Whose right is it? (II)

Two years ago, I wrote about the double standards of many governments when dealing with the self-determination movements across the world. Sometimes, they are supportive of the right to self-determination –except when they support the principle of territorial integrity.

The original post is available here. 

Yesterday, the UN International Tribunal issued its ruling on the process of independence from Serbia of the territory of Kosovo. Full ruling available in this link  [ENG].

The conclusions are devastating for those, like the Spanish state, who believe the right of territorial integrity of a sovereign state is above the right to self-determination of the people, or part of the people, that make up that state. That Spain stood alongside China and Russia, those beacons of democracy!, against the formal recognition of Kosovo’s independence should have been a clue as to what was coming and whose moral compass was, and still is, pointing the wrong way.

In the end, despite the repetitive caveats and disclaimers, this ruling provides legal cover for those stateless nations/countries/regions, call it what you will, who have a settled will, democratically expressed, to secede from the macro-state.

Let’s hope the Spanish state takes note and ceases to issue veiled threats of military aggression if the peoples of the Basque Country or Catalonia decide to exercise their democratic right to self-determination.

Original post (30/08/2008) - Whose right is it?

Amidst all the noise regarding the events in the Caucasus and the Balkans, the western media is doing a very good job in dumbing down the Georgia-Russia conflict as if it were a simple choice between the goodies (the West obviously) and the baddies (Russians of course).

Many others have written endlessly about the authoritarian nature of the Russian government, and its lack of democratic credentials. We could write about the Georgian president and his miscalculation. We could write about the Ossetian militias and how Georgians have been driven away from Abkhazia and South Ossetia in a tidy exercise of ethnic cleansing. We could write how the Russian government caricaturises the Georgian President as some sort of crazy despot, despite Georgian elections being overseen by the OECD, unlike Russia. We could write how it is Georgia’s turn now, then it will be Ukraine and Crimea, then Poland’s energy dependency on Russia, and after that it will probably be the Baltic Republics’ (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) turn.

But not many people is paying attention to the key socio-political issue: the selfish manipulation by states of the debate on the right of self-determination versus the principle of territorial integrity.

In the last few months, we have seen how the Russian government comes out to defend the territorial integrity of Serbia, against the right of self-determination of Kosovar people. A few months later, they send troops well inside Georgian territory to defend the right of self-determination of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, without a care in the world for Georgia’s territorial integrity.

It is the exact opposite with the western states: support for the right of self-determination in Kosovo but deny exactly the same right in South Ossetia.

And the fact of the matter is that neither the West or Russia can claim the moral high ground. Both sides have switched from defending one right to supporting the other. Their positions are not based on a consistent ideological framework, but driven by geo-political and economic considerations.

The outcome however, has been the same in both cases: the right of self-determination has succeeded in both Kosovo and South Ossetia.

The lesson of the last few decades in Europe is that if there is "on the ground consensus", and some degree of external help, in the end it is the people’s right (self-determination) the one that prevails above the right of territorial integrity of states. It is also a confirmation of the politics of fait accompli: whatever happens on the ground becomes the new status quo and the new accepted reality.

But the right of self-determination does not always reign. If in doubt, ask the Kurds, who have no external support whatsoever for their cause and must be the largest and most fucked up stateless nation in the world jointly with Tibet. 

The question is: will the Russian government do the same trick in Crimea? My answer: yes, without a doubt.

A rally as a metaphor

Watching from afar, via the Catalan news channel www.3cat24.cat, the massive civic demonstration in Barcelona against the ruling by the Spanish Constitutional Court on the Catalan Estatut, I could not help but draw a parallel between the organisation of the rally and the current political situation.  

This political rally was called under the banner of “We are a nation – we decide” (Som una nació; nosaltres decidim). The local police, never one for inflating numbers for pro-Catalan civic demonstrations, has estimated attendance at over 1.1m people. After watching TV, I would say that is an overly prudent lower bound by a police force mostly staffed by people who would never support anything other that Catalonia being a region of Spain.

The demonstration has been a massive, unprecedented, historic success. There were more people in attendance that it was ever anticipated or expected even by the most optimist. In fact, the rally did not advance for one hour because there were just too many people. Overwhelming popular support against an attack by the unelected high priests of Spanish nationalism against the settled wish of the Catalan people as expressed in a referendum and the Catalan Parliament. If there was any question about people being not interested, surely this settles the issue.

However, anyone has been to a few rallies and knows the city a little bit, could tell you that the design of this rally  was a mistake. It was meant to start in Pg Gracia / Diagonal, walk down and turn left at Gran Via until Pl Tetuan.

This is an inefficient way for people to congregate and make their way.

This particular rally should have started at Pl Espanya and terminate at Pl Catalunya/Pg Gracia.

Not only because this is a better alternative from a logistical point of view, and would have accommodated the hundreds of thousands of  people in attendance, but also because this would be a poignant way to symbolise the political cul-de-sac Catalonia has now arrived at.

In a way, the overwhelming success of this political demonstration in favour of Catalonia’s nationhood, is representative of the current state of affairs. People, most people, regardless of their background and national preference are fed up with being treated as second class citizens. People are fed up with the constant insults from most of the Spanish press against Catalonia. However, the political divisions, the lack of leadership and vision amongst the Catalan political class, and more than anything the lack of cojones, are holding Catalonia back. Undoubtedly, there is popular will to change the status quo, but there seems to be no political agent willing to implement this message.

Against this, there are those luminaries who claim that the “nationalists” are only a few, that this issue does not interest the majority of people, and that this is a distraction from the real issues that matter to real people. Those who say these things are, have been and will always be nothing more than duplicitous, manipulative and resentful little people, unable or unwilling to understand, to accept that Catalonia is a nation, a stateless nation, that should be allowed to choose its own future without interference and threats from the Spanish state.

Let it never be said again that “people in the street” are not interested in the Estatut, that it is only political anoraks who worry about these things. It is because the Estatut is the vehicle that enables Catalonia to look after its interests, after its hospitals, schools and public services, and it is because of this, because people are worried about things that matter, that Barcelona has witnessed today the biggest civic demonstration in living memory if not ever.

But.

Will this historical, massive civic demonstration of national strength achieve anything?

I am afraid it won’t.

Sorry I don’t have the time to translate the article below:

http://www.victoralexandre.cat/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1176&Itemid=1

Mr Alexandre, one of the brightest minds in Catalonia, nails it again.

A political problem is resolved via political decision making and policy implementation.

Civic demonstrations and rallies are noise. A cry for attention given everything else seems to have failed.

After all, this Estatut that has been decimated by the Spanish CC is an already cut-down version of the Estatut approved by the Catalan Parliament in 2005 by all parties except the Spanish PP. In a matter of days, that Estatut was watered down by CiU and PSC-PSOE in closed-door negotiations.

Therein lies one of the conundrums of Catalan politics: support for independence, overt or subtle is ever higher, growing almost by the month. Today’s rally was a rally in favour of independence. However, none of the mainstream parties, not even ERC, let alone CiU, do try to implement the policies they carry in their manifestos.

PSC-PSOE, the party in government in Catalonia and in Madrid, claims to be a federalist party. However, after being in power in Spain for many years, in the 80s and now, Spain is far from a federal state. In fact, the judges appointed by the PSOE voted jointly with the PP-appointed judges in watering down the Catalan Estatut. This ruling by the Spanish CC has killed off the idea of a federal Spain. The federalist door has been slammed down in the face of the PSC by their own Spanish colleagues of the PSOE.

CiU claims to be a moderate nationalist party but in fact they are scared of challenging the status quo. For them, steady-as-you-go of the status quo is a happy state of affairs –as long as they are in power.

ERC, the party that is, on paper, pro-independence, is propping up a coalition government in the Catalan parliament jointly with the PSC-PSOE. Against the wishes of its electorate, ERC has renewed the coalition government a second time, achieving very little in terms of safeguarding Catalonia’s interests in terms of finances, cultural development, public services delivery or economic growth.

IC-V are the PSC-PSOE poodle and they will slavishly follow whatever direction is set by PSC.

On the sidelines, a number of pro-independence parties and movements appear to carry more support than ever but have yet to make an impact on the political scene.

The political cul-de-sac, this end-of-the-road moment in Catalan/Spanish relations can only be unblocked by elected politicians choosing two courses of action.

1)      Management of the current devolution framework as set out in the Spanish Constitution.

2)      Exercise of the right to self-determination via  referendum bill approved in the Catalan Parliament.

The problem is that most political parties in Catalonia want a third, unviable option: a high level of self-government in a federal Spain. Despite the clear-cut ruling by the Spanish CC, PSC-PSOE and CiU will try to pursue this non-option.

Choosing option 1 would be an admission of failure, whilst option 2 requires a level of courage and dignity than anyone in CiU or ERC, let alone PSC or IC-V, can only dream of.

For over 100 years, Catalonia has tried to change Spain, make it a federal, multi-national state. The Spanish have decisively rejected such possibility.

Yet some Catalans still insist on trying to achieve a chimera.

The stage is set for either a massive climb down and humiliation or a paradigm shift in Catalan/Spanish relations the consequences of which are unpredictable.

Let’s hope that the Spanish state does not resort to military threats and intimidation as has been historically the norm. History is not on the side of the Catalans.

Links:
English: BBC News, CNN, 
Catalan: Vilaweb,
Spanish: Publico,
Videos: CNN, Vilaweb,

Fascist impunity (II)

A family misses a flight from Girona airport after the Spanish Guardia Civil detains a woman for daring to speak Catalan. [link]

I wrote about this incident a few months ago.

After over 30 years of so-called democracy the Spanish Policia Nacional and Guardia Civil still behave with total impunity criminalising Catalan-speakers and making their lives a misery. The Spanish State remains silent and continues its policy of complicity with these Fascist scumbags masquerading as police officers. They are never disciplined, let alone sacked as they would be in any advanced democracy in Europe.

If this kind of incidents were happening against any other community in the world, Amnesty International would get involved. Foreign correspondents would write about it.

But discrimination and police repression against Catalans is accepted. It has happened for centuries so what’s new?

Spain in 2010:  court trial date set for daring to speak Catalan language with a Spanish police officer. Another example of the wonders of Spanish democracy. And then some wonder what the fuss is about….

Euronews - Catalonia: independence or autonomy?

http://www.euronews.net/2010/02/12/catalonia-independence-or-autonomy/

Nice to see the Spanish nationalist lobby embarrasing themselves with their lack of democratic convictions, historic revisionism, cultural prejudice and a disturbing fundamentalist attachment to the undestructible unity of Spain and the 1978 Constitución.

Let's hope they do not send the tanks again.

The silence that defines them

New Year, same old story. Spanish nationalist violence in Valencia is part of the landscape like the orange trees of the countryside or the palm trees in Alicante.

These incidents are widespread, pervasive and common-place. Spanish police (Policia Nacional or Cuerpo Nacional de Policia) treats Catalan-speakers with contempt at best; normally is threats and violence against anybody who does not yield to their proto-Francoist ideology.

Far-right Spanish nationalist groups operate in Valencia (and in Mallorca) not only with total impunity but with the complicit blind eye of the Spanish State and the operational cover granted by the Spanish Policia Nacional and Guardia Civil.

Picture the scene.

A member of the public on his bike is stopped by Police.

Said member of the public co-operates with Police enquiries and replies in Catalan language initially.

Spanish police then take offence and treat the former member of the public as a criminal and a suspect. Apparently speaking one’s language is a political act (if it is not Spanish). The policemen then threaten him to be careful what he write as they will be reading it.

This happens time and time again in Valencia and the Balearic Islands with total impunity. A few weeks ago, a guy was beaten up in the airport for daring to speak Catalan to the Guardia Civil. If this happened against any other social group, there would be international comdemnation for such incidents. It would no be tolerated in any other normal, democratic country. Can we imagine a Canadian policeman treating someone like a criminal for speaking in French in Quebec? Unfortunately, not much has changed since the Franco era for Catalan speakers outside the Principality of Catalonia.

The Spanish State allows this discrimination to be socially acceptable and legally enforceable. The Spanish media complicitly turns a blind eye. Thus, these incidents which occur regularly across the Catalan speaking areas of Spain go unreported by the mass media.

Where are now the advocates of individual rights? Where are those who shout loudest proclaiming the virtues of bilingualism? They make a lot of noise about language policy in Catalonia but their silence about the treatment of Catalan speakers in Valencia is conspicuous.

They remain silent because their concern is not about individual rights of any citizens or any concern about any Catalan children not being bilingual (the only ones that are not bilingual are Spanish-speaking pupils that do not speak Catalan for every Catalan-speaking child also speaks Spanish). Their only concern, their only true objective is to obliterate Catalan language from the territories where it has been historically spoken until recently. They have almost succeeded in Valencia (the language is all but gone in Alicante) and as I wrote about before, they will succeed in the Catalan-speaking counties of Aragon and the Balearic Islands before focusing on Catalonia.

In the meantime, anyone who is a Valencian-speaker is a second-class citizen in their own country –unless they accept they must switch to Spanish at any opportunity.

Pseudo-bilingualism only enshrines the supremacy of Spanish in law, and ensures the social decline of the indigenous language of the Catalan Countries. Linguistic genocide by any other name is taking place in Valencia but this never gets reported by the mass media or the "intelectual" lobby. Their silence reveals their twisted agenda of allowing the Spanish state to do the job that Franco, and others before him, could not finish. The Spanish state may be a democracy of sorts, but the same old agenda is still in place.

Links:

Racó Catalá [cat] – chronicle of the incident

L'informatiu [cat] - the victim himself

Fascist impunity, and more of the same.

DIY democracy

There has been quite decent international coverage of the popular referendums on independence in Catalonia. This will be enough to anger the Spanish nationalists who believe that Spanish unity and sovereign integrity is somehow God’s will and indestructible. Nothing angers the Spanish political classes more than the “internationalisation” of the national conflicts of the Basque Country and Catalonia with Spain.

Just to recap, given that the Spanish state does not allow the Catalan parliament to vote on the issue of organising a referendum to allow Catalans to decide their own constitutional future, community associations throughout Catalonia have endeavoured to set up their own vote.

Of course, these votes have not legally binding since they are organised separately, and with the opposition of the Spanish state. Spain is home to an interesting form of democracy which revels in preventing the use of the ballot box. As we all know, “Spain is different”.

Anyway, after the referendum in Arenys de Munt, near Barcelona, took place despite the presence of Spanish fascists Falange, many other villages and towns set out to organise their own. This happenned last weekend, and the results are quite remarkable.

With an average of 30% turnout, marginally below European elections, about 95% voted in favour of independence.

Now, nobody says that all those who abstain at European elections are anti-Europe... But, surprise, surprise, in this referendum, organised entirely by volunteers and against the threat of legal action by the Spanish state against local authorities, a referendum without the resources of the State and without the support of the official media, the Spanish press equates failing to vote with opposition to independence.

But if they are so sure about it, if they are so convinced that an official referendum would endorse Catalonia remaining part of Spain..... why do they try so hard to prevent an official, legally binding referendum taking place? What are they afraid of?

Bring it on

In the end, it became an embarrassment.
After having the nation(s) worked up in a frenzy about the presence of Nick Griffin MEP, leader of the British National Party, in Question Time, it turns out that he is a political lightweight, a lame-duck panellist unwilling or unable to convey his views with any sincerity or even conviction. It was revealing in more than one way.

First, the decision to invite him to the program by the BBC.

It is understandable that many people were oppose to his appearance. It gives the BNP a platform to peddle their message of hatred and ignorant racism. However, whether we like it or not, the BNP has a number of councillors in England, and achieved 6% of the UK vote at the last European elections, resulting in two BNP MEPs being elected.
On that basis, the BBC did the right thing.

The lesson perhaps for militant anti-fascist campaigners is that we should not be afraid of giving people like the BNP a platform. Mr Griffin got challenged last night in a way he has not been challenged so far in his other BBC appearances on his own. By trying to prevent the BNP being invited to the BBC, the Left (whatever this means nowadays) gives ammunition to the sense of grievance and persecution that feeds the BNP at local, grassroots level.

Last night’s performance by Griffin was an embarrassment to his party and to himself.
There is nothing to be afraid of. Cambridge degrees are over-rated. Now, when are the Greens getting invited to Question Time?

What the anti-fascist movement and in general the Left, far-left or whatever we want to call it has to do is to challenge the BNP in local communities –and get elected representatives. It speaks volumes of the inability of the socialist/communists parties that the BNP can achieve 20% of the vote in some local communities, and even 6% at UK level, but the Left parties have no representation whatsoever, not even after a banking-induced crisis. And in Scotland, where the SSP managed to get 6 MSPs out of 135, they immolated themselves in typical Left fashion and now they have 1.

The performance
Nick Griffin lost his composure very quickly. He was unable to answer any question with any conviction or sincerity. When he was offered total judicial immunity by Jack Straw, Home Secretary, to explain his views on the Holocaust, he bottled it.

When it came to forced repatriation, something that is a key message of the BNP, he bottled it again.

Even when asked about what does he mean by “indigenous peoples”, he also crumbled, unable to muster any kind of coherent response. Well, I have no such qualms and I dare say that the “indigenous” peoples he means are white folk of British or Irish stock. Well, at least some progress is being made: now the Irish are in.

Throughout the programme, it appeared to me that he was just trying to explain what his party really stands for, and thus he failed to answer most questions. If I was a BNP supporter, I would be furious that such a precious opportunity has been wasted.

The others
Particularly, when the panel was nothing to write home about.
Bonnie Greer, admittedly someone I find slightly annoying, could not be bothered. She was like a car in second gear. I understand that for someone of mixed race sitting next to Mr Griffin must be quite repulsive but this should not be an excuse for ambivalence. That she managed to unnerve Mr Griffin saying so little and in such an half-arsed manner reveals how weak and feeble the BNP really is.

Jack Straw was in professional politico mode -a total turn-off. Failed to answer the question on immigration he was asked and failed to recognise that immigration is a problem for some communities, and that the Labour government has let these communities down by first failing to control immigration, failing to invest in these deprived areas, and failing to put a stop to the myths progagated by the BNP about immigrants’ benefits, rights and so on.

Baroness Varsi (I never thought I would see an Asian Tory peer, the world is changing really fast...) was also in professional politician mode. Her quote of “rights and responsibilities” made me cringe. Typical “compassionate Conservative” tone and discourse. How she can live amongst the Tories is beyond me.

Chris Humne for the Lib Dems was perhaps the most convincing (or least unconvincing) of the other panellist. He would have made a fine LibDem leader and I am not sure why he was not elected to the post.

The aftermath
In the aftermath of the debate, BNP supporters have come out in force and denounced the “lynching” or “witch hunt” to which Mr Griffin was a victim of.

And for what? For being given a rough time. For being challenged. Well, Blair was given a rough time too when he was called a war criminal and he put up with it and did not cry like a big blouse.
It just shows how feeble is the BNP threat that the scrutiny of a mediocre panel and amateurish audience is enough to send them home crying “foul”. It is a bit rich coming from the BNP to use words like mob or lynching –they irony seems to have been lost on them however.

Now he is demanding a repeat of the programme, and also a one-on-one debates with Jack Straw and also with Cameron. No less.

The problem is that Mr Griffin has already had a chance at the big time –and blew it. It did not make good television, and it did not show him up in a good light. Why asking for more punishment?

Because this is how the BNP thrives. By playing victim to a "far-left BBC conspiracy" (has he not read Mrs Flanders?) it is easier to go door-to-door in the deprived, working class neighbourhoods in England and point out how the establishment are protecting immigrants against the white English. The BNP will keep getting councillors elected, and probably will get another MEP next time. But that should not worry us too much. Are we naïve enough to think only 10% of the electorate in this country are racist?

BBC Links:

BBC News – Key extracts

BBC News – Mr Griffin complaints about a “lynch mob”

BBC News – voters’ reaction in Dagenham, London

BBC News – media reaction summary

BBC News - The BNP and the white working class

Best of the rest:

The Herald – 8m tune in,

The Times – writers’ review summary

The Independent – Outrage and not debate confronted Griffin, choked on publicity

The Daily Telegraph – his wife is right, the Italian models in the BNP’s leaflet

The Guardian – sympathy for the underdog, frontpage slideshow, facts,

That's alright then...

Wow, big news today.

The director general of the Guardia Civil and Policia Nacional (the head of the Spanish police service) has agreed today that he will ensure that the linguistic rights of Catalan-speakers are respected by his subordinates so that Catalan people are not threatened and beaten up by Spanish police for speaking in Catalan.

Avui [cat]

This is happening in 2009 in Spain.

Something for Amnesty International to investigate?

The legacy of Fascism in Spain (II)

It is official: the current Spanish political framework is a half-baked democracy hardly worthy of the name. I have written about it many times before, but today four unrelated events point to the same conclusion.

A few days ago, I wrote how a number of community-based associations in a small town near Barcelona had organised a popular vote so that people could express their view on whether Catalonia should be an independent state in Europe or not. The referendum does not aim to be a binding vote or claim any legal status or anything. It is just a local initiative, something they have done before for other issues with great success. It is just an opportunity to give people a voice and a chance to engage in politics.

However, a Spanish Fascist party, Falange, a party that is still operating legally, (unlike the radical Basque parties who are routinely banned) called for a demonstration to prevent the vote from taking place.

There are two issues with this:

1) That Falange is still a legal party in Spain is evidence of the asymmetric application of the infamous Ley de Partidos. If you are a radical Basque nationalist party, you get banned. But if you are a radical Spanish nationalist party, a self-declared Fascist party, you are within the law.

2) That the Fascist rally was allowed in the first place to coincide on the same date as a means to intimidate the local population into not voting.

But today, the nature of Spanish democracy was made clear when the Procurator Fiscal started proceedings so that the popular vote does not take place. This, let’s not forget, is a private initiative set up by a local community-based association.

Why does the Spanish judiciary have to get involved? Are there not more important matters for the Spanish state to worry about like the financial crisis and the rocketing unemployment?

So here we have it. Falange doing the dirty work for the Spanish state in intimidating the local community into not having a popular vote, and the Spanish state coinciding with Falange in not wanting the vote to take place. Two different ways, same objective: to prevent people from expressing their view.

Links: Avui (cat), Público (cas), VilaWeb (cat).

= = = = = = =

In a completely unrelated event, today it was made public another example of how Catalan-speakers are routinely treated as second-class citizens. It happened in Mallorca. A transcript of the events can be found here. (cat)

This is the situation. Passport control, the couple hand in their passports, but the Guardia Civil took exemption to the couple’s use of Catalan language. The guy is taken to the room and given a black eye and fined for breach of the peace.

This is a regular event in the Balearic Islands, where the Guardia Civil and Policia Nacional refuse to allow the public to use their own language (Catalan). Not for the first time, they react with violence. Will something happen to the Guardia Civil? No, he will be protected by his superiors and by the State. Spain in 2009: beaten up by the Guardia Civil for daring to speak in Catalan. Apparently, one of the Guardia Civils said to another: "the guy spoke in Catalan and he (the Guardia Civil) lost the plot". Disciplinary action? Investigation? Enquiry? Dream on.

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

In another separate event that occurred earlier in the week, once again Catalan parliamentarians were prohibited from using their language in the Spanish parliament. In the Canadian, Belgian or Swiss parliaments, representatives can use their own native language. In the Basque or Catalan parliament, some parliamentarians use Spanish and there is not issue. But in the Spanish parliament only one language is allowed to be used by our political representatives: Spanish.

How can Spain claim to be an advanced democracy when Parliament, where our elected representatives meet, imposes the use of one language and discriminates against the others?

Where are now those supporters of bilingualism?

Link: Avui (cat), Público (cas)

= = = = = = = = = = =

And finally, an old topic.

I have written before how the Partido Popular is the ideological legacy party of the Movimiento.

The party is the continuation of Alianza Popular, which was founded by Manuel Fraga, a Minister during the Franco era, and other former Franco ministers. Partido Popular are a nationalist Spanish party and they do not hesitate to advocate the intervention by the Spanish Army to prevent the Basque Country or Catalonia from seceeding from Spain by legal means.

Not very democratic, is it?

Well, Manuel Fraga gave a speech in his local village in which he praised dictator Francisco Franco.

In Germany, this would be punished with a prison sentence. In Germany Fraga would have faced justice for his crimes during the dictatorship, for he signed off various death penalty sentences. But this is Spain: nobody has faced any justice for the crimes of the Fascist dictatorship.

Today, the PP can still laud the figure of Franco and nothing, absolutely nothing is done by the Spanish Prosecution Service (Fiscalía).

But, some political parties, only Basque radical nationalist parties mind, are banned under the pretence of a Ley de Partidos, which is only applied to one particular group of people.

Link: Público (cas)

= = = = = = = = = = =

Once again, the Spanish state, by its inaction or complicit action, provides evidence that it is an asymmetric democracy, where the rights of some minorities are continuously derided. Spanish democracy, far from being a model transition, is the legacy of a generation of politicians coerced by the military into a false new start. A generation too coward and too frightened to push for real democracy and a change of the status quo. In practice, Franco's dogma of a united Spain regardless of the will of its constituent parts still remains the central tenet of the legal and political system in Spain.

In effect, the means have changed, and there is certainly more freedom than during Franco’s era. Of course. It could not be any other way. But nobody should be grateful for having a second-rate democracy for there is something that has not changed. There is something that still today drives the Spanish state, something that is embedded into the Spanish legal and political framework as if it was its DNA: the mission to suppress the political and cultural identity of some of the nations and regions in order to achieve the complete unification and homogenization of Spain into a monolingual, single nation state based on the enforced use of Spanish language and the adherence to the dogmatic principle of the territorial integrity and unity of Spain under the terms set out by its dominant group, which include the use of the Army to enforce such terms (Article 8 of the 1978 Spanish Constitution).

This is not a 21^st century democracy: it is just a cosmetic improvement on a rotten system which distills the same substance under a different flavour.

Update 07/09/2009: Well, you could not make it up. The solicitor representing the Spanish state (in effect acting for the procurator fiscal) is a former militant of Fascist party Falange. Público (cas) and Avui (cat). I told you so!

The legacy of Fascism in Spain

These days I hardly write about Catalan politics. It is far too depressing and it only serves to highlight the absolute mediocrity of Catalan politicians, and their treacherous cowardice falsely disguised as pragmatism and prudence. Even those with a mandate to pursue more sovereignty have betrayed their electorate and opted for the gravy train instead of sticking to their principles. Shame on them.

But every now and then, there is an event that defines the ideological framework of Spanish democracy and reveals the extent of the sub-standard democratic nature of the Spanish post-Franco politics. I have wrote about it before. [Spain]

This time, the issue is again the asymmetric application of the law in Spain.

If you are familiar with Spanish politics, you will know that the Spanish state has banned the political wing of the Basque radical movement. This party used to be known as Herri Batasuna, Batasuna, etc… it has changed name and organisational structure a few times but it does not matter: Spain keeps banning the political wing of the radical Basque pro-independence movement so about 10-20% of the electorate, depending on the area, are unable for vote for the political party of their choice. Talk about democracy. This is done under the pretence of a law called “Ley de Partidos”.

There is a problem with this law however. It has only been applied to one side: those pursuing Basque self-determination.

In Spain, there is a fringe party called Falange Española de las JONS [wiki]. Falange is perhaps one of the first Fascists parties in Europe. They were Franco’s party. A Fascist party that was the only party allowed during 40 years. Nowadays, there are many other parties with a similar ideology to this one and they are perfectly legal. They advocate racist policies, a return to Fascist Spain, abolition of self-government, suppression of official recognition of other languages like Catalan or Basque, etc.

Next month, a town north of Barcelona is going to organise a non-binding referendum where the question to be asked is whether Catalonia should be an independent state in Europe or continue as part of Spain. The referendum has been approved by the local council by a majority of elected representatives.

But a Spanish Fascist party, Falange Española de las JONS, has called for a rally against this popular vote. A party with no representation whatsoever in the town, and with fringe representation in Catalonia, has made a call to supporters to demonstrate against the referendum. Fascists thugs and skinheads will be bussed from other areas of Spain to descend into Arenys de Munt, near Barcelona, with the declared intention of preventing local residents from expressing their view on the constitutional future of Catalonia.

At the same time, the Spanish judiciary has prohibited any rallies organised by radical Basque pro-independence movement in Bilbao during the local fiestas, as it has been happening since the end of Franco’s dictatorship. The local comparsas (similar to brass bands, local groups who participate in the festivities), fed up with the interference of the Spanish state in their local fiesta have called for a demonstration in favour of freedom of expression and democracy. These people have no operational link to Batasuna so we will have to wait and see if this one will also be banned or not.

So here we have it:

1) Basque separatists which command about 10-20% of support in the Basque Country are not allowed to exercise their freedom of association and expression through the orchestrated actions of the Spanish government and the judiciary. They are illegalised and unable to get political representation;

2) Spanish Fascists, with sub-marginal representation in Catalonia are allowed to march through the streets of a small town to intimidate their residents into not taking part in a non-binding consultation about the future of Catalonia and Spain.

As I have written before, it is blatantly obvious that the Spanish state condones and allows the development and activities of some radical groups and prohibits the activities of others. It all depends whether you are a Spanish radical nationalist or a Basque radical nationalist. Another example of the asymmetric nature of Spanish democracy.

BBC censorship of Speaker's criticism

Sometimes I cannot help thinking that the BBC’s reputation for objectivity, neutrality and high journalistic standards is more a myth than reality. Particularly when it comes to criticism of the Scottish Labour party. In Spain everyone if full of how great the BBC is and how it should be a model for all public broadcasters. I used to agree. Now, after living in the UK for over 10 years, I am not sure. Myth, perception and reality intermingle.

Yesterday, I posted the below text in the Blether with Brian blog.
To my amazement, it has been removed as it apparently breaks the house rules on defamation.

Can anyone let me know what is in this post that is defamatory?

I have posted it again with a toned-down version, let’s see if it makes the cut…


========================
Brian,

The Speaker of the House is not a mere class rep.
The Speaker is supposed to lead.

If the less-than-honourable members have been up to no good, it is the Speaker’s job to tick them off.

Michael Martin was an awful speaker: inarticulate, mumbling, discourteous and with a tendency to gag people down. Nothing to do with class or background or accent: all to do with competence.

Michael Martin committed far too many errors to deserve any sympathy:

1) He was the main force behind the push for exemption from the FoI Act. He wanted the expenses system to be kept secret and wasted thousands of our tax money on legal fees.

2) When it was clear that this was going to come out, instead of saying sorry, instead of showing contrition or remorse, he calls in the Police to investigate the leak.

3) When a couple of backbenchers raise the issue, he shuts them down in the most childish and discourteous manner. (Hoey)

4) When another backbencher raises the issue of the no-confidence motion, again the mumbles, fumbles and shows why he should have never been the Speaker in the first place.

All this after having had a number of years to do something about this mess.
So, you understand that most of us have no sympathy for the shop steward that became one of them. Good riddance.
======================

The New Capitalism -by the BBC

Over the last year or so, there is one man that has become a source of pain for some in the financial services sector. Some journalists don’t like him either. It is Robert Peston, BBC Business Editor. [blog]

His idiosyncratic style and general slow delivery (plus mumbling and fumbling and humming) irritates many. Others are irritated by his “attacks” on the financial services sector and the markets. The right-wing blogosphere attack him for being a "leftie" and the mouthpiece of the Labour government. Or so they claim. Stockbrokers and investment managers despise him because he “brings the market down”. I thought the markets were "efficient"?
The FT journos call him Pestowire, or Peston RNS, a reference to the Regulatory News Service used for the public dissemination of financial markets announcements.

It is difficult to convey to anyone living outside the UK how pervasive Mr Peston’s presence in the BBC has become. Since his reports on the debacle of Northern Rock, and the collapse of the banking system and consequent recession, his presence is the main feature of the 6pm and 10pm news bulletins every single day. I remember one day he even broadcast from the garden in his house.

Recently, he has published a short essay with the title “The New Capitalism”. [PDF]
They are summarised in these two videos. [link]

Personally, I don’t have any issues with his reporting. And when someone’s argument is over style, or personality, you know that people are on a loser. So I haven’t got much sympathy for those who blame Peston for anything. The world, or the stock markets, would not be any different, had Robert Peston not reported on the stories we all know about now. Shooting the messenger is not the answer to this problem, and it shows how inward-looking and shamelessly self-preserving the financial services sector (I refuse to use the word ‘industry’) has become: denial has become the modus operandi in the face of an unpleasant reality.

I do have a bit of an issue with this essay though. Not much with the content than with it having the logo of the BBC as an endorsement. So is this the BBC’s vision of capitalism post-credit crunch or Peston’s? It may be trivial and I might be over-analysing, but the presentation of this essay is not clear, and as a license fee payer I object the way in which has been delivered.

I have no issue with Peston’s book “Who rules Britain”. It may read more like a series of articles and it lacks a cohesive argument, a central thesis that it is presented to the reader. But overall, it provides a few examples of how the City and big businesses work, and how tax avoidance, sorry tax efficiency, has been encouraged by the Labour government.

But reading his essay on the new capitalism taking shape, I could not help but wondering about some of the statements and claims made:

“Arguably the global economic crisis will turn out to be more significant for us
and other developed economies than the collapse of communism.”

Well, I disagree completely. The collapse of communism left millions of people in the world, including Europe, ideologically orphan. Suddenly, there was no alternative to capitalism in its various forms. Communism, the egalitarian, collectivist alternative had failed. We went from two competing systems to one. Now we are going from an imperfect system to another one.

I agree 100% on the debt binge ('credit expansion' to be technical about it) as the key cause of the present crisis.

Some of the language is quite emotive:

“To put it in crude terms, for much of the past decade, millions of Chinese
slaved away on near subsistence wages and still managed to save, both as a
nation (China swanks £1,400bn in foreign exchange reserves) and as individuals.
And to a large extent they were working to improve our living standards, because
they made more and more of the stuff we wanted at cheaper and cheaper prices.”

It is naive to say the Chinese slaved away on near subsistence wages. Living standards in industrialized areas of China have risen in a way that was unthinkable a few years ago. If they were “slave” wages, then they could not save as much as they do. Agreed, the wages are low compared to Western standards, but wage differentials should not be measured in absolute terms, otherwise workers everywhere except western Europe are too slaving away. I could even concede that most factory workers in China are on relatively low wages, a byproduct of the excess supply of labour, but average Chinese wages are by no means “slave”. Also, and more importantly, the Chinese were not working to improve our standards or toiling for our prosperity: they were working to improve theirs, like any sensible nation does.
It would be more appropriate to say that we were outsourcing work to China so that we could buy goods at cheaper prices and keep inflation down.

I agree that the savings imbalances and the current account deficits in the UK and US (and also Spain) are unsustainable and that our low inflation in the last few years is the result of excess savings from emerging economies being recycled into UK, US and Euro-area debt.

And I also agree with the culpability. All of us to a certain extent for being addicted to compsumption, but mainly our financial institutions for having failed to protect the interests of their shareholders, creditors and customers, and our governments and regulators for having failed to take the appropriate regulatory (disclosure, capital requirements) and political (current account deficits, allowing outsourcing to countries with unacceptable working conditions, supporting asset inflation) decisions to prevent this crisis from happening.

But Mr Peston forgets to mention the issue of taxation and the use of low-tax jurisdictions by companies and business leaders, and how this Labour government has done nothing to stop it.
He also forgets to mention the use of off-balance sheet vehicles by banks. The Labour government and the FSA did nothing to prevent it. And he does not mention that this goverment has overseen tax changes that favour the megarich and private equity at the expense of middle class earners.

But Peston also forgets to mention the concessions China, India and others will extract from keeping buying our public debt. Just now China, if they wanted to, could bring Western economies to its knees simply by refusing to buy our low-interest, low yield government debt. But the Chinese will not do that. They will keep buying US and UK debt and will extract political concessions from the West.

What these concessions will be is difficult to predict. But I am going to venture a couple of possible scenarios:

Institutional reform: the Chinese and India will demand that international institutions are reformed and the US veto is abolished at the IMF and the World Bank.

Taiwan: Slowly, Tibet has become off-limits for the West. And next it will be Taiwan. If I were Taiwanese I would be crapping myself. Over the next few years we will see how China, slowly but surely, will gain gradual sovereignty over Taiwan as a condition for keeping Western capitalism ticking over. And this way, Mao’s dream of a unified China under one leader and one party will be accomplished.

But will the US accept that they no longer have the monopoly of power in world finance? Will they (we) accept to be humiliated once again over Tibet and Taiwan? Maybe not, since Western governments will be unable to control the press and public opinion as efficiently as the Chinese. So we are heading for a political and economic stalemate of unpredictable consequences.

There is one way out of this problem without the Chinese becoming the new superpower and gaining power over Taiwan: inflation. If the West is unwilling to make so many concessions, China, India, Gulf states and others will demand that US and UK government debt pays a higher rate of interest than it does now. That is something our governemtns can do very well, and technically is called "an increase of the money supply", or as my dad says, "printing more money". This however will fuel inflation in the US and UK and Euro-area which could have a devastating effect on employment and business investment -unless proteccionist measures are adopted to protect "national" industries. But then, protectionism itself keeps inflation high; there is no easy solution.

So over the next few years our political leaders will have to make very “tough” (don’t they love to use the word?) choices.

Do they accept that a new world order is emerging and that there are political prices to pay? Or will they postpone or delay this restructuring of world finance and political power by implementing inflationary policies that will reduce the nominal amounts of national debt but fuel domestic inflation?

In crude terms, the question is: will our (Western) politicians give up the world power mechanisms they have built up over the last few decades?

I know what my answer is. What is yours?

Slightly above Turkey

Someone asked me the other day how Spanish democracy compares to other European states given its troubled history. I have a reply ready for these situations: “slightly above Turkey”.

We had another couple of examples this week.

First, there is one person who is going to be judged on a political charge: refusing to participate in the Spanish electoral process.

Marc Belzunces refused to participate in the administrative process of crossing people off a voters’ roll and spend a full working day in an electoral polling station. He objected on the grounds of conscience: he does not believe he is obliged to participate in a Spanish electoral process performing administrative functions. He refused to attend on election day.
Fair enough, you might think, can they find somebody else?
Not so simple. He is now being prosecuted by the Spanish Prosecution Service (Fiscalía).
They are pressing charges against him. A political crime in the European Union.
Oh, it just happens that the person in question is a pro-independence Catalan. Does this change anything? Yes, it does. Every election, dozens of people across Spain refuse to participate for whatever reason in the administrative process of setting up the ballot papers, counting the votes, updating the voters’ list, etc. I have not heard of any high-profile prosecution. Yet, we can expect the Spanish judiciary to ensure this (Catalan) man is fined and punished accordingly. And a wee reminder to others who may be thinking about doing the same. [Avui, VilaWeb, El Periódico, La Vanguardia, Racó Català]

Another example of the Spanish state dogmatic approach to its own brand of nationalism is in the banning of a TV advert. Yes, you are reading this correctly: a TV advert in favour of official recognition of the Catalan football teams has been banned by a Spanish court. [Avui, VilaWeb, La Vanguardia, TVC]

Why? I heard you ask.
Because of the following slogan: “Una nació, una selecció” (One nation, one team).
Oh yes, the judge also said that children were used, but I have not seen any of the political adverts from either the PSOE or PP being banned because they featured children. Since when it is banned to use children for TV adverts?

I link the video below so everybody can watch what the Spanish judiciary have banned. I don’t see anything in this TV advert that warrants a banning order, but then I am not a Spanish judge:





This is just another example of how Spanish nationalism pursues its objectives by using the law, Spanish law, to ban, prohibit, punish anything and anybody that might question their proto-Francoist idea of national sovereignity and integrity. Sure, nobody gets killed these days, beatings in prision cells are rare, but the same policy objective is implemented under the façade of democracy. Spanish democracy, just above Turkey and its infamous Article 301.

Spanish democracy revisited

Well, let’s not get the collapse of the financial system distract us from what the Spanish state does to those who challenge their (Spanish) nationalistic dogma.

In the last few days, the Tribunal Supremo, a legacy high court inherited from Franco’s regime has outlawed two political parties.

Yes, it is not a mistake. In a member state of the EU, political parties are banned. Particularly if they tend to be Basque pro-independence parties.

This is a strategy that successive Spanish governments have pursued for years. Outlawing political parties so support for independence, for a change of the status quo cannot be measured in the polls. By banning all political parties representing the pro-independence socialists, Spanish officials attempt to rig the electoral process, prohibiting a significant section of the Basque people to vote for the party of their choosing.

This is democracy, Spanish style.

I have written about it before.

February 2004
March 07 and again
July 07


For as long as Basque voters are denied to vote for a socialist pro-independence party, Spain is a half-baked democracy unfit to be a member of the European Union.

Yet, as I have written many times, fascist and neo-nazi parties are allowed to participate in the electoral process. What a fallacy: Spanish democracy.


Links:
Avui and Vilaweb (Catalan)
Publico (Spanish), again.

Russia’s way

The cat is out of the bag.

Let's recount.
An independent journalist, murdered. A bit of blackmailing regarding energy resources.
After a neat exercise of ethnic cleansing, follows an unnecessary invasion and occupation of a neighbouring sovereign state, and destruction of its military and civil infrastructure beyond the conflict area as a punishment. And a lesson for others: Ukraine.
You set out the rules of the game. States with Russian nationals are within the scope of Russia’s military activity. If I was the Ukrainian, Estonian, or Latvian government, I would be very worried indeed.
Another journalist, murdered.
A chilling threat.

I am no fan of the US foreign policy, as I wrote about in a previous entry. But Russia’s strategy and actions are frightening. Whatever the flaws about the USA’s government, standard of democracy and society cohesion, Russia is not the counterweight the world needs, despite the usual suspects' retorts. There are many people who are nothing more than resentful and bigoted souls whose hatred of the US blinds them to the authoritarian and antidemocratic nature of the Russian government. In their misguided ignorance, they think it is a “good thing” that someone is challenging America’s pre-eminent role in world politics and economy.

These are going to be difficult times.

If you are invested in an “emerging markets” mutual fund, either equities or bonds, I would encourage you to reassess your positions. Many of us have already done so.

If I had time, I would write what I really think about the term "emerging markets". A very nice euphemism for "undeveloped" or "mildly corrupt" countries.
Fasten your seatbelts.