The Founder of the European Idea

Posted on by

galatia

Try to bring back to your memory the “Dying Galatian”, the ancient Roman marble copy of a lost Hellenistic statue that is now in the Capitoline Museum. At the beginning of the 19th century Europe bears a certain resemblance to this figure, the wounded soldier. The open wound was France. The revolution of 1789 had enthralled the minds of all Europeans able to read Rousseau or dream of a life with greater justice.

France had executed its monarch and established the radical republic of the Jacobin revolutionaries. A general had defeated its enemies and exported its principles to the rest of Europe. But such was his ambition that he had ended up just as absolutist and arrogant as the old monarchs. Napoleon Bonaparte was a force that to the peoples at times appeared to be their liberator and at times their oppressor.

This takes us to discussion of the first serious assignment to be undertaken by Capodistrias, in 1811-1812. As head of counter-espionage, first for Admiral Chichagov and later for Barclay de Tolly he was put in charge of psychological warfare before and after every encounter between the French and Russian armies on the battlefield.

The most important factor for an army on foreign territory is the friendship of the inhabitants. This was to be secured by representing Napoleon as an oppressor and the Czar as a liberator. The battle had to seem for the locals like a battle for their own country and not for a monarch. Achieving this was the secret of Capodistrias’ success on the battlefield, for which by the way he was awarded numerous decorations, the most distinctive being the white colour of his hair.

He had the good fortune to serve Czar Alexander, who at that time was the most liberal of all Europe’s hegemons. The Czar noticed the ability, but also the similarly liberal convictions, of the Corfiot count, who at 35 was the same age as himself. He charged him with the difficult task of achieving a political settlement for Switzerland. The day that was achieved can be celebrated by the Swiss as the anniversary of their republic, of their freedom and neutrality, the foundation of their society’s prosperity to this day.

Napoleon was decisively defeated. The leaders of the old political world wanted to re-found Europe in such a way that they would not have to fight any more wars. For that purpose they organized a protracted dancing party with tons of champagne and delectable food which they gave the name the Congress of Vienna. The situation in the capital of Austria in 1814 and 1815 could be characterized as follows:

The Tsar of Russia copulated for everyone.
The King of Prussia thought for everyone.
The King of Denmark spoke for everyone.
The King of Bavaria (father of Otto) drank for everyone.
The Elector of Saxony ate for everyone.
The Emperor of Austria paid for everyone.

 

It was into this climate of merrymaking in the imperial pavilions that Capodistrias entered, always dressed in black but with a serenity and an incredible grace both of manner and appearance. Metternich called him Saint John of the Apocalypse. He was not interested in celebrating, dancing or lovemaking. He was steadfast in his censure of the light-mindedness of his age. He could not relate to it because he was being impelled by another agenda: that of liberating his country.

The real challenge for the winners of every war is how they will divide the spoils after their victory. This is why the Czar’s great enemy was Austria’s foreign minister and their current host, Metternich, who had a powerful agenda of his own for the future. The Czar wasn’t able to deal with him effectively until Capodistrias came into his private chambers to study his correspondence. The world thus had one last hope for progress being possible.

To understand what Capodistrias achieved on the international diplomatic scene, what world he was attempting to defend, and what way of looking at the world, it is indispensable to understand what world his opponent Metternich was trying to prop up. For Metternich the peoples had no country. They had a hegemon. The basis of a state was not the people but the hereditary rights and the matrimonial links of the monarchs. The world was being required to go back to the ancient regime, as if the French Revolution had never taken place and as if there was no such thing as the Enlightenment.

Metternich had two instruments at his disposal: his direct connections with England, Prussia, Russia and Austria and the ability to drown in blood every attempt to dispute his decisions. All that was necessary was the Quadruple Alliance. He characterized everyone else as sub-allies if they approved of his decisions and terrorists, Jacobins, revolutionaries, if they did not respect them. Metternich was quite simply the embodiment of Restoration.

In such a world, bound hand and foot to agreements between monarchs, it was impossible that Greece should ever be liberated. This was primary data for Capodistrias. The second consideration was that this world of Metternich had no hope of prevailing in a future where more and more European citizens were awakening. For Capodistrias the basis for the state was not the hegemon but the decision of the citizens to establish a state for themselves and their children.

For all his admiration for republicanism and democracy, Capodistrias did not want to abolish monarchies. How could he, anyway, as the Foreign Minister of a Czar? What he wanted was to reform monarchies. He believed in introducing institutions, constitutions, and wherever he could, he did so. Even in the Czar’s possessions such as Poland and Bessarabia.

He urged all parties, even his own hegemon, to embark on the necessary preparation for a constitutional monarchy. People must be enlightened through education so as to be able to demand a Constitution. Specifically, he familiarized the Czar with the method of Pestalozzi through the schools of his friend Fallenberg in Switzerland. On Fallenberg’s estate young people were brought into contact with the land through an incredibly progressive, for those days and for our day, programme of agricultural economy, acquiring ethical substance and independence of mind.

He believed that at the end of the road where just one generation was educated in that way, the citizens of a state – for the most part free cultivators of the land, – could expect a life of freedom, social progress and an economy that would foster a disposition for peace and human happiness. Specifically, Capodistrias was here in Aegina when he said that he had no faith in Greeks who were over thirty. He believed only in the younger generation. This is why he was a governor, prime minister we would say today, one of whose daily tasks was to go to lessons and see, and hear, how the teachers were imparting their knowledge to the students. He had a great belief in the younger generation and not so much in those who were over the age of being able to learn.

So Capodistrias was at the opposite pole to the world that was being constructed two hundred years ago. He was Europe’s first and greatest reforming politician.

At this point we need do no more than enumerate the endeavours of Capodistrias that substantiate this characterization:

 

  1. He gave the Swiss the most liberal of constitutions, with provisions for neutrality. .
  2. He helped the Germans as much as anyone of his time in their course towards federation. Indeed in 1815 he demanded for their country that neutrality and disarmament that would bring peace to Europe one hundred and fifty years later.
  3. He demanded the step-by-step disarmament of the whole continent.
  4. He proposed public condemnation of unilateral interventions by a great power into the affairs of another state
  5. Specifically, he made two attempts to defend the Italians from interference by a foreign power (Austria).
  6. On countless occasions he compelled abstention from secret diplomacy in the interest of transparent and honest communication between peoples (e.g. in Poland, in France, in the Triple Alliance against Russia, etc.)
  7. He attempted to impose a Constitution on the corrupt monarchy of Spain, along with general amnesty, release of political prisoners, abolition of tax privileges for the nobility in Spain. .
  8. He proposed abolition of the slave trade through which Europeans were exploiting the African continent, and the establishment for this purpose of an international supervisory authority.
  9. He proposed the securing of independence for the Spanish and Portuguese colonies.
  10. He saved France from dismemberment and Europe, perhaps, from new wars between nations for one hundred years.

 

Coming closer to Greece:

 

  1. He saved the Moldavians and the Vlachs from massacres at the hands of the Ottomans.
  2. He saved the Serbian revolution from total annihilation.
  3. He saved the Ionian Islands from the Austrians, though admittedly subsequent British oppression proved equally harsh.
  4. From behind the scenes he organized the outbreak of the Greek Revolution.
  5. On at least four occasions he saved the Revolution from definitive ruin (this must be the subject for another meeting however).

 

There is a historical question that at some point today’s short-sighted authorities must allow to be investigated. To what extent was Capodistrias simply a person who saw revolutions break out all over Europe and sought through his reforming activity to defuse them, as most historians believe, and to what extent was he their secret inspirer, financier and leader as Metternich and the king of England – the Prince Regent of England – believed. Metternich regarded him as the “chief of the ultra-liberals”. George IV called him “a vagabond”. Only unimpeded access to the state archives can provide us with the details. There is the well-known question of the Rumanian historian Otetea and the answer from Despotopoulos, from our side.

Returning to matters of which we can already be certain, I want to emphasize an aspect of the political activity of the Corfiot count that is little known today. In an endeavour at the Congress of Aachen in 1818 to impose his reforming and liberal programme Capodistrias submitted a memorandum outlining the principles of a United Europe he said that an agreement between the four great victorious powers was not reached for the purpose of oppressing the remaining people, nationally and socially. He said that these great powers did not possess the right to intervene unilaterally in the affairs of small states. He was foreshadowing a more general alliance between all the European peoples as equals, who should together make decisions on European questions. The four great powers – five with France – would function as a security council, intervening together in matters where Europe as a whole agreed that they should. This memorandum laid the foundations for the European Union, but also for a world-wide community of nations.

Capodistrias once wrote: “We are no longer in an era when secret and hypothetical alliances can save empires. What can protect them today is a generalized alliance, which to succeed must be public and not secret or merely surmised.” And in another instance: “On one side is the prospect of a sincere friendship between all states and the prospect of progressive improvement of social institutions. On the other is the atrocious rule of anarchy and revolutionary despotism, with all the dangers of ‘divide and rule’ that are familiar from the old diplomacy.”

Returning to the opposite camp: in 1819 Metternich wrote confidentially of his great opponent. “Capodistrias is not a bad person, but to be frank he is an absolute fool, a perfect example of stubbornness and a wrong outlook. He lives in a world that for us is a nightmare.”

Τhe following year Metternich was drinking tea with the Czar and enlisting all his preparatory efforts against Capodistrias, he persuaded Alexander that his minister’s new order of things represented a threat to the Czar himself. “If I had known,” he said, “that with a cup of tea I would be able so easily to change the Czar’s mind, I would have brought a shipload of tea from Asia to persuade his minister also.”

And so it was. Capodistrias tried to induce the Czar to make war against Turkey but it was already too late. Metternich was now free to reintroduce his own programme of repression of the peoples, the absolute power of hegemons and restoration of secret diplomacy in European affairs.

There were at least two moments in his later career to remind him of his old sparring partner Capodistrias. The first was in 1827, on the day of   his third marriage, when it was announced to him that France, England and Russia had crushed Ibrahim at Navarino and by so doing also destroyed Metternich’s confidence in the power of his Holy Alliance, and his ability to control it. The second was in 1848, when he made his escape through the back door and chancellory garden, secretly, through fear of the revolutionaries. The – for him and those like him – nightmarish world of Ioannis Capodistrias had prevailed, for him definitively.

What would Capodistrias say today, if here were at the summit of European diplomacy? Irrespective of the fact that two centuries have passed and the world has changed considerably, no risk is involved, no leap of the imagination or interpretation of his words. All that is needed is enumeration of these guiding principles:

Today Capodistrias would say to us:

 

Respect the freedom and self-determination of the peoples

  • Don’t allow powerful states to impose their views on smaller states and oppress them
  • Abolish secret diplomacy
  • Extend the institutions of democratic states. Enlarge them and introduce new progressive constitutions
  • Respect human rights
  • Abolish the contemporary slave trade
  • Advance the project of general disarmament
  • Reform your world, not neglecting in the process the happiness of each separate individual, his links to the land, education, ethics. Not neglecting cultivation.

 

Panagiotis Paspaliaris

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wPniHFeXiM

Minutes 11.55 to 25.55

Giulietto Chiesa visit’s the Capodistrian buildings of Aegina  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmDHoNPfmlM

Daniel Cohn-Bendit is told of the importance of Capodistrias https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrwc4496WNk

France’s benefactor

Posted on by

Napoleon succeeded in exporting the French Revolution to Europe, along with some of its admirable achievements. At Abukir, at Austerlitz, at Jena, at Borodino he defeated the hegemons of the old European order, sometimes resoundingly, sometimes with great losses to himself. Some of them changed their way of thinking: they adopted French principles and ideas, and made their comeback at Leipzig on 19th October 1813.

At the following peace conference the victors did not choose to vanquish France: they sent Bonaparte into exile. But everything changed when the Corsican escaped from the island of Elba and on 18th June 1815 led a new army against his united enemies. It was the hundred-day last stand of the ravager of our continent.

General Blücher and Talleyrand

In the summer of 1815 the Prussians and their allies entered Paris. General von Blüchermined the Jena bridge over the Seine, which had been built to remind the world of the humiliating defeat of the Prussians by the French in 1806. The French prime minister Talleyrand, who was himself making a comeback, threatened via an emissary to go personally and stand in the centre of the bridge to prevent the German general from blowing it up.

Von Blücher reflected for a while and then told his soldiers not to detonate the explosives until Talleyrand had arrived in the centre of the bridge, and then to blow it up, together with Talleyrand. In the centuries since that time the French have given the name Blücher to their savage, bloodthirsty dogs. They regard Talleyrand, by contrast, as France’s benefactor: he is said with his skillful diplomatic manoeuvres to have succeeded in averting its dismemberment. That, at least, is what is taught in French schools. The truth is that during this most crucial time for France his armoury of intrigue and (by now) old-fashioned charm had been exhausted. He threatened the allies that he would resign if France was dismembered. The allies could not have cared less and the Bourbon monarch accepted his resignation.

The fifth duke of Richelieu

Armand Emmanuel de Vignerot du Plessis, fifth duke of Richelieu, had as long-standing a relationship with the “legitimate” kings of France as is implied by his name. He left France after the Revolution and went into the service of the Russian emperor. Among other duties, the Czar assigned to him the task of founding the city of Odessa. His organizational ability was greatly above average. A brilliant Russian metropolis would henceforth hold sway over the Black Sea through the coming centuries. .

Richelieu returned to France with the Bourbons and assumed the prime ministership after Talleyrand. In despair, he repaired to the chambers where the Czar was lodging in France. The dismemberment of France, both territorial and economic, had just been announced. He was received by the young confidant of Alexander I, Count Ioannis Capodistrias, with whom he appeared to be quite well acquainted. Richelieu spoke to Capodistrias of the travails that were in store for France. Capodistrias listened to him calmly and then said:

“I have thought of an infallible means of saving your country today. Tomorrow will be too late. Do you want to hear it?”

“Of course,” replied Richelieu.

Capodistrias went to the adjoining room and dictated to his secretary Alexandros Stourtzas a letter, supposedly from Louis XVIII to the Czar. The letter said that Louis preferred to lay down his crown for the Allies to take rather than surrender France to them, dismembered and humiliated.

Richelieu took the letter and gave it to the King, who copied it in his own hand. The next day Stourtzas handed it over to the already forewarned Czar at the time he was taking his seat for negotiations with the Allies. “As I expected,” announced the Czar in feigned consternation. (Napoleon had been the first to perceive Alexander’s histrionic talents.) “We are now in greater disgrace than ever. Louis has abdicated and he is right to do so. France is without a king. Find me another if you can. As for me, I wash my hands of it. The time has come for me to go home and for an end to be put to all this.[1]”

The decisiveness of Alexander’s intervention caused general bewilderment. His anger quietened the passions against France. It was this day, this moment, that saved France from disaster. It was saved by the perspicacity of the Corfiot count and the histrionic talents of the man Napoleon characterized as the greatest actor of the East (and with whom, as he also said, if he had been a woman, he would most certainly have had an affair).

Testimonies

This little story is, or should be, of the utmost significance for the French. If this intervention had not taken place, their country would not be what it is today. If it had not been for the policies that Capodistrias outlined to the Czar, which led three years later to the definitive reintegration of France into the conclave of the Great Powers, France would today be a small country, like Belgium, with a glorious revolutionary past. And Europe would have been racked by dozens of wars prior to the great wars triggered by Germany in the following century.

Richelieu wrote to the Czar on 1st October 1815: “It is to your powerful intervention that we owe the softening of position that we have achieved. I know that Count Capodistrias went beyond his brief. I take the liberty of petitioning Your Majesty not to disown him.”

And Count Molé, too, wrote in his memoirs: “If France is still France, it owes it to three men, whose names should never be forgotten. To Alexander and his two ministers Capodistrias and Pozzo di Borgo.[2]”

The reward

There is no doubt that apart from his purely diplomatic but ingenious perception of the position of France in the balance of power that would bring peace to the continent, Capodistrias also had other expectations with the stance he adopted towards that country. He believed that in the coming insurrection that was planned for Greece, French assistance would be forthcoming. France would be a counterweight to the negative attitude of Britain. History fully justified this expectation.

It is not known whether Richelieu and Louis were aware of this plan. It may well be because of this that they offered him more tangible rewards. Louisofferedhimgold. ButCapodistriasdeclined. He requested only duplicate copies of the books in French libraries with ancient Greek texts. He wanted to send them to Corfu, to the library he planned to establish.

His offer was accepted but it was never acted on, as far as we know. Instead of that, the succeeding French dynasty took care to initiate, together with the English and the Greek “kotsambasides”, the project of assassinating the Greek Governor, seventeen years later. One of the two assassins, George Mavromichalis, took refuge in the French embassy, as had been agreed prior to the murder.

Today it is more necessary than ever that these events should become known to the people of France. Perhaps because it is the duty of history to reinstate the truth, even if this should happen only two hundred years later. Perhaps because the peoples of Europe should learn that the existence of one also serves the existence of the other, and that the continent has never gained from the ruin of one of its members. Perhaps simply so that the bequest should finally proceed and a “Ioannis Capodistrias” library open in Corfu.

Panagiotis Paspaliaris

 

[1] P. Stourtza –Edling. Memoires, Moscou,1888, pp. 244-250

[2] A Corsican diplomat in the service of the Czar, who helped Capodistrias achieve the definitive return of France to the great powers of the Continent.

Συνέλευση Ανεξάρτητων Πολιτών

Posted on by

Δεν μπορεί να προτείνεται η άμεση δημοκρατία ως μονοπώλιο. Χρειάζεται να συνυπάρχει, στην πραγματικότητα να ΑΝΤΑΓΩΝΙΖΕΤΑΙ την αντιπροσωπευτική δημοκρατία. Αυτό που πρέπει να φύγει από την πολιτική δεν είναι το κοινοβούλιο αλλά τα ανεξέλεγκτα (από τους πολίτες) ΜΜΕ. Δεν έχει κανένα νόημα να δημιουργηθεί REAL DEMOCRACY αν αυτή η REAL DEMOCRACY θα είναι απλώς δεύτερη πελατεία των υπαρκτών ΜΜΕ.

Συνέλευση Ανεξάρτητων Πολιτών

Οι Αγανακτισμένοι Πολίτες και οι λαϊκές συνελεύσεις δηλώνουν την υποστήριξή τους στην «αληθινή δημοκρατία», στην άμεση δημοκρατία, στην δημοκρατία των πολιτών …. οι ονομασίες είναι πολλές. Δυστυχώς όμως δεν βλέπουμε μέχρι τώρα ένα κατανοητό σχέδιο για τις μορφές που θα μπορούσε να λαμβάνει αυτή η δημοκρατία των πολιτών, ποιά να είναι η σχέση της με τις υπαρκτές μορφές της αντιπροσωπευτικής κοινοβουλευτικής δημοκρατίας, ποιές οι σχέσεις της με τις υπαρκτές μορφές της άμεσης δημοκρατίας, όπως τα δημοψηφίσματα, τις ομάδες δράσης των πολιτών, τις μη-κυβερνητικές οργανώσεις κτλ. Γίνεται αναφορά από ορισμένους στο ελβετικό μοντέλο, που βασίζεται σε δημοψηφίσματα. Το ελβετικό μοντέλο όμως δεν δίνει πειστική απάντηση στην απεριόριστη δύναμη των μέσων μαζικής ενημέρωσης. Τα ΜΜΕ μπορούν με την ίδια άνεση να επηρεάσουν το αποτέλεσμα ενός δημοψηφίσματος ή το αποτέλεσμα των εκλογών, ιδιαίτερα στη περίπτωση που το δημοψήφισμα έχει περίπλοκο ή τεχνικό περιεχόμενο.

Ποια είναι η κατάσταση στα μέσα μαζικής ενημέρωσης; Πολύ απλά, βάζουν ως προτεραιότητα την κατεργαριά και τη διαστρέβλωση. Οι πιο σημαντικές αλήθειες δεν θα ακούγονται επειδή θα πέσει blackout. Αυτό που δεν μπορεί να αποσιωπηθεί θα διαστρεβλωθεί για να εξασφαλίσει τη σύγχυση και τη μη κατανόηση σε όλους εκτός από τη μικρή μειοψηφία που μαθαίνουν με άλλο τρόπο την αλήθεια. Αντίθετα τα θέματα που προβάλλονται από τα μέσα μαζικής ενημέρωσης είναι πολύ συχνά πλαστά.

Οι πολιτικοί που βασίζονται σε αυτά τα μέσα μαζικής ενημέρωσης για την εκλογή τους και την επανεκλογή τους, δεν είναι σε θέση να επιβάλλουν τον έλεγχο. Η μόνη λύση είναι να τα παρακάμπτουμε. Στην εποχή του διαδικτύου αυτό είναι τεχνικά εφικτό εκτός εάν μελλοντικά τα κέντρα εξουσίας καταφέρουν να ελέγχουν το διαδίκτυο με τον ίδιο τρόπο που σήμερα ελέγχονται η τηλεόραση και οι εφημερίδες.

Το ζητούμενο λοιπόν, για τους πολίτες των χωρών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης είναι η θέσπιση μιας Συνέλευσης Ανεξάρτητων Πολιτών ανεξάρτητης από τα ΜΜΕ.

Οι Ανεξάρτητοι Πολίτες είναι οι πολίτες που συνεννοούνται άμεσα και χωρίς μεσολάβηση μεταξύ τους και με την πολιτική τους βάση. Δεν είναι εξαρτημένοι από μεσάζοντες οι οποίοι μπορούν όποτε θέλουν να δίνουν και να αποσύρουν την υποστήριξη, να διαστρεβλώνουν και να χειραγωγούν το περιεχόμενο. Οι πολιτικοί και οι προσωπικότητες οι οποίοι εμφανίζονται στα ΜΜΕ που δεν ελέγχονται από τους πολίτες δεν θα έπρεπε να έχουν δικαίωμα ψήφου στη Λαϊκή Συνέλευση των Ανεξάρτητων Πολιτών. Θα έπρεπε βέβαια να έχουν το δικαίωμα να είναι σύμβουλοι αν υπάρχει ζήτηση για τις συμβουλές τους, αλλά όχι να ψηφίζουν ή να αποφασίζουν. Στην πραγματικότητα μια τέτοια καινοτομία δεν θα έκανε τίποτα παρά να επαναφέρει ένα θεσμό που υπήρχε στην κλασσική δημοκρατία Westminster πριν από την εποχή των μη-κυβερνητικών οργανώσεων στη μορφή της επαγγελματικής civil service. Οι δημόσιοι υπάλληλοι υποτίθεται ότι δεν είχαν άμεση επαφή με τα μέσα μαζικής ενημέρωσης αλλά μόνο δια μέσου του αρμοδίου υπουργού. Η Συνέλευση των Ανεξάρτητων Πολιτών θα επαναφέρει και μάλιστα η ίδια θα αναλάβει, ορισμένες από τις λειτουργίες των δημόσιων υπηρεσιών.

Η Λαϊκή Συνέλευση θα ανταγωνίζεται το πολυκομματικό αντιπροσωπευτικό κοινοβούλιο δια μέσου ενός δημοψηφίσματος που να διοργανώνεται ας πούμε κάθε πέντε χρόνια το οποίο θα καθορίζει αν οι νομοθετικές εξουσίες για την επόμενη πενταετία θα είναι στα χέρια του πολυκομματικού κοινοβουλίου ή της Λαϊκής Συνέλευσης. Όποιο νομοθετικό σώμα έχανε το δημοψήφισμα για μεταμορφωθεί σε συμβουλευτικό, όχι σε νομοθετικό, όργανο. Σε περίπτωση που η Λαϊκή Συνέλευση κερδίσει σε πανεθνικό (ή πανευρωπαϊκό) δημοψήφισμα, αυτό θα σημαίνει ότι οι εξουσίες σε κάθε κατώτερο επίπεδο (εθνικό) περιφερειακό, τοπικό, θα περάσει στα χέρια της τοπικής Λαϊκής Συνέλευσης. Εκείνοι που χάνουν εθνικά (ή πανευρωπαϊκά) θα έχουν το δικαίωμα να κάνουν έφεση στο (εθνικό) περιφερειακό και τοπικό επίπεδο ώστε να δοκιμάζεται στο κατώτερο επίπεδο τη σχετική δύναμη των μορφών της δημοκρατίας.

Ο αρχηγός του κράτους της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης θα πρέπει να ψηφίζεται από ένα σώμα εκλεκτόρων που απαρτίζεται από τους αρχηγούς κρατών των κρατών-μελών και από αντιπροσώπους ή από τα κοινοβούλια ή από τις συνελεύσεις των ανεξαρτήτων πολιτών, όποιοι διαθέτουν την εντολή. Αυτό θα έλυνε ένα σημαντικό πρόβλημα που σήμερα μειώνει τη νομιμότητα των πανευρωπαϊκών θεσμών αφού σήμερα τα εθνικά κοινοβούλια αντιμετωπίζονται, αδικαιολόγητα, σαν να ήταν φορείς της εθνικής κυριαρχίας των κρατών μελών.

Θα έπρεπε να ξεκαθαρίζει η Συνέλευση των Ανεξάρτητων Πολιτών ότι δεν είναι πολιτικό κόμμα. Η κομματική ταυτότητα των μελών της Συνέλευσης θα πρέπει να είναι ιδιωτική υπόθεση όπως είναι σήμερα το θρήσκευμα σε λειτουργικό κοσμικό πολίτευμα. Θα πρέπει να υπάρχει δικαστήριο που να κρίνει αν η συμπεριφορά ενός μέλους της Λαϊκής Συνέλευσης παραβιάζει αυτό τον κανόνα. Όποιος στη Λαϊκή Συνέλευση συμπεριφέρεται με κομματικό τρόπο θα υποχρεωθεί να αποσυρθεί από τη Λαϊκή Συνέλευση και να πολιτεύεται δια μέσου των πολυκομματικών θεσμών, δηλαδή ως παραδοσιακός πολυκομματικός πολιτικός.

Ορίστε λοιπόν μια εικόνα για το πώς θα μπορούσε να λειτουργεί μια Συνέλευση των Ανεξάρτητων Πολιτών. Τίποτα δεν εμποδίζει τους πολίτες να ξεκινήσουν με τη δημιουργία μιας τέτοιας συνέλευσης και να ζητήσουν να έχει και εξουσίες. Πανευρωπαϊκά, σύμφωνα με το Άρθρο 11, παρ. 4 της Συνθήκης της Λισαβόνας « Πολίτες της Ένωσης, εφόσον συγκεντρωθεί αριθμός τουλάχιστον ενός εκατομμυρίου, υπήκοοι σημαντικού αριθμού κρατών μελών, μπορούν να λαμβάνουν την πρωτοβουλία να καλούν την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή, στο πλαίσιο των αρμοδιοτήτων της, να υποβάλλει κατάλληλες προτάσεις επί θεμάτων στα οποία οι εν λόγω πολίτες θεωρούν ότι απαιτείται νομική πράξη της Ένωσης για την εφαρμογή των Συνθηκών.»

Γ.Χ.

ΠΗΓΗ

Le bienfaiteur de la France

Posted on by

Napoléon a réussi à exporter la révolution française en Europe ainsi que certaines de ses admirables réalisations. A Aboukir, à Austerlitz, à Iéna, à Borodino il a vaincu l’hégémonie du vieil ordre européen, parfois de façon retentissante, parfois avec des pertes considérables. Certains de ces souverains ont modifié leur mode de pensée et ont adopté les idées et principes français, ils ont également relancé un coup crucial à Leipzig le 19 octobre 1813.

Lors de la conférence de la paix qui a fait suite à cet événement, les vainqueurs n’ont pas choisi d’écraser la France: ils ont envoyé Bonaparte en exil. Cependant tout a changé quand ce corse s’est évadé de l’île d’Elbe et que le 18juin 1815 il a dirigé une nouvelle armée contre ses ennemis unis. Il s’agit des cent jours des dernières actions du destructeur de notre continent.

 

Le général Blücher et Talleyrand

Au cours de l’été 1815, les Prusses et leurs alliés sont entrés dans Paris. Le général Von Blücher a provoqué l’explosion du pont Iéna sur la Seine, qui avait été construit afin de rappeler au monde la défaite humiliante des Prusses par les français en 1806. Le premier ministre de France, Talleyrand, qui avait repris ses fonctions, a menacé via un émissaire qu’il allait se tenir au milieu du pont afin d’empêcher le général allemand de l’exploser.

Blücher a un peu réfléchi et ensuite il a dit à ses soldats d’attendre que Talleyrand soit arrivé au milieu du pont avant de l exploser. Depuis cet événement les français ont donné le nom de Blücher à leur chien sanguinaire. En revanche, il considère Talleyrand comme leur bienfaiteur puisque, grâce à ses habiles manœuvres diplomatiques, il a empêché le démantèlement de la France. Voilà, tout du moins, ce que l’on enseigne dans les écoles françaises. La vérité est que durant cette époque critique pour la France les historiens pensent aujourd’hui que la théorie de Talleyrand “bienfaiteur “, sur la base d’un texte de l’époque, montre que son amour des intrigues et son charme malicieux n’était plus à la mode. Il a menacé les alliés de démissioner si la France était démantelée. Cela n’importait pas les alliés et le monarque bourbon a accepté sa démission.

 

Le cinquième duc de Richelieu 

Armand Emanuel du Plessis, cinquième duc de Richelieu, a eu une longue relation avec les rois “légitimes” de France, comme son nom l’indique. Il a quitté la France après la révolution et est entré au service de l’empereur de Russie. Ce dernier l’a chargé parmi d’autres tâches, de fonder la ville d’Odessa. Son talent organisationnel était bien supérieur à la moyenne. Désormais, une métropole russe rayonnante dominerait la mer noire pour les siècles à venir.

Richelieu est rentré en France avec les Bourbons et a assumé la fonction de premier ministre après Talleyrand. Totalement désespéré, il est allé dans les appartements qu’occupait le tsar quand il était en France. On venait de lui annoncé le démantèlement du pays tant au niveau territorial qu’économique. Il a été reçu par le jeune confident d’Alexandre I, le comte Ioannis Capodistria qu’apparemment il connaissait bien. Richelieu a parlé à Capodistria des blessures qui allaient toucher la France. Capodistria l’a écouté calmement puis a dit:

“J’ai pensé à un moyen infaillible de sauver votre pays aujourd’hui. Demain, ce sera trop tard. Désirez-vous l’entendre ?”

“Bien sûr” a répondu Richelieu.

Capodistria est allé dans la pièce attenante et a dicté à son secrétaire Alexandros Stourtzas une lettre, supposée être de Louis XVIII au tsar. La lettre nous informe que Louis préférait déposer sa couronne aux alliés plutôt que de leur donner  la France démantelée et humiliée.

Richelieu a pris la lettre et l’a donnée au roi qui l’a recopiée de sa propre main. Le jour suivant, Stourtzas l’a remise au tsar, qui était prévenu, au moment où celui-ci négociait avec les alliés.

“Comme je m’y attendais” déclara-t-il apparemment consterné. (Napoléon a été le premier à s’apercevoir du talent d’acteur d’Alexandre.) “Maintenant nous sommes plus humiliés que jamais. Louis a abdiqué et il a raison. La France n’a plus de roi. Trouvez-m’en un autre si vous pouvez. Quant à moi, je m’en lave les mains. Le temps est venu de rentrer chez moi et d’en finir avec tout ça.”

La détermination d’Alexandre a provoqué un étonnement général. Sa colère a calmé les passions contre la France. C’est ce jour-là, à ce moment précis que la France a été sauvée du désastre. Elle a été sauvée grâce à la lucidité du comte de Corfou et le talent d’acteur de l’homme que Napoléon qualifiait du plus grand comédien de l’est (et avec lequel, disait-il, si c’était une femme j’aurais certainement eu une relation avec elle).

 

Témoignages 

Cette petite histoire est, ou devrait être, très importante pour les français. Si cette intervention n’avait pas eu lieu, leur pays ne serait pas ce qu’il est aujourd’hui. S’il n’y avait pas eu la politique de Capodistria adressée au tsar, laquelle a conduit trois ans plus tard à la réintégration de la France dans le conclave des grandes puissances. La France serait aujourd’hui un petit pays comme la Belgique cependant avec un glorieux passé révolutionnaire. Et l’Europe aurait été ravagée par des dizaines de guerres avant les grandes guerres causées par l’Allemagne durant le siècle suivant.

Richelieu a écrit au tsar le 1er octobre 1815. C’est grâce à votre déterminante intervention que nous devons l’allègement des conditions. Je sais que le comte Capodistriaétait hors de son mandat. Je prends la liberté de supplier votre majesté de ne pas le désavouer “.

De même, le comte Molé a écrit dans ses mémoires: “Si la France est toujours la France, elle le doit à trois hommes dont les noms ne devrait jamais être oubliés, à Alexandre et ses deux ministres, Capodistria et Pozzo di Borgo.

 

La récompense 

Il n’y a pas de doute que, outre sa perception purement diplomatique et ingénieuse concernant la position de la France dans l’équilibre des pouvoirs qui apporterait la paix dans le continent, Capodistria avait également d’autres attentes quant à sa position envers ce pays. Il pensait que, en ce qui concerne l’insurrection planifiée en Grèce, l’aide de la France serait la bienvenue. La France serait le contre poidsà l’attitude négative de l’Angleterre. L’histoire a pleinement justifié cette attente.

Nous ne savons pas si Richelieu et Louis connaissaient ce plan. C’est peut êtreà cause de cela qu’ils lui ont offert des récompenses plus tangibles. Louis lui a offert de l’or, mais Capodistria a refusé. Il a uniquement demandé des copies de livres de textes en ancien grec qui se trouvaient dans des bibliothèques françaises. Il désirait les envoyer à Corfou pour la bibliothèque qu’il projetait de construire.

Son offre a été acceptée mais n’a jamais été réalisée, d’après ce que nous savons. Au lieu de cela, la dynastie suivante française a pris soin d’entreprendre, avec les anglais et les “Kotsambasides” grecs, le projet d’assassiner le gouverneur grec, dix sept années plus tard. L’un des deux assassins, George Mavromichalis, a trouvé refuge à l’ambassade de France comme cela avait été convenu avant le meurtre.

Aujourd’hui, il est plus nécessaire que jamais que ces événements soient connus du peuple français. Car, peut-être c’est le devoir de l’histoire de rétablir la vérité, même si cela arrive deux cent ans plus tard. Peut-être aussi car les peuples d’Europe doivent apprendre que l’existence de l’un sert l’existence de l’autre et que le continent n’a jamais rien gagné des ruines de l’un de ses membres. Peut-être simplement pour que cette donation soit exécutée et que la nouvelle bibliothèque “Ioannis Capodistrias” ouvre à Corfou.

Panagiotis Paspaliaris