> > We have already seen how
> > democracy has been subordinated to the imperatives of the
>corporate/military
> > industrial complex in the US, how it has been undermined by
>supra-national
> > agencies like the EU and the WTO
dredmond at efn.org responded that:
>The EU has actually been one of the few bodies which has spurred
>significant
>political and economic democratization across the globe. I'm not talking
>about
>the ECB, but about the European Parliament, the EU social charter, intra-EU
>social networks and unions, independent civic groups, and a feisty media
>culture
>imbued with plebian, anti-capitalist impulses (e.g. Max Payne).
>
>-- DRR
Joe Wanzala replies:-
In response, I offer these excerpts from and links to the following article:-
posted on StateWatch, an non-profit group monitoring the state and civil liberties in the European Union. It is an article looking at some issues around the war on terrorism and its impact on civil liberties and democracy in the European Union (EU).
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/WarOnTerror/EULiberties.asp
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/sep/analysis13.htm.
The war on freedom and democracy an analysis of the effects on civil liberties and democratic culture in the EU By Tony Bunyan Posted by Statewatch 6 September 2002
The state of the "European" democratic culture, is even weaker than that at the national level. There is: i) a lack of informed scrutiny by parliaments and civil society of new measures introduced; ii) there are no mechanisms in place to monitor the practices (implementation) that flow from new measures; iii) there is no real freedom of information; iv) no real involvement of independent civil society (by which I mean groups not funded by the institutions); and finally, v) a quiescent, compliant, media.
The most critical area of EU activity, the one that most affects peoples' liberties, is the field of EU justice and home affairs, the so-called "area of freedom, security and justice". Its origins lie in the "Trevi" period. The Trevi acquis, 1976-1993, was incorporated into the Maastricht acquis,(4) 1993-1999. The Trevi and Maastricht acquis, together with the Schengen acquis (1985-1999), were bequeathed to the Amsterdam period acquis.(5)...What characterises this whole swathe of measures, and resulting practices, is that there was virtually no meaningful parliamentary scrutiny, let alone the chance for civil society to have any say or influence.
From well before 11 September there was evidence in the EU that democratic standards were slipping on issues like civil liberties, data protection, scrutiny and accountability, legal protections and the rights of refugees and asylum-seekers fleeing from poverty and oppression.
We have, in effect, an EU "democracy" built on sand. A democracy which has little meaningful legitimacy. Thus there was in place a democratic culture which was very poorly placed to resist the kind of attacks on liberties and rights we are now witnessing.
The emerging EU state is indeed different to the national state, not just because it exercises cross-border powers, but rather because even traditional, and often ineffective, liberal democratic means of control, scrutiny and accountability of state agencies and practices are not in place nor is there any political will to introduce them.
The US-EU Bush letter When we look back at this period one of the most significant documents will be the letter from Bush to the EU dated 16 October 2001. This presented a series of 47 demands for EU-US cooperation against "terrorism" - many did not concern "terrorism" but rather crime and immigration.
They included the exchange of telecommunications data, the direct exchange of personal data with Europol, the establishment of common border control policies including data on asylum-seekers and a new category of "inadmissibles" to be refused entry by the US and the EU.(11)
Since 16 October there have been dozens of meetings between EU and US officials in both continents and US (and Canadian) officials are sitting in on numerous EU working party meetings on immigration and asylum, standard forms for reporting, transit plans (whereby the US deports people to Asia and Africa via EU airports). border management, Europol, policing, cybercrime and drugs.
Despite the widely reported differences between the EU and the USA on how to prosecute the "war on terrorism" at the international level we are seeing in practice an entirely new level of EU-US cooperation on internal security. This represents a partial shift from informal transgovernmentalism (meetings in secret international fora) to the formalisation of cooperation between the EU and the USA.(12) We are witnessing the creation of a "northern axis" with a common internal security policy. The USA is, in effect, the 16th member of the EU.(13)
A. Sivanandan, Director of the Institute of Race Relations, says:
"Globalisation has set up a monolithic economic system; September 11 threatens to engender a monolithic political culture. Together, they spell the end of civil society"
He is absolutely right, we are seeing a "sea change" - the forging of a new global hegemony similar but quite different to that of the Cold War era....It is also important to situate the new ideology in the EU's political landscape because there is a dreadful conjuncture between new repressive measures post 11 September and the rise of racist and fascist political parties across Europe.(15)
There was a time when there were 12 social democratic governments as against three from the right but that time is long gone. Now nine are from the right or extreme-right and six from the centre to so-called centre-left (UK, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Belgium and Greece). Not only has the EU as a whole moved to the right but, in reaction to the rise of racist parties in electoral politics, the social democrats have demonstrably shifted to the right too on immigration, migrants rights and monoculturalism. The racists (and fascists), rather than being disowned, have found their views embraced by EU governments in order to retain power.
Is it possible for a "democracy" to slide into lawlessness? Most of the
checks and balances laid down and the role of the courts are geared to
ensuring that the "law" is properly implemented. But what if the new laws
themselves are antithetical to democratic values? The checks and balances
are still in place and the courts too but these cannot be guarantors of the
legitimacy of excessive laws - that is, laws which remove basic rights.
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
_________________________________________________________________ Want to check if your PC is virus-infected? Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963