 27 Member States and all must be party card-holders of the main parties. That does violence to the spirit and the letter of the treaties. It is opposite to what it says. It is also dangerous for the political, financial and moral health of Europe.

In the past the Commission members — some of the strongest democrats —were not politicians and the Commissioners were independent of the States. That was because the Treaties say that the Commissioners must be independent, meaning having the courage to say NO to parties and to governments. Commissioners often take instructions from governments, also in flagrant violation to treaty law. Treaty law still says the same thing, but that does not stop the politicians of the European Council to make illegal maneuvers contrary to the treaties. They act in no-one’s interest but their own.

The next failure of Brussels lies with the representatives of organized civil society and their debating chamber. What chamber you might ask? Rightly. The members of the Economic and Social Committee — which the treaties say should have powers comparable to Parliament has NEVER been elected. If there were a debating chamber with legal powers over the legislation, we would not be in the euro crisis we have today.

A proper functioning Economic and Social Committee would have its own monetary and fiscal committee that would be independent of parties. It would ask pertinent questions about where European money was going. It would demand answers. It would not shut its mouth when the Council of Ministers and the Commission wants it to. It would also act by taking some cases to Court.

The euro crisis is the result of many years decay in professional standards of European supervision. The euro crisis will not be resolved until Europe has the proper democratic bodies functioning properly. According to the treaties a democratic Economic and Social Committee would also have its influence on whether a candidate State was accepted in the first place — such as setting its house in order before its prime minister takes a seat in the Council of Ministers.

Europe can be strong financially, politically and morally. That requires that the Commission should be independent and composed of the wisest and the best among Europe's 500 million citizens. It requires a selection process that the Council have signally failed to introduce in more than half a century.

If Europeans want to get their currency into a healthy state they should begin by insisting that the Council obeys the spirit and the letter of the law. If they do not do it themselves, someone else will make them. National courts are now examining dossiers that will begin this reform process. The Council has chosen to discriminate against Europe’s 500 million citizens, by making it impossible for free citizens to become candidates for the Commission and the Consultative Committees. Europe's 500 million citizens have ample potential to take these abuses and others to the European courts. That right of the individual and of every association was written into the treaties from the very start.

Europeans have powerful legal rights to safeguard their freedoms. A national court can catch some of the villains. But in the European system if one government is colluding criminally with other politicians, a court case can be taken out in any of the 27 national courts. People can go to the European level. They can ask for rulings on pertinent European matters even if they have a case in the lowest national tribunal. That is why governments and politicians are restricting the number of judges in the Courts in Strasbourg and in Luxembourg. However, the courts may act slowly but they do act eventually with force. On 18 April 2011 Europeans should celebrate that freedom and the sixtieth anniversary of the foundational Community Treaty and the great Charter of European inter-dependence.

Avalanche4 : the fate of the Euro, the political cartel and corrupt practice are thrown in the balance -- of Law!

Will the Euro survive? Will the European Union require stronger financial guarantees to make sure that there is not a knock-on collapse of the economies of eurozone countries? The targets of the financial market are euphemistically described as weak economies. Rather more than that is the core of the problem. Too often corruption is involved, from bending the rules, 'innovative interpretations,' bent statistics to outright crime, bribery and major fraud. The euro crisis has merely thrown this into high relief.

Why at the December 2010 European Council did the leaders of 27 Member States promise to embrace their worst nightmare -- make a treaty change? It is specifically for the euro. After a decade of controversy and demonstrations over the Lisbon and Constitutional Treaty process, why rekindle a row? The meeting on the euro crisis was behind closed doors, so those most concerned, the euro users, were kept in the dark. An earlier treaty change to please Parliament was done in a secret Intergovernmental Conference. That was small beer -- to spend extra money and give some extra salaries to extra MEPs.

This one is the biggy. It involves the alleged means to create monetary stability by plastering the ever-increasing money wall with what passes for paper or electronic currency. It is to act as a dam against nasty market speculators who see that some national books are not yet kept straight. (Note that those who kept their books straight, like Slovenia, Slovakia, the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg, etc are not under threat. Malta, a tiny southern economy, has the confidence of investors.)

Any treaty change is dangerous for a political group or cartel. It is much more so if it lacks popular support and has acted in defiance of popularly expressed will of the people in referendums. But contrary to the last amendment this has to be visible. The government leaders therefore made it as short as possible hoping that:

• (a) it would not be noticed too much,
• (b) it would pass easily through the ratification process in 27 national parliaments
• (c) it would not cause rioting in the streets,
• (d) it would not provoke a court case that would declare that a public referendum was necessary in an off-shore island or elsewhere.

However, 'short' does not mean unimportant. Obviously it is vital. It concerns money. Big money. The previous guarantee fund amounted to the equivalent of a nice round figure of a trillion dollars. That amounts to a couple of thousand dollars for every man, woman and child in the European Union. Handy cash. Once the public grasps the importance of issue, all sorts of questions will arise.

The European government leaders hope to get the following amendment to Article 136 of the Lisbon Treaty:

• '3. The Member States whose currency is the euro may establish a stability mechanism to be activated if indispensable to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole. The granting of any required financial assistance under the mechanism will be made subject to strict conditionality."

(For those who are curious, 136 paragraphs 1 and 2 deal with strengthening national budgetary discipline and Community surveillance, not weakening it. Whether countries are big or small, rich or poor, east or west, north or south, maritime or inland, industrial, agricultural or touristical, as long as they keep their books straight, they pose no threat to the eurozone; they uphold it.)

So why did the 27 government leaders change their mind? Instead of maintaining their previous chorus of 'No more Treaty changes, please!', all of a sudden they all say 'We all want a treaty change' and we want it NOW!' The amendment has also to get the European Parliament's approval -- and the EP previously set their mind against any treaty changes. Now they hope for an EP agreement before the Spring 2011. Are they two independent bodies who have coincidently arrived at the same conclusion? And what of the Commission? Is it independent too but also changed its tune to whistle in harmony?

(One thing all three bodies have in common is that all members are part of a tiny minority -- the two per cent of Europeans who are card-carrying members of political parties. There is not an independent person in sight. The second thing is that all the problems relate to political parties and their abuse of power.)

Why did the leaders not continue their well-trodden path by doing package deals in the secrecy of the closed-door European Council? Why subject this amendment to open parliamentary debate and dangers of failure?

The answer is simple: LAW.

The initiative to change the treaty comes from one country. That country eventually persuaded everyone else. That country is Germany. The person who did the talking was Angela Merkel, the Chancellor.
Why? And how was she so persuasive?

Germany is faced with a law case that challenges the legality of the outcomes of the politicians' secret sessions. If the case were unfounded, no one would worry. But we have 27 worried people who fear it might succeed. It might undermine the whole pile of secret package deals in the past. That could cause major chaos, as all the measures would unravel and there would be endless legal action. Frau Merkel made it clear that what they have been getting away with so far cannot last forever.

Many politicians think they are the last word and their deals are beyond the power of anyone to disrupt them. Their number even includes heads of State who have influence on all departments of State. No one is higher than we government leaders, some may think: 'We control the levers of power.'

They are wrong. The law, both the invisible supranational law and written law of the land and the EU, are always higher than any individual, corporation or abusive State. History has proved it.

In this case it is the law of the land that is now being applied. The postwar German Constitution was written by Germans who had experienced three wars in their lifetimes. Wars were fomented by reckless leaders and secret cabals. Konrad Adenauer, then a 72-year old pensioner, former mayor of Cologne, was chairman of the Constitutional committee. The next year, 1949, he became the first Chancellor of postwar German Federal Republic. He stayed as Chancellor for more than a decade assuring both a European transition and respect for the democratic rule of law in the post-Nazi generation. Germany was not immediately strong enough morally to openly oppose the anti-democratic abuses of de Gaulle in European politics.

Sixty years ago, before de Gaulle's seizure of power, Adenauer however co-signed on 18 April 1951 with other Founding Fathers such as Schuman the great Charter of the Community assuring the citizens right to choose. Walter Hallstein, a German law professor, president of the European Commission, together with his European colleagues resisted the most serious antidemocratic intrigues against Community law and attempted Gaullist sabotage.

German constitutionalists provided powers so that any citizen could complain to the Constitutional Court if they thought government leaders were abusing their powers. This type of recourse is open to other citizens in democratic States, but few have applied them against the monetary scandals. The German constitution made sure that the issue was clear as crystal.

That is precisely what happened in Germany. Even though a citizen taking on the State is no small matter, the Constitutional Court spoke out clearly. It provided a long judgement on the inadequacies of the politicians' deals at the Maastricht Treaty.

Now a further case is pending. Leading the 50 complainants is Professor Markus Kerber, a Constitutional lawyer. Another complainant is the grandson of Konrad Adenauer. The complaint questions the actions of politicians in supplying billions of funds in bail-outs when these are strictly forbidden in the Lisbon and earlier treaties.

Before the European Council met, Chancellor Merkel first had a private talk with the French President at Deauville. Why? President Sarkozy's predecessor, Charles de Gaulle, was often the initiator of the murky, secret package deals that brought European funds to assuage his voters. Thus were created the massive meat mountains, wine lakes, milk meres and cheese bergs.

We do not know what was said exactly to President Sarkozy at the Deauville rencontre, and later to the other 25 government leaders at the European Council. That remains a secret.

One guess is 'The game is up.' Without the respect of law the Community system cannot continue. Even the new intergovernmental distortions introduced into the European Union by the Lisbon Treaty will collapse unless the deals are supported by law.

However the treaty amendment is only the start of the process. It is questionable whether this proposed amendment, by politicians, for politicians to cover up a political scandal, will work. Nor can it act retroactively as a cover up of past corrupt practice. The legal case in Germany is not the end of the matter. There are 26 other national Courts that are open to such cases. There are also a couple of European Courts too.

Proliferation5 : 'I will kill anyone who dishonours Islam' says minister of nuclear-armed Pakistan

'If someone dishonors Islam in front of me, I will shoot him dead!' Those are the reported remarks of Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik at a press conference.

He was speaking after the assassination of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, who had championed the rights of Aasia Bibi and denounced the blasphemy charges against her as 'trumped up'. The Christian convert is facing execution because of what she was alleged to have said during a row over drinking water when her neighbours called her impure. They were not present days later when the charge with its mandatory death penalty was laid. Nor could her alleged words be repeated in court as that would be considered as repeating the blasphemy! She is currently awaiting an appeal court hearing.

The Governor was shot 25 times by his own security guard, whose action has been acclaimed by large, noisy sections of the nation and militant religious leaders. He was showered with rose petals and garlands.

A quasi-majority of the country expressed approval of the murder of Governor Taseer and for anyone else who expressed similar opinions of religious freedom. Are they acting out of ignorance (and wanting to stay ignorant) or out of fear that the basis of the State will be overturned by free discussions, or fear that they too might end up murdered?

What is extraordinary is that Pakistani Interior Minister's remarks -- extreme as they are -- were seen as an attempt to allay the violent wrath and murderous incitement of members of the religious groups. They were upset at the state funeral given to Governor Taseer. This 'moderate' face is extremely dangerous both inside and outside Pakistan.

In 2009 eight Christians were killed in the town of Gojra in Punjab following unsubstantiated allegations that a Christian had desecrated the Koran. Last year more than 80 members of the minority Ahmadi sect of Islam were killed in two mosques in Lahore. The small Hindu population is scared by the abduction, forced marriage and compulsory islamization of its infant daughters.

These events raise the most serious questions for Europe. What is the difference with an individual and the West as a whole that lies 'in front' of the Pakistani government? How does the minister distinguish between an Ahmadi or a Christian who expresses dissent at religious autocracy and wholesale murder?

The murderers were their own judge, jury and executioner. Minister Malik's opinion reinforces this. That is the way of anarchy. It will only be resolved, as history shows, when the strongest sectarian power wins.

Europe has rejected that concept of power politics, the rule of the fist whether religious, political, ideological or racist. It has managed to create the longest peace in the more than two thousand year history of Europe, thanks to the Community method.

In past centuries many parts of Europe were conquered by Islam. They rejected it. They preferred freedom of thought. They did not like forced conversion. They did not want to be considered second-class citizens or dhimmis, if they retained their faith in the God of the Bible.

Supranational democracy is based on Christian principles where everyone is treated equally. That applies to Christian and non-Christians.

Schuman warned about the dangers of confounding the separation of the religious domain with the political.

A theocracy does not recognise the principle of separation of the two powers. It imposes on religious thought responsibilities which do not belong to it. Under such a regime the political differences risk degenerating into religious fanaticism; holy war is the most frightening expression of a bloody exploitation of religious feeling.

For the West today, which on the whole still agrees that Islam does not present a way of enlightenment, science and truth, the logical conclusion of the minister's policy is that anyone who stands before his eyes or that of his government and who disagrees with his religious conviction (and maybe does not even know it) may be freely assassinated by that minister or that government.

The remark comes from a nuclear-armed State. The government's policy in the past was to encourage nuclear proliferation to Islamic States. Its bomb-maker, Abdul Qadeer (A Q) Khan, loaded with the nation’s highest honours, actively sought nuclear proliferation for ideological reasons.

A clarification is urgently required. The West should also be clear about its own policy. It needs to establish the proper bases of the supranational system.

Foreign policy should be based on open and publicly debated reciprocity. This need for open debate is especially important in the democracies. How should the West react to Islamic States or those where religious sectarians run rampant and who criticize Christians and who dishonour Christianity, Judaism, deny the Holocaust, the Bible and Western civilization?

Both the European Union and North American States of USA and Canada are founded on the principle of free speech, the right to choose and freedom of religion. Also a main European fundamental right is the ability to freely change one's religion. All that requires an intensive debate on religious values. No incitement to violence can be made to forbid this discussion. It requires an atmosphere of tolerance and open discussion for all its citizens. The Community system allows religious tolerance because it is based on a supranational democratic system.

Certain conditions are necessary if East and West can live together in peace. If the West looks eye to eye with the Islamic East, tolerance must exist on both sides. Mutual respect is required. Reciprocity of tolerance is vital for being interactive parts of a global society.

Today this is even more vital as trade depends on open borders and the prevention of terrorism. A major part of world trade is the information economy, newspapers, books and the Internet. While the web is filled with poisonous Jihadist sites and blogs (especially for those who know Arabic and other languages), it also provides free access to alternative religious views and facts.

Is this what Islamic sectarians fear as much as do all autocratic governments? Information can be more explosive than terrorist bombs. The human soul has an unquenchable thirst for freedom. Sectarians can do nothing against it, whether by mobs, fire or the sword. The problem of conversions and religious tolerance will not go away but only become more prominent in the coming years. The drive of information technology is also an unstoppable force.

Tolerance was declared to be a part of the Pakistani State Constitution by its founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah in his first speech as president on 11 August 1947 to the Constituent Assembly.

'The first duty of a government is to maintain law and order, so that the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the State,' he said. The angularities between different religions and Moslem sects such as Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on will vanish under law. 'You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed -- that has nothing to do with the business of the State.'

Some later leaders tried to make Pakistan a different type of State where death is the penalty for disagreeing with their version of Islam. This change is a vastly more dangerous move in a nuclear-armed State.

In 1947 days after Jinnah's speech, up to a million died in the disputes between Hindus and Moslems during the bloody days of partition and the separate independence of India and Pakistan.

Those people were killed by individuals and mobs. Today, the whole world could be set afire by acts of intolerance and nuclear war.

Proliferation4: The coming Mid-East War to 'cut the Head of the Snake' will paralyze Europe unless it fixes energy independence goals NOW!

Three lessons should be clear to Europe's policy-makers from the WikiLeaks affair.

• War is coming in the Mid-East and it is mainly about religio-political ideologies among Islamic states. Sectarians of both the Shi'ite and Sunni persuasion, both arming with nuclear bombs, are also involved in extensive terrorist activities to destroy the West. Policy-leaders must decide whether they wish to open a public debate to analyze this and secure the European Community's future. That requires a real debate to debunk terrorist and imperialist religious ideologies.
• Secondly, any war there will cut off supplies because the Persian Gulf will be deep in the war zone and is likely to be blocked. This will have disastrous effects on the European economy which drinks oil like an unreformed alcoholic. Iran's last war with Iraq lasted nine years from 1980-88. Can Europe survive on sharply reduced petroleum for a decade? It needs immediately to set a goal of energy efficiency and energy independence by 2020. It needs an Energy Community based on supranational principles of democracy.
• Thirdly, Europeans have the most powerful instrument to eliminate Iranian and other nuclear proliferation that threatens the region and the world. It is time that the Euratom treaty, Europe's non-proliferation treaty, is put into action. In the past and present, European leaders continue to show great incompetence in banning a democratic opposition by putting them on the terrorist list, while talking and talking to the terrorist ringleaders.

The Saudis strident warning against Iran to diplomats is now seen by all and sundry: 'Cut off the head of the snake' That message from the Saudi king says the snake is Iran. The nuclear bomb is its fangs. The Saudis recently signed a $60 billion arms deal with the US -- one of the biggest ever. Saudi Arabia is to buy 84 new F-15 fighter jets and three types of helicopters: 70 Apaches, 72 Black Hawks and 36 Little Birds. Upgrades for 70 other F-15s already in the Saudi Air Force is included, as well as Saudi purchases of HARM anti-radar missiles, precision-guided JDAM bombs and Hellfire missiles.

This shows a resumption of the close relationship of the defence communities that was frozen after the 9/11 attack on Washington and New York by Saudi suicide-jihadis. This huge deal is all the more extraordinary because leaked cables reveal that Saudi donors remain chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like al Qaeda. The Gulf state of Qatar, that has hosted the American military for years, was called the 'worst in the region' in counter-terrorism efforts.

The Jordanians call Iran an octopus. Why? 'Iran is of an octopus whose tentacles reach out insidiously to manipulate, foment, and undermine the best laid plans of the West and regional moderates. Iran’s tentacles include its allies Qatar and Syria, Hizballah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories, an Iraqi government sometimes seen as supplicant to Tehran, and Shia communities throughout the region.' explains a US diplomat.

Zaid Rifai, then-president of the Jordanian Senate and former prime minister and foreign minister, is quoted as saying to US diplomat, 'Bomb Iran, or live with an Iranian bomb. Sanctions, carrots, incentives won't matter.' The diplomatic cable continues, 'while Rifai judged a military strike would have "catastrophic impact on the region," he nonetheless thought preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons would pay enough dividends to make it worth the risks.'

Are the Saudis preparing for war or is the arms deal merely a token encouragement for others to do so? Will the holders of Mecca attack the followers of the Twelfth Imam? They would prefer other people's blood is spilt first. The Saudis told the Americans that the USA should go to war to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons.

The Israelis are curiously mute about the Saudi arms deal. They see the immediate threat of a holocaust-denying, nuclear-armed regime that would like to wipe the Jewish State off the map as more urgent than the corrosive but persistent diplomacy of the Saudis to undermine it. The Saudis let it be known that for a considerable period they have been in talks with the Israelis. They have held meetings in Jordan between the highest security officials. Compared with the real danger they see with Iran, clearly the fear of being seen talking to the Israelis, Zionists and Jews is of little consequence.

Iran with its skilled media manipulation has made the Palestinian issue the hottest emotional issue, regardless of facts on the ground. It is the means to distract world attention from its own plans. The emir of Qatar is reported as saying that, based on his over 30 years of experience with the Iranians, we shouldn’t believe but one word in a hundred that the Iranians say.

Next year with the continuing hard winter in Europe may be an even greater danger for Europe. For the first time in 36 years, Iran will assume the chairmanship of the oil cartel, OPEC. The cartel controls the price of oil by determining the supply rate and shutting the oil spigot. That is another element to factor in as the world passing into peak oil is now facing accelerating demand from oil and gas from booming China.

Disclosures from European politicians in the released cables show that the danger is widespread -- but secret. There is little public debate. Some leaders like Germany's Angela Merkel, have, however, spoken out in public. Iran with a bomb 'threatens the entire free world,' she told the US Congress. Are other leaders being as frank with their public AT HOME?

There is one stark exception. Israel has consistently spoken out to its public and abroad about the danger to all. Iran is still a far-away country for Israel but it experiences the effects of Iranian support to terrorist organisations in Gaza, Lebanon, its own heartland and Jordan. Tens of thousands of rockets and missiles have been launched from Gaza, many of them Iranian imports. Gaza has a stockpile of 5000 and Hizbollah in Lebanon many more, some 50,000 to 80,000 due to ineffective UN 'peace-keepers'.

Israel has shown that it has valued world safety and ethics more highly than any other country in the region. When Saddam Hussein of Iraq was building an atomic programme with the aim of launching a nuclear bomb on Israel, Israel acted although it seems the world said 'Don't do it!'

That courageous action gave the world a breathing space from a nuclear Mid-East war. Only after the act and after a little more reflection did the world's diplomats agree that Israel had saved their own hides.

Much expertise and equipment from Saddam's Iraq was secreted into Syria, say the cables. Israel bombed that plant which potentially threatened its own existence and that of much of the West. Europe looked dumbly on.

Why are Arab states so anxious about Iran, nominally a fellow-Islamic nation? Three reasons spring to mind, religion (shi'ites versus sunnis), race (Persians versus Arabs) and politics (control of the Gulf with its choke point on oil, and the expanding terrorist network to Hizbollah in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza with increasing interference in Egypt). At the core of this is the revolutionary, expansionist ideology of the twelfth imam of Ayotollah Khomeini who wanted world religious revolution. For thirty years the crowds have been yelling Death to the Great Satan, meaning the West, USA and Europe. The success of the industrialized West puts to shame the barren outcome of Islamic development. So extremists feel the only way to show Islamic society as superior is to destroy or undermine the West. 'We will export our revolution throughout the world ... until {Islam} is echoed all over the world,' exclaimed Ayatollah R Khomeini. Osama bin Laden said the same thing as the founder of his faction: 'I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah and his prophet Mohammad.' Hamas leader Khaled Mash'al warned Europeans on the Danish cartoon affair: 'Tomorrow our nation will sit on the throne of the world. This is not a figment of the imagination but a fact. Tomorrow we will lead the world, Allah willing.'

Europe is in great danger. Firstly such threats attempt to undermine the supranational or universal values on which Europe is built. Forcing religious belief by the sword, bomb and blackmail is a power given to no man. It is illegitimate. Freedom to choose, and especially freedom of religious choice, is a fundamental value written into Europe's great Charter of Interdependence. The freedom to hold a religion or not and to change one's religious belief freely is written into the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, initiated by Robert Schuman and other Founding Fathers. That should make it abundantly clear that Europe is a zone of peace where all debate, political and religious, is open. All views may be analyzed. Violence and the threat of violence is excluded.

What are Europeans leaders doing about the physical danger of a Mid-East war? What would happen if the Persian Gulf is blocked in this seemingly inevitable war between Islamic factions? Despite decades of warnings dating back to the times of the Founding Fathers of the European Community, European leaders have made little progress to the goal of energy independence. Only by saving energy and providing the maximum amount of its own native energy can Europe have an independent foreign policy, rather than being on the hook of its energy suppliers.

We must learn as Schuman said that Europe's salvation must come from itself and those resources given to its citizens, material and spiritual.