Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:37:58 +0300 (EEST) From: Mikael Book Subject: Spinelli's Footsteps Dear Bernard, will the upsurge of the anti-neoliberal movement continue, and how can we contribute to it? Our younger comrades hesitate. They want more time, and more discussions. However, in the new European situation that the French NON has created in Europe, at least for a while, I would rather say: A l'attaque! The participants in the meetings of the European Attacs in Liege told me that I have a mistaken interpretation of the B-part of the ABC-plan. In my view, the B-plan is a Constitution, nothing less and nothing more. They seem to think that the B-part means something less precise: guidelines, or preliminary ideas, or the key concepts of a constitution - I don't know precisely what. I should like to know your opinion on this matter. In Liège, I tried to press hard for the view that we absolutely need a draft document at the planned December Convention in Brussels. Without a good draft document, the convention cannot hope for success. I also suggested that we (Attac) invite the Tax Justice Network to participate there, and that we should start to regard the TJN as being a chapter of the international Attac, or as a counterpart os Attac among English speaking people. After all, how can we even dream of implementing an alternative ABC-plan for Europe, if we do not, from the beginning, count on the support of the British? My ideas did not gain much support, as far as I could understand. I don't remember precisely when you, Bernard, left the meeting in Liège, and whether you have heard about the discussions during the later part of that meeting. As you must have noted, I suggested already at the beginning of the meeting that we produce our draft document simply by way of altering the neoliberal constitution proposal (skipping, however, totally its part III), making the changes and amendments that we have formulated (like the 21 demands of Attac France before the referendum). In suggesting this, I wished to be as pragmatic as possible. I still think that this is a realistic way to generate a draft document for Brussels. It would not be exactly what we want, but it could certainly become a great tool for popular education and our campaigning for a reversal of the present neoliberal order. However, the participants in Liège, while rejecting this pragmatic proposal, seemed to wish that we start from scratch with the constitution. They wished to add to the constitution a utopian element, which was then called "the flavour of Attac", in the further discussion. I responded to Paolo Prieri from Attac Italy , who invented this expression, that I would agree with him, provided that he himself sets out to write a new draft constitution. This led to remarks on what projects there has been in recent history to write a Constitution for Europe, except the most recent one by Giscard. Tony Benn was remembered as having had such a project; and then there is the treaty by Altiero Spinelli: the PROJET DE TRAITE INSTITUANT L'UNION EUROPEENNE that was almost unanimously adopted by the European Parliament, and then published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 14 February 1984. At that time, in 1984, I, like many other actvists, was too deeply involved in the campaign for European Nuclear Disarmament (END) to give much thought to the (purely Western) European Political Integration. The END movement was interested in the dismantling the blocs of the cold war, and in the construction of a new and peaceful Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. I am still convinced that, in the conditions of 1984, END was much more urgent than Spinelli's project was at that time. So, although I must have heard about the Spinelli constitution already in February 1984, it was no longer living in my mind in October 2005. And, interestingly, Spinelli's Constitution has not been a common reference in the current debate on the European Constitutional Treaty! I assume that politicians are afraid of evoking the fearful spectre of "federalism" by even mentioning it! I should like to say, however, that we, the European Attacs, do not need to fear "federalism". Just look at our global goals, such as a global CTT (a tax on currency transactions, also called the Tobin tax). How can such a tax be implemented if not by a number of states and governments? And how could those states and governments implement the CTT without creating a CTT Union, or at least a CTT Organisation, as envisaged in the Draft Treaty on CTT? Our critique of the corporate-led globalisation necessarily leads us to support international cooperation and, yes, union. After the meeting, my Belgian host Franco Carminati (who also participated in the meeting) promised to send me a copy of Altiero Spinelli's treaty. Which he did. Spinelli's treaty is actually much closer to what I think "A European Constitution" should look like, than the treaty of Giscard that the French and Dutch rejected las May-June. Having had to stand the redundancy, the bombasms and and the drumming about market, competition and freedom (of capital) of the latter document, I must say that I very much appreciate the sane and ideologically neutral tone of the Spinelli treaty. Indeed, I think that we could use Spinelli's treaty as a model for the treaty we want! But that goes only for its structure, and its general spirit. It is necessary to understand that Altiero Spinelli and the idea of Europe that we associate with him belong to a period of history that is coming to its end. Article 2 of the Spinelly treaty states: "Tout État democratique européen peut demander à devenir membre de l'Union". I think we should remove the word 'européen' from this sentence. We should even - as a experiment of free thinking - consider the possibility to remove the word 'européen' from the concept of the 'Union Européenne"! It might not be necessary to get rid of "European" altogether. Instead, why do we not decide to strip the word 'European' from its geographical limitations, yet to retain its main political connotations. What is the political essence, the political synonym of "European"? Is it not "democratic"? And, if that is the case, why should a state have to be both "European" and "democratic" in order to become a member of the Union? Or, approach the question from the other direction. Is Australia, or New Zealand, a "European" country? If not, why are these countries not "European"? What is it that makes Australia less European than Finland? (I choose Finland as an example, because I come from there myself.) Not much sociological and political fantasy is needed in order to go further. So let us go further! One thing is for certain: we in the global justice movement do not want the fences of Ceuta and Melilla. We hate the notion of the "Festung Europa"! So why should not, say, the republic of Mali also be a possible candidate for becoming a member in the "European Union", provided that it would stand the test of the European Constitution, the Constitution that we should now write? Is "European" something that we, who live in a certain geographical area, should reserve for ourselves? If so, what is "European"? A notion of "Europe" that includes some countries on geographical grounds, but excludes, for instance, countries on the African continent, can only result in a new kind of nationalism, perhaps even in a new brand of fascism, a "Festung Europa" as an outpost of the Western Empire, under the economical and political leadership of the USA. "European" should not be imposed, but neither should it exclude. As is well known, many countries and peoples actually want to join into the "European" concert. That is good. Let them do so. And let the European Constitution" be the criterion for membership. We have to be more generous. We have to realize, that so far "European" has just been, as the great Gandhi said, "a good idea". It has never become reality. So let "European" be the other world that we think is possible. And let us write a "European Constitution" for that world. This letter became a little bit different than I thought when I begun writing it. It became less personal and more political. It belongs in the public sphere rather than in a private correspondence. That should be allright with both of us, I believe. Democratic constitutions, if anything, must be "open conspiracies", to use a famous idea of H.G. Wells. Therefore, I make this letter to you an open letter that the others can read as well. The life and work of Altiero Spinelli (1907-1986), former Italian Communist and friend of Antonio Gramsci, reveals the main stream of European political history during the last century. Let us continue in Spinelli's footsteps! - Mikael PS The WIKI technique used at www.anothereuropeispossible.net is excellent, but it is perhaps not suitable for letters. Therefore, I send my letter to this list instead of publishing it on the named site. I have, however, started to produce a full-text version of Spinelli's treaty, that I have only in the form of digital pictures. I have already scanned it from the pictures and performed "Optical Character Recogniton" on it. Just as an excercise. --- Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 10:46:36 +0200 (EET) From: Mikael Book Subject: Re: On the road to Brussels.... Dear European state-builders, originally, Attac was not, at least as far as I know, meant to become a an association of state-builders who convene in Brussels in order to draft a constitution for Europe. But then the members of our strongest national chapter decided to engage in the fight against "This Constitution that catches Europe in a trap" (Cette "Constitution" qui piège l'Europe). And then they won the struggle! That is how we, the members of all the European Attacs, had to become European state-builders. Because, one cannot win a decisive struggle and then say: "well, that was just a way of showing you that we can win over you, if we want to. However, we do do not really care about the outcome of this struggle because our mission is different from yours. Now it is up to you, the state-builders, to decide what you want to do. But take your time, please. You should probably allow yourself a period of reflections..." The Nordic Attacs recently issued a statement where they said: "Although we appreciate that ATTAC-France, as a consequence of their leading role in the French NO campaign, feels obliged, or wants to take advantage of the opportunity, to make proposals for a constitution, it is not obvious that doing so is really a matter for ATTAC. Regardless, to facilitate and contribute to the debate on democracy and how to curb the neo-liberal agenda is certainly a task for ATTAC." That statement pretty much coincides with my thoughts, too, and, as one of the participants in our nice seminar of the Nordic Attacs, I also did sign it. The wise formulation that "it is not obvious" that building states is really a matter for Attac, was suggested by Anders Lund, the Danish participant in the seminar. (Not surprisingly, because of us Nordics, the Danish obviously have the most experience of the EU sofar.) After these introductory notes, I will now come to the point: what is not yet obvious should, however, become obvious. Henceforward, Attac must play a role in the European state-building. Which role? I think that the statement of the Nordic Attacs gives a reasonably modest and realistic definition: Attac should "facilitate and contribute to the debate on democracy and how to curb the neo-liberal agenda". The statement from the Nordic Attacs briefly mentions a number of aspects that should be contained in a constitution for the EU, provided that a constitution is the wish of the EU citizens. I quote the entire list: "* Transparent democratic institutions, where elected members and not a commission has the legislative power. * Universal social rights, where respect for the individual is central. * Solidarity within and between the nations. International security policy without affiliation with specific organisations. " We all ought to be agreed on these points. And, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that we indeed do agree on their value. If not, then we probably cannot avoid dispute anyway. The Nordic statement makes a reservation: " if a constitution is the wish of the EU citizens". I believe that this reservation is more or less rhetorical. Thus, I believe it is fairly secure to say that "a constitution", albeit not the proposed neoliberal one, is in fact wanted by an owerwhelming majority of the citizens of the EU. (Btw, the "will" of the citizen is bolder that the mere "wish", so I would prefer "will".) However that may be, it is clear - for the democratic state-builder - that "a constitution" has to correspond as closely as possible to the will of the citizens. A democratic constitution must not be forced upon the citizens from above. Todo: 1. Continue on the road that was chosen in Liège: draft that statement. 2. Take the constitutional treaty that was prepared by Altiero Spinelli and approved by the European parliament in February 1984. Relaunch this text as the point of departure of the elaboration of a constitutional treaty for Europe. The "Spinelli Project", as it was called, needs to be updated and several articles of the text have to be amended. I suggested some ideas in my open letter to Bernard; the most radical concerned the necessary reinterpretation of "European", the need to disentangle the meaning of "European" from geography, so that any state on any continent should be allowed to become a member of the Union, if its citizens want to. - Spinelli is somewhat oudated in his thinking about Europe. After all, he lived and died 1907-1986, and thus before the breakdown of the USSR and the era of the internet. You will find the text of "Spinelli's Treaty" in the libraries, on various websites, and in several languages. I know of only 3 language-versions sofar: Italian (in the book "Le forme dell' Europa" by Luciano Angelino), and in French and English (in the Official Journal). In order to "facilitate the debate", I have created a new website with the text of the Spinelli-treaty in French and English. You find it at: http://www.spinellisfootsteps.info/ Spinelli was not neoliberal. Let's continue in Spinelli's footsteps, but on the premises of the World Social Forum. Greetings, - Mikael PS Constitutions are too important to be left to the state-builders. If you find the text of the 1984 constitution in other languages than the ones mentioned above, pls notify me and/or send them to me to be added to the Spinelli's Footsteps-site. Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:12:53 +0200 (EET) From: Mikael Book Subject: Re: Treaty or Constitution [An attempt to answer the question: are we speaking about a treaty or a constitution?] Jens-Peter Bonde, the well-known Danish MEP, names it "The Constitution" in his reader-friendly edition of the Treaty or Constitution (http://www.euabc.dk/). Attac France, in the title of the [above-mentioned] booklet that was published shortly before the referendum, also called it Constitution, although in quotation marks ("Constitution"). For some, it may not be a constitution but a treaty. Yet ever since the Single Act (1986) the EU-treaties have also been considered to form "a constitutional system" (Swedish researcher Per Hallström: "Europeisk gemenskap och politisk union", 1987; quoted in Per Gahrton: "I stället för EG", Ordfront 1990, p 77). Our governments have recently ratified, or have not yet ratified, the "Traité établissant une Constitution pour l'Europe" = "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe". So there you go! How to decide whether it is a constitution or a treaty? In my opinion, it is both a treaty and a constitution, and it is our civic duty to decide about the treaty or constitution that we want to have. I should like to ask each and everybody to think through what we mean by "we", in this case. Personally, I have come to the conclusions that it does not make sense to to confine "Europe" and/or "European" to a certain geographical area, and that nobody should indeed be exluded from it. On the condition that this principle is followed, I should like to propose that the building of a strong European state should be considered a serious political alternative, although I do not take it for granted that we are about to do it. Greetings, - Mikael ____ Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:02:28 +0200 (EET) From: Mikael Book Subject: [Attac-convention] We, The Peoples of Europe (the book by Susan George) "L'Europe aujourd'hui n'a de sens et d' intérêt que si elle est capable d'offrir une alternative à cette mondialisation libérale, que si elle porte un modèle de civilisation différent, faisant du bien commun des Européens un projet d'identit'e, un objectif, une valeur, une norme" Quoted from: Susan George, Nous, peuples d' Europe, Fayard, Paris 2005 p. 144-45. --- Sometimes one gets the feeling that the conditions for an international movement that wants to re-arrange the world's public finances for the benefit of the citizens, have not yet ripened. One of those necessary conditions is adequate leadership, and that may be precisely what is lacking. For instance, the preparations for the Attac Convention in Brussels next week-end have been rather chaotic, to say the least. Susan George, in her recent pamphlets "Another World Is Possible If..." and "Nous, peuples d' Europe", boldly goes out to construct a vision and a direction for the European Attacs. Thereby Susan George, at least, has done her duty. Yet on our email lists "attac-convention", "attacsem" etc. I have seen only one reference to Susan George's most recent book, and that reference was given by myself! A quick search on the site http://www.anothereuropeispossible.net/ gives no hits for "Susan George", either. Yet the very raison d' être of that site is to discuss, for instance, the opinions of that rare writer. The book "Nous, peuples d' Europe" (We, the Peoples of Europe ; btw, I don't know if an English translation has appeared; the French version, at Fayard, Paris, was published in September) intervenes directly in our debate over Attac's ABC-plan. The book starts with an analysis of the "social war" that is the result of the last two decades of "neoliberalism", and goes on to explain why the French and Dutch voted NON to the proposed new constitutional treaty of the EU. The massive campaigns for the OUI also get an own extensive chapter. The discussion of the status of the European constitutional debate after the French NON and the Dutch NEN begins in chapter III. According to Susan George, a renegotiation of the treaty would be a good solution (if one only knew with whom and on what one would renegotiate), but that renegotiation most probably has to be postponed. To this, she adds that a Constitution might not be the best solution at all, because Constitution, once it has been adopted, is usually very difficult to modify in its principles. Therefore, a new "institutional treaty, or a series of enforced cooperations" might well be enough. The proposed neoliberal constitution would have been a step in the wrong direction. Now we must deepen the European project ("approfondir la construction europénne") in the right direction, she writes. Why Europe? The answers given by the "founding fathers" of the EU are still valid, she says (p 140). We need, however, to re-instate their notion of the common interest of the Europeans, which is presently being identified with the interests of the TNCs and the banks. Here, I lacked a little bit closer look at what those founding fathers did and said. In particular, I find it curious that almost nobody in the present debate wants to discuss the "federalism" of Altiero Spinelli (1907-1986) and to compare the Constitutional Treaty that bears his name ("The Spinelli Project") with the current proposals. - As you may have heard, some weeks ago I have opened a new website to this effect, see http://www.spinellisfootsteps.info/ . Fortunately, Susan George sees far beyond Europe. The construction of Europe is more than ever in the interest of everybody, thus not only the Europeans, she says, and and quotes Henry Kissinger, speaking to journalists in Dublin in October 1999: "What we call globalisation is in fact only another name for the dominant role of the United States" (note: this is my translation from the French translation of this sentence in Susan George's book, p. 142). From here, she arrives to the ABC-plan that was put forward by the European Attacs in June 2005. The ABC-plan is quoted in extenso in her book (pp 163-165). Follows a chapter on geopolitics. Yes, she dares to take the bull by its horns and to critizise the views of the French Committee on European Defense (CED) and the strategical analyses of Robert Kagan. "A more just society is also more powerful", is a point of departure of her own strategical analysis. The book closes with a chapter on environmental policy and social policy. I hope I am not too biased by my own views if I constate that Susan George succeeds in combining a lot of healthy down-to-earth pragmatism with her vision of a future European Union as a positive model and an alternative to the present American and perhaps coming Asian superpower. Greetings! - Mikael member of the board of Attac Finland Mikael Böök * book@kaapeli.fi * gsm +358(0)-44 5511 324 * http://www.kaapeli.fi/book/ * http://blogi.kaapeli.fi/book/