Download - Current Concerns 2013 No.39 Abandoning State Sovereignty Means Degenerating Into a Vassal State

8/13/2019 Current Concerns 2013 No.39 Abandoning State Sovereignty Means Degenerating Into a Vassal State

1/16

Current ConcernsThe international journal for independent thought, ethical standards, moral responsibility,

and for the promotion and respect of public international law, human rights and humanitarian law

27 December 2013

No 39

ISSN 1664-7963

Current ConcernsPO BoxCH-8044 ZurichSwitzerland

Phone: +41 44 350 65 50Fax: +41 44 350 65 51

E-Mail: [email protected]: www.currentconcerns.ch English Edition of Zeit-Fragen

continued on page 2

How Switzerland can defend its independencein a changing environment

Abandoning state sovereignty means degeneratinginto a vassal state

Interview with Professor Dr Albert Stahel, Institute for Strategic Studies, Wdenswil

Switzerland must concentrate on its roots and ori-

ent itself towards them. We must decide again how wewant to live. If we give up this determination, we liveas others want us to live. We must bear this in mind.Up to the present day, our political and social systemwas unique in this world.

Prof Dr Albert Stahel(picture thk)

thk. In Sep-tember i tseemed as if a

hot war in theMiddle Eastwas due sincethe Syrianarmy had al-legedly madeuse of poisongas whilethe evidence

of who had ac-tually used the

poison gas isstill missing and had crossed President

Obamas red line which he had an-nounced in February this year. Threatsof war by the western powers were heardevery day, especially from France, butalso from Turkey, and before anythingwas proven the United States sent an air-craft carrier to the Middle East. Signswere pointing to a war. Today, just threemonths later, the situation is somewhatdifferent. The conflict in Syria has com-

pletely disappeared from our media, ex-cept for a few reports particularly tellingabout the plight of refugees. President

Assad agreed to the destruct ion of his

poison gas stocks and gave in to the de-mands of the West; at present a militaryintervention on the part of NATO seemsto be no longer an option. The situationhas, however, not become more peaceful.

For years, the sword of Damo-cles has been hovering over the Mid-dle East, the threat hovering whether

Israel would attack Iran and thus trig-gers a wildfire, intended to prevent Iran

from becoming a nuclear power. Al-though still an outlaw this summer, Iranis now taken more seriously as a part-

ner in the negotiations with the UN vetopowers, EU and Germany. The situa-tion seems to relax slowly there. An con-sentual solution is more likely. Howev-er, nothing has changed fundamentally.

A few weeks later in the Ukraine a pro-

test movement has stepped into the lime-light, resembling down to the last detailthe US-controlled colored revolutionsabout 10 years ago, this time obvious-ly backed by European powers which

have learned useful methods for the re-tention of power from the US. This ishappening in the face of a crisis in thePacific between China, Japan and theUnited States whose outcome is uncertainand which is probably no joking matter.

These developments make us sit up

and take notice and ask for an explana-tion. Professor Stahel is an acknowledgedexpert in the field of geo-strategy and de-

fense policy. Current Concerns had theopportunity to ask him some questionsand to have a joint look at the situation ofSwitzerland in a changing environment.

Current Concerns: Professor Stahel, Iwould like to talk to you about the chang-ing power relations in the global context.

In different regions of the world we facenew developments, either in Eastern Eu-rope, the Middle East, Africa or the Pa-

cific. As these developments are certain-ly not all coincidental, I would be veryinterested in your assessment of the geo-

political weather situation and what theymean for our country.

Professor Dr Albert Stahel: In the Mid-dle East and particularly in the PersianGulf a new development has been emerg-ing for a long time: The US wants towithdraw from this area for two reasons:First, due to shale oil and shale gas alongwith supplies from Canada and Mexico

they are almost self sufficient and nolonger dependent on oil supplies from thePersian Gulf. Second, they want to ad-dress the new challenge, namely China.We have to include these two factors, ifwe want to assess the overall internation-al situation. The so-called rapproche-ment between the US and Iran plays a

role, recognizing that Iran has becomea regional superpower, which has alsotaken responsibility for this region. The

Officially terrorism is feigned such as by Al-Qaeda in

Mali, but basically it is about something quite different,

namely to provide raw materials, about economic consid-

erations and how one can influence the states and influ-

ence them, to make them stop cooperating with China.


2/16

No 39 27 December 2013 Current Concerns Page 2

How Switzerland can defend

continued from page 1

continued on page 3

agreement, signed in Geneva with Iran,is precisely part of it.

What does the rapprochement mean forthis region?

This rapprochement does not imply, forexample, that the area will now imme-diately be peaceful. We have the civilwar in Syria, and the United Stateshas, as it seems, procrastinated a solu-tion or termination of the conflict. Theyseem to leave it to the other countries,while the Russians are playing an im-portant role. This situation, withdraw-ing not only from Syria, means that theyno longer want to control the events inLibya which left to its own device

will sink into complete chaos. In Egypt,they seem to leave the situation as it pre-sents itself at the moment. However, notin an endorsing sense as far as the gen-erals are concerned. With regard to Tur-key, they are increasingly turning away

their attention from the Caucasus andEurope as well.

What will happen in Europe then?This is something that many people do notrealize. If a great power like the US exfil-trates from a region a new situation emerg-es. Turning away from Europe includes, ofcourse, a changed situation in Central andEastern Europe, where Russias influenceis spreading more and more, either finan-cially or with raw material supplies. Oneexample is Ukraine, which has turnedaway from the EU. And here the question

arises, how the US will act. Will they con-tinue to be present in Poland or Romania?Of course, the missile defense is a sig-nificant factor which plays an importantrole. Previously, this was officially justi-fied by the Iranian threat. This argumentapplies probably no longer. Not least, thisis due to Russias commitment. Basically,this has of course not been done becauseof Iran, but to highlight presence in Eu-rope, to be active in Poland, the Czech Re-public and Romania. The future will showwhether the US give up or want to push

through their interests, which will proba-bly not be so easy, because it will lead toserious conflicts with Russia.

What does this retreat mean for the oldallies?

If the US are now slowly retreating, ques-tions concerning Germany will arise. TheGerman government, theMerkelgovern-ment as well, has a positive attitude to-wards relations with Russia. It also pre-vented Ukraine under its former Presidentfrom being admitted to NATO in 2008.This is also true for Georgia, by the way.

In this whole game France and the UK arein fact the only reliable actors.

Reliable seen from the US perspective?Yes, the US will no longer be active in Eu-rope, and no longer invest as much. TheEuropeans are supposed to see for them-selves how to cope. To what extent theAmericans want to leave it to the Rus-sians or the Germans, is an open ques-tion. As far as Europe is concerned, weare in a very diffuse situation. We do no

longer have the constants that we oncehad. I do not mean the constants duringthe Cold War, but we have had such con-stants in the period thereafter. At the mo-ment we have a very unclear situationin which other actors play a role: Russia

and Germany. For Europe, this includes,

of course, the great issue of the southernbelt: Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Greece.Where do we go from there?

You have now outlined the upheaval on

the Eurasian continent. In which regionwill the US relocate their activities?To understand the situation, we need to gobeyond Europe, where the Pacific regionplays a major role: This concerns Japan,South Korea, the Philippines, Singapore,Indonesia, Australia, etc. They are cur-rently in the strategic focus of the UnitedStates. This is due to the fact that Russia isno longer a challenge for Washington; al-though Putindoes everything he can to beone. But Russia is not a military challengeto the United States. Except for its nucle-

ar weapons, Russia is a negligible quanti-ty. China is of course very important dueto its potency in the economic, financial,and other sectors. Chinas dynamics are aproblem for the US and they would like tohave this problem solved from an Ameri-

can perspective. In future, the US will notaccept any well-matched rival, that is forsure. The US will now solve the problemwith China in different ways. One way isthe containment policy. You rope in theso-called allies, for example Japan, andestablish a military-political barrier. How-ever, they also rope in the economic com-

petitors, the East Asian countries, whichare increasingly important for produc-tion. These include Thailand, Indonesia,etc. These are not only sub-producers, butalso competitors for the Chinese.

Then, of course, this includes all ofCentral Asia. Here Afghanistan with itsmilitary bases plays a crucial role. TheUS want to continue to be stationed inAfghanistan and via the Wakhan Valleythreaten China in the northeast. In addi-tion there is still something we have al-ways underestimated, namely riots such asthe ones in the Uyghur region. Certainly

the United States have their fingers in thegame there. It is also no coincidence thatthe Uyghur exile representation is based inNew York. This is how we have to imaginethe big debate.

Are there any other regions that causetrouble to the US?Yes, other powers still play a role, oftenin step with the US. Here we have to men-tion South America. There, the UnitedStates would like to edge out the Chi-nese, who play an increasingly important

role. In this region, China is a demanding

power for raw materials, but also provid-er of goods. Furthermore, there is the sit-uation in Africa. This is where the UnitedStates plays on various keyboards. Offi-cially terrorism is feigned such as by Al-Qaeda in Mali, but basically it is aboutsomething quite different, namely to pro-vide raw materials, about economic con-siderations and how one can influence thestates and influence them, to make themstop cooperating with China.

Are there already some concrete exam-ples?Yes, a classic example is the separation ofSouth Sudan from Sudan. The aim was todisconnect the access to the oil in south-ern Sudan for the Chinese. This is the cur-

rent situation briefly summarized.

This shows that we are really in very un-predictable global conditions.

But the US is still an actor. Although they have lost muchof their power, especially in the Arab world and in Eu-

rope, they are putting up with it, because their interests are

clearly in the Pacific.

A state that has no army moves towards failed state.This state gets in a dependency, it gives up, and isntworth anything.


3/16


continued on page 4



But the problem is that we do not reallyrealize them here in Switzerland. We facebig changes with powerful actors such asthe US, China, in a sense also Russia orIndia, etc. It is a complex situation. As it

has once been, it will not be for eternity.For example, in the EU there might oneday be an EU-light or an EU-North or anEU-Germany; everything can change. Inthe Middle East, the Arab winter has ar-rived, but certainly no Arab Spring. In theArab world, the problems are not solved.The stability of Saudi Arabia or Egypt isnot as it used to be. In the Middle East,Iran plays an increasingly important role.In a sense, Iran is a stabilizing powertoday. On the one hand it is very interest-ing to see what will develop from this situ-ation, but also frightening because you do

not know what will be the outcome. Thegreat solid guidelines that we had duringthe Cold War and its aftermath, this uni-polarity is no longer possible today.

But the US is still an actor. Althoughthey have lost much of their power, es-

pecially in the Arab world and in Eu-rope, they are putting up with it, be-cause their interests are clearly in thePacific.

What does this global upheaval mean forour countrys security, and how can weensure it? This raises the question withwhom we should join forces. Would it notbe a viable way for Switzerland to ap-

proach China and Russia more?In a nutshell: The Confederation has twooptions. One possibility is the one that youmentioned, namely to pursue an active se-curity and foreign policy. That includeslooking for allies. Searching for powersthat can offer something, either militarilylike Russia or economically or financiallylike China. This is the active side. Thereare efforts to maintain what the Confed-eration has always been since it began andwhat it has always done. We try to be ac-tive. We have not always succeeded, but it

would have been possible. The other sce-nario would be degenerating onto the levelof a vassal state. That would be the aban-donment of ourselves, and then only Ger-many will remain.

This can be no alternative!Right, but those are the realities. What wehave offered in the past 10 years, and I amnot talking about the little things, such asthe issue with the Zurich airport, which isonly a part of it, is a decline and abandon-ment of our own foreign and security pol-icy. We are delivering ourselves to a great

power, which will then not only determineour foreign and security policy, but alsoour interior and social policy. In that casewe would be a vassal state. We have tokeep that in mind. Germany does no long-er allow other states to conduct their ownforeign and security policy, for example intheir behavior towards the Czech Republicor Slovakia, and partly towards Hungary.We must not underestimate this danger.

Yes, I understand what you mean. A cer-tain naivety prevails with many people,here.

But it ultimately depends on us. If we nolonger want to be independent, then wewill move into the lap of Great Germa-ny. Then they will determine what is to bedone. As blatant as the alternative is, youwill have to face it. There are two pos-

sibilities: either we pursue an independ-ent foreign and security policy, and thatmeans to remain flexible and to find outwhere the opportunities are, with whomwe make arrangements and where we cangain something for our country. This ispossible, for example with China, not onlywith Russia and perhaps also with Iran,where we could be much more active. Es-pecially in the Middle East, we could playa much more active role if we wanted to. Ifwe have become more anxious and fearfuland prefer not to do so, it is our decision.Not the others will dictate a pr iori, but wedetermine our fate ourselves. When weenter into such a total dependence on Ber-lin, we will have given ourselves up. Thenwe will no longer exist as an independentstate, and the issue of our own protectionis then off the table. We might say: Okay,now you will do it. This is the ultimateconsequence. Mrs Merkel would have alot more opportunities ...

... but that is no option at all for Switzer-land ...... Of course not, but you have to think itthrough. We are at a turning point, avoid-

ing to lay the cards on the table is no long-er possible.

That would be the complete loss of sov-ereignty.Yes, but that is exactly the point at issue.Abandoning sovereignty means that weoblige ourselves to such a degree and be-

come so dependent on others that they de-termine what is done and what not. His-torically well conceivable. But we must behonest because we have lost honesty, thehonesty towards ourselves, we must open-ly and honestly say: we want the sover-eignty. But I must confess, with the gov-ernment and the administration we havein Berne, I very much doubt that the willto sovereign action is mustered. We al-ways talk of Brussels. In Brussels thereare representatives that want their officehours, who are not relevant. Policy in Eu-rope is made in three places, and if we

include Russia and the US, it is made infive places. These are Paris, London, Ber-lin and Washington and Moscow. There,European policy is operated. Brussels isabsolutely irrelevant. The EU is an institu-tion that was founded like the UN and isa fiction like the UN. It is a an institutionas well and thus a bureaucracy. Europe-an politics does not take place in Brussels.

We have now talked about the loss of sov-ereignty, but what does it take so that wecan keep our independence.

Sovereignty concerns the entire foreignpolicy, economic policy, fiscal policy, so-cial policy, education policy and of coursedefence policy. These are the key ele-ments that you have to think through. Thebest example is our monetary policy. OurSwiss franc has so to speak become thesubstitute of the Euro, and only becauseeverybody always complained about ofthe over-valuation of the Swiss franc. Thisis complete nonsense. The other countrieshave inflation, we dont, and the Euro isstill losing its value. All these are factorsthat are very troubling.

What about our national defence?Generally considered, we need army forc-es which are able to meet all orders, whichare able to defend the country, to providea service for the benefit of the populationand to address other challenges which donot have to do with the classic situationof threat.

To achieve this, we must strengthen thearmy.Yes, they have been weakening the armed

forces...

... for 20 years.

Generally considered, we need a credible army whichis able to meet all orders, which is able to defend thecountry, to provide a service for the benefit of the pop-ulation and to address other challenges which do not

have to do with the classic situation of threat.


4/16




It started with the GSoA-initiative. Thatwas even before the fall of the BerlinWall. At the time, Switzerland had in par-ticular the most powerful potential in Eu-rope with respect to the army. In Europe,

we had the largest fleet of tank howitzersM-109. Everything was available for aneffective defence. The airforce was theweak point of the armed forces. Through-out the 20thCentury, Switzerland had al-ways trouble with the development of anair force. The vote of 1993 concerning theprocurement of the F/A-18could have ledto a course correction. According to themessage a second tranche of F/A-18wasplanned. If we had bought them we wouldhave an excellent air force today. Unfortu-nately, Federal Councillor Ogitook overthe Military Department in 1995. Adolf

Ogi cancelled the planned second tranchetogether with the air force Chief Carellbecause they were afraid of a renewedvote.

What did our air force consist of in 1995?At that time, we still had the Mirage re-connaissance planes, although not thenewest of the newest, but still very usable.Unfortunately, after the abolition of the

Hunterfleet Ogi and Carell also eliminat-ed the whole fleet of the Mirage aircrafts.The two gentlemen at that time weakened

our air force in a culpable manner.

You spoke of additional errors that weremade.Yes, then came the splendid reform

Army XXI. Not only the entire invento-ry was reduced and entire units were dis-banded, but also the training of the offic-ers was deteriorating and the duration ofthe service obligation massively reduced.At the age of 34 soldiers, non-commis-sioned officers, and subaltern officerswere to be released. The entire wealth ofexperiences as well as the close relation-ship between the armed forces and thelocal authorities, the municipalities andcantons and thus to the population wereremoved. This reform was supposed tolead to an combat troops. The goal wasthe integration into NATO. Combat forc-es for the United States, this was the driv-ing force behind this reform. There werepeople at work who had been trained andthus indoctrinated in the United States.They pushed the reform in this direction,to serve at the same time Adolf Ogi. Inthe time of Federal Councillor Schmidit

showed that the army had an enormousamount of deficits, in particular in train-ing, and more importantly, with regard tothe assistance to the civil authorities, aswell with respect to the maintenance ofmaterial.

The great storms of 2005 showed thenthat we had almost no more rescue troops.The situation was precarious. The armyhad too few dredger men. There was asaying at that time that Schmid and Ke-ckeiswere looking for dredger men. Im-agine this disastrous situation. We hadsunk so low. On the basis of this experi-

ence, Schmid wanted to perform a half U-turn with the Step 08/11to correct the def-icit particularly with respect to the rescuetroops.

It is quite sobering that we no longer havemuch of what makes and distinguishes agood militia armed forces.This was intended. With the aim to formcombat forces, the essence of our mili-tia armed forces was destroyed. Whenwe look back on our history before 1848,Switzerland had two types of army: theterritorial militia to defend Switzerland

and the professional troops of the regi-ments in the foreign service. The foreignservices were banned with the foundingof the Federal State. The militia with itsterritorial defence was gradually expand-ed. Schmid wanted to correct the deficitscaused by the reform with the Step 08/11but it failed.

Now we have a new Federal Council-lor, Ueli Maurer, and instead announcingStop the other way round he createsan armed forces report where it becomesobvious that he follows almost the same

trend as his predecessors in the office. TheWEA report (development of the army)runs in the same direction. On and on im-portant weapons and operational materi-al including the Armored Pesonnel Car-riers 63/89, the basic model is still in usein other armed forces is scrapped. Eve-rything is being liquidated, and the stockswill be further reduced. So, the part ofthe armed forces which is intended forthe defence will be reduced to less than25,000 men. A better police force is creat-ed for the emergency of a war.

What is changing with WEA?What is now abandoned are also real es-tate and caverns at the military aerodromeswhich half of the world had admired us forduring the Cold War. Important materialwill be destroyed. This is terrifying, andone wonders who makes such decisions.

What does this mean for the defense ofour country?A state that has no army moves towardsfailed state. This state gets in a depend-ency, it gives up, and isnt worth anything.

How to defend Switzerland with 25,000men? Its simply impossible. Even if thereis no military challenge at the moment,we have, with regard to Europe, so manyinstabilities in this part of the continentthat no man can tell us, what it will look

like in 510 years. In the next few yearsRussia will presumably not be a real mili-tary challenge for Europe with respect toconventional weapons. But Russia can putother countries under pressure due to itsgas supplies. Also the increasingly closercooperation with Germany must be con-sidered, which was never that close as it

is today. Cooperation with Germany wasalways an old dream of the Czars. A statecant escape its geographical location.Geopolitics means studying the maps.The two states walk increasingly towardseach other, as at the time of Czar Peter

III., who was a fervent admirer of Prussiaduring the Seven Years War. All RussianCzars have been Germans starting withCatherine the Greatup until 1917. Thisis overlooked today. Regarding Germany,it always has been a powerful land poweradjacent to the even more powerful landpower Russia.Bismarckwanted to main-

tain good relations to Russia. Hitlerwasdetermined to conquer Russia. Britain hasbeen a seapower for centuries. In its histo-ry France wanted to be a seapower as wellas a land power and it failed on this claim.

In the very fuzzy situation, where Eu-rope is in today, the Federal Council de-cides that Switzerland doesnt need anycapability of defence. Important armamentmaterial is simply destroyed. But, what dowe need? On what should we spent 5 bil-lion per year? For a few armored person-nel carriers of the typeDURO?

From this point of view, one had actual-ly a say that the greatest threat is in thecountry itself. We cant say that here orthere we have to expect an attack, butthe steady reduction of the capability todefend is the greatest threat.Yes, thats so. Not the citizens are thegreatest threat to Switzerland. The realthreat to Switzerland is the Swiss Feder-al Council in Berne. The Federal Coun-cil pursues the dismantling of the armedforces and a reckless financial and eco-nomic policy.

What do you think about the fiscal policy?A concrete example was the proposedtreaty with the United States on the ex-change of data. Why the Minister of Fi-nance is not able to communicate to theUnited States: this agreement is superflu-ous; you do know anyway all this thanksto your NSA spying already. You shouldonly tell us what you still dont know. Thiswould interest us. This would be the di-plomacy of a sovereign State. The Feder-al Council would pass a message on to the

US Ambassador towards his Government,which is clear and unambiguously formu-lated. If necessary, the Federal Councilcould still send a telegram to Obama.

continued on page 5


5/16


What is to be done? You have set out todescribe what the outer, the global situa-tion is like but what are things like insidethe country. You have mentioned allianc-es where Switzerland could join forc-

es with other countries, including Rus-sia, China, or even with certain Statesin the Middle East. That would demon-strate sovereign action and strengthenour country. The threats are not real-ly concrete, but we are living with a la-tent threat. We do not know in what wayall this will develop. We are confrontedwith cyber war all over the world. Morethan ever the question arises to us citizenswhere do we actually want to go to, andhow do we get there?The armed forces must be equipped insuch a way that it can respond to a real

military challenge. The present mili-tary challenges and all experts agreehere are no longer the tank battles ofthe Second World War. With the excep-tion of the war in 2003 against the Iraqthe wars of the last decade were differ-ent. Elite units were used in particularby the United States backed by massiveair strikes against key persons and ob-jects. This means that we must adjust todefend against operations of such eliteunits and air strikes. In particular wehave to be able to protect our infrastruc-

ture against operations of this kind. Wehave to have a quite different concept ofdefence compared to the Cold War. Weneed means and weapons able to pro-

tect our infrastructure, such as nuclearpower plants, electricity works, commu-nication, command headquarters, sta-tions, airports, etc.. To defend our in-frastructure in this way, 100,000 men asmentioned in the WEA report (report onfurther development of the army) are notenough. For a broad-based protection of

infrastructure, we need at least 200,000men. Only this way, we can get survivelong lasting challenges. With 200,000men, the armed forces must be ready toassist civil authorities and the popula-tion during natural disasters. This mustbe the second but not the first priorityof the army.

In the 1970s we had the old point-to-point links of the SBB (Swiss Railway)at our disposal in case of emergency. Inthe event of war the SBB was integratedinto the defence concept. Thus, we hada redundant system. A similar redundan-

cy should be restored. This is in particu-lar valid with respect to the Cyber-War.Cyber-War does not only mean intercept-ing, but also the manipulation of bank ac-counts, obstruction of the command struc-ture, etc.

This means we would be easily able toprotect our country, but there should bea common consensus that we definitelywant to protect our country.If the political will exists again, thisshould be possible.

That means, it is on us as citizens to en-sure that the necessary political will isbeing enforced.

Yes, in two directions: politically, but alsofor the society. In the elections one shouldsafeguard that the right people are electedfor parliament and not such wax figures,who act as entertainers and talk about thedefence and armed forces in a way thatdoes not reflect reality.

During the Cold War left and right

we were able to reach a consensus inour country concerning the defence. In1973, one could achieve a rapproche-ment between the right and the left in theGeneral Defense Concept 73. In 1989,there were only helpless attempts at find-ing a consensus under Councillor AdolfOgi. The polarization increased. Feder-al Councillor Ogi had still the so-calledsupport of the SPS (Social Party of Swit-zerland) for carrying out his Reform ofthe Army XXI, but his own party silentlyaccepted the fiasco of the reform for op-portunistic reasons. FDP and CVP were

increasingly irrelevant regarding defencematters.

What are the consequences for our coun-try?Switzerland must concentrate on its rootsand orient itself towards them. We mustdecide again how we want to live. If wegive up this determination, we live as oth-ers want us to live. We must bear this inmind. Up to the present day, our politi-cal and social system was unique in thisworld.

Professor Stahel, thank you very much forthe detailed discussion.

Interview: Thomas Kaiser



Current ConcernsThe international journal for independent thought, ethical standards, moral responsibility, and for the promotion

and respect of public international law, human rights and humanitarian law

Subscribe to Current Concerns The journal of an independent cooperativeThe cooperativeZeit-Fragenis a politically and financially independent organisation. All of its members work on a voluntary andhonorary basis. The journal does not accept commercial advertisements of any kind and receives no financial support from businessorganisations. The journal Current Concerns is financed exclusively by its subscribers.We warmly recommend our model of free and independent press coverage to other journals.Annual subscription rate ofCHF 40,-; Euro 30,-; USD 40,-; GBP 25,-for the following countries:Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hongkong, Iceland, Ireland, Is-rael, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Qatar, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Swit-zerland, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, USAAnnual subscription rate ofCHF 20,-; Euro 15,-; USD 20,-; GBP 12,50for all other countries.Please choose one of the following ways of payment:- send a cheque to Current Concerns, P. O. Box, CH-8044 Zurich, or

- send us your credit card details (only Visa), or- pay into one of the following accounts:

CH: Postscheck-Konto (CHF): 87-644472-4 IBAN CH91 0900 0000 8764 4472 4 BIC POFICHBEXXX

CH: Postscheck-Konto (Euro): 91-738798-6 IBAN CH83 0900 0000 9173 8798 6 BIC POFICHBEXXX

D: Volksbank Tbingen, Kto. 67 517 005, BLZ 64190110 IBAN DE12 6419 0110 0067 5170 05 BIC GENODES1TUE

A: Raiffeisen Landesbank, Kto. 1-05.713.599, BLZ 37000 IBAN AT55 3700 0001 0571 3599 BIC RVVGAT2B


6/16


ef. In the US,too , mon-

ster-tax lawFATCA in-c r e a s i n g -ly arousesopposit ion.There is astorm brew-ing: Six USbankers as-s o c i a t i o n shave f i ledsuits againstthe In ter -nal Revenue

Service (IRS). China, Russia and othercountries refuse to accept FATCA, a lawthat wants to impose US-legislation uponother countries. US Treasury has al-ready had to postpone the date (for thethird time) because many countries do notwant to join in rightly so. James Jatras,a lawyer and specialist in internationalrelations, took initiative three years agoand with setting up his website RepealFATCA he founded a forum that reportsabout the resistance against FATCA in hisown country but also in foreign countries.

Current Concerns made an interviewwith the Washington based lawyer.

Current Concerns: How do you as-sess the political importance ofFATCA national and international?

James Jatras:It would be difficult to over-estimate the importance of FATCA. Dis-guised under the inaccurate notion thatFATCA is a tax enforcement law is thefact that it represents a massive and unprec-edented expansion of extraterritorial over-reach committed by any country, ever. Themost amazing thing is that, as even theUnited States Department of Justice (TaxDivision) conceded in a recent court filing,the U.S. lacks jurisdiction to require for-eign (i.e., non-U.S., including Swiss) finan-cial institutions compliance with FATCA,

and for that reason resorts to what amountsto the threat of extrajudicial reprisal (eu-phemistically termed a withholding tax):

Beginning in 2014, FATCA re-

quires foreign banks to report to the[U.S. Internal Revenue] Service,among other things, the amount ofinterest that they pay to U.S. citizensand residents. . . . To incentivize for-eign banks otherwise outside theUnited States jurisdiction to com-

ply with these repor ting require-ments, FATCA imposes a 30 percentU.S. withholding tax on many pay-ments made by U.S. institutions tononcompliant foreign banks.1

Nonetheless, institutions in many countrieshave convinced themselves (or have beenconvinced by consultants, lawyers, account-ants, and software firms that expect to makehuge profits selling FATCA compliance costs that will be passed on to consum-ers) that they have no choice but to comply,based on the threat of reprisal. As damag-ing as FATCA would be for the principlesof privacy and information security, the big-gest casualty globally would be the conceptof state sovereignty. Thats why the Rus-sian Foreign Ministry is correct in termingFATCA is correct in asserting that FATCA

is of exterritorial essence and is at oddswith the principle of sovereign equality. Itdemands that foreign lending-financial insti-tutions comply with American law. UnderArticle 2 of the United Nations Charter, thethe principle of sovereign equality is fun-damental to mutual respect between states.FATCA would in effect abolish it.

How do you explain the passive attitudeof many states towards the FATCA agree-ment?As noted, the compliance industry has

done a lot to convince their clients (banks

and other financial institutions) that theyhave no choice except falling in line withFATCA, and in turn these institutionshave pressured governments to signInter-governmental Agreements(IGAs) to fa-

cilitate the inevitable. But that defectivestrategy is based on false assumptions.First, it assumes that the U.S. TreasuryDepartment can proceed with unilater-al enforcement of FATCA without theIGAs. However, this is not the case. Asthe Treasury Department conceded in anApril 2013 request to Congress:

In many cases, foreign law wouldprevent foreign financial institutionsfrom complying with [FATCA] [...]Such legal impediments can be ad-dressed through intergovernmental

agreements under which the foreigngovernment agrees to provide theinformation required by FATCA tothe IRS.2

In short, Treasury knows it cannot di-rectly enforce FATCA against hundredsof thousands of institutions that would beprevented from complying by local pri-vacy, data protection, nondiscrimination,and other laws. These protections need tobe abrogated, which is the true purpose ofthe IGAs. Without the IGAs, even FAT-CAs supporters concede that the law as

written is wholly unachievable.Second, many foreign states, and for-

eign industry, dont seem to understand thefact that the United States does not havea parliamentary system. There is no par-liamentary majority in the United Statesdetermined to enforce FATCA. Talking toTreasury about concerns with FATCA isa waste of time and money. Yet no indus-try has deployed resources to educate Con-gress and the public about whats wrongwith FATCA. Meanwhile, I doubt one Sen-

FATCA: The real victims will be national sovereigntyand citizens and consumers rights

Interview with James George Jatras*, J.D., Washington D.C.

James George Jatras(picture ma)

In the end, the purpose is obedience for obediences sake.

Thats the most important aspect of FATCA (or the DOJbanking demand): we have given you an order, you mustobey.

If obedience is the end, surveillance is the means.

... in the whole FATCA law theres not one provision thattargets actual tax evasion activity.

* James George Jatras is a lawyer and special-ist in international relations, government af-fairs, and legislative politics. For many years(19852002) he served as a policy adviser andanalyst for the Republican leadership in the U.S.Senate; before that (19791985) he was an officerwith the US Department of State. He is a mem-ber of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar and the Penn-

sylvania and District of Columbia bars. Jatras isa frequent speaker and contributor on numeroustopics to print and online publications. He writesand speaks on FATCA from a legislative and po-litical perspective and has established the sitewww.repealfatca.com. James Jatras is married,with two grown daughters and two grandchildren.

continued on page 7


7/16


continued on page 8

ator or Congressman in ten could tell youwhat FATCA was if he were asked about it.

Third, Swiss and other non-Americaninstitutions that are begging their gov-ernments for an IGA under the false be-

lief it would protect them seem unawarethat under U.S. law the IGAs are not trea-ties and they provide no protection fromFATCA costs or data invasion. While thenon-U.S. government would be requiredto lock into domestic law its compliancewith FATCA, the U.S. side is required todo [...] nothing.3In particular, the UnitedStates will not honor the Treasury Depart-ments promises of reciprocal information,since Treasury does not have the legal au-thority to force U.S. financial institutionsto provide reciprocal reporting, and Con-gress will not grant such authority.4

Fourth, financial institutions (and gov-ernments responding to their concerns)dont seem to understand they have an-other, more realistic (and cheaper) option:to work for FATCAs repeal. In my expe-rience of more than three decades at theU.S. State Department, the U.S. Senate,and in the private sector as a lobbyist, Ihave rarely seen an initiative that wouldbe so vulnerable to a coordinated govern-ment relations and media strategy as get-ting rid of FATCA entirely. Such a strat-egy would cost a tiny fraction of what

already has been spent on compliance andwhat would be spent in the future. Yet, ithas not been tried.

To what extent is such an approach com-patible with the liberal constitution of theUS?

A noted conservative once said that thenice thing about our Constitution is that itpresents no threat to our current form ofgovernment.

Of course FATCA is not compatiblewith any sense of U.S. constitutionalism.Thats a main reason why Senator RandPaul of Kentucky, who in May 2013 in-troduced a bill to repeal FATCA also hasbeen blocking amendments to the tax trea-ty between the United States and Switzer-land, on the grounds that they allow pri-vate information to be transferred betweengovernments on only a Suspicious Activ-ity Report (SAR), not probable causethat a crime has been committed, whichis the standard for a search warrant underthe 4th Amendment to our Constitution.FATCA, of course, requires no warrant, noSAR, nothing at all: just indicia of being

a U.S. Person, which is far broader thancitizenship. It includes many people whoare citizens of other countries (for exam-ple, perhaps a million or more Canadiancitizens), most of whom dont even knowthe U.S. expects them to file tax returns.

Unfortunately, though, over the pastfew decades the mentality of the compli-ance state that has come into being haslittle to do with traditions of U.S. con-stitutionalism, which if not completelydead are in very bad health. The mentalitynow is: Youare all under surveillance ofbeing a tax cheat (or terrorist, whatever);

wewant to know everything about you,and you will be expected to prove your in-nocence. If youre not guilty of anything,you have nothing to hide.

Of course anyone who may not approvethis logic such as Swiss banks that hadthe insane idea they were bound by Swisslaw, not American law need to be taughta lesson. Hence theDepartment of Justice(DOJ) deal that in effect places this en-tire Swiss industry under U.S. regulatorycontrol because some few people were en-gaged in evasion.

Is the whole issue an attempt to get pri-vate information from citizens througha legal agreement without having tobuild up a big surveillance machinery?In the end, the purpose is obedience forobediences sake. Thats the most impor-tant aspect of FATCA (or the DOJ bank-ing demand): we have given you an order,you must obey. They are counting on thefact that you, the Swiss, are so terrified ofbeing ruined that you will do as you aretold and not even consider resisting. Theyare also working in expectation that your

restrained Swiss style will prevent youfrom energetically defending your rights.Thats because if you did decide to resist,

these people who are not the Ameri-cans in the broad sense, but just a hand-ful of bureaucrats would have a difficulttime enforcing their edicts.

If obedience is the end, surveillance isthe means. Under U.S. law, financial infor-mation supplied in direct compliance withFATCA would not be considered privi-leged tax return information but would beshared with intelligence agencies, such asNSA, CIA, etc.5In principle, under termsof the supposedly reciprocal version ofthe IGAs signed by the United Kingdom,

Germany, and other countries, informationsupplied on a government-to-governmentbasis is supposed to be kept confidential(though those assurances are not convinc-ing, and I believe smart lawyers would getaround them). Since Switzerland signed

the non-reciprocal version, even thoseflimsy assurances are missing.6

Besides being an instrument of financialespionage, is FATCA also an instrumentof economic espionage?Suggestions have been made that the realpurpose of FATCA is to crush foreign com-

petitors of U.S. banks and establish theUnited States as the worlds foremost taxhaven. I have difficulty believing this, ifonly because American bureaucrats dontthink in terms of economic patriotism.I think they accurately consider financialinformation the key datum for mapping,and ultimately controlling, peoples behav-ior. Thats an end in itself. To that extent,I dont think stopping tax evasion is re-ally the motivation, since according to theofficial Congressional projection, FATCAwould only recover some $900 million ayear enough to our government for about

two hours. FATCA will probably in the endcost more to administer than it would raise.Meanwhile, it is estimated by the U.S.Chamber in Switzerland that FATCA com-pliance worldwide would cost some $1 to2 trillion. Thats not tax money going intothe U.S. treasury, thats costs to consumersgoing into the pockets of the same com-pliance industry thats inaccurately tellingbanks that FATCA is inevitable.7

What was the reason to initiate a move-ment against FATCA in your country?

I first learned about FATCA from someGerman lawyers in September 2011. Likealmost everyone else here, I had never

heard of it.I started repealfatca.com for two rea-

sons. First, as a professional lobbyist andmedia specialist, I saw a business oppor-tunity to offer a better professional serviceto impacted industry that would save theman incredible amount of money. It wouldbe much, much, much cheaper to get ridof FATCA than to try to comply with it.The key is the fact that FATCA still has al-most no public profile in the U.S. and theneed to educate centers of influence aboutwhat I call the worst law most Ameri-

cans have never heard of. But in Wash-ington that takes money, but so far thosecompanies who could expect to save themost if FATCA goes away are still fixated

As a rational human being, and as an American, it doesntmake sense to impose billions and billions of dollars incosts for no real public benefit, to violate the privacy of in-nocent people (while the truly guilty will of course slip thenet, ...)

FATCA: The real victims



8/16


FATCA: The real victims


on compliance and the false sense of se-curity of an IGA.

Second, I couldnt believe that such anabsurd and wasteful project could actuallybe moving forward. As a rational human

being, and as an American, it doesntmake sense to impose billions and billionsof dollars in costs for no real public bene-

fit, to violate the privacy of innocent peo-ple (while the truly guilty will of course

slip the net, since FATCA is not designedto catch them in the whole FATCA lawtheres not one provision that targets ac-tual tax evasion activity), and perverts theprinciples of U.S. constitutionalism andnational sovereignty in the process.

How are the responses to FATCA in yourcountry and in other countries? Is theSwiss Referendum of support for yourmovement?In many countries there are citizens whofeel much as I do, perhaps even more

strongly, since it is their rights as citizensand consumers, and their countries sov-ereignty, that are being most directly tar-geted. Right now, I would say the twomost crucial battles are in Canada andSwitzerland. In Canada, our largest trad-ing partner, which has not yet signed anIGA, the government is under increasingfire from the opposition about their secretnegotiations with Washington to finalizean IGA that would sell out the countryssovereignty and abrogate the rights of asubstantial portion of the population.

In Switzerland, if the IGA is overturned

by referendum, it would be a major inju-ry to Treasurys attempt to fasten IGAs onother countries. It is clear that the Swissgovernment rushed to sign an IGA (theversion that doesnt even bother to prom-ise reciprocity, which the U.S. wont honoranyway) because they had been so terri-fied by DOJ already. At this point, they seeno strategy if you can call it that butcomplete and total capitulation, and beg-ging for mercy. Its no secret that this pol-icy reflects the calculations of the biggerbanks, who reckon that they will be better

able to bear the costs (compared to smallercompetitors) and whose bankers moralsdont necessarily include patriotism. (Thesame pattern exists in other counties, likeCanada, where the big banks are pushinghardest for the IGA.) The question that or-

dinary Swiss citizens and perhaps small-er institutions need to ask themselves is,will they stand up for their own interests,and that of their country? In Switzerland,citizens need to sign the referendum pe-tition and vote the IGA down. Swiss fi-nancial institutions need to help the ref-erendum drive, reject the DOJ ultimatum,

and help us here in Washington to get ridof FATCA.Elsewhere, the pace of IGA signings

which, remember, are absolutely essentialfor FATCA to succeed at all is (for Treas-

ury) disappointingly slow. Unfortunately,since impacted institutions are spendingmillions of dollars (and in the case of thebiggest banks over a hundred million dol-lars) each to comply with FATCA but nomoney at all to try to get rid of it the long-term outlook is not good. Its unfortunatethe extent to which the information wellhas been poisoned by compliance sellerswho often know little about the U.S. po-litical system and have assured their cli-ents that FATCAs repeal is not an option so they havent even tried. If they were

the only victims, I suppose one might sayit serves them right for taking bad advice.But the real victims will be national sover-eignty and citizens and consumers rights.

Global espionage of NSA and of other se-cret services (not only in the US) how isthis discussed in your country?As you might expect, the NSA spyingscandal is huge news in our country. Thepublic is very divided about it, with thosewho believe the intelligence services areonly trying to keep us safe versus thosewho believe (as I do) that if you want to

catch real terrorists (or tax cheats), thenyou should go after them and leave eve-ryone else alone.

Back to FATCA, another real disap-pointment and another indication ofwhy resources are needed to help withinformation and education is that eventhe privacy watchdog groups active onthe NSA problem have not taken noticeof FATCA. Perhaps because it doesnt tar-

get Americans inside the U.S. (and hard-ly anyone here even knows what an ex-patriate is), and because its been sold bythe compliance industry as a tool againsttax evasion, its been hard to get peo-ple to understand that FATCA is the iden-tical mentality of the NSA program: cap-ture the data on the innocent and maybe

the bad guys might be in there some-where. Unlike the big companies that gotpaid millions for turning over phone andemail records to the NSA, foreign bankswill have to pay lots of their own moneyfor the privilege of subjecting themselvesand their clients to invasion of privacy.8

Because there is so much ignorancein the U.S about FATCA, its been dif-ficult to make people understand thatan individuals financial information ispersonal information. In terms of intru-sive agencies monitoring and perhapssoon, controlling of the lives of peo-

ple who used to consider themselves freeand independent citizens of their respec-tive countries, financial information is farmore significant in content than most ofthe fluff and narcissism on Internet fo-rums, weblogs, social blogs, microblog-ging, wikis, social networks, podcasts,facial recognition, and other electroniccontent weve gotten used to thinking ofas defining personal.

Mr Jatras, thank you for the interview.

Interview: Dr Eva Maria Fllmer-Mller

1 Florida Bankers Association and Texas Bank-ers Associationv. United States Departmentof Treasury, et al., 1:13-cv-00529-JEB, UnitedStates District Court for the District of Colum-bia, Defendants Motion for Summary Judg-ment, November 8, 2013, p. 8; emphasis added.

2 Analyt ical Perspectives to the Fiscal Year 2014Budget, page 202

3 For more on this, see under www.repealfatca.comFATCA Intergovernmental Agreement Exposedas Bad Deal for Partner Countries.

4 For more on this, see under www.repealfatca.comIts Official: There Will Be No American FATCAReciprocity.

5 Cf. www.repealfatca.com: FATCA: a Tool of theElectronic Surveillance State.

6 Agreement Between Switzerland and the UnitedStates of America for Cooperation to Facilitate theImplementat ion of FATCA, www. admin.ch/ch/f /gg/pc/documents/2330/FATCA-Implementation_

Agreement_en.pdf7 Cf. www.amcham.ch/members_interests/p_busi-

ness_ch.asp?s=7&c=18 Cf. The US Surveillance Dragnet Extends to For-

eign Bank Data, Too., http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-us-surveillance-dragnet-extends-to-

foreign-bank-data-too

Sign the referendum!

After the bill had passed in both cham-bers, the referendum was taken on8 October. A Swiss committee includ-ing all parties and cantons is commit-ted to ensure that the necessary sig-

natures are collected. The deadlinefor the referendum is the 16thJanuary.More information, a set of argumentsand signature cards can be found at:

www.stop-fatca.ch

Financial institutions (and governments responding totheir concerns) dont seem to understand they have an-other, more realistic (and cheaper) option: to work forFATCAs repeal.


9/16


continued on page 10

thk. Today, theissue of state

sovereignty ismore urgentthan ever. Everand again thelarger statestry to put thesmaller onesunder pressureand to black-mail them.Knowing thehistory of Swit-

zerland, we arewell aware that

such tests are not new and that resistanceis required, so that the supposedly more

powerful ones realize the limits. Switzer-land has proved that many times in history.

The FATCA agreement with the US isexactly such an attempt at repression, aswas shown in the interview with the US-

American Jim Jatras. We are to adopt USlaw, which has nothing, absolutely nothingto do with our interpretation of the law, butis a result of US tyranny. Since the US legalsystem has nothing to do with the Europe-an or Swiss interpretation of law and judi-

ciary, adopting foreign law into ours is notacceptable.

If in Switzerland and this is the big ad-vantage of direct democracy anxious

political representatives go along witheverything demanded from them, the peo-

ple are asked to ultimately defend theirfreedom and independence, i.e. the sov-ereignty of our state. The referendumagainst the FATCA agreement is as mucha part of this resistance, which the citi-

zens can muster. National CouncillorPirmin Schwander supports the referen-

dum, and explains the background of thisineffable agreement.

Current Concerns: Why is Switzerlandcurrently facing the question of adopting

foreign law? Why did Parliament not pre-vent it? The vote was quite different in thesummer session.Pirmin Schwander:Correct. In the sum-mer session we rejected the tax agree-ment between Switzerland and US in theNational Council by a majority of 126votes to 67. That is, we rejected the agree-

ment which was finally abandoned.

What was this agreement about?This agreement was about abrogating ourown right, hence Swiss law, for a limitedperiod of time.

Is that different from FATCA?A few weeks later we in Parliament

have a bill for the FATCA agreementon tour tables. In the same Councilthis agreement is now approved with alarge majority, I think with 112 to 51,although it is much more far-reachingthan the tax agreement with the UnitedStates that we rejected and it interferesmuch, much more deeply with Switzer-lands sovereignty. FATCA means noth-ing else than adopting foreign law in ourcountry, in our judiciary as well as im-plementing it, for an unlimited t ime, in-deed. We would indeed have done sowith the tax agreement, too, but only

temporarily and in individual cases,and that is why we had to refuse it. WithFATCA, we adopt foreign law for an in-definite period. Whether such authoriza-tion will once be revoked, is as much inthe lap of the gods as with many otherinternational treaties.

How should we understand this process?This is a kind of double standard to methat the same Parliament refuses a tempo-rary and only selectively binding agree-ment with great clamor, perhaps in order

to score off the US or perhaps to defythem; next, however, we are ready to ac-cept a much more far-reaching and devas-tating agreement for our country and oursovereignty from this very US.

What will the consequences of the adop-tion of FATCA be?Next to the direct adoption of FATCA,hence a law that has not the least to dowith our Swiss legal system, we will haveto accept and implement even any furtherdevelopments. We must implement every-thing that the US dictates, without even a

millimeters say.

Does the counter law apply? What do weget in return from the US?Nothing, you provide the United Stateswith a far-reaching insight into the data ofnot only US citizens in Switzerland, butalso of Swiss citizens who have connec-tions to the US.

Will the US equally demand this informa-tion from their own citizens in their coun-try?

It is completely unclear whether the Unit-ed States will ever implement FATCA inthe country itself, but until then we willhave delivered all the data to the US.We had the very same situation in 2009.Again, we have agreed to the supply of

customer data, while the US did not do soin their own country.

That is absurd.Yes, we keep to our own decisions and en-force the law to the benefit of a foreignstate, whereas the state, which demandedthat of us, does not enforce the law in theirown country. Actually incredible.

How sovereign is a state when he goesand takes over foreign law?We should ask the United States this ques-tion. I do not think they would let thathappen in their own country. What theyask of the other states is a global claim for

power. I do not think that China or Russiawould ever accept such a thing. The proofmust be provided first that other majorpowers are acceptimg it.

It cannot be that the United States dic-tate other states what they have to do andwhat they must not do. The same rightwould then apply to Russia and China,which could thus interfere with the nation-al legislation of other countries. Would weaccept that just as easily? Probably not.

Those are the repeatedly denounced dou-

ble standards.Yes. There are always claims that interna-tional law is to be applied and the sover-eignty of each state is guaranteed. In therealpolitik that is, however, the great pow-ers do as they please and the little onesare being blackmailed and pilloried. Asfor the rule of law and democracy, thereis yet the difference between Russia andthe US?

What do you mean?We cannot compare our democracy andthe associated rights of the people withthat of the United States. The US legalsystem can not be compared with theEuropean conception of the rule of lawanyway. We have totally different ideas ofright and justice.

This aspect is often simply concealed.You do not really think that by makinga deal with the US everything would beokay. However, in case of a free tradeagreement with China or Russia, there isa big outcry however, when it comes tothe US, you will not hear a sound.

No, violations of human rights are thenno issue.

The US legal system cannot be compared with theEuropean concept of the rule of law

Interview with National Councillor Pirmin Schwander, SVP (Swiss Peoples Party)

National CouncillorPirmin Schwander

(picture thk)


10/16



The Curriculum 21 is ready for the leg-islative process by consultation. It encom-passes 557 pages and contains among oth-ers 463 competences and 4754 competencegrades, which are considered necessary

for our students. The aim above all is tochange and harmonize the education sys-tem in the desired direction. Partially thisis conducted with means of a pedagogicalterminology that shows foreign soundingneologisms. This competence-overchargednew Curriculum makes little contributiontowards meeting with common approvalwhich would be a precondition to harmo-nize the Swiss educational system. It wouldbe worth considering whether a frameworkcurriculum which contains a certain freespace for cantonal solutions wouldnt be

more suitable.The pedagogical merry-go-round and

the work at the green tables receive ad-ditional impetus by the Curriculum 21 andthe obligatory transition to a so called in-tegratives Schulangebot (provision of in-

tegrative teaching). However, it has notbeen proved that an offer of integrativeteaching which evokes a larger adminis-trative expense and a variable variety ofresources is cheaper or more efficient than

a moderate differenziertes Schulange-bot (provision of differentiated teach-ing) which was denoted as an essentialadvancement compared to the integra-tive Gesamtschule (integrative compre-hensive school).

During the hectic period of school re-forms the integrative-express cant bestopped, because no emergency break isimplemented. Also the unclear definitionof the term competence has become anoften used magic-word which determinesthe development of our school-system.

Newly competence-managers are beingassigned. Professional school-reformersensure never to get laid off and the re-forms merry-go-round keeps on running.

Karl Frey, Olten

Curriculum 21 and reformsmerry-go-round

An association agreement was to besigned between the EU and Ukraine onthe East summit in Vilnius. Such associ-ation agreements were concluded, for ex-

ample, with Turkey in order to preparefor closer cooperation, in direction of EUmembership. In these agreements, thirdcountries promise certain reforms, forexample privatising state enterprises, sothat international corporations can buythem up. On the other hand, the EU com-mit itself to regular payments to the as-sociated countries, allegedly to financethe reforms, in reality to bribe the rul-ing elites into gaining their goodwill forthe EU.

A second step in addition to the associ-ation agreement is usually the admission

of the associated countries to NATO. Usu-ally the military integration is part of thepolitical integration.

This, however, sheds light upon thebackground before which the EU actuallyoperates these associations thatBrzezins-ki, in his book The Grand Chessboard,described as steps for the expansion of theglobal empire. In particular, the Europe-an vassals must be kept under control bykeeping a good US grip on Germany, thecentral state of Europe. That is why thestrongest US occupation forces are sta-

tioned in Germany. The EU and NATOserve the purpose of encircling Russia,still regarded as the main opponent, to re-duce its sphere of influence and to turnthe vassals towards Europe and NATO by

means of coloured revolutions and un-rest.

In this game, the Ukraine has been thecentre of attack for five years. The Or-

ange Revolution of the Ukraine was di-rected by the former US Secretary of StateAlbright together with CIA agents andpaid by the CIA. President Ms Tymoshen-ko,then brought to power, was a creatureof the British high finance and tried to buyup Ukraines big economy for her clients.That the entire Western press continuallyurges freedom for this criminal is relatedto her clients, but is also part of the sub-versive US campaign for Ukraine.

The method to get the desired coali-tions under control of the US empire bymeans of CIA directed revolts, has be-

come a series: the Baltic States, Geor-gia, Egypt, Libya and especially the bor-der states under Russias influence. Thefact that the CIA was also active withinRussia became clear with those PussyRiots and similar protest demonstra-tions, which though, Putinmanaged tocontrol.

One wonders in what way the EUwould benefit from an association withUkraine. So if the EU already transfersbribe money and is going to agree onstronger financial assistance in an associ-

ation agreement, the Europeans benefitsremain relatively low, because the produc-tion capacity in Ukraine focuses on theRussian market, and would hardly endure

western competition and because Ukraineas a mainly agricultural country would ex-acerbate the problem of EU subsidied ag-riculture.

Whether an association would be use-ful for Ukraine is also controversial.Ukraine is in fact economically linked toRussia. Would this relationship be aban-doned in favour of a closer relationshipwith the West, Ukraine would not onlyfall into a sort of limbo in terms of itsenergy needs, but also like the GDR in terms of its foreign trade, enter intoa development from which it could not

recover in the short term. Moreover,the substantial aid from the EU wouldhave to surpass Russias, which meansthat Ukraine could only make a turn tothe West if it were not only remitted 1.6billion a year, but more than 10 billion.Since the EU offer was too low in thiscompetition of corruption, it did not winthe bid, and Ukraine remained in its prov-en and tested Russian bonds.

US and Russia are fighting about Ukraineby Prof Dr Eberhard Hamer, Germany

The US legal system ...


The death penalty is denounced only inChina but not in the US. Apparently that

is not the same.

It is beyond me why our Leftists presentthemselves so US-friendly, not to say cap-italism-friendly.I have the impression that the Left is al-ways involved when it comes to kickingthe Swiss banks in the shins without con-sidering who actually kicks and why.

It is thus clear that this agreement maynot be ratified.Yes, we must avoid it if we want to safe-

guard our sovereignty.

Mr National Councillor Schwander, thankyou for the interview.

Interview: Thomas Kaiser


11/16


US and Russia are fighting


To briefly describe the situation:

For Ukraine it is about who pays moreand who is going to develop its econo-my better, in the long run.

For the EU it is about pulling Ukraineout of the economic bloc of Russia intotheir sphere of influence.

For NATO it is about expanding furtherinto the Russian sphere of influence.

But for the US it is primarily about ex-panding its global financial empire and

its military world power by paymentsfrom the EU and about further encir-cling and weakening Russia.

The USA and Brussels, however, haveprobably underestimated the RussianPresident Putin. For the second time he

has beaten off a United States attack.The first time he managed to prevent the

already determined war against Syria bytaking up an idea of the American ForeignMinister the destruction of the chemicalweapons which had not been taken se-riously, to reach Syrias approval and thusto prevent the official US attack on Syria.At present the US only fight under coverin Syria by means using CIA and Mossad.

And in the case of Iran, Putin has so farprevented an attack by Israel and the Unit-ed States by attaining Irans concessionsto restrict itself to peaceful nuclear use.

Now once again Putin succeeded in

keeping Ukraine steer the Russian course,since he obviously threatened Yanu-kovychwith more economic disadvantag-es than the United States were able to offer.

However, according to Brzezinskis ad-vice the US will try to bring more and more

states in debt bondage financially and to oc-cupy them militarily. And even war is not acalamity but just business (as usual) for theUS Republicans and the US high finance,taking into account that the US economycan only start booming again with war pro-duction (70 % of production capacity).

But that Brussels and Berlin let them-selves be roped in to the plans of the US-world empire, is not only expensive, butalso dangerous.

Anyway, we should not go along withUS subversion to such an extent that wekeep describing Putin as an unwanted dic-tator. He is not only the German-friend-

liest president since one century, but hasalso become a peacemaker against Ameri-can war plans. Our interest is not US warsbut peaceful development not only in theWest, but also in the East. (Translation Current Concerns)

km.On 10 December, one of the leadingprivate US intelligence agencies, Strate-gic Forecasting, Inc.(Stratfor), posted a

short report on the events in Ukraine onhis website. The text entitled UkrainesDemonstrations Heat Up portrays theevents and influences in Ukraine, com-menting them and giving recommenda-tions for US politics.

Stratforis an agency purporting to pro-vide analyses and forecasts on geopoliticsand international conflicts. According toa benevolent commentary, the reports areconcise and precise, getting quickly tothe point. It goes on: Stratforanalysesare popular as profound and quick infor-mation on conflict situations, regional and

country developments, not only amongjournalists but also with government in-stitutions, companies and scientific insti-tutes. Referring to its function as a secretservice, the US magazine Barrons labeledStratfora Shadow CIA in 2010.

Strafor was founded in 1996 by GeorgeFriedman. He is president and CEO of thecompany. In Germany he is also known asan author of books. He has written TheNext 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21stCentury which appeared in 2009 also inGerman language. The main proposition is

that, in spite of some setbacks, the 21st cen-tury will be the US-American century, thatRussia (as well as Germany) are on the de-cline and that a new World War is unavoid-able en route towards a new world order.Critics of the book say that the forecastspresented there were not so much a reliableview into the future this is hardly possible

anyway but rather the wishful thinkingof the author. Equally, the so-called anal-yses, the so-called prognoses rather rep-

resent the plans of certain US circles thanlogical developments: After all, it is even-tually the people who decide how the worldis going to develop and not Stratfor. Andthey are very well able to decide deviatingfrom what Stratfor prefers.

A view into the Stratforanalyses can,however, provide interesting insights intoUS American ways of thinking. They areindeed revealing also in view of the cur-rent events in Ukraine. Below we are cit-ing the main paragraphs:

Outside Ukraine, there is substan-

tial interest in what will happen infuture. For Russia, Ukraines futureis closely connected with its own fu-ture. Ukraine is an area reachingdeeply into Russias heartland. If itlost Ukraine from its sphere of influ-ence, Russia could no longer be de-

fended . The main transit route forRussian energy carriers towardsthe West, the basis of Russian econ-omy, runs through Ukraine. Thisimplies that Russia will fight bitter-ly for keeping the greatest influencein Ukraine.

For the United States, the supportof certain Ukrainian political forc-es is the most efficient means to

push Russia back . Recently, Mos-cow has repeatedly outmaneuveredWashington, most prominently withrespect to Syria and the Edward

Snowdon affair. US support for theprotest movements in Ukraine area means to restrict Russias atten-

tions to its own region and to keep itfrom an of fensive against the Unit-ed States.The dominant actor in this gameis Germany which in the past hasstrived to keep a balance withinUkraine e.g. by declining a NATOmembership of Ukraine in orderto maintain relations to Russia, Ber-lins most important partner in theenergy issue. The reportedly tightrelationships with one of the mostimportant opposition protesters inKiev, however, raise the question:

What will be Germanys positionregarding Ukraines future? And:What really is Germanys positionregarding its relationship with Rus-sia?This is why the protests mark aturning point not only regardingUkraines future but also regardingone of the most important aspects ofthe future relationships between theWest and Russia and regarding thedirection that Central Europe willtake.

Indeed, German politics massivelysupports the Ukrainian opposition and,most prominently, the possible candi-date for presidency Vitali Klitschkoandhis UDAR (Ukrainian Democratic Al-

Shadow CIA Stratfor on Ukraine:drive back Russia and look on Germany



12/16


liance for Reform) party. And this hasbeen going on for a few years. The partywas founded in April 2010 and was builtup with help from the German Konrad-

Adenauer Foundation which is relatedto the CDU. Until just a few days ago,the internet page of the German CDUpolitician Werner Jostmeier posted atext dated 12 December 2011 containingthe statement that Klitschko had beencommissioned by the Konrad-Adenau-

er Foundationto establish a Christian-Conservative party in Ukraine. Aroundthe beginning of 2012 the Konrad-Ade-

nauer Foundationpublished a 40-page

comprehensive analysis of possibili-ties of military cooperation between theEU and Ukraine: Potentials for the co-operation between Ukraine and the Eu-ropean Union in the sphere of securi-ty. Currently the foundations websiteis posting a note that a party delega-tion invited by the foundation has beenvisiting Berlin during the last week ofNovember 2013. The foundation it-self has also commented the visit withthe sentence: It is an important con-cern of the Konrad-Adenauer Founda-

tion to consult the party also in its par-liamentary work. Why? Until end ofthis year, important taxation regarding

the EU integration of the country is to

be initiated. Party foundations in Ger-many are mainly financed by taxpayermoney. In 2011, the party foundationsreceived more than 400 million Euro oftax money.

Finally we would like to draw yourattention to a press release by the Rus-sian Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated 26November (see box below) which pre-sents a view of the events different fromwhat is generally reported in the West.We should at least take note of it to ful-fill our audiatur et altera pars duty and

we should take it serious. It raises ques-tions which have not been discussed suffi-ciently.

Shadow CIA Stratfor


Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign

Affairs, regarding the European Unions statement about Ukraine on the 25 November 2013

Moscow noted the joint state-ment of the President of the Euro-pean Council Herman Van Rompuyand the President of the Europe-

an CommissionJos Manuel Barrosoabout Ukraine on the 25 November2013, which strongly disapprovesof the Russian position and ac-tions in the context of the Ukrain-ian decision to temporarily suspendpreparations for signing the Asso-ciation Agreement and Deep andComprehensive Free Trade AreaAgreement with the EU.

This and other statements madeby European politicians and EUleaders of late, leave us puzzled

and disappointed. We call it un-fairly shifting the blame in Rus-sian. They are evidently causedby an aspiration to make Russiaresponsible for the problems inUkrainian society due to the policyof explicit pressure used by the Eu-ropean Union against Ukraine andother countries, within the frame-work of the Eastern Partnership in-itiative.

Russia has talked about the

harmfulness of such an attitudemany times, including at the levelof its President Vladimir Putin. Wehave always highlighted that thechoice of economic unions is a sov-

ereign affair of our neighboursand we will respect it. Russia onlyproposed counting the econom-ic consequences of the EU Associa-

tion Agreement for our trade andeconomic relations, taking into ac-count that the European Unionopenly warned Ukraine about theimpossibility of its existence in twocustoms unions with different lev-els of customs regulation at thesame time. Many experts drew at-tention to the fact that the divi-dends from the promoted Europe-an Union Association Agreementsare evident for the European Uniononly. For Ukraine and our other

neighbours the entry into force oftrade and economic sections of as-sociation agreements would leadto many years of economic disar-ray, de-industrialisation, the ruin-ing of farms and, as a consequence,the growth of unemployment anda reduction in the level of life ofthe population. [...]

To that end, we understand thecauses which have motived theUkrainian government to take a

break in the process of Europe-an integration, to think over themechanisms of compensation oflosses for the Ukrainian economyas a consequence of entry of the

EUAA into force. A propositionto study this issue jointly was ad-dressed to the European Union andRussia. However, in response to

this step by Kiev, Brussels startedto press the Ukrainian governmenteven harder, trying to convince itto agree to sign this agreementby any means. At the same time,it is impossible that the EU couldnot understand that such inter-ference in the internal affairs ofa sovereign country provokes theopposition part of Ukrainian so-ciety to protest and wrongful ac-tions against the lawful Ukrainianauthorities.

We are convinced that we allneed to try to avoid the creation ofnew dividing lines in Europe, andto build the European economicspace on an equal basis, with pre-dictable rules, which are under-standable to all our countries, andwhich correspond to the task ofmodernisation of our economies,implementation of advanced tech-nologies and innovations in them,and support of mutually beneficial

industrial cooperation.Source: http://www.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/

e78a48070f128a7b43256999005bcbb3/4ab87f04

a8a652d744257c31005d31e8!OpenDocument

26 November 2013


13/16


Direct democracy and security are closelylinked and interdependent.

Owing to its direct democracy Swit-zerland has developed a security systemthat has been continuously adapted andimproved in response to the historical sit-uation since the foundation of the feder-al state in 1848. Whether changes wereneeded regarding the security system hadto be discussed and determined by the sov-ereign, i.e. the voters, as a general rule. Inprinciple the federal state thus developed asystem which is characterized by freedom,order and security like no other country.

How fragile a democratic system is,especially if it is merely a representative

one, i.e. an indirect democracy, is demon-strated by the current economic and socialcrisis in the euro area. In many Europeancountries, the people as sovereign usual-ly have no possibilities to correct, adjustor change by vote the course of the gov-ernment or the parliament. Only throughelections is a change of course possible,but also in this respect the possibilities arelimited. Thus, the population often resortsto the streets and public places to expresstheir displeasure. Such conditions canquickly deteriorate into social unrest and

political extremism, which may gradual-ly disrupt a democratic society. Only up-grading the police force or even planning aEuropean intervention force will not solvethe core of democracy deficits.

In Europe we are facing a situationthat resembles the period after the FirstWorld War. At that time, the great major-ity of European countries had been dem-ocratic states for the first time in history.However, the socially and economicallymiserable situation in the interwar periodhad the consequence that the majority ofthese countries turned into dictatorships.In addition, the 1929 global economic cri-sis, which started in the United States,

just like the present crisis ended, pavedthe way to totalitarianism, which found itssad and barbaric climax during the SecondWorld War. Switzerland was also affectedby these events, but it was able to preserveits democratic system and even continuedto expand it. A look into the history of di-rect democracy is worth while.

Switzerland as a case apart

Direct democracy developed in Switzer-

land during the 19th

Century in a tediousand difficult political process. Importantfundamentals, which partly refer back tothe Middle Ages, were the co-operativeprinciple, the Christian and modern natu-ral law and the idea of sovereignty of the

people.1Starting from these foundations,political movements formed a state thatcan only be described as a special case.In the following three aspects will be pre-sented that demonstrate how the securityaspect was an issue over and again:

1. As was the case in England (and also

in the US) and for a time in France, how-ever, in contrast to other European coun-tries, liberal-representative constitutionalsystems, based on the principles of naturallawwere developed in the Swiss cantonsin the wake of the French and HelveticRevolution very early in the 19thCentury.In the context of the Swiss confederationof states the sovereignty of the cantonsgave room for internal reforms that werepromoted by the permanent neutrality, rec-ognized by international law in 1815. Dueto its neutrality there were only isolatedforeign attempts to blackmail Switzerland

or to force reprisals in a restorative way.On the contrary, many political refugeesfound asylum in Switzerland, who in turnactively supported the Swiss democratiza-tion.

2. Since the 30s of the 19 th Century,cantonal constitutions incorporated directdemocratic instruments, starting with theveto, in contrast to England and France(individual states in the United States fol-lowed until the end of the 19thCentury).Later the veto was expanded to a compul-sory or optional referendum. Almost par-

allel to this, the initiative(constitutionaland legislative initiative) was introducedat cantonal level. The fact that the new po-litical instruments were also transferred tothe national level in the second half of the19thCentury made Switzerland a demo-

cratic model unique in Europe and world-wide to this day.

3. It was ultimately the rural peo-ples movements in the individual can-tons which established direct democracyin the 19thCentury. The popular move-ments were influenced by various politi-

cal trends. Without using violence, theywere always able to cooperate for long-er times in order to challenge the cantonalgovernments and wrest democratic rightsfrom them. More and more the sovereign-ty of the people was made concrete withthe help of popular rights. This caused thedevelopment of a political culture in Swit-zerland, which together with federalismand the concordance was characterizedby continuity and security in the politicalprocess.

Direct democracy and federalism lead

to an ethical collectivismIn connection with his research on mu-nicipal freedom, historianAdolf Gasser(19031985) from Basel highlighted theaspect that direct democracy is a modelof peace. Direct democracy is the politi-cal system which grants the greatest free-dom, and you might say that in doing so,it takes the edge off power politics. In adirectly democratic system, the individu-als must, by means of upbringing and ed-ucation, be made aware of their ability within certain limits to freely shape their

lives according to their own ideals: If thisis the case, then their interest for collec-tive display of power will automatically beweakened.2However, in Gassers opinion

The way of peaceDirect Democracy and Security

by Dr phil Ren Roca, Forschungsinstitut direkte Demokratie (Research Institute of Direct Democracy)

(Bild thk)


(picture thk)


14/16


the urgent need to anchor the free individ-ual in the community by means of ethicalcodes and bonds remains:

The more a community is animat-ed by a bipartisan willingness to

trust, by an ethical collectivism,the more effectively it can thereforemerge freedom with order and thusestablish a maximum of social jus-tice, and the more certainly will theindividual be politically satisfiedand find the desired emotional se-curity.3

From this, Gasser draws the conclu-sion that in this kind of community, peo-ple become constructive participants in thepolitical process. Thus, this kind of com-munity is characterized by a peaceablebasic order. According to Gasser, there is

only one political form qualified to mergefreedom and order in a virtually organicway. This institution is communal free-dom, decentralized management structureor, understood in a broader sense of theword: federalism.4

You can hardly describe more aptly thepolitical culture in which direct democra-cy based on communal freedom can beimplemented vital, peaceable, embeddedin a safe environment. Any such commu-nity of people will not allow their state toresort to war to enforce its economic and

political interests: All those present de-mocracies which are federal at the com-munal level and built from the bottom upare characterized by the non-militaristicdisposition of their people. [...] The gen-eral tendency towards pacifism which be-longs today to the world of communal

freedom and of the vivid will to maintainself-government, is, so to speak, rooted inthe nature of things.5

Wherever the population of communi-ties is held together by bipartisan powersof conscience and by the collective spir-it of law-abidance, trust, and tolerance,

there they prove themselves as solid moralunits and have no need of strengtheningtheir sense of community by friction withthe outside world. Under such domestic

political condition, Christianity was ableto play its part more effectively than else-where in helping to repel military aggres-sion and the will to conquer.6

With his point of view Gasser designsbaselines for an ethical conception of his-tory which confers new dimensions pre-cisely to aspects such as democracy andsecurity.

Defence against war and violence onthe home front and outside

The further exploration of the emergenceand development of direct democracyand federalism in Switzerland is urgentlyneeded, as well as a deeper probing intothe question of what safety aspects thispolitical form has to offer. Direct democ-racy provides for widely backed politicalsolutions that are supported by a politi-cal majority. The minority generally ac-cepts a decision, knowing that they hadmany chances to expound their point ofview in the course of the discussions pre-ceding the vote. Often this political cul-ture of dialogue makes for the inclusion

of the minoritys concerns in the solutionof the problem. Thus, the minoritys con-cerns are taken seriously, and unnecessaryfrustration or future voting abstinence canbe avoided. In addition, the minority havethe right to re-introduce their concern intothe political discussions after a while,using the instruments of direct democra-cy. Such processes take a long time, butthey do lead to secure political process-es. Also, there is generally an increase inpublic safety.

Speaking in terms of security pol-

icy, direct democracy and federalismthus establish a bulwark against warand militarism. Its no coincidence thatthe militia army of neutral Switzerlandis confined to securing national defencesince, so Gasser: Non-militaristic na-tions [such as Switzerland], which seetheir soldiers as armed civilians and notas aloof beings, can hardly ever be cor-rupted to wage offensive or pre-emp-tive wars on a grand scale.7 Citizenscan participate directly and sustainablyin the political process on the nation-al, cantonal and local level. This leads

to their developing a true inner resist-ance against war and violen

Download - Current Concerns 2013 No.39 Abandoning State Sovereignty Means Degenerating Into a Vassal State

Top Related