EU Defence Ministers to discuss the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) on 2-3 October

The EU Defence Ministers will gather for an informal two-day meeting in Levi, Finland, on 2-3 October. The Ministers will discuss the ongoing EU operations and missions in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Sudan/Darfur and Democratic Republic of Congo. On 2 October, President Martti Ahtisaari will, during dinner, give a briefing on the situation of the Kosovo status negotiations.

The Ministers will also discuss the development of military capabilities for crisis management purposes and Civil-Military Coordination (CMCO) in crisis management. EU High Representative Javier Solana and NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer will also attend the meeting. The meeting will be chaired by the Finnish Minister of Defence, Seppo Kääriäinen. During the second day, the European Defence Agency will hold a meeting of its Steering Board at Ministerial level.

The press conferences for the meeting, at 18.45 (GMT+3) on Monday, 2 October, and at 13.15 (GMT+3) on Tuesday, 3 October, can be viewed as live webcasts or as recordings from the archive on http://www.eu2006.fi/

EU in brief

The European Union consists of 25 democratic states that have come together and committed themselves to working together to promote peace and prosperity. The Member States have conferred some of their powers on the institutions of the European Union, which makes it possible to take democratic decisions that apply to all members.
To date, the Union has undergone five enlargement rounds and grown from a six-member Community to a Union of 25 members. Currently, there are almost 450 million EU citizens.

EU Presidency statement on the military coup in Thailand

The Presidency of the European Union condemns the take-over of power from the democratic government of Thailand by the Thai military forces.
The Presidency demands that the military forces stand back and give way to the democratically elected political government.
Thailand has been living several years without major political turmoil. The Presidency wishes that Thailand will soon be able to return to democratic order.

- Adopted from http://www.eu2006.fi

911

September 11, 2001 - a terrible day in world history. Islamic terrorists crashed air planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Two planes hit the twin towers of WTC, another plane crashed into the Pentagon. A fourth plane (United Airlines Flight 93) didn't reach its destination, the White house, because of the bravery of its passengers, who tried to retake control over the plane from their hijackers. Of course, these so called 911 events were terrible and awful. Many innocent people died because of the stupidity of some islamofascists. They died because of the entity of religion(s). They died because some people thought that they are fighting a holy war, just like the US today. Of course, the US is a free country, with free citizens, but some of them, including godly Mr Bush, think as the "war on terror" as a "holy war". Some time ago I read a statement of Mr Bush. He was asked if he had consulted his father before invading Iraq. He responded, that when it comes to those questions, he prefers to ask a higher father (I'm sure he meant god). There you have it. He uses his belief as a justification for war. Isn't that strange, that Mr Bush hears voices from a beyond-the-clouds being? I'm asking myself sontantly: Is he conscious? Is he aware of things going on here on this earth, on this world, on our beautiful planet? It makes me wondering, when the most powerful man in the world makes his decisions not by sanity but by his personal belief. This is really strange and, which is sad, dangerous to the world. Think of it: What differs guys like President Bush fom guys like Osama bin Laden. Both of them think they own the absolute truth. Both of them think of their believs as the best and only believs. Of course, Mr Bush makes his crusade more subtle than Mr bin Laden, but in my opinion he tries to convert people, too. America once was a power of freedom, of liberty. Religious freedom was one important thing in US history. People were free to chose their religion or to deny religion.

Secret CIA prisons in the EU?

I read in the newspaper about some secret CIA prisons in the EU. This can't be. The EU should not participate in US war crimes. We make ourselves guilty if we harbor these secret prisons. They violate international law. They violate international treaties that have been signed by the EU. If President Bush violates international law it's one thing, but it's another thing if we do. We are different, we are better. We are the fighters for peace, freedom and democracy. We shouldn't forget that. We don't torture detainees. We don't wage wars for oil. We don't kill innocent people in the Middle East. All these things make us different, make us better from the US, at least I thought so till I read this newspaper article. I am very disappointed by EU member states that are suspicious of harboring unlawful CIA prisons. But I am even more disappointed by a US President ordering these measurements. All free people worldwide are called to watch out, to critisize unlawful, undemocratic behavior and to inhibit torture and war.

Pope calls for public commitment to Christianity

On the second day of his visit to Bavaria, Pope Benedict XVI has called for a clear public commitment to God. At a mass attended by around 250,000 pilgrims, he said that he had noticed a certain deafness to God, especially in the West. However, the world needs God, the Pope added, even in the areas of science and technology. He said that social affairs and the Gospel could not be separated. It is not enough to give merely technology to the people of Africa or Asia, he said; that is too little. That permits the tools of violence to quickly gain the upper hand, the ability to destroy and to kill in order to gain power; and that path leads away from reconciliation, Benedict added. At this hour, the Pope is celebrating a vesper service in Munich's Frauenkirche (Church of Our Lady).

- adopted from http://www.germnews.de/dn/

My comment on that: Dear Mr Pope, why do we need god? I don't think we need him, espeially not in the areas of science and technology. There are absolutely no signs of god, I personally never ever recognized him. The biblic earth history and the biblic earth age have been disproven by modern science. Mankind wasn't created by a supreme being, mankind evolved from apes. Am I an unethical person, just because I'm not Christian? No, I am not. But I prefer philosophical ethics, ethics that are warrantable by reason. Becuase of that, I am a strong supporter of stem cell research, evolutionary biology and astrophysics.

European multilingualsim - disadvantage or advantage

It is no secret that Europeans don't share a common language like the Americans. In fact, we have 25 member states with 20 different languages. This comes because some member states share a language. German, for example, is spoken in Germany, Austria and parts of Liechtenstein, Belgium and Italy. French is spoken in France, Luxembourg, Belgium and Monaco. So, you see, we have 25 member states but "only" 20 languages. The question is, if this fact (the multilangualism) is good or bad for the Union. On the one hand, we get cultural enrichment from our many languages, on the other hand, fellow citizens should be able to communicate and understand each other. Therefore the European Parliament promotes multilingualism, which is a good thing in my opinion. Europeans should be able to speak their mother tongue and English fluent and two or three other languages. I would prefer English as the main language in Europe, because hardly the whole European population speaks and understands it more or less well. I think our different languages are not a disadvantage, they are an advantage, because these languages enrich our cultural variety. They inspire artists and thinkers in a much better way and they enable a great vocabulary, which allows Europeans to write and to think in a very accurate way and to express their thoughts very accurately. Americans don’t have such an advantage. They should be jealous because of our multilingualism. I personally speak German (my mother tongue), English (first foreign language) and French (second foreign language). The great economist and mathematician Reinhard Selten promotes European multilingualism and the artificial language Esperanto. Selten shared the Nobel prize for economy together with US mathematician J.F. Nash. Esperanto is a mixture of nearly all languages. Maybe this would be a good thing, to have Esperanto as the common EU language. Everybody would be happy: the French, The Germans, the Italians, nobody could argue against Esperanto. But honestly, I believe European multilingualism is a particular good thing.

European Constitution

I decided to write a little bit about my thoughts of the new European constitution and its ratification. As you might know, the constitution must be ratified by all EU member states, but some of them decided (because of the citizens' decision) not to ratify them. These countries include France and the Netherlands. Why did the Dutch and the French people say "No" to the EU constitution? Well, the farmers worried about their subsidies and they're powerful in France. But why did the Dutch people reject the EU constitution? I don't know it. I just can't understand it and it makes me angry. It's a great chance and opportunity fur the EU member states to come closer together and to unite. EU citizens should understand the importance of a united European Union. Alone we are a nobody, together we are a world power. The French people are a brake for the whole European unification process. It's important to have a "European" France, because France could make the EU a nuclear power, which would mean a certain military strength. But they are skeptic like the British. But back to topic. What is this EU constitution about? Let's take a colser look into the law text. I'm not a jurist, so don't expect a scientific critique from me. I'm just trying to recite the law text and to think about it and interpret it. To the structure of the constitution: There are four big "parts" + a Final Act. All Articles start with the Roman numerals I, II, III or IV and are then followed by Arabic numerals from 1 to 448. Part I gives the general rules on the values, aims, symbols, fundamental rights and institutions and decision-making processes of the Union. Part II contains the Charter of Fundamental Rights. A special Declaration adds to the understanding of each Article in the Charter. Part III contains the different policies and the concrete decision-making methods for every topic. Here we find the major parts of the founding Treaty of Rome. Part IV gives the final Articles and the rules for future changes to the Constitution.
The Final Act gives an overview of all Protocols and attached Declarations. The Protocols are as legally binding as the main Treaty Articles. The Declarations have no legal value, but can facilitate understanding. Something to the History: The final text of 'The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe' was approved by the Heads of State and Government on Friday 18 June 2004, then tidied up, and formally signed on the Capitol Hill in Rome on Friday 29 October 2004. The Preamble of the European Constitution is a hot topic not only in Germany. Should we mention god or shouldn't we? Are we a nation under god or aren't we? The EU has a strong church history and I would agree: Christianity is part of European culture. But I'm against a mention of god, because I am an atheist and I don't believe in god. Europeans should be free to choose their religion or their non-religion. I have nothing against these Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddihsts or whatever, but it should be their private thing. I don't want to be involved in this crap. I don't want to hear anything about this stupid mystic bullshit. The EU is not a nation under god, it is a nation under reason. A mention of god would have a negative influence of European science policy. Just think of stem cell research, astronomy, physics, evolutionary biology etc... The freedom of science is in danger! Really, I am a strong opponent of a mention of god in the preamble. I zone out all the time, sorry for that, but there is so much to say. The topic of my essay is the constitution of course and I'm zoning out all the time. Back to the law interpretation of the constitution. As I said above, Part II contains the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Of course, the other Parts are also important, but more in a bureaucratic and regulative way. Part II is the Part which describes European anthropology and the dignity of all human beings. Let’s take a closer look. I quote the constitution: “The peoples of Europe, in creating an ever closer union among them, are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values. Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice. The Union contributes to the preservation and to the development of these common values while respecting the diversity of the cultures and traditions of the peoples of Europe as well as the national identities of the Member States and the organisation of their public authorities at national, regional and local levels; it seeks to promote balanced and sustainable development and ensures free movement of persons, services, goods and capital, and the freedom of establishment. To this end, it is necessary to strengthen the protection of fundamental rights in the light of changes in society, social progress and scientific and technological developments by making those rights more visible in a Charter. This Charter reaffirms, with due regard for the powers and tasks of the Union and the principle of subsidiarity, the rights as they result, in particular, from the constitutional traditions and international obligations common to the Member States, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Social Charters adopted by the Union and by the Council of Europe and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of the European Court of Human Rights. In this context the Charter will be interpreted by the courts of the Union and the Member States with due regard to the explanations prepared under the authority of the Praesidium of the Convention which drafted the Charter and updated under the responsibility of the Praesidium of the European Convention. Enjoyment of these rights entails responsibilities and duties with regard to other persons, to the human community and to future generations. The Union therefore recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out hereafter.” I totally agree with this. Article II-61 says, that human dignity unviolable is. This is very similar to German Basic law § 1. Article II-62 deals with the right to life for every human being. Everyone has the right to life. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed. The following text prohibits torture and saves fundamental human rights.
I cannot understand why the Dutch and French voted “no” to the constitution, I think it’s a good and modern one. I hope for a new referendum in 2007.

Science

Here is my third video about science in the EU:

EUFOR

I also made a slideshow about the European military forces. Watch it:

EU National anthem

I read on youtube how to implement these videos into my blog.

Videos on youtube

I tried to make some nice Europatriotic videos (or better: slideshows) and to upload them on youtube. I've seen a lot of bullshit on youtube, but I think my videos raise the level. I haven't managed to embed them into my blog here but I'll try to find out, or you can check my youtube account: http://youtube.com/eupatriot
I've made three presentations, the first is the European anthem with the European flag as background, the second deals with the European military force EUFOR, the subject of the third is science in the EU.

Criticism of President Bush

President Bush is one of the worst Presidents the US ever had. He is so retarded and old-fashioned. It's sad to see such a great nation like the US being ruled by such a stupid person. Americans deserve a much better President. He is the one who brought them to war, he is the one to accuse for war crimes. As commander-in-chief of the US military forces he is reponsible for the crimes his soldiers comitted. He didn't even excuse for their behavior. I am speaking of these terrible images of Iraqi detainees, tortured by US soldiers. This is a scandal. And it's a shame for the US Army. I'm sure such things wouldn't happen under European leadership. Another point which disappoints me very much is Mr Bush's attitude to capital punishment. This is so old-fashioned, I can't believe it. We Europeans abolished the death penalty long time ago, because we listened to sociologists, psychologists and experts on the field of death penalty. We Europeans believe in science, not in ancient books like the bible. During his legislative period, Gov. Bush signed not less then 152 death sentences. This means for me that he killed 152 human beings. This is a sad statistic which shows his barbarity. It’s the same thing with his wars: He is the reason for these wars, not anyone else. He is guilty. For me and many Europeans, he is comparable to evil guys like Stalin or Hitler. His cheating during the election (according to US film-maker Michael Moore) makes him a kind of dictator. He is a dangerous person. He is a stupid person. He should be abolished. I see some great politicians coming up in the US, guys like Al Gore, Bill Bradley, Dr. Heather Anne Harder and last but not least Ralph Nader. These are great and bright US citizens. They prove that there are still some people with brains in the US. Now I want to finish my short essay about President Bush, I hope I can bring more accusing data within the next days. I want to finish my essay with a statement: Dear President Bush, if you read this, please be sure that you are not welcome in Europe, particularly not in Germany!

European Patriotism

In this article, I want to explain what this EUP project I founded is about and what I want to aim with it. First of all, excuse me for my sometimes incorrect English, I am not native in this language, my mother tongue is German.
I just want to share my vision of a new Europe with other citizens. I believe in the rightness of my project. I am an open-minded, freethinking person. I am not bound to any religion or belief. In fact, I am an atheist. The European constitution, the German basic law and the ultimate law of sanity, reason and rationality are the foundations of my life.
You could ask: So why did you start this EUP project, trying to encourage other EU citizens to be proud of their Europe. This question is good and important. The answer would be: Because I believe that the European people love liberty and freedom. These are two very important values, if not the most important. People died for these values. People fought for these values. Of course, you could argue, that these are the foundations of the United States. But I would only partly agree with you. I would say, in the past, yes, you were right. But not today. America is changing, I see democratic values disappearing. President Bush cuts citizen’s rights by making unconstitutional laws (The Patriotic act, for example).
On the other hand, this brings the European Union and its citizens the possibility of becoming the now world symbol for freedom and liberty. European citizens are free people, have the right to speak, to tell their opinion, to oppose the current government, they have the right to gather and form political parties. These rights are important for Europeans, especially in the former communist East. These rights should lead to European pride, to European patriotism. The knowledge that we are free people and the Americans are currently only partly free, should strengthen us. Another important fact is, that Europe has a long history and culture. We are the ones who learned the lessons of our past, of course, there were some dark sides of our history, but also some very bright sides. The enlightenment is a European movement. In the past, we fought against each other, now we should learn from the past and work together in order to improve our future and the future of our children. This is my, no, this is our mission as European citizens.
The latin motto of the EU says: In varietate concordia, which means “United in diversity”. That is a good motto, it shows the cultural variety of the EU. That is another aspect we should be proud of: Our culture and our cultural tradiotion. I am not demanding that all national pride should disappear. You can be proud of your sub-nationality and your European citizenship. I, for example, am proud to be German and I am proud to be European. I see a growing European community, that makes me happy. I hope my short explanation cleared my intentions and I am looking forward to post new thoughts of the global political situation from a European perspective.