Fernando Fuster-Fabra's Blog

ABDICACIÓN, PUERTA DE LA TRANSFORMACIÓN DE ESPAÑA

June 3, 2014
Leave a Comment

ABDICACIÓN, PUERTA DE LA TRANSFORMACIÓN DE ESPAÑA.


EUROPEAN UNION: ¿POWER COUP D’ETAT OR DELIBERATE TREASON?

December 6, 2011
Leave a Comment

More ideas and less ideology ….”

–       Fernando Fuster-Fabra

Versión en español:  http://wp.me/pRlnf-5k

On December 17, 2007, 27 member states unanimously approved the Lisbon Treaty, thereby modifying the Treaty of the European Union, the constituent Treaty of the European Union and the constituent Treaty of the European Community of Atomic Energy. With said treaty, the process initiated with the Treaties of Amsterdam & Nice was completed; said process aimed at increasing the effectiveness and democratic legitimacy of the EU, and to improve the coherence of action amongst its member states.

Today, two of these 27 member states have carried out a coup d’etat against the Union status, in an attempt to impose their will over the rest, without even respecting the EU citizens’ will; those who approved through referenda or through their elected parliaments the mentioned Lisbon Treaty.

In lieu of heading towards the solution of an economic crisis that has hit the financial and economic foundations of the EU, these leaders in favour of a coup without arms pretend to rule the terms of surrender of the weaker members to the whims of the more powerful. Regretful enough, they have chosen a procedure contrary to the very essence of the Lisbon Treaty; the very treaty that pretended to increment the democratic effectiveness and legitimacy of the Union.

 It seems we remain without learning from the nightmares that French-German politicking caused in the past.  From Bismark’s Triple Alliance to Wilhelm II’s Welpolitik (1882-1914) countered by Entente Cordiale (1904) and Triple Entente (1907), in 1938 they reached the Pact of Munich whereby Germany and France jointly intervened to grab a piece of Checoslovaquia to cede to the German power. It all culminated in the two deadly world wars for Europe and the rest of the world.

The whimsical acts of politicians of these two European states have already brought us tragic moments in our recent History. Shall we live once more the consequences of their clumsy ambitions?

Fernando Fuster-Fabra

Barcelona, Spain    


EUROPEAN UNION: WHO DECIDES WHETHER THE UNION PROJECT PROCEEDS OR CEASES?

December 5, 2011
1 Comment

“To deserve being up front, one must first prove he knows how to do what he demands of others, in order to reach goals on time … Only then will he be accepted as the leader.” 

–       Fernando Fuster-Fabra

 

Versión Español:   http://wp.me/pRlnf-5e

Scarcely three weeks have lapsed since my post on the G-20 summit in Cannes. Now, with the celebration of the European Council meet about to be held, same must decide if the EU stays or goes. In fact, the bulk of the issue to date goes beyond what some have dubbed as ‘the Euro crisis’.

The true dilemma is much deeper as it has to do with the imposition of a leadership that has neither been agreed upon nor elected amongst the partners and European citizens.

Why have two leaders self-acclaimed themselves as the only competent actors in a matter that corresponds all 27 leaders to resolve in the frame of their legitimate governance organism, the European Council?

As I have said in previous posts, it is not viable to resolve a problem with the same ideas that caused it nor can the same actors who created the problem or increased it be in the lead roles. Such is the case of the Merkel-Sarkozy tandem, responsible of the ‘Deauville conspiacy’.

One would have to go quite a time back when this unfortunate duo still wasn’t as powerful as today. The newly named Union, which was not much more than the EEC in its mature state, decided to take a giant step forward towards the convergence of all its member states. Nevertheless, in the mid-90’s, the financial pundits of said states ignored the recommendations of visionary Jacques Delors. The ECOFIN centred its actions in the creation of the Euro and sidetracked the physical union of the states to develop its competitivity as a single supplier to global markets. Furthermore, those of us engaged in Eruopean projects insisted then that the true union stemmed from the socio-political cohesion, wherein common economics was a mere driving force of growth with the Euro as a supporting element for those generating business in the member states.

It has required lots of effort to bring together the union of 15 members then, more so with the hasty incorporation of 12 others in only a decade without any realistic justification. The reasons behind the acceptance of such an expansion by other members, clearly beneficial to translate the axis of power towards Berlin as Europe’s capital, is something I have sensed but it is best not to discuss in this post.

The operational Euro was launched in 2002 as a two-speed system, an error in itself. Nonetheless, vested interests that pulled the power strings so decided. To claim now that we are in danger of a two-speed Euro is pure demagogy; we have always had two levels of centralised European power and two operational ranges amongst single currency operators. It would be a different matter if we ask what Germany and France plan to impose the other members at this stage. It consists in renouncing to a certain amount of state fiscal sovereignty without offering in turn any guarantee of corresponding decision-making competencies for those renouncing. 

Do we know who will assume such ample powers so as to be authorised to impose state budgets or economic sanctions without any defined criteria on same? 

Definitely not. What is obvious is that those who will wield power will not be persons elected by the citizenry who afterwards will have to foot the bill of said ceded sovereignty.

If the problem is so pressing today, just on the eve of a European summit, then why haven’t more European Council meetings been held this year or even in 2009 and 2010 to clarify the solutions proposed in relation to the European problem?

I will not stop insisting that – There is no such thing as a ‘Euro crisis’ nor is public expenditure the cause of the speculation against European economies. It is all a make-up with a single objetive, that of deviating the attention from the real global problem; a plot put together by vested interests with the blessings of some European leaders. Thus far, they have achieved to get rid of a couple of elected leaders that have been replaced by supposed experts that are not legitimated by their respective citizenry.

What’s really going on this this our Europe?

Who are apparently in command in the EU? Above all, who gives them orders?   

Is the scenario being set up for another conflagration that would benefit large corporations involved in arms, military aviation, chemical & pharmaceutical industries, energetic suppliers and the leading bankins entities?

It may be worth recalling what Baron Rothschild, a Jewish-German banker said: – “ .. It’s time to buy when bloods flows in the streets, no matter id it is your own …”

Has someone decided that the time for this has come?

Fernando Fuster-Fabra

Barcelona, Spain    


EUROPE’S UNION IN THE CROSSROADS: DO OR DIE

November 15, 2011
5 Comments

Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.

–       Albert Einstein

 

 

 

 

Spanish version:  http://wp.me/pRlnf-4D

 

The G-20 Summit of world leaders was held in Cannes a few days ago. As expected, no decisions were taken to resolve the economic crisis that affects the stability of a great number of countries. Not a word was said about establishing restrictions to speculative abuses that crop up based on ratings of agencies prone to cause alarm with their presumptions. Assisting the summit were the principal European leaders representing the EU as well as Germany, France, Italy and United Kingdom as full-pledged members, with Spain and The Netherlands as guests.

Just a few miles away, in Brussels, the Greek crisis with a call for referendum warning and the forthcoming Italian tempest had been left unsolved. Today, the Greek crisis remains unsolved although Greece’s elected Prime Minister (Papandreou) has had to step down and a new one (Papademos) appointed in his place without any elections.  Something similar went on in Italy just a few hours ago, with the forced resignation of Berlusconi after the approval of the demanded reforms and the appointment of Monti to replace him.

Two new figures, not elected by their respective citizens, assume their respective tasks; technocrats, as they are called, but without analysing their close links to the financial structures that, in my opinion, have been the root of this entire regrettable situation. Lukas Papademos was Vice-President of the ECB from 2002 till 2008 when Jean Claude Trichet was President whilst Mario Monti not only was a European Commissioner but also a consultant of the notorious American bank, Goldman Sachs.

Furthermore, in November, the turnover at the ECB has also taken place, with an Italian, Mario Draghi, taking over the chair occupied by Trichet from 2003 till late October. He is another figure related to the bank (Goldman Sachs) that caused more than a single financial quake, amongst which it is worth mentioning its advisory role to the Greek Government in the times of the conservative, Kostas Karamanlis, precisely when the state accounts were falsified in the reports to Brussels.

The irony of this entire circus is that a legitimately elected Papandreou was forced out of office for calling a referendum to approve his proposals but no one has said a word about prosecuting neither Karamanlis nor Goldman Sachs por having intentionally lied, causing the domino effect on the weaker Eurozone economies.

Thus, not only has a chance been lost in Cannes to set up global regulating and supervisory measure of the larger banking entities as well as the rating agencies but also it has allowed a slow transfer of previous bank executives and personalities linked to these entities to occupy relevant posts in the hierarchical big-shots of the EU and in the government of its member states.

Likewise, the American stance has taken a 360 degree change from Pittsburgh to Cannes. With elections in 2012, Obama does not wish to risk any confrontation with potential donors for his campaign funds, amongst which we may mention the larger U.S. banks and the powerful Jewish lobby. He abandons Europe to its fate, above all because he does not share the curt German stance in some questions of procedure and timing. Not even the goodwill efforts of the French President and proud father of a baby girl served to ease the tense atmosphere. Furthermore, Obama is aware that in spite of the Euro crisis, the currency has a strong quotation, benefitting the U.S. Dollar and facilitating its exports to the Old Continent while decreasing European countries competitiveness in world trade.

What seems to have gone unnoticed in all this week of European tension after the Cannes summit is that Munich  prosecutors ordered a search in the Deutsche Bank offices in relation to the famous ‘Kirch affaire’. In spite of the death of communications magnate, Leo Kirch, the lawsuit against Deutsche Bank continues its course, with outgoing CEO, Josef Ackerman, in the midst of the storm. The matter must have been of such importance that Ackerman announced his decision not to seek the appointment to the bank’s presidency, a rather difficult manoeuvre after the German banking law reforms in 2009. Said reforms establish a two-year grace period before a former CEO can aspire to the presidential post of a bank, with the only exception that 25% of the stockholders so demanded.

Angela Merkel has covered many inside details of the decisions taken in relation with the German banking system between 2005 and 2011, as well as her personal pact with Gerhard Schröder, with regards such a vital issue as energy, disguised under the so-called ‘grand coalition’. Few are conscious of the of Merkel’s stubborn tenacity that has brought her from that membership in the communist youth movement in her younger years in the extinguished GDR to become ‘my girl’ for conservative, Helmut Kohl. Her rise to power came by pure chance after a scandal caused the downfall of Kohl’s chosen successor, Wolfgang Schäuble, actually the Economic Minister in Merkel’s cabinet.

Perhaps that is the reason that one has given due importance to the very recent announcement of the inauguration of start-up of Operation Nord Stream, the gas pipeline agreed upon between Russia and German, with the blessing of France, The Netherlands and United Kingdom. Said pipeline will go from Vyborg in Russia to Greifswald in Germany in a submarine line across the Baltic Sea. In Russia’s behalf the participations is headed by state-owned Gazprom as natural gas supplier and Nord Stream AG, a German enterprise has been set up to handle constructions and operations. It is interesting to observe that former Prime Minister Schröeder has been involved in the Nord Stream project and with Gazprom since December, 2005, roughly a month after stepping down in favour of Angela Merkel.   

What makes this affair even uglier is the fact that the powerful EU members will share the spoils of Russian gas without sharing a bit with other Baltic member states, namely – Poland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia – nor seem to have offered a gas link to the Scandinavian states for the moment. Nevertheless, said gas will indeed go across the English Channel to the United Kingdom.

This project is contrary to the interest of the pan-European Nabucco project which had set the goal of constructing a gas pipeline from Erzurum in Turkey to Baumgarten in Austria, precisely with the intention of breaking EU dependence on Russian gas supply. The problems generated with Gazprom gas supply through Ukraine have left Central Europe and Italy without a reliable supply in more than one occasion whilst Turkey had offered its facilities in a sign of goodwill in its bid to join the EU. Germany has again vetoed a state that has been accumulating more merits to join the EU than some who already are in.

With partners who demand from the south sacrifices but will not share the favourable agreements with other non-EU states, it is no wonder that the Union of 27, each day, is turning into a more difficult endeavour.  In addition, those who impose the terms & conditions interpret the Stability & Growth Pact in such a manner as to oblige members to apply solutions thought out in conventional terms, in precisely the same line as those that created the problem.

Whilst our present-century ‘Medea’ is bossing around in Europe, the route travelled will be the wrong one and the estrangement amongst members each day larger.  How much must we wait before Merkel is sent into exile?     

Fernando Fuster-Fabra

Barcelona, Spain     


    PRUEBA GRATIS: Google Apps for Work