CSE | Citizens’ Europe

Category: European Integration / Democracy

  • Capodistrias – Aegina

    January is the month of celebrations in Aegina in honor of Ioannis Capodistrias.

    Since the early years of the 21st century, the Aegina Association of Active Citizens has been campaigning for greater recognition of Capodistrias as a pioneer of European integration.

    In 2013, we secured the support of former Italian MEP Giulietto Chiesa for our effort to gain wide recognition of this historical reality.

    On January 26, 2019, the anniversary of the founding of the modern Greek state in Aegina in 1828, a function was held very close to the Acropolis in Athens in honor of the courageous and long-suffering Australian journalist Julian Assange, in the hope that he would not suffer the same fate as Capodistrias.

    This was done even though Capodistrias had no connection with Athens but rather with Aegina, Athens’ historical rival, as well as with Corfu (where he was born) and Nafplio (where he was assassinated).

    Giulietto Chiesa had been removed from the European Parliament in response to his film on the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York in 2001. Since Chiesa’s visit to Aegina in 2013 and his death in 2020, the European Union’s prestige has declined significantly. Among other things, Chiesa’s warnings about the dangers of European policy towards Israel, and even more so Ukraine, have been ignored. Now the European Union seems to be on the path to war with Russia, a war that America no longer wishes to lead, having found more promising ideas for its own future (and only its own)  than continuing the Cold War in Europe.                                             

    In response to Europe’s decline, some states have begun a planned shift towards the “global south.” Greece does not belong there spontaneously. It is not easy for Greece to disconnect from Europe, even from a Europe that seems to be heading, like Napoleon’s France or Hitler’s Germany, towards self-destruction. Can our country’s traditional friendly ties with Australia and New Zealand contribute to a geopolitical reorientation of Greece? Can such a reorientation be kept in reserve for implementation in case of failure to achieve the “Europe we want”?

    On January 26, 2028, Greeks will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the founding of the modern Greek state in Aegina. On the same day, Australians will celebrate the 240th anniversary of the dawn of Western civilization in Australia, in an unfortunate form, admittedly, but what beginning is not difficult? The British brought  civilization to Australia. Some would dispute this, but we do not. It is a biased assessment that overlooks many things. However, in the broader sense, it is true. If the British brought Western civilization to Australia, Greece brought it to the world, with similar periods of bloodshed.

    In the 21st century, Western civilization is important as a fundamental element of civilization in general.

    Do you support the idea of a joint Greek-Australian celebration of 26th January in 2028? 

  • Reiner Fuellmich, etc. What is to be done? Ο Reiner Fuellmich κτλ. Τι κάνουμε τώρα;

    https://odysee.com/@World.Freedom.Alliance.Greece:4/ReinerFuellmichWhatIsToBeDone:

  • Germany and Greece, and specifically Aegina 

     reformation-2.eu/

    I cannot really claim I’m supporting the initiative. Persons I am with, such as Bhakdi and some MDs of the club MWGFD (Doctors and Scientists for Health, Freedom and Democracy), support it, so I am ready to do something, if needed. But I still have not understood more than that they want to stress the double meaning they see in ‘reformation’ (as reforming the church and reforming capitalism).

    What the reformation yielded in the past 500 years was far less than what people needed. Luther himself was by no means revolutionary, not even progressive – as far as my poor history knowledge goes; I think, he     was just defiant. Later, protestant pastors were the first ones to join Hitler and nowadays the ‘vaccination’.

    It may be my fault, but I do not really know which demands the initiative has, other than any Merz or Mitsotakis would underline (‘justice’, ‘democracy’, ‘peace’ etc. – the way everyone means it).

    Of course, I don’t have the better initiative concept. And the collection of demands (attached, possible red lines in red) I presented to two groups (for deciding, whether they would offer Maria (Karystianou) to cooperate at elections on this basis), would not discuss it: For Omades.gr I was suddenly a betrayer, and “Oliki Epanekkinis” (A comprehensive new start) have been postponing any conversation for several months now.

    In other words: I do not care too much about what or whom I like or dislike, I rather try to ask concrete questions – with no success. And I do not know the concrete questions / demands of 31/10.

    Aris Christidis

    From W.H.

    When he was here in Athens with Reiner Fuellmich in 2022 Dr. Bhakdi, like Reiner, said how moved he was to be present in “the cradle of democracy”. When my wife and I are in Athens, we live in a flat that is very close to the Acropolis, in the heart of the Acropolis tourist area, so we are very familiar with the spiraling hordes of “pilgrims” from all over the world, and increasingly from what used to be called “the Third World”, who are swarming to this shrine of democracy at a time when democracy is in shocking disrepute, attacked both by its enemies and by its groupies.

    What can one say about this assertion? “In a dictatorship corruption at the top is the norm. In democracy it is generalized.”

    It is a belief adhered to, mostly dogmatically, by what “we” (?) call “the right”.” My preference is to present it as a question and a “challenge”.

    Some years ago, before the degeneration of the U.S. Democratic Party became so extreme that it was impossible to be associated with it any more, there was a discussion of democracy under the auspices of the now defunct Hellenic American Democratic Association (HELADA) in Athens, informal representative in Greece of U.S. Democratic Party voters (with a small input from more active cadres).

    I made the point there that until the nineteenth century what in the twentieth was called socialism went under the name of democracy, with broadly accepted pejorative connotations. But when in the twentieth century positive connotations came to be associated with the term “liberal democracy” there was no corresponding transference that could  legitimate the term “liberal socialism”.

    Here in Aegina there have been by local standards large demonstrations with two epicenters: on the one hand the ruination of the local health center under the pressures of state level policies of privatization of the health system (these demonstrations have carefully avoided “conspiracy theory” analyses that bring up the 2020 and subsequent “COVID” atrocity [and by extension discussion of Reiner Fuellmich and/or [more recently] Arno van Kessel] and on the other the Tempi railway atrocity and subsequently criminal cover-up. They have been led locally by two women, both teachers – one state sector, the other a private entrepreneur, one a dedicated member of the Greek Communist Party, the other a granite-hard opponent of “party politics” who nevertheless, unless I am mistaken, would like to see Maria Karystianou (the very
    high-profile bereaved mother leading the campaign against the Tempi atrocity and cover-up) involved in forming and leading a political party.

    These two mobilizations should be collaborating in Aegina, but they are not and I am not confident that they will in future.

    Would it be possible for the passage in Herodotus that throws a light on Persian discussions of democracy in antiquity to be brought to the attention of Dr. Bhakdi? The Greek historian Herodotus grew up in the Persian Empire, was evidently rather sympathetic towards Darius and – like the oligarchic elite of the time in Aegina, hostile to the imperialistic Athenian democracy – he presumably sided with Persia during the initial conflict between the Persian Empire and Athens [but not later, when Xerxes took over from Darius].

    In my opinion Mrs. Karystianou’s blistering (and effective) attacks on Greek prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis would be improved (through liberation from the reactive mode) if the evocations of democracy were left out. The morality-based petitioning reflex is not persuasive in today’s horrible situation.

    If the aspiration is for equality between interlocutors, the would-be divide-and-rule response amounts to a rejection of the other side’s wish to be treated as an equal. And the ultimate perfection of divide-and-rule [and rejection of equality] is political marketing (give them what they want [as long as it is what we also want!]) The saga of the Greek-Australian political analyst Kosmas Samaras is a fascinating case in point. He and his collaborators have turned the Australian Labor Party (a very ‘woke’ Labor Party) into something approaching permanent pseudo-one-party domination of the Australian state of Victoria, and to an increasing extent Australia as a whole, clearly with the encouragement of the Chinese Communist Party, which evidently believes that today’s Chinese system provides better safeguards against corruption than Western “liberal democracy”.

    When Yanis Varoufakis founded his pan-European citizens’ movement DiEM25 in Berlin in 2016, what he had in mind has clear similarities with the objectives of today’s Reformation 2.0 reformation-2.eu/

    Varoufakis  received exhortations  at that time that he should be starting his campaign in Greece, and specifically in Aegina, which is one of his places of residence. Did his preference for Germany have anything to do with the fact that the German Federal Republic provided a
    refuge for him and his parents’ family at the time that the 1967-74 junta was in power in Greece and social democrats (Brandt, Schmidt) were in office in Western Germany? In any case, as it turned out, it was only in Greece that DiEM25 (and the party that inevitably came to supplement it) acquired any parliamentary representation (albeit temporary).

    After the beach meeting that DiEM25 held in Aegina in the summer of 2016, Yanis Varoufakis was invited to speak to HELADA in Athens. His unforgettable answer was (smilingly): “Why should I do that when I can speak on CNN?”

    Nowadays he has moved his attention to BRICS.

    What now?

  • Brexit – Kalypso Nikolaidis

  • Why the Republic must consider rejoining the Commonwealth

    SOURCE: THE IRISH TIMES

    Brexit means we need to build new bridges both to Britain and to a wider world

    Brexit is a reminder that many people have been puzzled as to why a country would suddenly and unilaterally withdraw from an international organisation that promotes co-operation, democracy and human rights.

    An organisation that many other states are bending over backwards to join.

    The international organisation that comes to mind is the commonwealth, which Ireland suddenly left in 1949.

    In doing so this State cut itself off from 2.4 billion people who form a voluntary association of 53 sovereign, equal and independent states.

    The British commonwealth that we left is no more. The word “British” has been dropped. Republics are welcome as members. The commonwealth has its own flag and operates on the basis of equality between all members. Thirty-one of the member countries are small states or island nations, like our own.

    Some of the members – Rwanda and Mozambique – have no historical connection to the British Empire. Every country in the organisation has an equal say. Today’s commonwealth is not about British dominance.

    Since Ireland left, a separate commonwealth secretariat has been established, to promote democracy, human rights, development and peace. A growing list of countries are seeking to be admitted or to rejoin. The latest is The Gambia which rejoined earlier this year.

    Whether reactivating our commonwealth membership would be a good idea is a matter for political judgment on which I would maintain neutrality. But legal commentators can legitimately point out some of the implications.

    Firstly rejoining would not have any adverse consequences for the Irish legal or constitutional order. The Constitution of 1937 specifically allows commonwealth membership anyway. More fundamentally, Brexit has changed the context of relations between Britain and Ireland. The risks of divisions are now greater than ever. The message of the Belfast Agreement is to build bridges, soften borders, promote inclusion.

    British identity

    The Irish side specifically committed in the agreement to demonstrating its continued respect for the British identity. What would send a better signal of solidarity with our British neighbours when they leave the EU next March than to extend the hand of co-operation by rejoining the commonwealth? The work of the commonwealth is supported by more than 80 cultural, civic, professional and intergovernmental organisations. Ireland could only benefit hugely from full participation in these support networks.

    One of the curious aspects of our ambiguous relationship with Britain is that Ireland already participates in some of these bodies in an associate capacity. Our Law Reform Commission is specifically acknowledged in the guide produced by the Commonwealth Association of Law Reform Agencies. And Irish officials attend and contribute at meetings of the Commonwealth Association of Legislative Counsel.

    Irish solution

    Is this just another Irish solution? Or would it be more honest and dignified to come in the front door of the building rather than stooping through the tradesman’s entrance?

    Above all perhaps our sportsmen and women would stand to benefit hugely from access to the Commonwealth Games and Youth Games. Indeed such are the benefits that it seems strange that there has not been more pressure for such opportunities to be opened up.

    The context in which the question of commonwealth membership needs to be considered is the pressing and urgent need to recognise the equal legitimacy of both identities on the island of Ireland. Despite the promise of the Belfast Agreement, the Irish identity remains somewhat second-class in Northern Ireland. One need look no further than the refusal by unionism to enact Irish language legislation.

    Under a statute enacted in 1737 but still in force, Irish – almost incredibly – cannot be used in courts in Northern Ireland. And correspondingly, in this part of the island, the British identity remains second class – the drum-beating preamble to the Constitution, the lyrics of the anthem, the dropping of the proposal in the 1980s to give British citizens the vote in referendums, and so on.

    Where is the equal respect promised by the agreement, the aspiration to Irish unity only in terms of fraternity and friendship? The question of reactivating our commonwealth membership may at least be worth discussion if it could provide a bridge between the traditions at a time when more bridges are sorely needed.

    For those who see Brexit as creating division and tearing down bridges, perhaps it is at least worth considering whether there is benefit in building new bridges both to Britain and to a wider world with whom we share common interests and values, and much common history.

    Richard Humphreys is a High Court judge. His latest book, Beyond the Border: The Good Friday Agreement and Irish Unity after Brexit is published by Merrion Press