Anthony Coughlan
[We have recently asked the question how can
the FREE PEOPLE throughout the world be sure that the INTERNET
is not taken over by the NEW WORLD ORDER elite who have as their
aim the destruction of FREE NATION STATES to be replaced by an
elitist run WORLD GOVERNMENT and we know already that they go by
the name of the
The Bilderberg Group who meet in secret every year
since 1952. Details of their membership listed in PART 2 and no
doubt many who's names are yet to surface. We have a prominent
member of that conspiracy visiting our shores at the present
time and as to why the QUEEN would not consider it a break of
decorum and custom with that helpful arm is because they
are all part of the same team which goes by the name of the
Illuminati
At the present time we hear that two of the
INTERNET PROVIDERS have forbidden certain information which hits
close to home while GOOGLE is at present doing its rightful duty
in not censoring CONSPIRACY information which is not to the
taste of those WHO WISH TO ENSLAVE US. How long this will last
will no doubt depend on how close the NEW WORLD ORDER is to
reaching its sinister objective.
Should ALL INTERNET PROVIDERS close ranks in
order to be obedient to the DESTROYERS of FREE INDEPENDENT
NATION STATES and FREE EXPRESSION then PLANS need to be put in
place to PROTECT that FREEDOM which the INTERNET has a DUTY to
FREE PEOPLE everywhere on our shrinking PLANET to HONOUR before
MAMMON. ]
*
Nations and Nation States make up the international
community.
The trends constituting "globalisation,"
or the supranationalism of the European Union,
affect the environment of Nation States, but do not
make them out-of-date. Shared nationhood is the
normal basis of democratic States in the modern
world, as is shown by the advent of many new Nation
States since 1989, and the likely advent of many
more in coming decades. These ten democratic
principles are proposed as fruitful ways of
approaching questions of nationhood, State
sovereignty and the European Union.
1.
INTERNATIONALISM, NOT NATIONALISM,
IS THE PRIMARY CATEGORY
We are internationalists on the basis of our
solidarity as members of the human race. As
internationalists we seek the emancipation of
mankind. The human race is divided into nations.
Therefore we stand for the self-determination of
nations. The right of nations to self-determination
was the basis of the American Revolution. It was
formally proclaimed in 1789 in the Declaration of
the Rights of Man of the French Revolution.
It is
now a basic principle of international law,
enshrined in the United Nations Charter.
[See our statement above
of the agreement between
President Roosevelt of the USA and Winston Churchill in
the UN in 1941 emphasing the right of SELF
-DETERMINATION of NATION STATES something the NEW WORLD
ORDER lunatics wish to
DESTROY.]
As democrats and internationalists we assert the
right of those nations that wish it to have their
independence, sovereignty and a Nation State of
their own, so that they may relate to one another
internationally on the basis of equal rights with
other nations.
The democratic principle of internationalism does
not mean that we are called upon to urge people of
other nations to assert their right to
self-determination; but that we respect their wishes
and show solidarity with them if they decide to do
that. It is as true of the life of nations as of
individuals that separation, mutual recognition of
boundaries, and mutual respect - i.e. political
equality, neither dominance nor submission - are the
pre-requisite of free and friendly cooperation, of
internationalism in other words. Good fences make
good neighbours.
2.
NATIONS AND NATIONALITY COME
BEFORE NATIONALISMS AND NATION STATES
Nations exist as communities before nationalisms
and Nation States. To analyse nations and the
national question in terms of "nationalisms" is
philosophical idealism, looking at the mental
reflection rather than the thing it reflects.
Nations evolve historically as stable, long-lasting
communities of people, sharing a common language and
territory and the common culture and history that
arise from that.
On this basis develop the solidarities, mutual
identification and mutual interests that distinguish
a people from its neighbours. Some nations are
ancient, some young, some in process of being
formed. Like all human groups - for example the
family, clan, tribe - they are fuzzy at the edges.
No neat definition will encompass all cases. The
empirical test is to ask people themselves. If they
have passed beyond the stage of kinship society,
where the political unit is the clan or tribe,
people will invariably know what nation they belong
to. That is the political and democratic test too.
If enough people in a nation wish to establish
their own independent State, they should have it.
For democracy can exist normally only at the level
of the national community and the Nation State. The
reason is that it is within the national community
alone that there exists sufficient solidarity,
mutual identification and mutuality of interest
among people as to induce minorities freely to
consent to majority rule and obey a common
government based upon that.
Such solidarity is the basis of shared
citizenship. It underpins a people's allegiance to a
government as "their" government, and their
willingness to finance that government's tax and
income-transfer system, thereby tying the richer and
poorer regions and social classes of particular
Nation States together.
The solidarities that exist within nations do not
exist between them, although other solidarities may
exist, international solidarity, which becomes more
important with time, as modern communications,
trade, capital movements and common environmental
problems link all nations together in international
inter-dependence as part of today's "global
village."
3.
MANKIND IS STILL AT THE RELATIVELY EARLY STAGE
OF THE FORMATIONOF NATION STATES,
AS THE DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
- THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION -
WORKS ITSELF OUT IN HISTORY
Fewer than a dozen contemporary Nation States are
more than a few centuries old. The number of States
in the United Nations has gone from fewer than 60 in
1946 to nearly 200 today. The number of European
States has gone from 30 to 50 since 1989. This
process is not ended even in Western Europe, where
people have been at the business of Nation State
formation for centuries. It is still ongoing in
Eastern Europe. It has scarcely begun in Africa and
Asia, where the bulk of mankind lives, where most
people still form part of clan-tribal society, and
where State boundaries were drawn by the colonial
powers after World War 2, with little consideration
for the wishes of indigenous peoples.
There are some 6000 distinct languages in the
world. At their present rate of disappearance there
should still be 600 or so left in a century's time.
These will survive because in each case they are
spoken by several million people. There clearly are
many embryonic nations. There are also
long-established nations without Nation States,
which have a national identity but no political
independence.
A nation can keep its identity in servitude as
well as freedom. Many new Nation States, probably a
couple of hundred or more, are likely to come into
being during the twenty-first century. They will
thereby acquire those two classical pillars of
independent statehood, the sword and the currency -
the monopoly of legal force over a territory and the
monopoly of the issue of legal tender for that
territory. A world of several hundred Nation States
will also be a world of several hundred currencies.
4.
MULTINATIONAL STATES, WHETHER FEDERAL OR UNITARY,
MUST RESPECT THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION
OF THE NATIONS COMPOSING THEM, IF THEY ARE TO BE
STABLE AND ENDURE
The right to self-determination of nations does
not require that a nation must seek to establish a
separate State. Nations can amicably co-exist with
other nations inside a Multinational State, as for
example, the English, Welsh and Scots do within the
British State. But they can do so only if their
national rights are respected and the smaller
nations do not feel oppressed by the larger ones,
especially culturally and linguistically. If that
condition breaks down, political pressures are
likely to develop to break-up the Multinational
State in question.
The historical tendency seems to be for
Multinational States to give way to national ones,
mainly because of the breakdown in solidarity
between their component nations and the development
of a feeling among the smaller ones that they are
being put upon by the larger. Civic nationality is
the political basis of Multinational States, shared
ethnic nationality the political basis of Nation
States. In both cases, if the State is democratic,
all citizens will be equal before the law and the
rights of minority nationalities and national
minorities will be equally respected.
Historically, Multinational Federal States are
all twentieth century creations - the USSR, the
Russian Federation, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia,
India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Malaysia etc. Several have
lacked, or lack, the stability and popular
legitimacy that comes from centuries of tradition.
Some have already dissolved, others may do so in
time, as various peoples within them assert their
right to national independence.
5.
THE EUROPEAN UNION IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNDEMOCRATIC
AND CANNOT BE DEMOCRATISED
It is the absence at the level of the European
Union of anything like the underlying national
solidarity which binds Europe's Nation States
together that makes the EU project, and especially
the euro-currency scheme, so problematic and
therefore unlikely to endure. The EU is a creation
of powerful political, economic and bureaucratic
elites, without popular legitimacy and authority,
and is therefore fundamentally undemocratic.
There is no European "demos," no European people,
bound together by solidarities like those that bind
nations and Nation States. Rather, the EU is made up
of Western Europe's several nations and peoples.
Every Nation State is both a monetary union and
fiscal union. As a monetary union it has its own
currency, and with that the capacity to control
either the domestic or external price of that
currency, the rate of interest or the exchange rate.
As a fiscal union it has its own taxation, social
service and public spending system. By virtue of
citizens paying common taxes to a common govern ment
in order to finance common public spending
programmes throughout the territory of a State,
there are automatic transfers from the richer
regions and social classes of each country to the
poorer regions and classes. This sustains and is
sustained by a shared national solidarity.
By contrast, the euro-currency project
(EMU/Economic and Monetary Union) means a monetary
union but not a fiscal union. Never in history has
there been a lasting monetary union that was not
also a fiscal union and political union, in other
words a fully-fledged State, deriving its legitimacy
from a common government and shared national
solidarity, which in turn underpinned a common
fiscal transfer system.
The euro-currency scheme deprives the less
developed EU States and the weaker EU economies of
the right to maintain their competitiveness or to
compensate for their lower productivity, poorer
resource endowment or differential economic shocks,
by adopting an exchange rate or interest rate that
suits their special circumstances. But it does not
compensate them for this loss by the automatic
transfer of resources entailed by membership of a
fiscal union. Compensatory fiscal transfers at EU
level to the extent required to give the Monetary
Union long-run viability are impossible, in view of
the amount of resources required and the
unwillingness of the richer countries to provide
them to the poorer because of the absence of shared
national solidarity that would impel that.
At present expenditure by Brussels in any one
year amounts to less than 1.3% of EU annual Gross
Domestic Product, a tiny relative figure, whereas
Nation State expenditure on public transfers is
normally between 35-50% of annual national products.
In other words, the solidarity that would sustain an
EU fiscal union and an EU Multinational State does
not and cannot exist.
Democratising the EU without a European "demos"
is impossible. The EU's adoption of such traditional
symbols of national statehood as an EU flag, EU
anthem, EU passport, EU car number plates, EU
Olympic games, EU youth orchestra, EU history books,
EU citizenship etc, are so many doomed attempts to
manufacture a European "demos" artificially, and
with it a bogus EU "nation" and supranational EU
"national consciousness." They leave the peoples of
Europe indifferent, whose allegiance remains with
their own countries and Nation States.
The more European integration is pushed ahead and
the more the national democracy of the EU Member
States is undermined, the more the EU loses
legitimacy and authority. Consequently the greater
and more inevitable the eventual popular reaction
against it. To align oneself with such a misguided,
inevitably doomed project is to be out of tune with
history. It is to side with a supranational elite
against the democracy of one's own people, to spurn
genuine internationalism for the intoxication of
building a Superpower.
6.
RESPECT FOR STATE SOVEREIGNTY
IS A FUNDAMENTAL DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE
AND THE CORNERSTONE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Insistence on the sovereignty of one's own State
is a natural right as well as a social duty. It is
in no way an expression of misguided national
egotism. Sovereignty has nothing to do with autarchy
or economic self-sufficiency. The national
sovereignty of a democratic State is analogous to
the freedom and autonomy of the individual. It means
that one's domestic laws and foreign relations are
exclusively decided by one's own parliament and
government, which are elected by and responsible to
one's own people.
State sovereignty is a result of advancing
political culture and is an achievement of modern
democracy. It is not an end in itself but is an
instrument of juridical independence, determining
the possibility of a people who inhabit a particular
territory deciding its own destiny and way of life
in accordance with its own needs, interests, genius
and traditions. It is the opposite of every kind of
subordination to foreign rule.
Without sovereignty a nations's politics become
provincialised, dealing only with marginal and
unimportant issues. Maintaining State sovereignty
alone guarantees the political independence of a
nation and creates conditions for its members to
continue to assert their right to
self-determination.
The sovereignty of a democratic State means at
the same time the sovereignty of its people. The end
of the sovereignty of a State is at the same time
the end of the sovereignty of its people. The
sovereignty of a State and of its people are
democratically inalienable. No government, no
parliamentary majority, has the right to alienate
it, for they have no right to deprive the next
generation of the possibility of choosing their own
way of life. Therefore the only mode of
international cooperation acceptable to democrats is
one that will not demand of a State the sacrifice of
its sovereignty. That makes possible the free
cooperation of free peoples united in sovereign
States on the basis of juridical equality, which is
fundamental to a stable international order.
7.
THE EU'S CONCEPT OF "POOLING SOVEREIGNTY"
IS A PROPAGANDA COVER FOR
DOMINATION BY OTHERS AND
FOR THE EFFECTIVE RULE OF THE BIGGER EU STATES
Concepts of "shared sovereignty," "pooled
sovereignty" and "joint national sovereignties" are
covers for having one's laws and policies decided by
European Union bodies one does not elect, which are
not responsible to one's own people and which can
have significantly different interests from them. In
the EU it is impossible for a single country or
people to make or change a single European law.
In practice countries and peoples which surrender
their sovereignty to the EU become ever more subject
to laws and policies that serve the interests of
others, and in particular the bigger EU States. The
claim that if a nation or State surrenders its
sovereignty to the EU, it merely exchanges the
sovereignty of a small State for participation in
decision-making in a larger supranational EU, is
simply untrue. The reality is different.
The EU continually reduces the influence of
smaller States in decision-making by limiting or
abolishing national veto powers. Even if bigger
States similarly divest themselves of formal veto
power, their political and economic weight ensures
they can get their way in matters that are decisive
to them.
Equally false is the statement that membership of
new States in the European Union and their surrender
of sovereignty to the EU would increase their
sovereignty in practice. The nation which gives up
its sovereignty or is deprived of it, ceases to be
an independent subject of international politics.
Its politics become provincial. It is no longer able
to decide even its own domestic affairs. It
literally puts its existence at the mercy of those
who are not its citizens, who have taken its
sovereignty into their hands and who decide the
policies of the larger body.
In the European Union the Big States, in
particular the Franco-German axis, decide
fundamental policy. Juridically EU integration is an
attempt to undo the democratic heritage of the
French Revolution, the right of nations and peoples
to self-determination. It is an historically doomed
project because of its fundamentally undemocratic
character.
8.
DEMOCRACY MEANS RIGHTS OF EQUALITY,
WHICH PEOPLE AGREE TO ACCORD ONE ANOTHER AND
WHICH THE STATE RECOGNISES
Democrats acknowledge the possession of equal
rights by all citizens of a State, as well as
equality of rights between people of different sex,
race, religion, age and nationality. Ethnic
minorities too should have their rights protected
within a democratic State. Majority rights and
minority rights are different, but they are not in
principle incompatible.
The struggle against racism, sexism, ageism and
national oppression are all democratic questions. By
contrast, the traditional issues that divide
political Right and Left, proponents of capitalism
and socialism, are concerned with inequality - in
ownership and control of society's productive
forces, in power, possessions, income and social
function.
The mass democracy first achieved under
capitalism serves to legitimate and make more
tolerable the inequalities of power and income
characteristic of capitalism. The political Left
contends that capitalism creates the material
conditions for the application of the principle of
democracy to the economic sphere. This takes such
forms as liberalism, the social market, social
democracy or socialism.
9.
GLOBALIZATION CHANGES THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE NATION
STATE,
BUT DOES NOT MAKE IT OUT OF DATE.
INTERNATIONALISM, NOT GLOBALIZATION,
IS THE WAY TO A HUMANE FUTURE
The notion that "globalization" makes the Nation
State out of date is an ideological one.
Globalization can be at once a description of fact
and an ideology, a mixture of "is" and "ought." It
refers to significant trends in the contemporary
world - the internet, ease of travel, free trade,
free movement of capital. The effect of these on the
sovereignty of States is often exaggerated. States
have always been interdependent to some extent.
There was relatively more globalization, in the
sense of freer movement of labour, capital and
trade, in the late 19th century, although the
volumes involved were much smaller than today. In
those days also most States were on the gold
standard, a form of international money.
Modern States do more for their citizens, are
expected by them to do more, and impinge more
intimately on peoples' lives, than at any time in
history, most obviously in redistributing the
national income and providing public services.
Globalization refers to new constraints on modern
States, but constraints there always have been.
States adapt to such changes, but they do not cause
States to disappear or become less important.
Globalization can also refer to the ideological
interests of transnational capital, which wishes to
be free of State control on capital movements and
seeks minimal social constraints on the private
interests that possess it.
The relation of transnational capital to
sovereign States is often ambiguous. On the one hand
it may seek to erode the sovereignty of States in
order to lessen their ability to impose constraints
on private profitability. On the other hand it looks
to its own State, where the bulk of its ownership
may be concentrated, to defend its economic and
political interests internationally.
10.
PEOPLE ON THE POLITICAL RIGHT AND LEFT
HAVE AN OBJECTIVE COMMON INTEREST IN
THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF STATE
SOVEREIGNTY AND
IN UPHOLDING NATIONAL DEMOCRACY
The political Right wish the State to legislate
right-wing measures, the political Left left-wing
ones; but neither can get their wishes unless they
are citizens of an independent State with the
relevant power and competence in the first place.
Likewise within each State different social
interests align themselves for and against the
maintenance of State sovereignty, seeking either to
uphold or to undermine national democracy.
This is the central theme of the politics of our
time. That is why democrats in every country today,
whether on the political Right or Left, form part of
an international movement in defence of the Nation
State and national democracy.
by
Anthony Coughlan
[Return
to Democrat index]
[To
subscribe to Democrat] (members receive
each issue free through the post)
[Membership
form]
[Order
form for material]
[Details
about our Campaign against Euro-federalism]
[Home
page] [top]
*
*
*
Added April-2009
[Among the elitist membership or
attendees at Bilderberg meetings is
David
Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Lloyd Bentsen, Helmut Kohl, Prince Charles, Prince
Juan Carlos, Katharine Graham, Alice Rivlin, Gerald Ford, Bill Clinton, Hillary
Clinton, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin L. Powell, John Edwards, Bill
Bradley, Bill Richardson, Christopher Dodd, Dianne Feinstein, Kathleen Sebelius
(Kansas governor and Obama pick for HHS secretary), Alexander Haig, Ralph E.
Reed, George Stephanopoulos, William J McDonough & Timothy F. Geithner
(Presidents, Federal Reserve Bank of New York), George Soros, Paul Volcker &
Alan Greenspan (former Chairman of the Federal Reserve), H. J. Heinz II (CEO of
H. J. Heinz Company), Peter A. Thiel (Co-Founder, PayPal), Eric E. Schmidt
(Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Google), Lloyd Blankfein (CEO of Goldman
Sachs), Rupert Murdoch, Donald E. Graham (Chairman of the Board of The
Washington Post Company), William F. Buckley, Jr. (founder of National Review
and former host of Firing Line), Peter Jennings, George Will, Lesley Stahl, Bill
D. Moyers, and many others. The list includes prominent persons in politics, the
military, financial institutions, major corporations, academia, and the media.]