Droits humanitaires abusés: les tentatives de juges étrangers d’évincer le législateur suisse

Par Sebastian Frehner, conseiller national Bâle (BS)

Ex: http://www.lesobservateurs.ch

Les droits de l'homme ont été intégrés dans les régimes légaux nationaux et internationaux pour défendre l'individu contre l'arbitraire de l'Etat. Depuis de nombreuses années, les juges de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme ne cessent cependant d'étendre les droits humanitaires pour faire de ce droit de défense un droit de revendication. Ils empiètent en cela sur les compétences du législateur national. L'initiative populaire pour l'autodétermination vise précisément à remettre de l'ordre dans ce système.

Les droits de l'homme, un pilier de notre société
Les droits de l'homme sont par définition les droits accordés individuellement et sans condition à chaque homme pour lui permettre de mener son existence humaine. Ils doivent être compris comme des droits de défense contre l'arbitraire de l'Etat. Presque tous les Etats du monde reconnaissent ces garanties minimales face au pouvoir de l'Etat. Les divergences d'opinions portent sur le détail de ces droits.

Droit international impératif
Il existe un large consensus sur le principe que les Etats doivent s'abstenir de violer ledit droit international impératif. Bien que les avis soient également divergents à ce niveau, on admet généralement que le droit international impératif comprend l'interdiction des actions suivantes: la torture, le génocide, la guerre d'agression, l'esclavage et le refoulement dans un Etat où la personne renvoyée est menacée de mort ou de torture (le principe du non-refoulement).

Ratification de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme
Il appartient au législateur national de définir les autres droits de l'individu face à l'Etat ou à une organisation supranationale. En Suisse, il s'agit du parlement, du peuple et des cantons. Le législateur helvétique a usé de cette compétence pour ancrer d'autres garanties de ce genre dans la Constitution fédérale. La Suisse a de surcroît conclu plusieurs traités internationaux dans ce sens. Elle a notamment adhéré à la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme (CEDH) en 1974, si bien qu'elle doit appliquer les jugements de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme.

La Suisse ayant inscrit les garanties de la CEDH dans sa Constitution fédérale et les tribunaux suisses étant liés à la CEDH, on pourrait logiquement partir de l'idée que les jugements du Tribunal fédéral et de la Cour européenne ne se distinguent guère. La réalité est différente, car les juges de Strasbourg ont donné au fil des ans une interprétation de plus en plus large à la CEDH et ne considèrent plus aujourd'hui celle-ci comme un ensemble de garanties minimales face à l'Etat, mais en déduisent d'importants droits de l'individu par rapport aux pouvoirs publics. Ils imposent ainsi aux Etats des obligations que ceux-ci ne veulent pas assumer et neutralisent le processus législatif démocratique.

Le changement de sexe comme une prestation à financer par l'Etat
Les juges de Strasbourg ont par exemple décidé que le changement de sexe devait être financé par l'assurance-maladie obligatoire (LAMal), cassant du même coup un arrêt du Tribunal fédéral suisse. La Cour européenne donne donc une autre interprétation aux normes légales que le Tribunal fédéral. Jamais le législateur suisse n'aurait accepté qu'un tel acte médical soit remboursé par la caisse-maladie obligatoire. C'est dire que la Cour de Strasbourg mine le processus législatif suisse (cf. jugement du 8 janvier 2009; affaire Schlumpf c. Suisse; requête no 29002/96).

Invalidation de l'accord de Dublin
La Cour européenne des droits de l'homme est non seulement une menace pour le processus législatif national ordinaire, mais aussi pour le droit international. Preuve en est ce jugement dans lequel elle interdit le renvoi d'une famille afghane de Suisse en Italie aussi longtemps que ce pays ne peut pas garantir des conditions d'accueil suffisantes. Par cette décision, la Cour de Strasbourg a annulé d'un seul coup les effets de l'accord de Dublin, un traité de droit international conclu par tous les Etats UE et auquel se sont associées l'Islande, la Norvège et la Suisse. Selon cet accord, un requérant d'asile n'a le droit de déposer qu'une seule demande dans un Etat Dublin (le pays du premier accueil). Les 17 juges de Strasbourg torpillent donc la décision des Etats contractants d'établir une politique d'asile cohérente en Europe. Il ne s'agit plus là de la marge interprétative laissée usuellement aux juges, mais de la neutralisation pure et simple par les "17 Sages de Strasbourg" du processus législatif ordinaire conclu par un groupe d'Etats (cf. jugement de la Cour européenne du 4 novembre 2014; case of Tarakhel v. Switzerland; application no. 29217/12).

Initiative pour l'autodétermination
Il n'y a qu'un moyen d'empêcher ces comportements antidémocratiques: il faut décider clairement que la Constitution fédérale est la source suprême du droit suisse, sous réserve du droit international impératif que la Suisse ne conteste pas. Le droit suisse continuera ainsi d'être défini par le parlement, le peuple et les cantons et non pas par une poignée de juges étrangers agissant dans leur tour d'ivoire. Voilà précisément ce qu'exige l'initiative populaire UDC pour l'autodétermination. Dites OUI et signez cette initiative si vous ne l'avez pas encore fait!

Plus d'informations: www.initiative-autodetermination.ch

Impersonalità metafisica e assenza dell’illusione dell’Io

Impersonalità metafisica e assenza dell’illusione dell’Io

 

di Giandomenico Casalino

Ex: http://www.ereticamente.net

Perché, nel mondo indoeuropeo, non vi è la presenza della “personalità” nel senso di Io come Soggetto, ma vi è solo il Sé che è il Principio Ordinatore del Mondo che è nel Mondo ed è l’Intelletto attivo-divino di Aristotele? Per la ragione che, se la “parte” superiore dell’uomo, quella divina, non è “personale”, nel senso che non è del soggetto né si identifica con esso, è vero invece che la “persona”, il Soggetto, l’Io, uccidendosi come tale, deve salire (Ascesi) verso il Nous, lo Spirito ed identificarsi con esso, con la “parte” superiore; deve ricordare, prendere coscienza e quindi Sapere che egli nella sua vera realtà è il Pensiero Cosmico, l’Oggettivo, l’Eterno, e che non è mai stato “io” (coscienza, intelletto – nel senso hegeliano – sentimenti, passioni…); che tale fantasma (io storico-sociale, soggetto alla coscienza di veglia) non solo scompare e si dilegua ogni volta che l’uomo si avvicina al processo di dissociazione, che è la morte, in un itinerario che è poi alquanto simile a quello del sonno (Eraclito); ma è “qualcosa” di tanto labile, transeunte e fallace che, in sostanza, non è alcunché di stabile, di epistemico. Allora “anche” lo stesso Principio cosmico, il Divino, to Thèion, è impersonale, nel senso che supera, va oltre il concetto di “persona”, di soggetto, di Io, e, quindi, per causalità filosofica, la sapienza indoeuropea è oltre la “dialettica” teismo-ateismo, in quanto, poiché il Divino non ha alcuna natura “personale”, non può sussistere il Dio-persona, al quale si attribuiscono conseguenzialmente le potenze dell’animo della persona: volontà, amore, gelosia…; al quale si può contrapporre solo la negazione di esso con l’atteggiamento spirituale dell’ateismo.

Da ciò  discende che in  tale visione del  Mondo,  il  “problema” della “immortalità” dell’anima, nel mondo indoeuropeo, non sussiste come tale per la semplice ragione che il Principio Divino, intelletto attivo in termini aristotelici, pur presente nell’uomo in genere, in guisa però incosciente, è presente in senso attivo e cosciente solo in colui il quale si identifìca consapevolmente con esso, in colui il quale vive il bios theoretikòs e, anche per un Istante, esperimenta nella pura Contemplazione, ciò che gli Dei sono sempre! Pertanto non vi può essere, nel mondo indoeuropeo, concezione di una “immortalità”, che poi scade e si rivela pura e semplice “speranza” di sopravvivenza personale dell’anima, poiché il soggetto come individuo non è assolutamente pensato e ciò che è nobile ed eterno in esso in tanto lo è in quanto nulla ha a che fare con l’individualità soggettiva ma bensì con l’Oggettività dello Spirito, essendo questo, peraltro, il “riflesso” del Principio Divino cosmico che è impersonale. Nel mondo arcaico omerico e romano vale, pertanto, il discorso relativo alla virtus eroica: è la Gloria dell’Eroe, in quanto il migliore (àristos) tra gli uomini, che viene cantata dalle Muse attraverso il Cantore, tale è l’immortalità genuinamente indoeuropea: quella dell’eroe; solo Eracle giunge alla divinificazione ed all’accoglimento nell’Olimpo. E qui si deve riflettere sullo “strano” destino del semantema della parola greca dòxa: nel mondo omerico essa ha il significato dell’apparire della Luce, della Gloria, è l’onore che avvolge e distingue l’Eroe quando si presenta agli occhi della comunità dei guerrieri ed è quindi l’apparenza di ciò che appare, nel senso che ciò che l’Eroe è nell’ “interno” (di cui come tale l’Eroe comunque non ha coscienza…), nell’animo, è identico a ciò che è nell’ “esterno”, nella forma in cui appare come esistenza della sua essenza, poiché, come abbiamo già detto, è uomo trasparente ed aperto al Mondo.

La stessa parola, dopo l’avvento della decadenza della spiritualità greca che conduce all’oscurarsi della trasparenza in un’opacità spessa ed impenetrabile, l’apparenza, la dòxa, non è più la Luce “interna”-”esterna”, ma la coltre di nebbia della non-conoscenza, è ciò che nasconde e cela “qualcosa” che forse c’è ma che potrebbe anche non esserci e, pertanto, è opinione e quindi fallibile. Essa ormai come apparenza che inganna, che nasconde, può essere cacciata via solo dal suo “contrario”: dalla Verità che in greco si chiama proprio Alètheia e cioè quella “forza” che elimina, annulla (a privativo) il Lanthàno che è il nascondimento e che è come dire il “nuovo” significato di dòxa. Infatti in Platone tale processo è già completo, e la dòxa-opinione non è conoscenza proprio perché è frutto dell’inganno dell’apparenza che è la serie di ombre (vedi il mito della Caverna…) che oscurano e ingannano la vista; l’apparire non è più l’Essere, l’esistenza non coincide più con l’essenza (ed è straordinario che tale recuperata identità sia invece proprio l’oggetto di cui tratta Hegel nella Scienza della Logica - Logica oggettiva – che è il Sapere dell’Assoluto…) e quindi la falsità dell’apparenza, il suo inganno, devono essere superate mediante l’Ascesi sapienziale per giungere all’ “interno”, poiché esso, lo Spirito, non è più visibile, “esterno” nel mondo, non è più apparente, nel senso che non appare più come forma intelligibile, se non agli occhi dello Spirito di colui che è iniziato al logos filosofico; e siamo già nella lotta per lo Spirito che ingaggiò Platone e nella differenza (tragica…), da lui tematizzata, tra dòxa (opinione) ed epistème (Sapere incontrovertibile poiché anipotetico).

*****

È in Agostino e nei suoi dialoghi interiori con il suo Dio che nasce l’Io moderno come soggetto-singolo; Agostino dice per la prima volta: “Ego”, anticipando Cartesio e tutto il soggettivismo moderno. Pertanto effettuale all’assenza di qualsiasi personalismo o soggettivismo, in quanto non vi è, nel mondo indoeuropeo, alcuna presenza dell’Io, come si è accennato sopra, è l’inesistenza culturale della tematica “teismo-ateismo” che è processo dialettico paralizzante interno alla cultura astratta del monoteismo creazionistico e potenzialmente ateo, in quanto concepisce Dio come persona (personalizzazione del Divino) dotata di volontà e “progetto”  creativo,  d’  “amore”  e  di  “compassione”,  il  tutto  in  una “umanizzazione” del Divino a cui, giustamente, W.F.Otto contrapponeva la elevazione greca ed indoeuropea dell’uomo verso il Divino e cioè la “divinizzazione” dell’umano (omòiosis theò). Nel mondo spirituale indoeuropeo in tanto non vi è dualismo religioso, in tanto il Divino è nel Mondo, in quanto esso (il Divino) non è nulla di personale, di “umano”, e quindi di “staccato” dal mondo; esso è, invece, il Principio del Mondo, il suo Arché ed è presente “in esso” impersonalmente poiché Potenza Divina nel Mondo medesimo; essendo (il Divino) il Mondo stesso però nella sua essenza: come Idea dell’Unità; in caso contrario non avrebbe avuto senso la sapienza ellenica che insegna (da Talete a Proclo…) che il mondo è ricolmo di Dei! L’assenza del concetto teistico di persona fa cadere nel nulla dell’inesistenza l’altro polo ad esso connesso: l’ateismo, il quale sorge inesorabilmente quando quella “persona” viene meno perché scompare la fede (secolarizzazione… modernità).

La spiritualità religiosa greco-romana è fuori, è estranea a tali tematiche, poiché non conoscendo il teismo non conosce nemmeno l’ateismo, se non come atto mentale (ýbris) di un folle che nega il Mondo, la phýsis e cioè l’evidente che è il Divino.

La  consapevolezza  fondata  sul  sapere  che  è  assente  qualsiasi  realtà “individuale”, (1) “personale”, “mia” nella “componente” immateriale dell’umano è ulteriore segno che evidenzia la tradizionale ed oggettiva spiritualità del mondo indoeuropeo. Se il Principio, il Nous, l’intelletto attivo, l’anima razionale è principio divino e immortale, nell’uomo Esso non è dell’uomo ma è bensì tutt’altro che individuale o “mio” o “suo”; è infatti universale ed ecco la ragione per cui è l’unica “parte” immortale nella realtà che abbiamo convenuto di chiamare “immateriale”. Quest’ultima è anche la “parte” che appare personale, individuale, che inerisce “quel” carattere, “quella” persona ed è il “suo” genio che, in termini biologici, è il corredo genetico; anche questo è, sulla superficie, l’Io storico-sociale, qualcosa che appartiene a quella persona e non ad altri, ma, al di là delle personali differenze, il carattere, la natura in senso sovrapersonale è quella realtà che è costante nella sua lineare tipicità come Demone della razza; ed anche questo non ha, nel profondo, nulla di personale, anche se così appare. La forma vitale pura che, quasi come “terzo” elemento o strato, è alla base del vivente, anzi è il vivente dal punto di vista della stessa, è anch’essa assolutamente oggettiva ma subpersonale, nello stesso (simile) modo in cui l’Intelletto divino è oggettivo ma superpersonale. Plotino, infatti, insegna che all’Uno che è oltre la Forma, “corrisponde”, nell’oscurità degli “abissi”, (dove, se pur fioca, giunge la Luce…) “qualcosa” che è sotto la Forma e ciò nel macrocosmo; se alla parola “forma” si sostituiscono le parole: personalità, carattere formato, allora nel microcosmo vale il medesimo discorso così come afferma anche la cultura egizia, dove la “tripartizione”, che è trifunzionalità dell’unità “immateriale”, è definita AKH, BA e KA. Si può affermare che l’uomo indoeuropeo, in quanto, come si è più volte ribadito, “uomo aperto al Mondo”, uomo cosmico, è attraversato dalle Potenze Cosmiche, che non sono e non possono essere “sue” quasi quanto il “carattere”, la “personalità” lo sono in apparenza e nel modo in cui si è detto.

Lo Spirito, dunque, è relazione, è unione, è organicità funzionale, è armonia, è Ordine, è Forma, e quindi è intelligibile dallo Spirito stesso ed ecco il Circolo: l’esperienza dello Spirito è l’esperienza (sua) dello Spirito ma è simultaneamente, dall’eternità, esperienza dello Spirito (come “oggetto” di essa…). La Vita è la potenza ribollente che è alla base, da essa, essendo in essa come potenza, proviene l’Anima che è la sottilizzazione e la sensibilizzazione della Vita, è la sua Verità, è ciò a cui deve pervenire e perviene da sempre, anzi è sempre pervenuta, come “accade” allo Spirito che è la potenza luminosa che proviene dall’Anima.

II termine “potenza” non ha alcun semantema quantitativo o irrazionale come “parti” o “facoltà” dell’Anima, ma è adottato con lo stesso significato che dýnamis ha nel lessico plotiniano. Se lo Spirito, provenendo dall’Anima, è lo Svegliarsi dell’Anima, allora comprendiamo la ragione per cui l’Anima è il «sonno dello Spirito» (Hegel); ciò significa che, come sapeva Eraclito, il sonno è simile alla morte, come processi del distacco, e quindi l’Anima, il sottile sensibile che giace nella Vita, staccata dal sostegno del corpo cioè dallo Spirito pietrificato (che dovrà essere sciolto dai legami e Svegliato) vaga nel “vuoto” e la sua “conoscenza” non sarà vera, né formale ed intelligibile, né cosmica né armonica, ma approssimativa e minacciosa, irrazionale nel senso di irreale, simbolica; l’anima “libera” dai legami che la tengono “unita” sia al corpo che allo Spirito, viaggia sulla barca della Vita (che è la base, la sua base, come il “mare”) nelle Acque del Sogno per parlare un linguaggio simile a quello del Mito, poiché il Mito nei Popoli è “vicenda” analoga a quella che “accade”  all’uomo.  Con  il  distacco  (nel  sogno)  l’Anima  giunge  nel “mondo dei morti” (Ade), tali sono i viaggi dell’Anima.

Note

¹ J.M. RIST, Eros e psyche. Studi sulla Filosofia di Platone. Plotino e Origene, Milano 1995, p. 136 e ss..

The Eurasian Idea from a Swedish Perspective

By Tommy Rydén

Ex: http://katehon.com

Sweden is at the outskirts of the Eurasian geographical area, as it has been presented to us. For historical and practical reasons, Russia is in any case what comes to our minds when we talk about Eurasia from a Swedish viewpoint, since we are almost next door neighbours. It has been said that ”In the broader sense, Eurasianism can be considered as a form of continentalism for the project of the creation of a European-Russian common space — the Greater Europe stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok”. Sweden could play an important part in this, if she chooses to.

Known historically for its neutrality, or at least some form of independence from other nations war agendas, and with an enthusiasm for international diplomacy, Sweden was initially oriented towards German culture during the first half of the 20th century. With the outcome of the second World War this changed to USA and the United Kingdom. The German language was replaced by the English language as the primary second language in the school system, and with that followed that people tends to orientate more towards that culture than anything else, especially in popular culture. Yet, Sweden is in no way a carbon copy of the Anglo-Saxon mindset.

There is nevertheless a cultural and political obstacle in our way. Advancing the idea of an expanded friendship with the Russian federation and Eurasia must, in order to fully develop and survive in the long run, be done through presenting the idea relentlessly, by trade and cultural exchange: step by step.

For this long-term change to take place we must first and foremost plant the idea that it even could take place, among key decision makers, and above all in the minds of the younger generation who share an interest in business and politics and will be our future leaders and decision makers. We need think-tanks, we need young bold politicians who dare to question the status quo, various educational associations, the use of social media and anything else that will put this idea into the mainstream in a responsible manner. There is no need for any great popular movement, only that influential individuals and groups connect and gets the word out. Quality is more important than numbers in getting the work done.

The Swedish tradition, even if not without faults and lately quite sabotaged, of diplomacy and until recently also in its avoidance of any open military alliances, could play an important role in the coming new world, as a liaison between Eurasia and the ”lands of the sea”.
There are some problems that must be dealt with in connections with this, one is about the NATO-partnership and another one is the incorrect image of Russia.

Sweden has unfortunately since the end of the Cold War in the 90ś, increasingly abandoned its honorable tradition of neutrality and true diplomacy, and the governments of late have oriented even further towards the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Even European Union mutual agreements is seen by Sweden to include possible military assistance, if a member state who perhaps because of membership in NATO is subjected to an act of war.. The Swedish Minister of Defense concluded in a speech five years ago that Sweden no longer, practically speaking, could be regarded as military nonaligned.

During the end of 2014 there was a sudden comeback in Sweden of the submarine hysteria from the 1980ś, when the defense department once again, this time in coalition with NATO-friendly politicians, made claims about hostile submarines in the coastal area. They failed in actually finding a submarine of any kind, and did not produce any other proof that would stand up in court.
Yet, a survey in 2014 showed that 75% of the Swedes questioned believed the submarine stories as told by the media, certain politicians and the defense ministry. Only 11% percent said flatly no to the presentation . Consequently, the public support for NATO membership increased from 28% to 37% in 2014. Although never proven, the underlying message was that these submarines were Russian. Fredrik Bynander, Associate Professor of Political Science at the National Defence University, commented it somewhat critical by saying “media coverage has been very positive for how the defense presented it. It was a lineup of politicians who supported the Armed Forces version of what had happened.”

For myself, who served as a conscript in the Swedish Army at Revingehed in the 1980ś this sounds all so familiar. I remember how our commanding officer, a former Swedish volunteer in the American Rangers during the Vietnam war, spoke to us about sightings of “divers running across a small island” and “jumping into the sea at the other end”(!), indications of “submarines” or “suspicious sounds” in the coastal area, and we watched informational films where “enemy soldiers” we all understood were the Russians although this was not said openly, in a fictional scenario cut the throats of Swedish key people, like fighter jet pilots at their doorstep. In preparation for an invasion of Sweden. But back then we thought we had valid reasons to oppose the Communist ideology as a real threat, and this made it difficult not to believe any and all bad news coming from that part of the world.

The cost for the hysteria in 2014, with hundreds of Swedish navy personnel and several battleships involved in a futile search, was at least 20 million SEK and no submarine whatsoever was found. But facts have become irrelevant, the stories told now have their own lives, like folk tales, and with bits and pieces not related to the actual submarine search, are added as “proof” of the evil intentions of the Russian Federation and especially its supposed mastermind Vladimir Putin.

The most recent agreement between Sweden and NATO, which was forced upon the population without any public debate (many are even unaware about its existence), will allow NATO to deploy troops on the ground in case of an ”emergency”, although we are promised this is to be finally determined by the Swedish government in a case-to-case scenario. This whole deal would have to be rejected since this kind of agreement do not serve any Swedish national interests but only the geopolitical agenda of Washington and makes us a pawn in their man-made conflicts with others. In fact, it makes the peaceful country of Sweden a possible target for a military attack if there is an international conflict. The opponent would have to target their missiles on the non-Swedish NATO forces on Swedish soil in order to prevent these from taking off for their final destination.

Prior to this dilemma Sweden moved from regarding itself ”neutral” to officially labeling itself ”military nonaligned”, so this shift has been gradual, but by purpose. Nonaligned meant that we were supposed to not enter into any mutual defense guarantees and that Sweden was responsible for its own defense.

The European Union leadership, not to mention Washington, will most likely resist our plan for a greater openness towards Russia. The very idea of the European Union since start was to simplify trade within the European Union, to form a bloc. But over time it has also unofficially come to serve as a proxy for the interests of Washington in this geographical area, due to some major member states close relationship with that country. There were also early warnings about EU changing from a free market economy into the creation of a super state that could end up serving other masters. Yet, ”Binding together the EU as a whole is not only the self-interest of its national components but also the reality that no feasible alternative exists in the absence of a willingness to relinquish European identity as a distinct civilization.”

Nevertheless the marketing of business ventures in Eastern Europe, Russia and after that its neighboring countries will attract a growing interest among the many entrepreneurs who always want to explore new areas and escape the status quo of their own world. Not to mention tourism. We must not let the current political landscape lure us into believing this current situation will be for forever. There are signs that EU could implode in due time if changes are not made. ”It’s nothing at all to do with Europe, it’s to do with the political construct that is the Union. An unnecessary, inefficient and disposable layer of government. So, let us dispose of it. There’s absolutely nothing at all wrong with Europe or any aspect of it. It’s the political system of the European Union that is the problem” as one European writer formulates it. In any case Sweden needs to see to its own best interests.

We have to expect many citizens in Sweden to react with distrust at first to this idea. Even for some considerable time. This is because of how they have been conditioned by the media and ruling political class. In Sweden there is an old distrust of the ”Russian bear” which is of a much older date than the Cold War era, although the stated reasons for this stance has varied over time.

The Russophobia in Sweden, which clearly exist, is not easily explained. It is used from time to time by politicians who wants Sweden to move closer to NATO, or used by other interest groups who for an example dislike the Russian rejection of postmodernism and wants the latter to adopt so-called modern European values. Old tales and even prejudice have been inherited and passed on to new generations. Presumed conflicts of interest are over time then added to the mixture as to prove that the original distrust of Russians is indeed called for. Very often one really don’t know why we have to distrust Russians, only that we should.

Replace Russian with ”Jews” or for that matter ”witches” and there would be a public outcry or laughter. But to demonize Russians, who for some reason are expected to be millions of exact replicas of the current political leadership in the Russian Federation and with no individual ability to think and arrive at their own conclusions, is regarded as more or less accepted behavior. Among minor curiosities this has also generated appeals in numerous charismatic Christian groups, who for years have traveled to the border areas but even into Russia, with copies of the Bible, in order to make those of Russian ancestry, and others, into “Christians”. Which proves their lack of historical and cultural knowledge as far as the old church and Eastern Orthodoxy is concerned.

To begin with, this approach towards Russia began even before the Russian defeat of the Swedish forces at Poltava 1709 although Sweden was humiliated for a considerable time with the defeat at Poltava. The German aristocrat Sigmund von Herberstein published a book named ”Rerum moscoviticarum commentarii” already in 1549, after visiting Russia twice, This book was translated into several languages and was read by the political elite in Sweden. In the book ”Mosvovites” were described as more or less puppets in the hands of their ruler, with no mental ability to question anything. Human robots who could be a threat to all of Europe, or just anyone, in case they were ordered by their ruler to act. This image of the Russian man and woman is broadcasted very much the same today.

To Swedish minds an expansive Russia was viewed as possible geopolitical threat or at least a problem when the following tzars made Russia a greater and more unified country. Although there were from time to time intermarriages and good relations. But too be a friend of the Russian Federation or a friend of a country like Serbia, who acts as a bridge already between these two worlds, is in this authors opinion not to be anti-European, or subversive to our cultural heritage, but to reconnect with the God of the old church, core values and even various cultural expressions Europe lost due to its divisive Protestantism and today’s post-modernism. Gems that were preserved in Eastern Europe and Russia in spite of atheist rule.

Oddly enough, Sweden has been trading with Russia since the time of the Vikings and was by year 2013 one of ten largest direct investors in Russia. Participating in the Eurasian vision would be to take part in a project with a future, with all its resources and vast areas, where growth is to take place. Instead of merely as a pawn or outside player used by the western powers in their own scheme of divide and conquer.

An official partnership, similar to the one existing right now between Sweden and NATO, with the Russian Federation is too big a leap for the average man, and would not be workable at this time and age, perhaps not even beneficial to us or the Eurasian project at all if it was a mirror image of the kind of agreements we have made with USA and need to get out of. Sweden’s traditional role of neutrality and diplomacy should be emphasized in my opinion. We can however take small but important baby steps in a direction that will build trust and friendship and make Sweden a neutral ground were the business world and politicians can meet up.

Do we, the Swedes and peoples of Eastern Europe and Russia, share any common cultural values of today or have we lost it all to post-modernism? Are we too different?

I dare say we do have a lot in common, and it was recently manifested in the political life of this nation. In the election of 2014 the self-described socially conservative political party, the Sweden Democrats (SD), became the country’s third largest party with 13% of the vote. In a strength of power they voted down the new Socialist government's budget, forcing the prime minister to declare a snap election. Surveys showed SD could gain 16-20% in the upcoming snap election. However, this made the center parties, who lost the general election to the minority coalition of Social Democrats and the Environmental Party, cut an eight year deal with the government, promising to support the ruling Social Democrat/partner government in order to sidestep the elections results and prevent the possibility of SD getting even more support in a new election.

Swedes, at heart and generally speaking, don’t like to be bullied or manipulated by outside powers, we prefer to chose our own path. So do the Russians.

The party SD is described by the establishment media and various opponents as harboring people with negative feelings about immigrants, due to their opposition to liberal immigration policies, while the SD party leadership itself has promised to take action against anyone who promote a racist agenda. They view themselves as nationalists or lately preferably as socially conservative, and have gained considerable support among disappointed Conservative Party members and voters, since the latter party has moved to the center and can hardly be viewed as even traditionally conservative anymore. In this authors opinion it would benefit us all if they moved even more from a tendency of ethnic nationalism to a focus on values and aspirations shared not only by Swedes.

Despite decades of Swedish presumably Social Democratic or liberal governments trying to impose ”equality” and dictating how parents should live their family lives, with women forced to work outside of the home as much as possible, they have not succeeded and have nowadays resorted to making threats to enact laws that will force women to leave home early and dad to stay home in the name of total gender equality. No matter if this is the best solution or not for the specific family. These ideas are shared by the leaderships of the center parties, with the exception of the Christian Democrats who still try to attract the more culturally conservative voters. Once again, these centrist politics can be seen as an expression for the Swedish habit of trying to achieve consensus, which now has ended up with the almost all the parties looking very much the same.

A survey in 2013 showed that 4 in 5 Swedes reject this forced gender equality idea when it comes to the family structure and thinks it should be up to the family not the government to decide. This despite the fact that the equality agenda is promoted all the time in media and politics.

Unfortunately the leadership of that party is also somewhat caught up in the ”distrust Russia” hysteria, but there are other more understanding voices in the youth league. Overall it's in any case a positive indicator that something is happening in an otherwise sleepy Sweden. It would be healthy for the sake of cultural preservation, aside of pure economical reasons, to move closer to Russia and Eurasia.

Nevertheless, the electoral success since 2010 for this party is an indicator that a growing percentage of the Swedish population, in spite of a massive almost day and night assault by the media and the older political establishment telling them to vote against SD, likes the idea of preserving the traditional family and promoting other socially conservative ideals in a country where dissident conservative voices are suppressed, ridiculed or labeled in a negative manner. This indicator is important, although a political party should not be seen as a replacement for any long-term work at depth. In order for real changes to take place in a population, and not just end up as a temporary vote, one need to work from the bottom and up, not from the top and down to not dissolve with any temporary political winds in the future. We can do this by involving key people, quality people, who get the message out to their respective groups, churches, associations, newspaper people or other places where they have some influence on their peers. Numbers are less important. Connecting with the right people who can influence others, and get the message out there through them, is far more important than hoping for the masses to wake up by themselves.

If we can convince a large enough percentage of the population, through the work of influential individuals and groups, that the countries who supports cultural preservation and core family values the most, not only in words but in action, are to be found in the East and not in the West, then it will help our cause.

This could be done with or without involvement of the European Union. It should be noted that many Swedes express doubts about the nations membership in EU. ”Swedes in favors of being part of the union came in at 45 percent” in 2013, since the membership has given Sweden no visible benefits aside of making it easier to travel between the member states.

However, in order to make improvements between Sweden and Russia and avoid unnecessary conflicts we need to get rid of a bunker mentality which only our common cultural enemies can benefit from. A recent Russian poll showed that 36% of the Russians wish for Russian to distance itself further from the West. It is understandable and would perhaps even be applauded by those who think there can be nothing good in the West whatsoever. But the problem is this; in for an example Sweden people are made to believe the worst about Russians, and in Russia – due to the ongoing onslaught on that country from Western geopolitical interests – people tend to think the worst about the West, sometimes on valid grounds but also because of cultural and linguistic differences. A more hostile population on any side of this fence will in the long run only benefit those who wish to dismantle Europe as well as Eurasia.

Viewed from the outside, Sweden is an open democracy where everyone can express their opinion. But those who have lived here even a short time has quickly become aware that even if that is the case then there is an expectation that everyone should be in agreement. Anyone who deviates in any matter which the media and establishment determined the limits of, as for an example the message that the Russians want to harm us, will promptly be regarded as strange and deviant. It is not unlikely that in time they will consider those individuals and organizations who question the rapprochement with NATO and oppose the idea that the West is the savior of the East as subversive elements and a threat to national security.

When writing this in the month of February, Swedish TV viewers are bombarded every day with slanted news reports where the Russian Federation is presented in a negative light and repeatedly said to have caused all the problems in Ukraine, adding that the rest of us can ”become the next target” for ”Russian expansion”. They have completely forgotten the West's major responsibility in how this conflict occurred. In the same breath we are told that the United States and Sweden will conduct joint air exercises because of the "growing threat" (from Russia). It is like preparation for a war, where the propaganda has taken over completely and people have lost their ability to think critically. They try to apply simple explanations to complex problems. ”We” and ”them”.

But we cannot let these sometimes dark clouds fence us in.

The core idea with the European Union was to encourage and simplify trade and travel between European countries. This was a noble idea. It's an ever more grandiose idea, and truly more international, to open up for trade and cultural exchange with the Eurasia. Now it's up to Sweden to decide which role to play in this new world, either as a bystander or important participator.

 

DU RENFORCEMENT DE LA ZONE EURO À L’ÉTAT EUROPÉEN

DU RENFORCEMENT DE LA ZONE EURO À L’ÉTAT EUROPÉEN

Redonner un sens à l'idée européenne

Gérard DUSSOUY *
Ex: http://metamag.fr

La crise grecque de l’euro, dans ses développements, pourrait-elle alors servir d’électrochoc ? A moins qu’il ne faille attendre 2016, pour qu’une prise de conscience collective européenne se produise ? G.H. Mead, un philosophe américain, a expliqué que la conscience collective émerge toujours d’un ensemble d’interactions, plus ou moins mimétiques, dans un contexte donné, fait de crises et plein de périls. Ce qui décrit assez bien la situation actuelle, à tel point que le Président François Hollande vient de plaider pour que la zone euro devienne une « avant-garde » de l’Europe, en se dotant d’un gouvernement économique et d’un parlement spécifique. On est, néanmoins, en droit d’être sceptique quant à sa volonté réelle. D’une part, à cause du peu de détermination qu’il montre à réformer la France elle-même, comme le prouve sa réforme territoriale, demeurée en panne au milieu du gué. D’autre part, en raison du fait, qui dépasse sa volonté, que de 1954 à 2005, à maintes occasions, la France a refusé toute avancée vers la supranationalité. De ce point de vue, la France est le vrai problème politique de l’Europe, en plus d’être un jour prochain son principal problème économique. Il serait assez cocasse, mais triste aussi, que dans l’avenir, cette « avant-garde », souhaitée par le président français, se constitue sans elle.   

Sur le socle de l’euro, il faut redonner du sens à l’idée européenne.

L’unification complète et simultanée de toute l’Union européenne,  en termes d’acquisition d’une souveraineté communautaire, est impossible.  Celle de la zone euro est plus concevable, mais très incertaine à l’heure qu’il est. La résolution ou pas de la crise grecque en dira long sur ce point. Cependant, et à priori, les États de la zone euro y sont les mieux préparés, puisqu’ils possèdent une monnaie commune et unique et qu’ils ont annoncé leur intention de s’engager sur le chemin du fédéralisme budgétaire. 

C’est sur cette base qu’il convient de redonner sens à l’idée européenne, en faisant en sorte que la gestion de la monnaie unique soit la source d’une prospérité partagée. 

Trois conditions à remplir s’imposent alors : 

1) agir en faveur de la réduction des écarts économiques et sociaux, et faire converger les législations ( afin que l’espace de la monnaie unique devienne enfin une zone monétaire optimale, selon le langage des économistes) ; 

2) équilibrer les comptes trop déficitaires de certains partenaires afin de pouvoir envisager une mutualisation de la dette restante (euro bonds) ; 

3) utiliser tous les atouts et tous les moyens techniques de la politique monétaire qu’offre une monnaie stable et appréciée (au plan interne comme au plan international).

La prospérité partagée repose sur la solidarité et la réciprocité. Aucun contribuable d’aucun des pays partenaires ne doit pouvoir se sentir lésé, et aucun actif ou aucun rentier de l’un des Etats de la zone ne doit avoir le sentiment d’être mis en danger par la politique de l’un des autres Etats. C’est bien pourquoi, il faut un gouvernement économique à la zone euro, placé sous le contrôle d’un parlement qui ait son mot à dire en matière de politique monétaire. Pour éviter les doublons, il a été suggéré que ce parlement soit constitué par la réunion des députés qui siègent déjà au Parlement européen et qui sont issus des pays qui ont la même monnaie. Il est légitime dans un espace démocratique comme l’Europe, que les représentants des peuples européens soient associés aux grandes décisions économiques qui les concernent. 

Pas de démocratie européenne sans Etat européen.

La démocratie, dont on ne cesse de regretter le manque ou l’insuffisance dans le cadre de l’Union européenne, est indissociable de l’Etat, parce que c’est lui qui garantit l’autonomie du politique. Il faut donc être conscient que le renforcement de la zone euro, avec un gouvernement et un parlement, en même temps que la « démocratisation » que cette innovation impliquerait, conduit à une mutation de l’appareil étatique du national vers le supranational européen. 

Or, une telle mutation, historique au plein sens du terme, doit se concevoir, pour réussir, dans une approche pragmatiste, c'est-à-dire sur le mode de l’expérience et de l’essai. Et non pas selon un a-priori ou une raison qui prédéterminerait les normes, comme cela est le cas de la conception quelque peu métaphysique de la « république à la française ». En effet, en ce qui concerne l’Europe, qui ne peut reposer que sur l’adhésion, la démocratie est la communauté des citoyens responsables des valeurs qu’ils choisissent pour la communauté, en choisissant d’un commun accord, ce qu’ils veulent pour eux-mêmes. Or, en l’occurrence, il est évident que le contexte historique sera décisif. 

 

On devine que l’une  des raisons d’être de l’Etat européen en devenir, de celles qui verraient les peuples européens prendre son parti, serait, contrairement avec ce qui se passe aujourd’hui avec la Commission, que cet Etat, à la demande de son parlement, impose la démocratie économique face aux grands groupes dont la puissance dépasse celle de leurs Etats nationaux respectifs. Il est clair que l’organisation économique du monde actuel joue un rôle si dominant dans la vie sociale, qu’on ne peut mettre en œuvre la démocratie politique sans être capable de contrôler les politiques économiques. Face à  tous les réseaux et à tous les lobbies qui assaillent Bruxelles en permanence, dont les intérêts sont souvent étrangers à l’Europe, il faut comprendre que l’Etat européen serait le meilleur garant institutionnel des peuples. Car, ce n’est qu’à travers son parlement qu’ils peuvent se faire entendre, et qu’ils sont susceptibles d’exercer, un jour, leur souveraineté communautaire.  

Une construction à géométrie variable : un Etat européen au cœur de l’Union européenne.

Dans des temps qui sont ceux d’une compétition aigûe, de plus en plus violente, entre les sociétés et les individus, d’un risque de pénuries, d’actes terroristes à grande échelle, l’absence d’un ordonnateur politique efficient, en Europe,  est une évidence dont tous les citoyens commencent à prendre conscience. L’immigration galopante et incontrôlée (et qu’il faut définitivement arrêter) devient une source de tensions entre les Etats ; entre l’Italie qui n’en peut plus et ses voisins, entre la France et l’Angleterre, entre les nations de l’Europe centrale. L’incapacité des gouvernements européens à résoudre la crise ukrainienne, à conduire des opérations préventives de sauvegarde contre les bases terroristes extraterritoriales, indique à quel point la résignation frappe la classe politique européenne. Sans doute est-ce là, en grande partie, la conséquence de la conscience qu’elle a de l’impuissance des multiples Etats-nation dont elle relève. Toutes ces considérations, autres que financières et monétaires, sur lesquelles on ne peut s’étendre ici, incitent à souhaiter que sur le socle de la zone euro naissent bientôt les fondations de l’Etat européen.    

 La nécessité d’aller de l’avant, dont témoignent les discussions sur une éventuelle redéfinition des pouvoirs de la Commission, est incompatible avec les nouvelles concessions au libéralisme et au libre-échange qu’entend exiger David Cameron. Et ceci implique deux remarques. La première est que le retrait du Royaume-Uni de l’UE est une hypothèse à envisager, bien que moins acquise d’avance qu’on ne pourrait le croire. Il serait moins pénalisant pour l’Union que celui de la Grèce, dans la mesure où le RU n’appartient pas à la zone euro. Et il le serait sans doute plus pour lui-même, sachant que ses échanges avec le continent se sont intensifiés au cours des dernières décennies, et qu’on ne voit pas comment les Britanniques pourraient, sans dommages pour eux, tirer un trait sur cette interdépendance. Ensuite, il pourrait redonner envie aux Écossais de réclamer une nouvelle fois leur indépendance, afin de réintégrer eux-mêmes, avec un nouveau statut, étatique celui-là, l’Union européenne et même la zone euro ! L’ethnocentrisme national ne peut être aujourd’hui, en Europe, que contre-productif, parce qu’il ne peut plus prétendre à l’autosuffisance et qu’il n’a pas de solution de rechange à faire valoir (et l’Angleterre n’est pas en Amérique du nord…). 

La seconde remarque est que le maintien probable du Royaume-Uni rend encore plus nécessaire l’Europe à plusieurs vitesses, parce que l’urgence des problèmes fait que l’on ne peut pas attendre que tous les partenaires soient tous d’accord pour aller plus loin. Face aux risques financiers considérables d’un marché à taux zéro qui conduit à tous les excès, face aux menaces grandissantes des terroristes islamistes, face à la montée en puissance de l’Asie, face aux prévisions démographiques affolantes (l’Afrique va compter en 2050 plus de trois plus d’habitants que l’Europe, et sept fois plus en 2100 ; cf. The 2015 Revision of World Population Prospects), les peuples européens qui prennent conscience de leurs vulnérabilités énormes doivent pouvoir se rassembler en un même Etat, au milieu de l’Union européenne, ou même au centre de la zone euro elle-même. En effet, il ne sera pas facile de mettre d’accord sur tout, et dans le même temps, les dix-neuf Etats démocratiques qui la composent. Aussi on peut penser à un premier noyau regroupé autour de l’essentiel, comme l’harmonisation fiscale (en faveur de laquelle se sont prononcées l’Allemagne, la France et l’Italie) et d’autres mesures annexes. Tout en maintenant  les liens spécifiques avec les autres partenaires, et tout en misant sur l’effet de démonstration de la puissance économique et financière de la nouvelle unité étatique. 

Si Bruxelles montrait ainsi toute sa détermination à relever les défis, à renouveler un vrai projet commun européen de défense et de sauvegarde dans tous les domaines, il y a fort à parier que tous les nationaux-populismes s’évaporeraient, faute de ne plus pouvoir dénoncer le bouc émissaire européen.   

Conclusion. La volonté de croire

A l’heure actuelle, dans la situation alarmante où se trouvent et la zone euro et l’UE, devant l’inertie politique des dirigeants européens et nationaux de toutes les catégories, les partisans de l’Europe unifiée, libre et souveraine, n’ont pour eux que la volonté de croire. Ou d’espérer que  la prise de conscience des menaces qui pèsent sur la civilisation européenne, sur la prospérité et la sécurité des Européens, fasse se lever une avant-garde. Moins, d’ailleurs, au sens où l’entend le Président Hollande, bien qu’elle ait toute sa pertinence, comme on vient de le voir, que sous la forme d’une réunion des fractions éclairées et responsables des peuples européens. La volonté de croire à leur reconnaissance de la réalité internationale et, finalement, pour une fois, au succès du rationnel en politique. 

*Gérard Dussouy est professeur émérite à l’université de Bordeaux. Il a publié un Traité de Relations internationales, en trois tomes, Editions L’Harmattan, 2009. Et en 2013, Contre l’Europe de Bruxelles, fonder un Etat européen, Editions Tatamis. Une édition italienne de ce dernier livre, mise à jour et adaptée, est en préparation.