Source
(20.5.2014)
Reactions (and non-reactions) of European politicians on the NSA affair and the Ukraine crisis make clear what before only some insiders and engaged citizens knew: that Europe's national states and the European Union are not sovereign. Of course the states have their constitutions and the EU has its treaties but almost nobody is acting in accordance with the provisions.
Let's take for example the European Court decision on the Metadata Collection Law which violates fundamental rights of citizens. In other words, the storage of communication metadata for six month to be available on the order of courts is against citizen's rights. The NSA collects in collaboration with national intelligence agencies much more than metadata and uses them on general level without any allowance of European national courts in specific cases.
At the beginning of April 2014 media reported that the NSA program "Mystic" stores all communication data (metadata and content) of six countries, among them Austria. The only reaction in Austria came from Mario Kunasek, a Freedom Party MP who is chair of the parliamentary Defense Committee. In the Social Democratic faction it is forbidden to make statements on NSA total surveillance because the Defense Ministry is a "red" ministry and the military intelligence agencies are accomplices of the NSA.
At the same time parties like the Social Democrats claim in their campaigns for European Parliament elections that they are in favour of data protection and of protecting private sphere. Austrian politicians including Members of Government are against metadata collection (Metadata Collection Law) and favour collecting all data by NSA and Austrian intelligence for NSA's use against Austrian politics and economics and against other countries (as Austria is a seat of international organizations).
Voltaire once said that to find out who is ruling you just consider who you'd better not critize. So Austria and other European countries are not sovereign whatever constitutions may say or international law demands. These conditions trace back to the time after World War II when the U.S. established control west the Iron Curtain. Austria was occupied by the Allies until 1955 when the Austrian State Treaty was signed. It should re-establish a sovereign democratic state with rule of law and human rights for everybody living on Austrian territory. The Austrian Government's duty and responsibility is to fulfill the provisions of the State Treaty which should rule out to be a de facto colony of one of the Allies, the United States.
For politicians (who have sworn an oath on Austrian constitution and laws) it is almost painful being asked why the U.S. violate the State Treaty since 59 years and they tolerate it and practically are their handyman instead of taking their oath on Austria serious. Together with mass media who serve NATO's interests (and which apply double standards on the U.S. and the rest of the world as politicians do) this creates a situation where citizens who want to live in the sovereign state of the State Treaty are fair game, whether they are in politics, in the administration, in business or journalists. Nobody will protect them against the U.S. and their handyman when they are "punished" for not being U.S. vassals.
The State Treaty is also violated against Russia as Austria is formally military neutral by international law and espionage for U.S. intelligence conducted by the Austrian army is directed against Russia. And of course Austria has promised the signatory power Russia to be sovereign, democratic, with rule of law and protected human rights. People who are fair game because of the U.S. therefore can apply to the Russian Federation to protect their rights as Austria breaks the State Treaty against its own citizens.
A vital indicator for lack of sovereignty is defense politics throughout Europe as European integration and enlargement and expansion of NATO have the same roots. While the European Community made sense during Cold War it has lost its purpose when Germany was re-unified and the Sowjet Union collapsed. After 1990 the end of NATO would have been expectable after the Warshaw Pact was dissvolved, and there was no need for new European treaties. And in fact Russia was promised that there will be no NATO enlargement and that the former border between East and West Germany will remain border for U.S./NATO troops. "They lied to us many times" the Russian President summarizes what has happened instead of keeping promises (which should be one of the famous "Western" values).
The EG was transformed into European Union as a political and no longer only economic community with common security and defense policy (with the perspective of common defense). In the Maastricht Treaty and there in the "Declaration on WEU" the EU was determined to become "the European pillar of the Atlantic Alliance". The EU was enlarged as well as NATO, in a parallel process, so today 22 of 28 EU members are members of NATO. Only six countries are non aligned, among them smaller ones like Malta or Cyprus. Austria had a referendum on EU membership in 1994 after a massive propaganda campaign where important details were mentioned only by "dissidents" who pointed out the close link beetween NATO and EU and that the convergence criteria will impose social cuts on Austria.
So the development of EU and NATO reflects geostrategic goals of the U.S. who try to circle Russia and China. The missile shield and NATO enlargement aim at gaining nuclear first and second strike capability and make the U.S. therefore able to rule the entire world. As long as the EU has 28 Presidents and Chancellors and 28 Ministers responsible for defense, foreign policy and other important items, it is harder for the U.S. to dominate them. Whoever demands in election campaigns "more integration", a "single European army" and "United States of Europe" serves U.S. purposes, whether he or she realizes this or not.
As defense is concerned there is a chain of command based on each states' constitution: there is a supreme commander (for times of war), a commander (the minister) and the highest ranking soldier. In Austria the chain of command is President (who has representative functions) - Defense Minister (commander) - Chief of General Staff. And this chain of command is undermined since the Social Democrats in 2007 took responsibility of the ministry because the cabinet chief (not mentioned in the constitution and therefore no part of the chain of command, could only transport the Ministers' orders in exact wording without altering anything) functions as a "shadow minister". 2007 to 2013 the former party manager and MP Norbert Darabos was Defense Minister and he was sealed off by the cabinet chief, under pressure and total surveillance.
The Chief of General Staff and all others with whom Darabos had to talk whenever he as a minister by the Austrian constitution wants had no direct contact with him. Some never could meet Darabos, some only once a year or after years of waiting (f.e. ambassadors of other countries). NATO-influenced media never wrote the truth, but sometimes puzzle pieces were found in arcticles - Darabos was mentioned as a "phantom minister" because some officers use this definition. But neither the officers nor media (nor political parties) asked how it is possible that a clever politician seems so disinterested in "his" items that he seldom appears in public, has few press conferences and is rarely seen at public debates (and if he hardly talks to others even short). Darabos was an active member of the parliamentary Defense Commitee before he became minister and as a minister he spoke out against the missile shield. Could a politician who is aware of U.S. geopolitics and of first and second strike capacities really lack interest in defense matters?
Or is it far more realistic that he is a kind of hostage in plain sight because he is too much interested (and aware of U.S. dominance in Europe and Austria)? I analyzed the background for many times and asked those who are responsible (as politicians, soldiers, journalists etc.) critical questions whenever it was possible. Nobody could give an explanation; instead of it I and other have experienced a "wall of silence" around the situation of Darabos (which has not changed though since March 2013 he is again party manager and MP) and the military, the hidden agenda pursued towards changing the army into an intervention force and paving the way for NATO membership. At a referendum in January 2013 the majority voted for the existing system - volunteers, recruits and militia - and many were aware that otherwise participation in U.S. military operations (see Germany and Afghanistan) will threaten.
In the ministry (where the cabinet chief still "rules" on behalf of U.S. orders and there is a new "minister" whom all describe as incompetent) they follow the path to rapid reaction forces and NATO disregarding the peoples' will. But whoever applies to the President or the Government runs against a wall of silence and doesn't even get an answer because it must relate to the item. So again - as described concerning Metadata Collection Law vs. NSA total surveillance - there is no sovereignty but a President and a Government who seem to the U.S. Vassals.....
Alexandra Bader
alexandra@ceiberweiber.at
(20.5.2014)
Reactions (and non-reactions) of European politicians on the NSA affair and the Ukraine crisis make clear what before only some insiders and engaged citizens knew: that Europe's national states and the European Union are not sovereign. Of course the states have their constitutions and the EU has its treaties but almost nobody is acting in accordance with the provisions.
Let's take for example the European Court decision on the Metadata Collection Law which violates fundamental rights of citizens. In other words, the storage of communication metadata for six month to be available on the order of courts is against citizen's rights. The NSA collects in collaboration with national intelligence agencies much more than metadata and uses them on general level without any allowance of European national courts in specific cases.
At the beginning of April 2014 media reported that the NSA program "Mystic" stores all communication data (metadata and content) of six countries, among them Austria. The only reaction in Austria came from Mario Kunasek, a Freedom Party MP who is chair of the parliamentary Defense Committee. In the Social Democratic faction it is forbidden to make statements on NSA total surveillance because the Defense Ministry is a "red" ministry and the military intelligence agencies are accomplices of the NSA.
At the same time parties like the Social Democrats claim in their campaigns for European Parliament elections that they are in favour of data protection and of protecting private sphere. Austrian politicians including Members of Government are against metadata collection (Metadata Collection Law) and favour collecting all data by NSA and Austrian intelligence for NSA's use against Austrian politics and economics and against other countries (as Austria is a seat of international organizations).
Voltaire once said that to find out who is ruling you just consider who you'd better not critize. So Austria and other European countries are not sovereign whatever constitutions may say or international law demands. These conditions trace back to the time after World War II when the U.S. established control west the Iron Curtain. Austria was occupied by the Allies until 1955 when the Austrian State Treaty was signed. It should re-establish a sovereign democratic state with rule of law and human rights for everybody living on Austrian territory. The Austrian Government's duty and responsibility is to fulfill the provisions of the State Treaty which should rule out to be a de facto colony of one of the Allies, the United States.
For politicians (who have sworn an oath on Austrian constitution and laws) it is almost painful being asked why the U.S. violate the State Treaty since 59 years and they tolerate it and practically are their handyman instead of taking their oath on Austria serious. Together with mass media who serve NATO's interests (and which apply double standards on the U.S. and the rest of the world as politicians do) this creates a situation where citizens who want to live in the sovereign state of the State Treaty are fair game, whether they are in politics, in the administration, in business or journalists. Nobody will protect them against the U.S. and their handyman when they are "punished" for not being U.S. vassals.
The State Treaty is also violated against Russia as Austria is formally military neutral by international law and espionage for U.S. intelligence conducted by the Austrian army is directed against Russia. And of course Austria has promised the signatory power Russia to be sovereign, democratic, with rule of law and protected human rights. People who are fair game because of the U.S. therefore can apply to the Russian Federation to protect their rights as Austria breaks the State Treaty against its own citizens.
A vital indicator for lack of sovereignty is defense politics throughout Europe as European integration and enlargement and expansion of NATO have the same roots. While the European Community made sense during Cold War it has lost its purpose when Germany was re-unified and the Sowjet Union collapsed. After 1990 the end of NATO would have been expectable after the Warshaw Pact was dissvolved, and there was no need for new European treaties. And in fact Russia was promised that there will be no NATO enlargement and that the former border between East and West Germany will remain border for U.S./NATO troops. "They lied to us many times" the Russian President summarizes what has happened instead of keeping promises (which should be one of the famous "Western" values).
The EG was transformed into European Union as a political and no longer only economic community with common security and defense policy (with the perspective of common defense). In the Maastricht Treaty and there in the "Declaration on WEU" the EU was determined to become "the European pillar of the Atlantic Alliance". The EU was enlarged as well as NATO, in a parallel process, so today 22 of 28 EU members are members of NATO. Only six countries are non aligned, among them smaller ones like Malta or Cyprus. Austria had a referendum on EU membership in 1994 after a massive propaganda campaign where important details were mentioned only by "dissidents" who pointed out the close link beetween NATO and EU and that the convergence criteria will impose social cuts on Austria.
So the development of EU and NATO reflects geostrategic goals of the U.S. who try to circle Russia and China. The missile shield and NATO enlargement aim at gaining nuclear first and second strike capability and make the U.S. therefore able to rule the entire world. As long as the EU has 28 Presidents and Chancellors and 28 Ministers responsible for defense, foreign policy and other important items, it is harder for the U.S. to dominate them. Whoever demands in election campaigns "more integration", a "single European army" and "United States of Europe" serves U.S. purposes, whether he or she realizes this or not.
As defense is concerned there is a chain of command based on each states' constitution: there is a supreme commander (for times of war), a commander (the minister) and the highest ranking soldier. In Austria the chain of command is President (who has representative functions) - Defense Minister (commander) - Chief of General Staff. And this chain of command is undermined since the Social Democrats in 2007 took responsibility of the ministry because the cabinet chief (not mentioned in the constitution and therefore no part of the chain of command, could only transport the Ministers' orders in exact wording without altering anything) functions as a "shadow minister". 2007 to 2013 the former party manager and MP Norbert Darabos was Defense Minister and he was sealed off by the cabinet chief, under pressure and total surveillance.
The Chief of General Staff and all others with whom Darabos had to talk whenever he as a minister by the Austrian constitution wants had no direct contact with him. Some never could meet Darabos, some only once a year or after years of waiting (f.e. ambassadors of other countries). NATO-influenced media never wrote the truth, but sometimes puzzle pieces were found in arcticles - Darabos was mentioned as a "phantom minister" because some officers use this definition. But neither the officers nor media (nor political parties) asked how it is possible that a clever politician seems so disinterested in "his" items that he seldom appears in public, has few press conferences and is rarely seen at public debates (and if he hardly talks to others even short). Darabos was an active member of the parliamentary Defense Commitee before he became minister and as a minister he spoke out against the missile shield. Could a politician who is aware of U.S. geopolitics and of first and second strike capacities really lack interest in defense matters?
Or is it far more realistic that he is a kind of hostage in plain sight because he is too much interested (and aware of U.S. dominance in Europe and Austria)? I analyzed the background for many times and asked those who are responsible (as politicians, soldiers, journalists etc.) critical questions whenever it was possible. Nobody could give an explanation; instead of it I and other have experienced a "wall of silence" around the situation of Darabos (which has not changed though since March 2013 he is again party manager and MP) and the military, the hidden agenda pursued towards changing the army into an intervention force and paving the way for NATO membership. At a referendum in January 2013 the majority voted for the existing system - volunteers, recruits and militia - and many were aware that otherwise participation in U.S. military operations (see Germany and Afghanistan) will threaten.
In the ministry (where the cabinet chief still "rules" on behalf of U.S. orders and there is a new "minister" whom all describe as incompetent) they follow the path to rapid reaction forces and NATO disregarding the peoples' will. But whoever applies to the President or the Government runs against a wall of silence and doesn't even get an answer because it must relate to the item. So again - as described concerning Metadata Collection Law vs. NSA total surveillance - there is no sovereignty but a President and a Government who seem to the U.S. Vassals.....
Alexandra Bader
alexandra@ceiberweiber.at
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!
No comments:
Post a Comment