Overblog Suivre ce blog
Administration Créer mon blog

Profil

  • JJS
  • Membre/Member, NTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (2014~2016); Membre/Member, NetMundial Initiative Coordination Council (déc. 2014~2016); ICANN/ALAC (2010~14); ICANN Board (2007-10); diplomat(e) (1971-2005); ambassadeur/dor (1995-2005). Gouvernance; défis globaux / Governance; global challenges.
  • Membre/Member, NTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (2014~2016); Membre/Member, NetMundial Initiative Coordination Council (déc. 2014~2016); ICANN/ALAC (2010~14); ICANN Board (2007-10); diplomat(e) (1971-2005); ambassadeur/dor (1995-2005). Gouvernance; défis globaux / Governance; global challenges.

Rechercher / Search

19 mai 2017 5 19 /05 /mai /2017 11:02

Man findet die deutsche und englische Versionen weiter unten.

You will find the German and English versions below the French version.

 

Lettre à mes proches : l'Europe demain

par Roland Stalder, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Daniel Marthaler *

 

Lettre 2

« Dover and out!1 », un cas d'amnésie

18 mai 2017

Le 29 mars 2017, Theresa May, première ministre britannique, a fait remettre au Conseil européen, la décision du Royaume Uni de se retirer de l'UE2. Les pourparlers entre Londres et Bruxelles devront aboutir dans un délai de deux ans. Pour ses promoteurs, Brexit est la suite logique de ce que Margaret Thatcher réclamait à ses collègues européens en 1979, « I want my money back »3. Trente-huit ans plus tard, une majorité de Britanniques s'est laissée convaincre que l'UE est essentiellement une affaire d'argent, et qu'une conspiration européenne a privé le Royaume Uni de sa souveraineté. Les faits historiques sont sensiblement différents.

 

Pour les principaux artisans de la construction européenne, Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, Konrad Adenauer, Alcide de Gasperi et d'autres, l'objectif était de reconstruire une Europe ravagée, mais aussi d'éviter de nouvelles guerres. Monnet, convaincu que le meilleur moyen de préserver la paix était de créer une solidarité de fait entre Etats, proposa de lancer une Communauté charbon et acier, première mouture de l'EU. De son côté, Winston Churchill faisait le même constat en 1946 : « Nous devons ériger quelque chose comme les États-Unis d’Europe (…). J'en viens maintenant à une déclaration qui va vous étonner. Le premier pas vers une nouvelle formation de la famille européenne doit consister à faire de la France et de l'Allemagne des partenaires »4.

 

Comme on le voit, l'origine de l'UE se trouve bien dans la volonté de relever l'Europe de ses ruines, et de créer entre nations européennes une solidarité capable de préserver la paix. La France et la République fédérale d'Allemagne, conscientes de leur responsabilité à cet égard, ont lancé un partenariat qui, encore aujourd'hui, constitue une pièce maîtresse de la construction européenne.

 

Fait moins connu, c'est d'abord aux autorités britanniques que Monnet proposa un partenariat de grande ampleur. En 1939, peu après la conclusion de l'alliance militaire entre l'Allemagne et l'Italie, Monnet mit au point un plan de fusion des industries militaires de la France et du Royaume Uni, que De Gaulle et Churchill acceptèrent ; ils le nommèrent d'ailleurs conseiller auprès du président Roosevelt pour coordonner la fourniture de matériel militaire par les Etats-Unis pour combattre l'Allemagne nazie. En 1943, en pleine guerre, Monnet envisageait déjà un projet européen : « Il n'y aura pas de paix en Europe si les Etats se reconstituent sur une base de souveraineté nationale avec ce que cela entraîne de politique de prestige et de protection économique. Si les pays d'Europe se protègent à nouveau les uns contre les autres, la constitution de vastes armées sera à nouveau nécessaire »5.

 

Une fois la paix restaurée, Monnet poursuivit son idée : en mars 1949, il soumit aux ministres des finances britannique et français un plan de fusion entre les deux principales économies européennes de l'époque. Fin 1949, dans un contexte d'instabilité gouvernementale et monétaire à Paris, Londres donna finalement une réponse négative6.

 

C'est de l'échec de ce projet franco-britannique qu'est né le plan, bien plus ambitieux, d'une communauté européenne. Monnet en fit part à Robert Schuman, ministre français des affaires étrangères, et ensemble ils présentèrent le “plan Schuman” aux autorités de la République fédérale d'Allemagne, qui l'approuvèrent. Le 9 mai 1950, Schuman déclara devant de nombreux dirigeants européens réunis dans le Salon de l'horloge, quai d'Orsay à Paris : « L’Europe ne se fera pas d’un coup, ni dans une construction d’ensemble : elle se fera par des réalisations concrètes créant d’abord des solidarités de fait. Le rassemblement des nations européennes exige que l’opposition séculaire de la France et de l’Allemagne soit éliminée. L’action entreprise doit toucher au premier chef la France et l’Allemagne »7.

 

Les grandes étapes suivantes sont bien connues8. La signature par les six Etats fondateurs du Traité de Rome (1957) établissant la Communauté économique européenne (CEE), proposait la réduction progressive des barrières tarifaires, l'établissement d'une union douanière, la création d'un marché unique pour les biens, le travail, les services et les capitaux. Pour gérer cet ensemble, les Six créèrent la Commission européenne ; ils ébauchèrent aussi des « politiques communes » couvrant l'agriculture et les transports. Chacune des étapes suivantes était censée répondre au besoin de renforcer le nouvel ensemble européen, en facilitant les échanges entre ses membres et en harmonisant les grands secteurs de l'économie.

 

Mais dès le début, certains ont eu pour l'Europe une ambition fédéraliste, tandis que d'autres voulaient s'en tenir à un simple marché commun. A elle seule, cette divergence entre deux visions explique les chemins sinueux suivis, de la CEE d'hier à l'UE d'aujourd'hui. Dès la fin du 19ème siècle, un intellectuel suisse, Jacob Christoph Burckhardt, mettait en garde contre une uniformisation du continent : « Il faut protéger l'Europe du danger d'une unité politique, religieuse et sociale qui menacerait sa spécificité, la richesse de son esprit »9.

 

Une étape significative est franchie en 1973, lorsque les Six accueillent le Danemark, l'Irlande et le Royaume-Uni. Il faut noter que le président De Gaulle s'était opposé deux fois à l'entrée du Royaume-Uni, lui qui avait à l'esprit ce mot de Churchill durant la guerre, "Entre l'Europe et le grand large, l'Angleterre choisira toujours le grand large"10. Mais en 1972, le président Pompidou accepta les conditions formulées par Edward Heath, premier ministre britannique. On comprend l'attrait que pouvait présenter à l'époque, notamment pour Paris, la puissance industrielle, monétaire, financière et militaire du Royaume-Uni. Souvenons-nous qu'en pleine guerre froide, il s'agissait aussi pour la CEE de se démarquer des deux grands blocs contrôlés par Moscou et Washington. Mais comme l'a souligné la campagne du référendum du Brexit en 2016, Londres a toujours considéré l'ensemble européen non comme un projet d'envergure, mais comme un simple marché commun. Londres a toujours réservé sa vision stratégique, celle du long terme, à sa « relation spéciale » avec Washington, et avec l'OTAN en ce qui concerne la sécurité et la défense collective.

 

Les étapes suivantes ont souligné les hésitations des dirigeants européens, entre l'approfondissement du projet européen (consolidation des institutions et des mécanismes communs), et l'élargissement (accueil de nouveaux Etats-membres). Depuis longtemps Washington, aidé en cela notamment par Londres et Ankara, prônait un élargissement de l'UE, dans le but de contenir ce concurrent économique, mais aussi dans l'idée de tenir en échec une Europe de la défense qui, à ses yeux, affaiblirait l'Alliance atlantique dirigée par Washington.

 

A certaines périodes, des capitales européennes ont eu leurs propres raisons pour poursuivre l'élargissement, et même pour l'accélérer : dans la dernière partie du 20ème siècle ce fut notamment l'attitude de Berlin, soucieuse d'avoir des amis dans l'environnement géopolitique incertain créé par l'implosion de l'Union soviétique. L'Allemagne, réunifiée depuis peu, voulait surtout un voisinage stable, autour de la mer Baltique et dans les Balkans. D'autres capitales étaient conscientes qu'un élargissement à marche forcée creuserait les écarts dans de nombreux domaines : solidité des institutions démocratiques, indépendance de la justice, capacités financière et budgétaire, fiabilité des systèmes de sécurité et de défense ... Dans le même temps, la plupart des nouveaux membres souhaitaient être admis aussi dans le système monétaire européen, la « zone Euro ». La grande variété des situations, d'un pays à l'autre, risquait de nuire à la cohésion de l'UE qui, aujourd'hui encore, continue de faire face aux conséquences du choix d'élargir avant de consolider. La crise monétaire, financière, économique et sociale en Grèce en est un exemple frappant. Les mouvements migratoires de Bulgarie vers les pays plus prospères de l'UE en est un autre exemple.

 

Depuis le début du 21ème siècle l'UE, tout occupée à son élargissement et à la gestion de différentes crises, a été moins attentive à d'autres aspects pourtant importants de son projet, et qui restent en chantier : rôle crucial de la culture pour nourrir la démocratie, effort concerté pour l'éducation et l'apprentissage, défense et sécurité européenne, harmonisation fiscale, portabilité des compétences et des cotisations sociales, harmonisation du contrôle des frontières, harmonisation des règles et des capacités d'accueil des migrants... Ce sont là quelques-uns des sujets que l'UE aura à traiter dans les années à venir. Elle devra également contribuer à relever des défis globaux : possible nouvel isolationnisme des Etats-Unis ; montée en puissance de la Chine, de l'Inde, de la Turquie, du Brésil, de l'Indonésie ; nouvelles alliances conclues ou recherchées par la Russie ; extension probable de guerres asymétriques11 caractérisées par la violence aveugle commise au nom de convictions religieuses ; recul des droits humains à grande échelle ; persécution de femmes ; non-scolarisation d'enfants ; nécessité de gérer de manière globale des ressources essentielles comme l'eau potable ; devoir de continuer à assurer la maîtrise des armes de destruction massive ABC (atomiques, biologiques, chimiques) ; mise en œuvre des résolutions du COP21 pour éviter des catastrophes climatique et écologique.

 

Le projet européen trouve son origine dans le passé : il s'agissait avant tout de reconstruire des pays dévastés et d'empêcher le retour de la guerre. Mais quel bilan peut-on dresser de ses actions ? C'est ce que la prochaine lettre se propose d'examiner.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Les auteurs s'expriment ici à titre personnel et leurs opinions ne prétendent pas refléter les positions d'entités avec lesquelles ils pourraient avoir des liens. R. Stalder, citoyen suisse, ingénieur, a occupé des postes de direction en entreprise. J.-J. Subrenat, citoyen français, est un ancien diplomate. A partir d'un plan détaillé en français rédigé par Subrenat, la version en allemand a été rédigée par Stalder et révisée par Marthaler. La version en anglais, rédigée par Subrenat, a été revue par Carole Sunderland. Chacun assume la responsabilité pour sa version.

1   Pour célébrer le divorce annoncé entre le Royaume-Uni et l'UE, le quotidien britannique The Sun du 29 mars 2017 a fait un photomontage, projetant sur une falaise de Douvres le slogan « Dover and out », https://ricochet.com/419385/dover-uk-tabloid-celebrates-brexit-grand-style/

3  Article dans Le Monde : http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2005/05/11/30-novembre-1979-margaret-thatcher-i-want-my-money-back_648386_3214.html . Le compte rendu complet du Sommet des chefs d'Etat et de gouvernement de la Communauté économique européenne, Dublin, septembre 1979 : http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=104180

4  Discours à l'Université de Zurich, 19 septembre 1946, http://mjp.univ-perp.fr/textes/churchill19091946.htm

6  Jean Monnet, Mémoires, pp. 329-332

9  Jacob Christoph Burckardt, Historische Fragmente, aus dem Nachlass gesammelt von Emir Dürr. Stuttgart Berlin, Deutsche Verlagsanstalt 1942.

 

Repost 0
Published by JJS
commenter cet article
19 mai 2017 5 19 /05 /mai /2017 10:58

Man findet die deutsche und englische Versionen weiter unten.

You will find the German and English versions below the French version.

 

Briefe an meine Freunde – Das Europa von morgen

von Roland Stalder, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Daniel Marthaler *

 

2.Brief

« Dover and out » 1 oder der Verlust des Gedächtnisses

18.05.2017

Am 29. März 2017 überreichte Theresa May, die britische Premierministerin, dem Europäischen Rat den Brief mit der Entscheidung des Vereinigten Königreichs, aus der EU austreten zu wollen.2 Die Verhandlungen zwischen der EU und dem Vereinigten Königreich sollten in 2 Jahren abgeschlossen werden. Für seine Befürworter ist der Brexit die logische Fortsetzung dessen, was bereits Margret Thatcher 1979 von ihren europäischen Kollegen forderte: «I want my money back»3. Im Verlauf von 38 Jahren wurde die britische Bevölkerung davon überzeugt, die EU sei nur eine Angelegenheit des Geldes, und dass eine Verschwörung das Vereinigte Königreich um seine Souveränität gebracht hätte. Die historischen Tatsachen belegen allerdings etwas anderes.

 

Für die Gründerväter der EU, Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, Konrad Adenauer, Alcide de Gasperi und andere, war das wichtigste Ziel nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg, das zerstörte Europa neu aufzubauen und den Frieden zu sichern. Das beste Mittel, den Frieden zu erhalten, so war Monnet überzeugt, sei es, Solidarität zwischen den Staaten zu schaffen. Er schlug vor, die Montanunion, die Europäische Gemeinschaft für Kohle und Stahl, zu schaffen. Auf der anderen Seite des Kanals kam Winston Churchill zum gleichen Schluss: « Wir müssen etwas wie die Vereinigten Staaten von Europa schaffen (…). Der erste Schritt zur Gründung einer europäischen Familie, diese Aussage wird sie erstaunen, besteht darin, Frankreich und Deutschland zu Partnern zu machen».4

 

Wie wir sehen, liegt der Ursprung der EU im Willen, Europa aus seinen Ruinen zu befreien und zwischen den Nationen eine Solidarität zu schaffen, stark genug, um den Frieden zu erhalten. Frankreich und die Bundesrepublik Deutschland waren sich ihrer Verantwortung bewusst und entwickelten eine Partnerschaft, welche noch heute das Fundament der EU darstellt.

 

Weniger bekannt ist, dass Monnet zuerst dem Vereinigten Königreich eine weitreichende Partnerschaft vorgeschlagen hatte. 1939, kurz nach dem Abschluss des Stahlpaktes, des militärischen Bündnisses zwischen dem deutschen Reich und Italien, entwickelte Monnet den Plan, die Militärindustrie des Vereinigten Königreichs und Frankreichs zu verschmelzen, ein Plan der von Churchill und Roosevelt akzeptiert wurde. Sie ernannten Monnet zum Berater Roosevelts. Er sollte die militärischen Lieferungen, welche notwendig waren um Nazideutschland zu bekämpfen, koordinieren. Mitten im Krieg, im Jahre 1943, hatte Monnet bereits das europäische Projekt ins Auge gefasst: «Es wird keinen Frieden in Europa geben, wenn die Staaten auf der Basis ihrer nationalen Souveränität wieder aufgebaut werden, mit allem was nationales und politisches Prestige und wirtschaftlicher Protektionismus nach sich ziehen. Wenn sich Länder wieder gegen einander abschotten, wird der Aufbau neuer, grosser Armeen unabdingbar sein».5

 

Als wieder Frieden in Europa eingekehrt war, verfolgte Monnet seine Idee weiter: Im März 1949 unterbreitete er den Finanzministern Grossbritanniens und Frankreichs einen Fusionsplan für die zwei grössten europäischen Volkwirtschaften ihrer Zeit. Ende 1949, in einer Zeit von politischer und monetärer Instabilität in Frankreich, gab London schliesslich einen negativen Bescheid.6

 

Der Plan einer europäischen Union baute auf den Ruinen des französisch-britischen Projektes auf. Er war auch wesentlich ambitiöser. Monnet besprach seinen Plan mit Robert Schuman, dem französischen Aussenminister. Beide stellten den «Schuman Plan» zuerst der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland vor, die ihn guthiess. Am 9. Mai 1950 sprach Schuman vor zahlreichen europäischen Persönlichkeiten: «Europa wird nicht auf einen Schlag gebaut. Die Grundlage werden konkrete Projekte sein, welche zuerst die Solidarität zwischen den Ländern stärken werden. Der Zusammenschluss der Nationen Europas verlangt, dass die Opposition zwischen Frankreich und Deutschland überwunden wird. Die Entscheidungen betreffen zuerst und vor allem Frankreich und Deutschland.7

 

Die weiteren Etappen des europäischen Projektes sind gut bekannt und können im Internet nachgeschlagen werden8. Die Römischen Verträge (1957) wurden von Belgien, der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Frankreich, Italien, Luxemburg und den Niederlanden unterzeichnet und begründeten die Europäische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft (EWG). Deren Ziele waren die Verminderung tarifärer Handelshemmnisse, die Gründung einer Zollunion, die Gründung eines gemeinsamen Marktes für Güter, Arbeit, Dienstleistungen und Kapital. Um das Ganze zu verwalten, gründeten die Vetragsstaaten die Europäische Kommission. Sie entwarfen eine gemeinsame Politik für Landwirtschaft und Transporte. Jeder der folgenden Schritte hatte zum Ziel, die neue europäische Gemeinschaft durch den erleichterten Austausch zwischen den Ländern und die Harmonisierung der verschiedenen wirtschaftlichen Sektoren zu stärken.

 

Seit den Anfängen der EU gab es Mitgliedstaaten mit föderalistischen Ambitionen. Andere wollten sich auf einen gemeinsamen Markt beschränken. Diese unterschiedlichen Auffassungen erklären den gewundenen Weg, der von der EWG zur heutigen EU geführt hat. Fast schon visionär hat Jakob Burckhardt die Problematik eines europäischen Projektes vorausgesehen: «Retter Europas könne nur jemand sein, der es vor der Gefahr der politisch-religiös-sozialen Einheit bewahre, die seine spezifische Eigenschaft, nämlich den Reichtum seines Geistes bedrohe».9

 

1973 erfolgte ein wichtiger Schritt als die sechs Gründerstaaten Dänemark, Irland und das Vereinigte Königreich aufnahmen. Erinnern wir uns, Charles De Gaulle weigerte sich zweimal, Grossbritannien in die EWG aufzunehmen. Er hatte das Wort Churchills in den Ohren, der während des zweiten Weltkriegs sagte: «Muss England zwischen Europa und der weiten Welt wählen, wird es sich immer für die weite Welt entscheiden».10 1972 akzeptierte Georges Pompidou die Bedingungen von Edward Heath, dem britischen Premierminister. Die industrielle, militärische und finanzielle Stärke Grossbritanniens waren attraktiv, besonders für Frankreich. Während des Kalten Krieges war es für Europa wichtig, sich neben den zwei grossen Blöcken, kontrolliert von Moskau und Washington, behaupten zu können. Die Brexit Kampagne hat 2016 schonungslos gezeigt, dass Grossbritannien die EU nie als ambitiöses europäisches Projekt verstanden hat, sondern nur als gemeinsamen Markt. London basierte seine langfristigen strategischen Visionen immer auf den «besonderen» Beziehungen mit den USA und auf der NATO für die gemeinsame Verteidigung.

 

Die weiteren Schritte der EU zeigen das Schwanken der europäischen Führer zwischen der Vertiefung des europäischen Projektes (Konsolidierung und gemeinsame Mechanismen) und der Erweiterung, der Aufnahme neuer Mitglieder. Washington, unterstützt von London und Ankara, möchte seit langem eine Erweiterung der EU mit dem Ziel, einerseits den wirtschaftlichen Konkurrenten zu schwächen, und andrerseits eine europäische Verteidigungsgemeinschaft zu verhindern, welche die NATO und damit den amerikanischen Einfluss schwächen würde.

 

Die europäischen Staaten hatten zeitweise ihre eigenen Gründe, die Erweiterung der EU zu fördern oder gar zu beschleunigen. In den letzten Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts war es Deutschland, welches nach der Implosion der Sowjetunion in einem unsicheren geopolitischen Umfeld versuchte, neue Partner zu gewinnen. Deutschland wollte nach der Vereinigung vor allem eine stabile Nachbarschaft im Baltikum und auf dem Balkan. Andere Länder waren sich im Klaren, dass eine forcierte EU Erweiterung den Graben zwischen den Staaten infolge unterschiedlicher politischer Kulturen vergrössern würde: Unterschiede der demokratische Institutionen, Unabhängigkeit der Justiz, des finanziellen und wirtschaftlichen Potenzials, der Zuverlässigkeit der Verteidigungs- und Sicherheitsorganisationen. Darüber hinaus hatten die meisten der neuen Mitgliedstaaten den Wunsch, sich der Eurozone anzuschliessen. Die EU hat noch heute Schwierigkeiten, die schädlichen Auswirkungen der unterschiedlichen Systeme und Kulturen zu verdauen. «Erweitern vor konsolidieren» war das Motto, welches heute teuer bezahlt werden muss, wie das Beispiel Griechenland und die Migration aus ärmeren Ländern in die reicheren zeigen.

 

Seit Anfang des 21. Jahrhunderts war die EU meist damit beschäftigt, sich mit ihrer Erweiterung und dem Krisenmanagement zu beschäftigen. Die anderen, wichtigeren Projekte blieben zurück oder blieben Baustellen, nämlich die entscheidende Rolle der politischen Kultur, die Anstrengungen für die Ausbildung, die europäische Sicherheit und Verteidigung, fiskale Harmonisierung, die Anerkennung von Diplomen, die Sozialbeiträge, die Harmonisierung der Grenzkontrollen, Harmonisierung von Migration und Flüchtlingsfragen. Dies sind nur einige der Probleme, welche die EU in den nächsten Jahren lösen muss. Sie ist auch mit globalen Herausforderungen konfrontiert wie dem drohenden Isolationismus der USA, dem Aufstieg Chinas und Indiens als Welt- und Wirtschaftsmächte, dem Aufstieg der Türkei, Brasiliens und Indonesiens; Russland mit seinen angestrebten neuen Allianzen. Weitere Herausforderungen sind die Ausbreitung von asymmetrischen Kriegen11, charakterisiert durch blinde Gewalt und ausgelöst durch religiösen Fanatismus; der massive Abbau der Menschenrechte, die Unterdrückung der Frauen, Kinder ohne Ausbildungsmöglichkeiten; die Ausbeutung der globalen Ressourcen wie dem Trinkwasser, die Notwendigkeit die Ausbreitung von Massenvernichtungswaffen zu beschränken, Klimaschutz, um Naturkatastrophen vorzubeugen.

 

Das europäische Projekt hat seinen Ursprung in der Vergangenheit. Es ging um den Wiederaufbau des zerstörten Europas und darum, zukünftig Kriege zu verhindern. War das Projekt erfolgreich? Dies wird der Inhalt des nächsten Briefes sein.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* Die Autoren äussern hier ihre persönliche Meinung aus. Diese steht in keinem Bezug zu Organisationen mit denen sie in Beziehung stehen könnten. R. Stalder, Schweizer Staatsbürger, Biochemiker, hat verschiedene Managementposten bekleidet. J.-J. Subrenat, französischer Staatsbürger, war Diplomat, D. Marthaler, Schweizer Staatsbürger, Biologe und Kommunikationsfachmann. Die Briefe wurden auf Französisch von Subrenat verfasst und von Stalder frei ins Deutsche übertragen und Marthaler überarbeitet. Jeder ist für seine Version verantwortlich.

1 Um das formelle Austrittsgesuch Grossbritanniens zu feiern, liess das europakritische britische Boulevardblatt The Sun den Slogan «Dover and out» auf die Kalkklippen von Dover projizieren. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3201585/as-our-prime-minister-triggers-britains-exit-from-the-eu-we-beam-this-message-from-the-iconic-white-cliffs-of-dover-to-our-neighbours/

2 Faksimile des Briefes an die EU: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604079/Prime_Ministers_letter_to_European_Council_President_Donald_Tusk.pdf

3 Zitiert in der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung vom 29.03.2017: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/brexit/bruessel-schickt-eine-rechnung-ueber-60-milliarden-euro-14946827.html

4 Rede an der Universität Zürich vom 19. September 1946: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/brussels/website/media/Basis/Geschichte/bis1950/Pdf/Churchill_Rede_Zuerich.pdf

5 Jean Monnet Notiz, 1943 : cvce.eu/content/publication/1997/10/13/b61a8924-57bf-4890-9e4b-73bf4d882549/publishable_fr.pdf

6 Jean Monnet Mémoires pp 329 – 332

7 Deklaration, 9. Mai 1950 : https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/symbols/europe-day/schuman-declaration_de

8 Chronologische Geschichte des Europäischen Projektes: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/history_de

9 Jacob Christoph Burckhardt

10 Winston Churchill https://www.nzz.ch/feuilleton/der-brexit-in-historischer-perspektive-die-englaender-haben-ihren-eigenen-historischen-kompass-ld.104520

11 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetrische_Kriegführung

 
 
Repost 0
Published by JJS
commenter cet article
19 mai 2017 5 19 /05 /mai /2017 10:55

Letters to family & friends: Europe tomorrow

by Roland Stalder, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Daniel Marthaler *

 

Lettre 2: "Dover and out!1", a case of amnesia

18 May 2017

On the 29th of March 2017, the European Council received a letter from Prime Minister Theresa May, announcing the United Kingdom's to leave the EU2. Starting on that day, negociations between London and Brussels must be terminated within two years. For those who promoted Brexit, this is a logical move following on Margaret Thatcher's call to her European partners in 1979, "I want my money back!"3. Thirty-eight years later, a majority of the British public was persuaded that the EU is mostly about money, and was convinced that a European conspiracy had deprived the UK of its sovereignty. Historical facts do not support such a simplistic view.

 

In the minds of the main architects of the European project - Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, Konrad Adenauer, Alcide de Gasperi and others - the aim was to rebuild a devastated Europe, but also to avoid new wars. Monnet was convinced that the best way to consolidate peace was to forge a practical solidarity among nations. He put forward a plan for a Coal and Steel Community, a first iteration of what was to become the EU. Winston Churchill made a similar plea in 1946: "We must build a kind of United States of Europe.(...) I am now going to say something that will astonish you. The first step in the re-creation of the European Family must be a partnership between France and Germany."4.

 

As is clear from the above, the EU was set up because there was a will to build a new Europe on the ruins of World War 2 and to create a sense of solidarity among European nations to safeguard peace. France and the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), both acutely aware of their responsibility, launched a partnership which, even today, remains a pillar of European solidarity.

 

It is not well-known fact that Monnet presented the idea of a comprehensive partnership first of all to the UK. In 1939, shortly after the military alliance between Germany and Italy, Monnet drafted a plan to merge the military industries of France and the UK. This plan won the approval of both De Gaulle and Churchill, who then appointed Monnet as their envoy to President Roosevelt to coordinate the supply of US military equipment for the war effort in Europe against Nazi Germany. In 1943, at the height of World War 2, Monnet was busy on a new European project: "There will be no peace in Europe if the states rebuild themselves on the basis of national sovereignty, with its implications of prestige politics and economic protection…. The countries of Europe are not strong enough individually to be able to guarantee prosperity and social development for their peoples. The States of Europe must therefore form a federation or a European entity that would bind them in a common economic unit."5.

 

After the war, Monnet further developed his idea: in March 1949, he submitted a plan to the Finance ministers of Great Britain and France, calling for the merger of what were then the two main economic powers in Europe. At the end of 1949, partly because of serious political and monetary instability in Paris, London finally gave a negative response to his proposal6.

 

The failure of the project for France and Britain was the starting point of an even more ambitious plan for a European community, which Monnet shared with Robert Schuman, French minister of foreign affairs. Together, they approached the German leadership with the “Schuman Plan”, which was promptly accepted. On the 9th of May 1950, in the presence of many European leaders gathered in the Salon de l'horloge of the Foreign Ministry in Paris, Schuman made this statement: "Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity. The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition between France and Germany." 7.

 

The next stages are well known8. In 1957, the six founding members signed the Treaty of Rome establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) aimed at gradually reducing tariff barriers, setting up a customs' union, and creating a single market for goods, labour, services and capital. To manage this vast programme, the Six established the European Commission; they also set up Common Policies for agriculture and transport. And in the ensuing years, steps were taken to strengthen the new European construction by facilitating inter-EEC exchanges and by harmonizing some areas of economic activity.

 

Early on, some leaders favoured a federal Europe, while others were against anything beyond a common market. In itself, this wide difference of purpose sheds some light on the sinuous path followed from yesterday's EEC to today's EU. Already in the late 19th century Jacob Christoph Burckhardt, a Swiss intellectual, warned against the dangers of uniformity on the continent: "We must preserve Europe from the danger of a political, religious and social unity which would threaten its special character and the wealth of its spirit."9.

 

A major step was taken in 1973 when the Six welcomed Denmark, Ireland et the United Kingdom. President De Gaulle had twice opposed the entry of the UK, and he is said to have quoted Churchill in the war years, "If England has to choose between Europe and the high seas, she will always choose the high seas." 10. However, in 1972 President Pompidou accepted the conditions laid down by the British prime minister, Edward Heath. At the time, the industrial, monetary, financial and military might of the UK made it a very attractive European partner in the eyes of Paris. We must remember that during the Cold War, the EEC wanted to travel its own path between the two large blocs which were controlled by Moscow and Washington. But as the Brexit campaign in 2016 made clear, London has always viewed the European project not as a comprehensive plan, but as a tool for business opportunities. London has long set its strategic emphasis on the "special relationship" with Washington, and relied on NATO for collective security and joint defence.

 

During two decades, European leaders kept hesitating between consolidating the European project (improving joint institutions and procedures), and enlarging its membership (admitting new member states). At the same time, Washington, with the assiduous help of London and Ankara, wanted the EU to enlarge its membership, in the hope of have less econmic competition from Europe. Another intent of the US was to impede a fledgling European defence, viewed as a threat to the Atlantic Alliance and to US leadership.

 

There were times when some European capitals had their own reasons for enlargement, or even to accelerate it. In the late 20th century, this was the case for Germany, which was keen to live in a stable environment after the implosion of the Soviet Union. Germany wanted reliable neighbours in Eastern Europe, the Baltic area, and the Balkans. Other EU members were aware that a speedy enlargement would deepen the differences in the EU in many respects: the solidity of their democratic institutions, the independence of their judiciary, their financial and budget ressources, the effectiveness of their security and defence systems... Most new EU members states were also keen to join the European Monetary System and the Euro zone. The sheer variety of situations among aspiring member states threatened to jeopardize the cohesiveness of the EU, which today still has to face the consequences of enlargement without consolidation. The monetary, financial, economic and social crisis in Greece is a striking example of this. Another example is the large migration from Bulgaria towards more prosperous countries in the EU.

 

In the early 21st century, the EU was so busy with enlargement and many crises, that equally important aspects of the European project were less attended to: the key role of culture in democracy, the importance of education and vocational training, a long-term plan for European defence and security, fiscal harmonisation, the portability of professional competence and of social security benefits, harmonisation of border controls, harmonisation of immigration rules...

 

These are some of the subjects the EU will have to address in the near future. The EU and its members states will also have to face global issues: a possible new isolationist mood in the USA; the rising power of China, India, Turkey, Brazil, Indonesia; new alliances sought or concluded by Russia. The growth of Asymetric warfare11 , characterized by blind violence in the name of religious beliefs, poses great threats. The massive regression of human rights is more than disturbing. The continued persecution of women requires redress. Many young are still deprived of proper education. Some essential resources, such as fresh water, will need to be managed globally. ABC (Atomic, Biological, Chemical) Arms of Mass Destruction need to come under an even tighter and reliable control. And implementing the resolutions of COP-21 is an urgent duty in order to avoid climate and ecological catastrophes.

 

The European project is grounded in the past: its original purpose was to rebuild devastated countries and to avoid the recurrence of war. But what does the balance sheet of its actions look like? The next Letter will examine that question.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  Opinions are those of the authors, and do not purport to reflect the positions of institutions or bodies to which they may be linked. R. Stalder, a Swiss national, is an engineer who has held executive positions in industry. J.-J. Subrenat, a French national, is a retired diplomat. D. Marthaler, a Swiss national, is a communications consultant. Subrenat wrote the French version, while Stalder drafted, and Marthaler reviewed the German version. The English version was drafted by Subrenat and reviewed by Carole Sunderland. Each assumes responsibility for his linguistic version.

1   In order to celebrate the announced between the UK and the EU, the Brisith daily The Sun, dated 29 March 2017, published a photo-montage projected on a Dover cliff, with the slogan "Dover and out!", https://ricochet.com/419385/dover-uk-tabloid-celebrates-brexit-grand-style/

3  BBC, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-11598879  . A complete report on the Summit of Heads of State and Government of the EEC, Dublin, September 1979 : http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=104180

4  Speech at the University of Zurich, 19 September 1946, http://mjp.univ-perp.fr/textes/churchill19091946.htm

6  Jean Monnet, Mémoires, pp. 329-332

9 Jacob Christoph Burckardt, Historische Fragmente, aus dem Nachlass gesammelt von Emir Dürr. Stuttgart Berlin, Deutsche Verlagsanstalt 1942.

10   Nouvelles d'Europe, le Royaume-Uni choisit le grand large, http://www.nouvellesdeurope.com/article-le-royaume-unis-choisit-le-grand-large-96050445.html 

11   Asymetric warfare, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare 

Repost 0
Published by JJS
commenter cet article
13 mai 2017 6 13 /05 /mai /2017 17:57

Man findet die deutsche und englische Versionen weiter unten.

You will find the German and English versions below the French version.

 

Lettres à mes proches : l'Europe demain

par Roland Stalder, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Daniel Marthaler 1

 

Lettre 1 : Donald Trump aurait-il raison ?

15 mai 2017

Au cours de nos conversations, en partageant un repas ou en promenade, il nous est arrivé d'évoquer l'Europe et l'Union européenne (UE). Nous nous sommes demandés vers quoi les tendances actuelles pouvaient nous entraîner : les institutions peuvent-elles résister à l'usure et aux bouleversements, le tissu social est-il suffisamment solide pour ne pas se déchirer ? Donald Trump aurait-t-il raison d'annoncer que Brexit est le début de la fin de l'UE2 ?

 

Cette lettre est une façon de poursuivre la réflexion : ainsi, si tu le souhaites, cela pourra alimenter de futures conversations.

 

Habitants d'un monde occidental imparfait mais généralement vivable, nous constatons que nos sociétés sont entrées dans une période d'instabilité et de doute : instabilité des institutions, doute quant aux valeurs sur lesquelles elles sont fondées. Au Royaume-Uni, le référendum Brexit montre bien comment une information biaisée peut aboutir à une décision comportant des conséquences sur plusieurs générations. Aux Etats-Unis, jour après jour, la présidence Trump donne l'exemple d'informations fausses ou incomplètes qui peuvent dévoyer le fonctionnement normal d'une démocratie.

 

Depuis la fin de la deuxième guerre mondiale, en tout cas pour ma génération, la manipulation systématique de l'information était un marqueur distinctif de l'Union soviétique de Staline, de la Chine de Mao, de la Corée du Nord des Kim de père en fils, des théocraties et des dictatures. Soyons lucides : la désinformation n'est plus l'arme des seuls régimes dictatoriaux. Maintenant, dans de nombreux autres pays, l''«infotainment» (information + entertainment) est répandu dans les grands media et amplifié par les réseaux sociaux. Cela brouille la frontière entre faits vérifiables et propagande, entre journalisme responsable et métastase des rumeurs. Ainsi le public est-il abreuvé d' infotainment, ce fatras de nouvelles creuses, irrelevant news.

 

J'exagère ? Malheureusement pas : depuis des décennies l'empire médiatique de Murdoch a contribué à désinformer les citoyens britanniques sur les objectifs et la réalité de l'UE. Aux Etats-Unis le groupe Breitbart, dont l'ancien rédacteur en chef sert de principal stratège au président Trump, a propagé des théories de suprématie raciale et religieuse qu'une démocratie en bonne santé sait normalement tenir en marge. Que dire de la Russie où les libertés publiques sont mises à mal et où l'assassinat politique remplace parfois le débat public ? Que dire de la Turquie où des milliers de journalistes et de fonctionnaires ont été destitués voire emprisonnés ? Que dire de l'Indonésie où un candidat non-Musulman à la mairie de Djakarta vient d'être condamné "pour blasphème" à deux ans de prison pour avoir rappelé que la loi n'oblige pas à voter seulement en faveur d'un Musulman ?

 

Aujourd'hui, au nom de la sécurité, certains Etats démocratiques ont recours aux pratiques qu'elles reprochaient hier aux dictatures, à savoir la surveillance massive sans contrôle parlementaire et judiciaire suffisant, la restriction des droits, la censure, l'auto-censure. Dans le long terme, cette convergence périlleuse risque d'affaiblir nos institutions démocratiques tout en renforçant les régimes autoritaires.

 

Mais alors, comment faire la part des choses, entre les maux attribués en bloc « à l'Europe » et la réalité des tendances mondiales ? Au Royaume-Uni, les initiateurs du Brexit ont persuadé une majorité de leurs concitoyens que l'Union européenne se résumait à des mécanismes de marché, que les institutions européennes auraient confisqué la souveraineté du Royaume Uni, en un mot que Londres subirait le diktat de Bruxelles sans pouvoir réagir. Les médias Murdoch ont amplement caricaturé la Commission européenne, accusée de vouloir imposer aux agriculteurs la production de tomates carrées, ou de tuer l'industrie pharmaceutique au bénéfice des médicaments génériques indiens. Nourri de telles fables, une partie de l'opinion publique britannique attribue à Bruxelles la désindustrialisation de l'Angleterre, l'extension du chômage, la perte du pouvoir d'achat, les difficultés nées de l'immigration. Faut-il rappeler que, membre de la CEE puis de l'UE depuis 1973, le gouvernement britannique a pris part à toutes les décisions communautaires qui la concernent ?

 

C'est l'une des tragédies de notre époque : sans cesse assailli d'informations mais mal informé, le public est facilement persuadé que les maux de son pays sont dus à la construction européenne, alors que nombre de ces difficultés ont d'autres causes, certaines d'entre elles à l'échelle mondiale. Rappelons, surtout pour les plus jeunes, ce qui a motivé la construction européenne et conduit à l'actuelle UE.

 

Les citoyens veulent prendre les choses en main : les Britanniques, mais aussi les Suisses, refusant par exemple que des juges étrangers puissent dire le droit chez eux3. Le nationalisme est devenu une valeur-refuge. Le populisme propose des solutions simples à des situations mondiales et nationales fort complexes. Les populistes proclament que « le peuple doit avoir le dernier mot », en gommant le fait qu'en démocratie, c'est toujours une majorité qui décide.

 

Membres de Collegium60Plus, une association sans but lucratif dont le siège est à Berne (Suisse), nous avons cherché à comprendre les réalités derrière les titres des journaux imprimés, télévisés ou transportés sur les réseaux sociaux. Il nous a semblé que la mise en perspective des questions européennes pouvait éventuellement être utile à nos proches, toutes générations confondues.

 

Les prochaines lettres aborderont divers aspects de la réalité européenne actuelle, dresseront un bilan de la construction européenne, évoqueront quelques grands défis d'avenir ; enfin, la dernière examinera l'avenir des relations entre la Suisse et l'UE. La Lettre 2 tentera de répondre à la question : Le projet européen est-il utopique ? "I want my money back !"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1  Les auteurs s'expriment ici à titre personnel et leurs opinions ne prétendent pas refléter les positions d'entités avec lesquelles ils pourraient avoir des liens. R. Stalder, citoyen suisse, ingénieur, a occupé des postes de direction en entreprise. J.-J. Subrenat, citoyen français, est un ancien diplomate. D. Marthaler, citoyen suisse, est consultant en communication. Subrenat a rédigé le texte en français, Stalder la version en allemend revue par Marthaler, Subrenat la version en anglais revue par Carole Sunderland. Chacun assume la responsabilité de sa version linguistique.

2  D. Trump, cité par Le Monde : « « Pour les Etats-Unis, cela n’a aucune importance, cela m’est parfaitement égal que les Européens soient unis ou non. » Egalement : « Le Brexit va se révéler une grande chose. », http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2017/01/17/trump-contre-l-europe_5063933_3232.html#lzIjbIkOthdlzuqp.99

3  La Suisse n'étant pas membre de l'UE, se trouve en dehors de la juridiction de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne (CJUE) sise à Luxembourg. Au Royaume-Uni, le refus de l'autorité de la CJUE a été l'un des principaux arguments en faveur du Brexit. Sur la CJUE, voir https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/court-justice_fr

 

-=§=-

Briefe an meine Freunde – Das Europa von morgen

von Roland Stalder, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Daniel Marthaler 1

 

1.Brief: Hat Donald Trump doch recht?

15.05.2017

Wenn wir mit Freunden wandern oder bei gutem Essen zusammensitzen, entstehen oft angeregte Diskussionen. Einmal kamen wir dabei auch auf das Thema Europa und die Europa-verachtenden Aussagen des amerikanischen Präsidenten Donald Trump zu sprechen: «Der Brexit ist eine grossartige Sache. Für die Vereinigten Staaten ist es völlig unwichtig ob die Europäer vereinigt sind oder nicht, das ist mir völlig egal». Wir haben uns gefragt, was uns die Zukunft bringen könnte: Halten die europäischen Institutionen den Spannungen und dem Umbruch stand, ist das soziale Gewebe genügend stabil, um nicht zu zerreissen? Hat Donald Trump recht, wenn er verkündet der Brexit sei « phantastisch für das Vereinigte Königreich»?2

 

Dieser Brief und fünf weitere Briefe sind der Versuch einer Betrachtung. Wenn Du es möchtest, kannst Du diese Briefe auch an Deine Freunde weiterleiten und so weitere Diskussionen über das Thema Europa anregen.

 

Wir leben in einer unvollkommenen Welt, einer Zeit voller Ungewissheit und Instabilität: Instabilität von Institutionen, Zweifel an den Werten, auf denen sie aufgebaut wurden, eine Welt von Fake News und «alternativen Wahrheiten», welche die Schlagzeilen bestimmen. Im Vereinigten Königreich hat das Brexit Referendum gezeigt in welchem Masse ein Volksentscheid von falschen oder bewusst verfälschten Informationen beeinflusst werden kann, selbst ein Entscheid von kolossaler Bedeutung für die zukünftigen Generationen. In den Vereinigten Staaten macht uns Präsident Trump fast alltäglich vor, wie man mit falschen Informationen das Volk verführen, ja betrügen kann: Fake News und alternative Wahrheiten, um seine Wähler zu bedienen, anstelle von Strategien und Plänen basiert auf Fakten und Visionen.

 

Die systematische Manipulation von Informationen war und ist gängige Praxis in der stalinistischen Sowjetunion, im China Maos, in Nordkorea der Kims sowie in vielen Theokratien. Seien wir uns im Klaren, die Desinformation ist nicht nur die Waffe autoritärer Regimes. Das Aufkommen des Infotainments (Information als Unterhaltung) in den wichtigen Medien, verstärkt durch die Wirkung der sozialen Medien, hat dazu geführt, dass die Grenzen zwischen verifizierbaren Fakten und Propaganda, zwischen verantwortlichem Journalismus und dem Krebsgeschwür der Gerüchte verschwinden. Die Medien füttern das Publikum mit seichtem, bedeutungslosen Infotainment, anstatt ihrer Rolle als vierter Kraft in unserer Gesellschaft gerecht zu werden.

 

Wir übertreiben? Leider nicht. Die Murdoch Medien führen seit Jahrzehnten im Vereinigten Königreich eine Desinformationskampagne über die Ziele und die Wirklichkeit der EU. In den USA verbreitet die Breitbart Gruppe unappetitliche Theorien über die rassische und religiöse Überlegenheit des „Amerikanischen“ gegenüber allem Fremden. Eine gesunde Demokratie hält solch kranke Meinungen ohne weiteres aus. Zweifel sind jedoch angebracht, wenn, wie wir wissen, der Chefredaktor von Breitbart zum Chefstrategen des amerikanischen Präsidenten ernannt wurde. Was sagen wir zu Russland, wo die individuellen Freiheiten mit Füssen getreten werden, zur Türkei wo Zehntausende von Journalisten, Funktionären und Lehrern und Wissenschaftlern abgesetzt und ins Gefängnis gesteckt wurden? Oder zu Indonesien, wo ein Kandidat für das Stadtpräsidium, ein nicht-Muslim, bedroht wurde, weil er seinen Wählern gesagt hat, dass sie nicht verpflichtet seien, einen Kandidaten muslimischen Glaubens zu wählen?3

 

Im Namen des Schutzes der Sicherheit der Bürger sind auch demokratische Staaten versucht, sich solcher Praktiken zu bedienen, Praktiken, die sie früher Diktaturen und autokratischen Regimes vorgeworfen haben. Massive Überwachung ohne parlamentarische und gerichtliche Kontrolle, Einschränkungen der individuellen Freiheiten, Zensur und Selbstzensur werden auch in Demokratien gängige Praxis. Diese Einschränkungen der Freiheitsrechte stärken die autoritären Regimes und gefährden unsere demokratischen Errungenschaften.

 

Wie können wir in einer Welt von Information und Desinformation, von Fakten und alternativen Wahrheiten und Verschwörungstheorien die europäischen Probleme und Unzulänglichkeiten besser verstehen? Zuerst geht es darum, die Fakten auf den Tisch zu legen, richtig von falsch zu unterscheiden. Im Vereinigten Königreich konnten die Brexit Befürworter die Mehrheit ihrer Mitbürger überzeugen, dass die EU nichts anderes sei als eine Freihandelszone, dass die europäischen Institutionen die Souveränität des Königreichs beschnitten hätten, dass das Königreich dem Diktat der EU ausgesetzt sei, ohne selbstständig reagieren und regieren zu können. Die Murdoch Medien verbreiteten Karikaturen der EU, die sie beschuldigten, den Landwirten die Produktion viereckiger Tomaten aufzuzwingen oder die britische Pharmaindustrie mit indischen Generika zu konkurrenzieren. Auf Grund solcher Märchengeschichten glaubt die britische Öffentlichkeit, dass die EU für die Desindustrialisierung des Landes, die Arbeitslosigkeit, den Verlust der Kaufkraft des Pfundes und die Probleme mit der Einwanderung verantwortlich sei. Tatsächlich ist das Vereinigte Königreich seit 1973 Mitglied der EU und seine Regierung war an allen Entscheidungen der EU mitbeteiligt und hat die meisten auch mitgetragen.

 

Die Wirkliche Tragödie unserer Epoche ist die Flut von Informationen, die täglich auf uns einwirkt. Das Publikum lässt sich leicht davon überzeugen, dass alle Probleme von Brüssel kommen und fragt kaum nach deren Ursachen, die oft im eigenen Land oder gar global zu suchen sind. Die Populisten und Volksverführer haben ein leichtes Spiel: Die Bürger müssten ihr Schicksal wieder in ihre eigenen Hände nehmen und müssten fremde Richter ablehnen. Nationalismus wird zum Allerheilmittel gegen das Böse von aussen. Das Volk muss das letzte Wort haben! Sie blenden dabei aus politischem Kalkül bewusst aus, dass kein Land mehr in Isolation bestehen kann und dass Volksentscheide immer Entscheide einer Mehrheit und nicht die des Volkes sind.4

 

Nein, Donald Trump hat nicht recht. Wir brauchen ein vereinigtes Europa, um den Frieden auf dem Kontinent zu erhalten, um dessen Sicherheit zu gewährleisten und in der von Grossmächten dominierten Welt bestehen zu können.

 

In den folgenden Briefen möchten wir die Ursachen beleuchten, welche zur Gründung der EU geführt haben und so zu einem besseren Verständnis der aktuellen Situation beitragen.

 

Wir haben versucht, die Tatsachen hinter den Mediennachrichten besser zu verstehen und Fakten von alternativen Wahrheiten zu trennen. Europa und die EU stehen vor grossen Herausforderungen. Deshalb schien es uns angebracht, uns mit diesem Thema zu beschäftigen.

 

Die nächsten Briefe werden sich mit verschiedenen Aspekten der europäischen Wirklichkeit beschäftigen. Im Zweiten geht es um «Das europäische Projekt eine Utopie? - I want my money back!»

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1   Die Autoren äussern hier ihre persönliche Meinung aus. Diese steht in keinem Bezug zu Organisationen mit denen sie in Beziehung stehen könnten. R. Stalder, Schweizer Staatsbürger, Biochemiker, hat verschiedene Managementposten bekleidet. J.-J. Subrenat, französischer Staatsbürger, war Diplomat, D. Marthaler, Schweizer Staatsbürger, Biologe und Kommunikationsfachmann. Die Briefe wurden auf Französisch von J.-J. Subrenat verfasst und von R. Stalder frei ins Deutsche übertragen und von D. Marthaler überarbeitet. Jeder ist für seine Version verantwortlich.

2 2 D. Trump zitiert durch Spiegel ONLINE 27.01.2017 http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/donald-trump-zu-theresa-may-der-brexit-wird-fantastisch-fuer-das-vereinigte-koenigreich-a-1132112.html

3 der bisherigen Amtsinhaber Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, der landesweit unter dem chinesischen Übernamen «Ahok» bekannt ist; https://www.nzz.ch/international/abwahl-von-ahok-muslimischer-kandidat-gewinnt-gouverneurswahl-in-jakarta-ld.1287645

4 Die Schweiz als nicht EU Mitglied unterliegt nicht der Gerichtshoheit des Europäischen Gerichtshofes in Luxemburg. In Grossbritannien wardie Gerichtshoheit des Europäischen Gerichtshofes ein wichtiges Argument der Brexit Befürworter: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_de

 

-=§=-

A letter to family & friends - Europe Tomorrow
by Roland Stalder, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Daniel Marthaler 1
 
First Letter: Might Donald Trump be right?
 
15 May 2017
 
In our conversations over a shared meal or during a walk, we've touched upon Europe and the European Union (EU). We've wondered where current trends might be leading: can our institutions survive their wear and tear, is the social fabric solid enough to avoid being torn asunder? Might Donald Trump be right in proclaiming that Brexit is the beginning of the end of the EU?
 
 
If you agree, this letter may be one way of pursuing our conversation, hopefully with some food for thought.
 
 
As the inhabitants of an imperfect but generally well-functioning Western world, we see that our societies have entered an era of instability and doubt: instability of our institutions and doubt about the values upon which they are built. In the United Kingdom, the Brexit referendum was a brutal reminder that biased information can carry consequences for many generations. In the United States, day after day, the Trump presidency is a living example of how false or incomplete news can skew the normal course of democracy.
 
 
Since the end of World War 2, and at least as far as our generation is concerned, the systematic manipulation of information was the hallmark of Stalin's Soviet Union, of Mao's China, of North Korea down the Kim lineage, a distinctive feature of theocracies and dictatorships. But we must face up to today's reality: the weapon of disinformation is no longer used by dictators alone. Now, in a variety of other countries, infotainment (information + entertainment) has made inroads into mainstream media and is relayed on social media. All this has fudged the borderline between verifiable facts and propaganda, between responsible journalism and the metastatic cancer of rumours. And thus the general public is fed with a hodge-podge mixture of meaningless titbits and irrelevant news.
 
 
Is this going too far? Unfortunately not: for decades Murdoch's media empire has done more than most in disinforming the British public about the purpose of the EU and how it really works. In the United States, the Breitbart group, whose former Editor is now the chief strategist of President Trump, has long propagated racial and religious supremacist theories which, in a healthy democracy, are normally kept in the margins. What can we make of Russia where civil liberties are trampled upon and where politically motivated assassination sometimes replaces public debate? What about Turkey where thousands of journalists and civil servants were recently fired and even jailed? What about Indonesia where a non-Muslim candidate to be Mayor of Jakarta has just been sentenced to two years in prison on the grounds of « blasphemy », simply because he reminded the public that the law does not make it an obligation for Muslims to vote only in favour of Muslim candidates?
 
 
Today, in the name of security, some democratic countries are resorting to the methods for which they criticized dictatorships, such as mass surveillance without adequate parliamentary oversight and judiciary control, the curtailment of civil rights, or the extension of censorship and the spread of self-censorship. In the long run, this perilous convergence can jeopardize our democratic institutions while, at the same time, abetting authoritarian régimes.
 
But then, how can one determine if « Europe » is to be blamed, or whether some of today's problems are due to world-wide trends? In the UK, the initiators of Brexit seem to have persuaded a majority of Britons that the EU is just a set of market rules, that EU institutions have confiscated British sovereignty, that London in under the heel of Brussels without the right to react. The Murdoch media outlets have long portrayed the European Commission as spending its time forcing farmers to produce square tomatoes, or bent on killing off the pharmaceutical industry by favouring generic drugs from India. Fed with such fairy tales, a sizable chunk of British public opinion blames Brussels for the disindustrialization of England, the growth of unemployment, the fall in purchasing power and a spate of problems linked to immigration. It might be useful to recall that, since its entry in 1973 into the European Economic Community (now the EU), the British government has taken part in every joint decision which had any effect on the United Kingdom.
 
 
This is one of the tragic facts of our time: constantly assailed by a jumble of data, yet ill-informed, ordinary citizens are easily convinced that the travails of their country can be attributed to the European project, and tend to ignore the fact that many of these difficulties have other causes, some at a global level. Especially for the younger generation, it is worth recalling the motivation behind the European project and the EU as we know it today.
 
Citizens are eager to hold their lives in their own hands. Thus Britons, but also the Swiss, refuse to let foreign judges set the law in their country2. Nationalism has become the ultimate safe investment. Populism sets forth apparently simple solutions for global and national problems which are very complex. Populists, while prochaiming that « the people should have the last word », tend to gloss over the fact that, in a democracy, decisions are always made by a majority.
 
 
As members of Collegium60plus, a not-for-profit association in Bern (Switzerland), we are keen to understand the realities behind the headlines in printed, televised or electronic news. We thought it might be useful to place current European issues in perspective, for the benefit of those close to us, whatever generation they belong to.
 
 
The next Letters in this series will touch upon various aspects of Europe today, provide a balance sheet of the EU project thus far, and identify future trends and challenges. Finally, Letter 6 will discuss relations between Switzerland and the EU. Letter 2 will try to answer the question: Is the EU utopian? "Give me my money back!".
 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1  Opinions are those of the authors, and do not purport to reflect the positions of institutions or bodies to which they may be linked. R. Stalder, a Swiss national, is an engineer who has held executive positions in industry. J.-J. Subrenat, a French national, is a retired diplomat. D. Marthaler, a Swiss national, is a communications consultant. Subrenat wrote the French and English versions, while Stalder and Marthaler wrote the German version. Each assumes responsibility for his linguistic version.
2       Switzerland, which is not a member of the EU, stands outside the jurdisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) located in Luxembourg. In the United Kingdom, rejection of the CJEU was one of the main arguments in support of Brexit. On the CJEU, see https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/court-justice_fr

 

Repost 0
Published by JJS
commenter cet article
15 décembre 2016 4 15 /12 /décembre /2016 15:42

Ten years ago, in the Autumn of 2006, I wrote an article on the Finnish School of Watchmaking, then located in Tapiola. Readers recently pointed out that the old link to that article no longer resolves. Apparently the article was taken down from its initial location on the Internet, for reasons unknown to me. In response to requests from several readers, I am now publishing this article once again on my personal blog.

 

by Jean-Jacques Subrenat
© 2006
(Photos by the author, unless otherwise specified)

True, Finland is better known for Nokia mobile telephones than for mechanical watches. But nowadays, in the widening circle of amateurs of horology who consult the Internet, Finnish references tend to crop up much more frequently. One Finn has even made it into the small circle of world-class watchmakers: Kari Voutilainen, who set up shop in Môtiers (Switzerland) in 2002, is already a reference, and his name is uttered in the same breath as those of a handful of other respected masters. And another up-and-coming Finnish craftsman, Stepan Sarpaneva, who set up his atelier in Helsinki in 2003, is beginning to attract attention as much for his technical innovation as for his bold styling. 

Like many amateurs of horology, I wondered how a country like Finland, not known for producing any significant number of watches, has managed to educate and train generations of high-level watchmakers, and why many happen to be active in some of the most renowned ateliers. At the moment, 25 to 30 Finns are working for such companies as Audemars-Piguet, Blancpain, Breguet, Christophe Claret, Omega, Rolex, or Ulysse-Nardin, and it is noteworthy that many of them are involved in the execution and assembly of complications and limited series. This paradox, I thought, was worth looking into.

Helsinki in the summer: a gathering of wooden boats on the island of Suomenlinna

Arriving in Tapiola by bus and having a stroll before my appointment at 9:30 a.m., a day in late August 2006, I was struck by the contrast between the rambling public park of Tapiola, and the modest proportions of the building in which the school has been housed since 1959. After all, the school was established 62 years ago, and has been here in Tapiola for the past 47 years, so I expected something a bit grander, perhaps an ornamental staircase…

The public park in Tapiola and, behind the trees, the Finnish School of Watchmaking

 

The Finnish School of Watchmaking in Tapiola

The Director (“Rehtori” in Finnish), Ms Tiina Viitanen, who has held this position since 2002, greeted me in fluent French, and took me into the building to meet some interesting people.

Ms Tiina Viitanen, Director of the Watchmaking School in Tapiola.
The brass plate simply states “Watchmaker, the professional of time”

In the meeting room, morning coffee was served with a choice of salmon pie and berry cakes so typical of Finnish hospitality. Here were the people directly responsible for ensuring the quality of education and training in this school in Tapiola. At the end of the table, on the left-hand side, a gentleman had an aura of experience and wisdom about him, Jorma Tuominen, a grand old man of Finnish watchmaking. Tom Roos, the Chairman of the Trust Fund for Promoting Watchmaking Skills (“Kellosepäntaidon edistämissäätiö” in Finnish), sat on the right, next to Ms. Viitanen.

The faculty (in white blouses) and management of the School of Watchmaking.
From left to right: Eneli Pöysä, Reijo Rautakoski, Markku Huhtala, Jorma Tuominen,
Juha Kauppinen, Antti Miettinen, Jouni Pöllänen, Tom Roos, Tiina Viitanen

The meeting, kindly prepared by Ms. Viitanen and her staff, was a unique opportunity to learn more about this vocational school, before going to meet the students and their teachers in the workshop-classrooms. 

The School of Watchmaking was first established in 1944 in Lahti,100 km North of Helsinki. The requirement in those days was not creativity, but simply good workmanship for the repair and unkeep of clocks and watches, in a country which did not have many wealthy people, and where even modest timepieces were handed down as family heirlooms (for instance, my friend Turo had two grand-aunts who, between the two World Wars, had each inherited something of value: one received a small island in the Gulf of Helsinki, the other a pocket watch…). In 1959 the School was transferred to Tapiola, a Western suburb of Helsinki, not far from the area where Nokia set up its corporate headquarters in the 1990s. 

The curriculum of the school has evolved over the years to keep up with technical developments in the industry, but the initial programme was inspired by that of the watchmaking school in Glasshütte, and today the teachers still view this ancestry with pride.

3rd-year students. On the wall, an old industrial drawing from Glasshütte

Today, the link between Tapiola and Glasshütte remains strong, and contacts with the in-house school of Lange & Söhne are lively. The disciplined education established long ago in Glasshütte is carried on here in Tapiola, where all future watchmakers start with the modest but essential experience of crafting their own tools, then graduating progressively from large to smaller clocks, and only later to wristwatches and finally to complications.

1st-year student Kimi Miettinen, aged 16, making his very first watchmaker’s tool, a scraper. During the first months at the bench, it is advisable to protect one’s fingers from wear and tear

How were students chosen, I asked the teachers and administrators assembled in the meeting room? For the term 2006-2007 which started in mid-August, the school received 125 requests from candidates, of which 60 turned up for the entrance exams, and out of this number the school finally recruited 24 new students. Tests included a psychological profile to determine motivation and character, a series of technical subjects, but also practical ability to detect problems and solve them. The teachers I met told me the general standard of new students was invariably high, which is not surprising when you consider that, for the past four years, Finland has been at the top of world ratings for the quality of secondary (pre-university) education (PISA ranking established by OECD). 

Three features of the school seemed to me quite striking. The first is that a fairly high proportion of students have chosen watchmaking after having worked in other fields (during my visit, I met a computer engineer, an electrician, a nursery-school teacher, a theologian, a translator…). The second is that time allocation is one third theoretical study and two thirds practical watchmaking. The third is that, as soon as students have acquired the necessary skills, they actually repair clocks and watches for real-life clients, and if a spare part is not available, you just have to make it yourself, whether that happens to be a cog, a chime-striking mechanism, or a complete escapement. This gives each and every student a very real sense of responsibility, as he or she repairs not an abstract object, but a venerable mantlepiece clock belonging to old Mrs. Koskinen, a pocket-watch which Mr. Vuorinen took the trouble to bring to the School himself, or a wrist-watch of the 1960s which was sent from Lapland by Ms. Rantanen…

Markku Tuomi, an established professional translator, has an interest in the history
of the measurement of time, and in timepieces by old masters. He is now a
2nd-year student in Tapiola

 

Jouni Pöllänen and some of his 2nd year students

 

3rd year student Teemu von Boehm planning the pocket-watch he will entirely execute and present for his final exams

A visitor can readily sense that the atmosphere in the classrooms is relaxed, professionnal, project-driven. All of the teachers are former students of this school, and most of them have gone through one or several WOSTEP courses in Switzerland. Since taking up her position as Director, Ms. Viitanen has changed the teaching methods so that, over a period of several years, each professor gets the opportunity to teach at all levels, both theory and practice. 

I was lucky that former professor Jorma Tuominen was at the school on the day of my visit. After the breakfast meeting, I had a quiet chat with him, he speaking in Finnish (which I understand a bit) and me in French or English with Ms. Viitanen kindly interpreting. After his own training in Lahti, he had gone to work for Patek Philippe in the late 1950s, and upon returning to Finland, began a long career teaching watchmaking, from 1966 to 1995. Now aged 76, he still goes regularly to the Tapiola school where his advice is eagerly sought. His hands are as steady as those of a brain surgeon, and just recently, he was still teaching students to make and adjust hairsprings!

Jorma Tuominen, an acclaimed yet modest “grande figure” of Finnish watchmaking

During our conversation, I asked Mr. Tuominen if watchmaking in Finland had changed much in the past half century. Yes, he replied, in the 1950s and 1960s his students spent as much as 46 to 50 hours a week in school, whereas nowadays they spend 32 hours (plus 8 hours for those who want to have extra training hours, and these additional classes are invariably full!). In the early years, the standard of living was not high in Finland, so that students were mainly dealing with repairing and making parts for simple and widespread movements, and rarely anything complicated in wristwatches. Today, so many more models are in circulation. An affluent society is providing many more potential watch-owners and collectors, so that creativity has come into its own, and students are encouraged in this direction. 

I asked Mr. Tuominen about his former students. He chose to speak of Kari Voutilainen, whom he trained personally during the 3 years at the School in Tapiola: “Voutilainen showed great potential, was conscientious, thorough, and by the time he left the School he had acquired a wide range of abilities, which you usually meet in more senior, more experienced watchmakers”. The former teacher is pleased that this student has proven to be creative, and that the quality of his works is acclaimed beyond the borders of Finland.

Kari Voutilainen recently in Tapiola, with the catalogue of an exhibition on tourbillons
(1996 in Switzerland), in which his own tourbillon pocket-watch was selected as
a contemporary example, alongside historic timepieces by A.-L. Breguet,
Albert Pellaton and other great masters

I asked Mr. Tuominen why he thought there were quite a few of his fellow-countrymen working for well-known Swiss watchmakers: did Finns have some magic ability, or could their success be attributed to the education they received in Tapiola? In Mr. Tuominen’s evaluation, the strength of Finnish craftsmanship lies in the successful balance which is achieved between theory and practice during the 3 years’ tuition in Tapiola, their willingness to learn, and the fact that watchmaking is taught in a very demanding way, but without stress. The retired teacher, whom students, teachers and the profession in this country all consider as a “grande figure” of contemporary Finnish watchmaking, added another remark: in the heyday of the digital watch which almost led to the demise of the mechanical watch industry (roughly from the 1960s to the 1980s), hardly anyone in Switzerland was attracted by the painstaking training to become a watchmaker, and this led to a “generation gap”. Today, the effects of this “gap” are felt throughout the industry, which is clamoring for competent craftsmen in greater numbers. In this context, the pursuit of excellent teaching in Tapiola, even in the fallow years of mechanical watchmaking, allowed Finns to remain competitive, so that today they fill an appreciable number of positions in the Swiss industry. 

In the weeks before I met Jorma Tuominen, I went to meet two of today’s prominent Finnish watchmakers, and asked what their schooling in Tapiola had brought to them, and why there were quite a few Finns working in some of the well-known watch companies in Switzerland.

Kari Voutilainen and I had agreed to meet at the Museum of Horology in Tapiola, a stone’s throw from the Finnish School of Watchmaking, his alma mater. That day in late August 2006, he had personally set up 3 of his timepieces in the temporary exhibition celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Finnish Watchmakers’ Association, which had just been opened to representatives of the media (including a television team) for a preview. When I arrived, Kari took me into the quiet exhibition space, turned on the lights and projectors, and invited me to look at the exhibits: old timepieces amorously restored by members of an association of amateur watchmakers, projects designed and executed by young Finnish professional watchmakers, end-of-school projects designed and executed by students of the School of Watchmaking, one showcase for Stepan Sarpaneva, one (the most sober, but also the most outstanding) with only 3 watches by Kari Voutilainen, and one for Suunto the company which makes wrist computers and electronic watches. 

I asked Kari about his experience at the Finnish School of Watchmaking.

At the Museum of Horology in Tapiola, Voutilainen showing his tourbillon pocket-watch, made after working hours (1992-96), and which attracted praise from his peers

 

Kari Voutilainen told me about his childhood and youth in Lapland. Even as a young boy, he says, he knew he would one day choose a profession in which he could use his hands, and which would allow him to work as an independent craftsman. A friend of the family had a small shop in Kemi, selling and repairing clocks and watches, and this attracted young Kari. Later, he read a brochure about the watchmaking school in Tapiola, where he sat for the entrance exams at the age of 19. He has a very vivid recollection of his admission to the school: right from day one, he immediately felt he had entered his element, and he knew then and there that he would never have any problem with motivation. I asked him about teaching methods: “Starting by having to make one’s own tools, dismantling, assembling and repairing first large clocks, then smaller clocks, then wristwatches, all this amounted to such an obviously wise way of training young people. It’s surprising that Tapiola is one of the only watchmaking schools in the world, if not the only one, where this basic principle is still scrupulously respected”. Kari also points out that during the whole of his 3 years in Tapiola, he had the same main teacher, Jorma Tuominen. What kind of teacher was he, I asked? “His most precious gift to youngsters like me, apart from the fact that he was an outstanding watchmaker, was that he knew how to push us always one step further than we thought we could go. Even when we had done what we considered a pretty good job, the most he would utter was “hmm, not bad; let’s see if there’s a way you could improve that”, but always in an attentive way, with patient kindness, so that discipline and self-confidence were not at odds with one another in the budding watchmaker. 

Kari Voutilainen is well qualified to give an opinion on his former school in Tapiola: after all, he not only attended 2 WOSTEP courses (first in 1988, followed in 1989 by the one on complicated watches), but also was a replacement teacher at his former school in Tapiola (1988-89), and later taught at WOSTEP for 4 years (1999-2002). Looking back at his student years in Tapiola, he remembers “the very special atmosphere, the fact that we were made to feel responsible at a very early stage, knowing that no problem was beyond the understanding of our teachers, and having acquired self-confidence thanks to our very thorough training”. Discovering his patience and obvious talent in sharing his enthusiasm and experience, I asked Kari if he could have dedicated his life to teaching? “Well, I did spend quite a few years teaching, and this was satisfying in its own way because of the close relationship you establish with the students, and because teaching forces you to clarify your own experience and thinking. But after a while, I realized I no longer had enough time to carry forward my own creative work, so I left teaching in 2002 to set up my own little atelier”. 

During our conversation, I sensed that creating and teaching were not different worlds for Kari Voutilainen. I asked him if he would show me, with pen and paper, how he had gone about designing one of the watches which attracted world attention, his Chronographe. He was kind enough to oblige, and I felt like a privileged student, as he began to sketch and explain. He drew the round case, the three sub-dials, and gradually competed the drawing. His pen went over and over the rounded lugs, the winding crown with its sapphire cabochon, the design and finishing of the hands which are part of his personal style. Yes, I thought to myself, someone capable not only of calculating and designing an oustanding movement, but who can also execute every part of it to the highest known standards in the world, someone who can endow the humble hands of a wrist-watch with such elegance, who can fashion the lugs of a watch casing in such a distinctive fashion, surely such a singular craftsman had made the most of his education at the school in Tapiola.

Kari Voutilainen showing the way he designed his “Chronographe”, and drawing in
detail the hands of that famous watch. His own “Masterpiece 7”, poised on the table,
casts the shadow of a dragon…

A couple of weeks before meeting Kari Voutilainen, I had gone to see another Finnish watchmaker who had likewise attended the School of Watchmaking in Tapiola. Stepan Sarpaneva worked in Switzerland for more than ten years (Parmigiani, Vianney Halter, Christophe Claret…) and established his own watchmaking atelier in Helsinki in 2003. He had this to say: “For sure, the very thorough education in watchmaking in Tapiola is one of the main reasons why my fellow-countrymen and colleagues are appreciated. There’s also our attitude towards watchmaking: to enter such a demanding profession, we Finns would not even contemplate jumping over any of the modest yet essential steps towards achieving true technical expertise. Because Tapiola gave us such a solid background, we were able to fully benefit from the valuable experience we gained later when working abroad. This combination provided us with a good system of values and references: we are steady, reliable, and very attentive to overall excellence. And a strong interest in innovation and technology probably helps us keep up with interesting developments”. As for his former teachers, Stepan considers that the good blend of discipline, competence and openness they displayed was a very reassuring factor for aspiring watchmakers. It is interesting to note that in a separate interview, Kari Voutilainen expressed similar opinions, adding that it is the quiet dedication of teachers like Jorma Tuominen and Hannu Ruokola, and the fact that they knew inside out anything they had to teach, that gave the young generation a sense of respect for excellent craftsmanship, and the urge to follow not only their teaching, but also their example.

Stepan Sarpaneva, a former student of the Finnish School of Watchmaking in Tapiola, established “Sarpaneva Watches” in Helsinki in 2003

But let’s come back to Tapiola. How does the School envisage its future, I wondered? I first had a separate conversation on this with Tom Roos, Chairman of the Trust Fund for Promoting Watchmaking Skills (“Kellosepäntaidon edistämissäätiö” in Finnish), which supports the School financially.

Tom Roos, Chairman of the Trust Fund for Promoting Watchmaking Skills, which supports the Finnish School of Watchmaking

 

T. Roos underlined that the school in Tapiola is a private establishment, supported by the Trust Fund, and although it receives a government subsidy, it enjoys greater liberty in governing itself and in establishing its educational programme than a State-run school. The Board is composed mostly of professionals of watchmaking, and as a result the curriculum, the teaching methods, the attention paid to the evolving requirements of business, largely reflect the concerns and wishes of the industry. Because the school is well attuned to the requirements of end-users, there is practically no unemployment in this business sector in Finland. The financial situation is sound as the School is not indebted, nor operating at a loss, but there is a sense among faculty and management that a larger budget would create better working conditions, allowing the school to become more attractive for the next generation. 

Another important feature is that the School offers a combined curriculum in watchmaking and micro-mechanics. In case of a severe downturn in business prospects in one field, the slack could be taken up, at least in part, by the other. From a Finnish perspective, as Ms. Viitanen pointed out, micro-mechanics is of particular importance in terms of potential employment, and people with that qualification are already in high demand.

The premises used by the School since it moved to Tapiola in 1959 have become too small. Whereas it began with 3 classes of 13 students each, the School now has 6 classes of 13. The plan to move to a new location, which has been under discussion for about 3 years now, will soon be implemented: in the Spring or early Summer of 2007, the School will move to neighbouring Leppavaara, where the former public library is undergoing a major overhaul in order to accommodate its future tenants (both Leppavaara and Tapiola are townships administered by the municipality of Espoo). Looking at the future, Tom Roos considers that in the medium term an additional effort may become necessary to attract good students to the School, among other reasons because new generations are even more than before attracted to business management, finance or electronics. In this sense, moving to modern, well-endowed and confortable premises should help attract the best students. As for the prospect of future employment, T. Roos considers that several factors should keep the outlook favourable: the combination of micro-mechanics and watchmaking opens up wider job opportunities; faculty, management and students all engage very much in international exchanges, so that the school keeps abreast of trends and innovations worldwide; and the scarcity of vocational schools offering combined watchmaking and micro-mechanics should keep the Finnish school in business for many years to come. 

I inquired about the international relations of the School. Tiina Viitanen pointed out the existence of a strong Northern European link, with a 2-week exchange programme for students every year between September and October. In the past, Germany was a prime source of inspiration for teaching, and the Glasshütte tradition has been pursued with a similar school in Villingen-Schwenningen.

Kari Voutilainen, who desings and crafts outstanding watches in Môtiers (Switzerland),
wearing the graduation ring of the Finnish School of Watchmaking, which depicts
an escapement wheel and, in its centre, an hourglass

As I put away the note-book and the camera in my backpack, and prepare to leave, I look around. Yes, the present premises of the Finnish School of Watchmaking in Tapiola show their age, and it’s no doubt time to move to the modern amenities offered in Leppavaara. But, as I catch the bus back to Helsinki, it seems obvious to me that the important elements are solidly built into the tradition of the School: the vitality and thoroughness of the teaching, the atmosphere of trust between teachers and students, the blend between discipline and the liberty to create. In this context, I’m sure the attraction of the School of Watchmaking will grow with the rising fame of former students such as Kari Voutilainen, whom today’s greatest Swiss watchmakers consider their equal: a true “maître horloger”, trained in Tapiola./.

 

Repost 0
Published by JJS
commenter cet article
15 septembre 2016 4 15 /09 /septembre /2016 08:26

The global Internet community is abuzz these days. On 14th September 2016, a hearing was held in the US Senate, where Senator Ted Cruz, perhaps with his sights on 2020, defended the view that the transfer ("transition") of oversight of the IANA Functions would be the end of "Internet freedom". Among the witnesses summoned for the occasion, Larry Strickling, Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Administrator of NTIA, Becky Burr and others defended the view that "transition of oversight" would benefit the global Internet, but would also be in the interests of the United States.

That hearing, and many other events in this pre-election period in the USA, show to what extent the Internet has now been thrown into the ring as a highly politicized topic.

On 12 September 2016, a group of individuals involved in Internet matters sent a letter to the President of the United States of America about the expiry of the current IANA Functions contract, and the proposed transition of oversight of those IANA Functions.

Similar letters were sent to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the US Senate.

The signatories are requesting that the Administration implement the proposed transition of oversight, and that the US Congress not impede the termination of the current IANA Functions contract, due to expire on October 1st, 2016.

At the end of the letter it is made clear that "Views expressed in this letter are those of the signatories, and do not purport to represent the positions of entities with which they may be associated."

Here is the full text of one of the letter to President Obama:

"Dear Mr. President:

As the first truly universal infrastructure in human history, the Internet has allowed huge progress to be achieved in business, legislation, science, public health, agriculture, industry, education and communications, at the same time as it has facilitated the daily lives of ordinary citizens all over the world.

Because of the seminal contribution of the United States of America in creating the Internet and carrying forward so many of its subsequent developments, your country has earned the deep and lasting gratitude of billions of people. In fact, today's younger generations in so many countries cannot even imagine life without the benefits of ubiquitous connectivity, quick and free access to knowledge, as well as the facilitation of social intercourse.

As individuals deeply engaged in, and committed to improving the integrity, stability and uses of the Internet, we believe that now is an appropriate time to confirm the multi-stakeholder model of the Internet, in a way that would benefit both the United States and the rest of the world. In this respect, we note that the United States have consistently considered that the further development of the Internet would best be served by a global multi-stakeholder model:

1. At the inception of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in September 1998, the U.S. Government and Internet stakeholders envisioned that the U.S. oversight of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions ("IANA functions") would be temporary. Also in 1998, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued a Statement of Policy that the U.S. Government “is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS (Domain Name System) management."

2. In December 2012, the House of Representatives and the Senate jointly stated: "It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, should continue working to implement the position of the United States on Internet governance that clearly articulates the consistent and unequivocal policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet today." (H.Con.Res.127; S.Con.Res.50).

3. In March 2014, the National Telecommunication and Information Agency (NTIA) announced its intention to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. As the first step, NTIA asked ICANN to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current oversight role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system, and set out four criteria for such a transition to merit consideration. As requested, ICANN convened the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) which started work in December 2014.

4. In March 2016 the ICG, with the input of the Internet community, submitted its Proposal to NTIA. The NTIA certified that the Proposal met the four criteria (June 2016), approved it (August 2016), and announced its intention to let the IANA Functions contract expire on October 1st, 2016.

It is our belief and indeed our conviction that the transition of oversight of the IANA Functions, from an agency of the United States Government to a multi-stakeholder system equipped with detailed checks and balances, will safeguard the security, openness and efficiency of the Internet, while helping to meet some of the challenges facing humanity and the world in which we live.

In bringing this to your esteemed attention, we are inspired by the fact that the foundation of the United States of America was, in itself, a major innovation of its time: it set out a model of governement predicated on principles, a judiciary unswerved by political patisanship, and en economic model in which wealth and success would be earned by initiative and enterprise rather than by inheritance alone. Implementing those lofty principles required open information, as well as the awareness and growing participation of citizens. For the Internet today, the challenges are not very different.

It is our sincere hope that the Administration will now implement, and that the Congress of the United States of America will not impede the transition of oversight of the IANA Functions.

We are addressing similar letters to the Honorable Speaker of the House of Representatives, and to the Honorable President pro tempore of the Senate.

Most respectfully,

On behalf of the signatories listed below:

Jean-Jacques Subrenat (Ambassador, ret.)

Signatories:

The Hon. Carl Bildt (Sweden)

Chair, Global Commission on Internet Governance; former Prime Minister & Foreign Minister

Dr. Vinton G. Cerf (United States)

former Chair of the Board of ICANN, Internet Pioneer

Mr. John Danilovich (United States)

Ambassador (ret.); Secretary General of the International Chamber of Commerce

Ms. Avri Doria (United States)

Principal Researcher, Technicalities


Mr. Roberto Gaetano (Italy)

Chair, the Public Interest Registry

Prof. Dr. MURAI Jun 村井 純 (Japan)

Dean & Professor, Environment and Information Studies, Keio University

Founder of Junet & WideProject

Dr. Nii Narku Quaynor (Ghana)

Chairman, Ghana Dot Com Ltd.; founding Chairman of AfriNIC

Ms. Njeri Rionge (Kenya)

Founder & CEO, Ignite Consult. & Investment; co-founder & Director, Wananchi Online Ltd.

The Hon. Ms. Marietje Schaake (Netherlands)

Founder, Intergroup on the Digital Agenda for Europe; Member of the European Parliament


Mr. Jean-Jacques Subrenat (France)

Ambassador (ret.); Former member, ICANN Board; Member of the ICG (2014~)

Dr. Prof. XUE Hong 薛虹 (China)

Founding Director, Institute for Internet Policy & Law, Beijing Normal Univ. 北京师范大学

Dr. Prof. YOKOZAWA Makoto 横澤 誠 (Japan)

Professor, Kyoto University; Vice Chair of the Internet Economy WG, Keidanren

(Views expressed in this letter are those of the signatories, and do not purport to represent the positions of entities with which they may be associated.)

Repost 0
Published by JJS
commenter cet article
2 octobre 2014 4 02 /10 /octobre /2014 12:20

Londres, septembre 2014. Après une visite à la National Gallery, j’ai pris ce cliché en quittant l’imposant bâtiment qui donne sur Trafalgar Square (cliquez sur la photo pour l’agrandir). Pour laisser un commentaire, merci d’utiliser la boîte "Laissez un commentaire" ci-dessous.

London, September 2014. After a visit to the National Gallery, this snapshot was taken as I was leaving the grand building on Trafalgar Square (click on the photo to enlarge). To leave a comment, please use the "Laisser un commentaire" box below.

 

DSC00878.JPG

 

Information technique : Sony RX100M3, mode automatique, f:2, 1/160', ISO 640. Retouches: image recadrée et mise d'aplomb.

 

Technical data: Sony RX100M3, automatic mode, f:2, 1/160', ISO 640. Modifications: photo cropped and set straight.


Repost 0
Published by JJS
commenter cet article
2 octobre 2014 4 02 /10 /octobre /2014 12:01

Août 2014. A Palo Alto en Californie, près du campus de l'Université Stanford, il y a un vaste centre commercial "Stanford Shopping Centre" avec d'agréables espaces en plein air, où les passants s’installent le temps d’une consommation. Cliquez sur la photo pour l’agrandir. Pour laisser un commentaire, utlisez la boîte ci-dessous.

August 2014. In Palo Alto, California, the Stanford Shopping Centre is close to the campus of Stanford Univesity. This shopping mall has open spaces where folks come to enjoy a drink or a snack. Click on the photo to enlarge. To leave a comment, use the "Laisser un commentaire" box below.

 

DSC00343.JPG

 

Informations techniques: Sony RX100M3, mode automatique, f:4, 1/250', ISO 125, image recadrée et mise d'aplomb.

 

Technical data: Sony RX100M3, automatic mode, f:4, 1/250', ISO 125, image cropped and set straight.

Repost 0
Published by JJS
commenter cet article
15 septembre 2013 7 15 /09 /septembre /2013 07:50

So far, the debate on mass surveillance has dwelt on the immense resources made available to the agencies (NSA in the US, GCHQ in the UK), on the technological advantage that enables them to access any data and bypass encryption, and on the lack of proper oversight in those two countries. But in order to make their voices heard by their elected representatives, Internet users around the world need to have an even more complete view of the emerging reality: why have these agencies been allowed to stray far beyond democratic principles, and why for so long? Why have oversight and control been so utterly ineffective? The grievous actions of these agencies might well have continued to escape public attention, had they not been exposed by Edward Snowden.


Since he first released Snowden's findings in The Guardian, Glenn Greenwald and his colleagues have continued to update their files about the NSA and the GCHQ. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was recently granted access to the deliberations of FISA, the secret court set up to oversee the NSA. To my knowledge, the only writer to have examined some sociological aspects of the surveillance scandal is Jay Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst at ACLU. On Stanley's tracks, I shall examine if a sort of "Internet psychology" has condoned this abuse of power, and see if sociology can provide an explanation.


PSYCHOLOGY. It has taken centuries of turmoil, civil wars and revolutions, for our societies to achieve some degree of harmony. And because they retain a collective memory of strife and hardship, modern humans tend to prefer mediation and negotiation to armed conflict. This conciliatory attitude has fostered tolerance, and with it a fairly high degree of trust in institutions which, in turn, provided continuity.


Because of these characteristics, the public generally has a straightforward, sometimes simplistic approach: trust your doctor for medical advice, your mechanic to repair the car, and the executive branch to manage the country. In many countries, the lack of interest in public affairs has been amplified by mass entertainment and mainstream media, usually at the expense of culture, because the latter is more demanding. With such easy access, the public has persuaded itself that judgment, which someone must have taken care of upstream, has become superfluous at the level of the consumer.


All this has a direct bearing on Internet psychology. In the early days, this amazing tool was used by a small number of individuals skilled in mathematics, programming or systems engineering. If anything, they were driven by logic. But now that the Internet has become the first truly global infrastructure in human history, with easy-to-use applications routinely replacing computer programming, there is a pervasive sense of instant availability, effortless use and free-of-charge access to everything.


For decdes now, the Internet has been touted as a public tool for education, communication, business and entertainment. But its use as an instrument of sovereignty, though perfectly understandable, has mostly been passed under silence. Those familiar with international relations understand that governments engage in spying (this term is more accurate than "intelligence", more attuned to academic research and cognitive pursuits). They also know that national security requires surveillance, which is acceptable, provided it is framed by strong legal rules, under constant and effective oversight by the legislative and judicial branches. 


Then why have Snowden's revelations shocked Internet users around the world, even those who are rather well informed? How did this come about? Aided by mainstream media, governments have hidden behind the screen of secrecy to expand budget allocations for surveillance. The leaders of agencies have relentlessly demanded, and often obtained, the extension of their covert actions. And when some whistleblower draws attention to wrongdoing, political leadership and the owners of mass media quickly sideline the offender by accusing him of harbouring some "conspiracy theory". In societies where mass media play a major role in the formation of groupthink, invoking a "conspiracy theory" is generally enough to discredit the whistleblower, and his findings are simply taken off the news. Before being hailed as a hero, Daniel Ellsberg had been branded by Henry Kissinger as "the most dangerous man in America", and normally that should have silenced him forever. More than a decade after 9/11, how many US citizens are aware that on that day, not 2 but 3 towers imploded, the third one without having been hit by an aircraft? And in the UK, how many people have read the European Parliament report on Echelon? We live in comfort-seeking societies where most people are afraid of leaving the mainstream: a false dogma provides so much more solace than an inconvenient truth. Today, should the Internet user be satisfied with such low standards?

 

SOCIOLOGY. In a recent article, Jay Stanley asked "How Can Smart, Ethical Individuals Form Dumb, Amoral Government Agencies?". He offered 5 reasons: the ideology of the bureaucracy, groupthink, diffusion of responsibility, Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy, and abstraction. I agree with his analysis, but it's worth considering some wider aspects as well.


1) ACCOUNTABILITY IS NOT THE DEFAULT SETTING OF EXECUTIVE POWER. In fact, those who attain power are immediately given the symbols of absolutism: one of the very first things a newly appointed chief executive is briefed upon is the availability of military force, and if his country is a nuclear power, he is given a "nuclear key", arguably the most potent and secret item of high office. We learn from history that the executive (whether a monarch or an elected person) has never granted legislative powers out of kindness, but that they were obtained the hard way, often through conflict. There is a sort of "biological constant" which makes executive power loathe to share, and careful to avoid anything which may destabilize it. For many of us, it is a disappointment, but it should hardly be a surprise, that since assuming office, President Obama has implemented many key policies of the Neo-Conservative agenda, thus laying the ground for the massive abuse of power recently exposed by Snowden.


2) LIKE RELIGIOUS DOGMA, SECRECY THRIVES ON ITS OWN RULES. Political power has always considered secrecy as a key element to resist the test of time, democratic demands, or an uprising. At the present time, it is truly disturbing to see that the US and British executive branches have gone to great lengths to make that secrecy more inscrutable, even against the basic requirements of democracy. Those who promote the uncontrolled expansion of surveillance, usually find inspiration in religious dogma, which always considers itself as the ultimate source of wisdom and justice. It is secrecy as a value in itself, which seems to have driven the surveillance agencies to sideline judicial control and parliamentary oversight. The sheer magnitude of this deception creates a sort of convergence between established democracies and the very dictatorships they regularly, and rightly, critisize.


3) THIS IS A TURNING POINT IN THE HISTORY OF THE INTERNET. A naïve approach has no place in the current debate: competition is not for the faint-hearted, fierce competition begets harsh tricks, and governments all spy on one another. But the malpractices exposed by Snowden cannot be left unchecked, lest they undermine the very foundations of our democracies. People have expressed indignation, and rightly so, but that is no longer sufficient. We need to impress upon our elected representatives that it is time to make Internet governance work for civic and human rights, as well as privacy. It is time to harden the legal tools with which abuse of power can be curtailed, and executive branches made accountable on a regular basis. Let us follow up on the (ISOC) Internet Society's recent statement, and make this one of the major public causes of our time. We owe it to the next generations of Internet users worldwide.

 

( This article is also posted on CircleID )

Repost 0
Published by JJS
commenter cet article
6 septembre 2013 5 06 /09 /septembre /2013 04:01

"The abuse of greatness is

when it disjoins remorse from power"

W. Shakespeare, "Julius Caesar"

 

When the scale of global surveillance carried out by the NSA (USA) and by the GCHQ (UK) was exposed by Edward Snowden through The Guardian, people around the world were shocked to discover how two established democracies routinely resort to methods that they have long deplored -and rightly so- in dictatorships, theocracies and other single-party arrangements. In a previous article, I lamented the fact that by carrying out this surveillance on an unprecedented scale, the US and the UK are, in fact, converging with the very regimes they criticize. All this constitutes what I have termed "the global rape of privacy". One could have expected a huge outcry, but so far reactions have been restricted to just a few media outlets. Some Internet experts have questioned this meekness, e.g. Byron Holland on his "Public Domain" blog, under the title "Where is the outrage?".

 

Things are turning out to be even worse than we thought. On the 5th or September 2013, three media outlets, in close coordination, published a further installment of Snowden's findings, this time about the illegal action by NSA and GCHQ to circumvent or corrupt most of encryption methods currently available for the protection of business data and user privacy. In these articles, The Guardian, the New York Times and ProPublica describe and analyse the incriminated methods. They reveal the unprecedented extent to which the NSA and the GCHQ have been allowed, or have allowed themselves, to record and scrutinize individuals' lives and social evolution, and not only military or terrorist activities. These most recent articles reveal, among other things, "project Bullrun" (operated by NSA) and "project Edgehill" (run by GCHQ). Here are a few questions and observations.

 

1) THE "GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR" IS NO LONGER PUT FORWARD AS THE OVERRIDING PRETEXT FOR GLOBAL SURVEILLANCE. In itself, this is a terrifying discovery, which implies that the methods now in use have acquired a logic, even a justification of their own, beyond the "forces of evil" battle-cry of the Cheney Administration, or Blair's choices in that same period. We don't know, but some have suggested that Airbus plans may thus have been discretely passed on to Boeing, or EU talking points covertly siphoned before some important multi-lateral meeting on world trade, none of these having even the faintest connection with "fighting against terrorism". By going way beyond the requirements of national security, the proponents of universal surveillance have placed their actions further than sovereignty, thus undermining the very foundations of democracy. This is a most dangerous development; all concerned citizens and netizens should give vent to their indignation.

 

2) THE LACK OF PROPER JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT AND PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL HAS GIVEN THE PROPONENTS OF GLOBAL SURVEILLANCE A HIGH SENSE OF IMPUNITY. There is no need to replicate here the details provided in the articles of The Guardian, the New York Times and ProPublica. But we can draw a couple of lessons. First, the loopholes of democracy have been exploited with the utmost cynicism, for instance when analysts at CGHQ were instructed to ask no questions, with this warning: "knowledge that GCHQ exploits these products and the scale of our capability would raise public awareness, generating unwelcome publicity for us and our political masters."  That's one clear way of stating that the Executive Branch can in fact be held hostage by these agencies. Second, the fact that, in the judgment of those who operate these surveillance systems, proper oversight and control can only be viewed as hindrances to the open-ended expansion of their covert activities.

 

3) IN THE FACE OF THIS MASSIVE ABUSE OF POWERS BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, IT IS TIME FOR CITIZENS AND NETIZENS ALL OVER THE WORLD TO GIVE VENT TO THEIR INDIGNATION. The late Stéphane Hessel, in his little book entitled "Indignez-vous!"  (Time for outrage!), called upon citizens to reject the root causes of mass poverty, growing social inequality, deprivation of rights, and attacks on human dignity. In the same spirit, the recent disclosure of unauthorized, poorly controlled, opaque dealings in the name of sovereignty now warrants a large-scale inquiry, as well as corrective measures in order to protect the rights of Internet users across the world. It is time to let our elected representatives know that they must legislate on and enforce stringent controls: that's what it takes to rid our democracies of the widespread impunity exposed by Snowden. The coterie of cynics would have us believe that, in this early twenty-first century, even the "global rape of privacy" is perfectly normal and acceptable, in the name of efficiency.


Repost 0
Published by JJS
commenter cet article