The “European Union” and the Freedom of Peoples

THE “EUROPEAN UNION” AND THE FREEDOM OF PEOPLES

Iñaki Aginaga and Felipe Campo

Given the important geo-strategic pact AUKUS [Australia-United Kingdom-United States]: constituted by the Governments of those States last Wednesday, September 15^th, 2021, which has been harshly criticized by the “European Union” but above all by France (and China), we publish this text that, written in 2005, has not lost its relevance and remains totally valid, as well as an obligatory reference for the positioning of the Basque People and its State, the Kingdom of Nabarre, against the imperialism of Spain and of France and their political-religious allies. (Pampeluna, 2021 September the 17^th.)

Index

 1. – Introduction

 2. – The “Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe”

 3. – Terminology and ideology

 4. – “Europeanist” ideological inflation, as a supplantation of human rights and democracy

 5. – The Right of self-determination in the Treaty

 6. – European imperialism: denial of the subjugated Peoples

 7. – Suppression of the Human rights under imperialism: the “terrorism”

 8. – Strategic liquidation of the political opposition: the turnout

 9. – The reform of the “European Constitution”

10. – By way of recapitulation

(A summary of this work, hitherto unpublished, was published under the title “The European ‘Constitution’” [Iparla-4] in February-2005, on the occasion of the “Referendum on the European Treaty”. Given the current interest of the exposed issues, we publish it now in its entirety.)

1. – Introduction

“The political units, the constitutional régimes, have all their origin in violence.” “All the power of a State is based on the force of weapons.” Without “guns, a most important integral part of the constitution”, its domination is nothing. All policy is violence; yet not all violence is policy. The States have as a foundation the armed bands that have established and do maintain them. The Constitutions of the imperialism do not found the political order; quite on the contrary, all formal and secondary Constitution is founded by a real and primary constitution established by means of violence, which does precede and found it and to which the former does serve and develop: counterfeiting and hiding, when necessary, its historical and political origin, nature and structure. After having been established as warranty of freedom and democracy, the modern totalitarianism has turned the Constitutions into a weapon for the repression and destruction of the fundamental rights human.

The Constitutions of imperialism try to disguise, in the prudent measure that the political reality allows it, the real – political, historical and sociological – fundamentals and the nature and structure of the régime that produces them. Thus they hide the violation of fundamental human rights, the crimes against the laws of war, against peace and against humanity, the military aggression, war and occupation, terrorism, repression, colonization and deportation of populations, the exploitation and plunder, and the monopolies of violence and propaganda: methods and instruments that do base and constitute the imperialistic system of conquest, domination and genocide.

To search, claim for themselves, preserve, increase and use the highest possible capacity of actual and virtual violence within their reach, thus reducing or annulling that of the others: such is the fundamental norm inherent to the political reality between Nations, the only one that their actors – the States – do know, recognize and practice. War, oppression and destruction of the other Peoples and States by means of violence are characteristic of the “state of nature”: the conflict of all against all in which human beings live.

The European “Nation-States”, like the others, do not serve any other interest or accept any other law but their own ones: the preservation or the increase of their own political power at the expense of the others is the only international law that they know and obey. The “European Union” that is being proposed for its “Constitution” is but a means whereby they hope to better achieve such an objective. The “internal politics” of the “European Union” is but the foreign policy of the States that are establishing it. The “European Union”, a set-up of the States that compose it, serves the purpose for which they are mounting it.

For the current dominant Powers of the global order and disorder, the freedom, self-determination or independence of Peoples, and the democracy that only this freedom allows to be established, are anachronistic and unattainable utopias that “their national and international reality” do exclude. They are matters of propaganda: useful to mislead the Weak and the Fool. What those States say about those fantasies does not count, and it only applies insofar as it serves what they aim toand do.

The totalitarian States do not comply with ideas and norms; they are the ideas and norms which are made so that they comply with in the service of the interests and behaviour of each State. In this ideological line, the behaviour of the States is good or bad, democratic or undemocratic, non-violent or violent, peaceful or aggressive etc. only in the well-understood assumption that it is “good, democratic, non-violent, peaceful” etc. always what they themselves do; and it is “bad, undemocratic, violent, aggressive” etc. what the others do. The modern totalitarian political power does create, destroy or manipulate – deliberately and to its own convenience – notions, principles and values; and does modify, recuperate and confuse the meaning of words, the content of the ideas and norms, and the positive or negative emotional import of terms and concepts: an emotional import that it transfers to partially or totally different ideas, built on the destruction, deformation or confusion of the primitive and authentic ones.

The Nationalist-imperialistic ideology: National-socialist/communisty or National-fascist, has not as its primary or secondary aim the truth, the science, the knowledge or the information but their destruction or manipulation, at the service of domination over the Peoples and the disappearance of free persons.

According to the International Right, the Charter and the Resolutions of the United Nations (UN), the Treaty of Vienna (“Treaty of Treaties”), and the “international” jurisprudence anterior and posterior to it, the validity of the Treaties implies the exclusion of “essential” error, bad faith, fraud, corruption, violence (including the threat of violence), crimes against human rights (in particular against the right of self-determination or independence of all Peoples), war of aggression, colonialism, genocide, political or moral pressure, the so-called “Unequal Treaties” and, in general, the violation of international norms.

As it is claimed, the international interpretation of valid Treaties excludes “the attacks on logic; the unusual, misleading or contradictory terms and senses; the irrelevant provisions; and the unintended, incoherent, non-reasonable or absurd conclusions”. However, the misunderstandings, confusion and theoretical vacuity (whether afferent or resultant): so often present in Constitutions and Treaties, are not a simple matter of interpretative technique. In reality, they are procedures that do not weaken but liberate, enhance and protect the total power, which cannot bear an ideology without ambiguity just as cannot bear it without having in its hands the monopoly of expression and propaganda. Democracy, freedom, federation, People, Nation, right, State, violence, terrorism, resistance, fascism, Treaty or Constitution are key concepts and terms of the political ideology, and are therefore systematically falsified and confused by the totalitarian propaganda and psychological warfare. They imply and mean in each case what the established power wants them to imply and mean.

2. – The “Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe”

The Conventional and inter-Governmental Members appointed for the drafting of the Treaty have carried out – so they say – the biggest effort ever made to simplify, clarify, democratize and bring closer to the citizen the fundamental texts of the “European Union”, and have gained the gratitude of the High Contracting Parties for having drafted the project of this “Constitution”. However, in view of the result, it could be argued that they have aimed to exactly the opposite and that the success has accompanied them in the enterprise.

Its 448 articles, surpassed in extension by the 36 “Protocols annexed to the Treaty”, the 2 “Annexes to the Treaty”, the 50 “Declarations concerning provisions of the Constitution”, the “Declarations concerning Protocols annexed to the Constitution”, and the “Declarations annexed to the Final Act”, do perfectly fulfil their mission in concealing from the perplexed “citizens of Europe” the pith ad marrow of the matter. The mere consideration of the “constitutional” Preamble allows appreciating in its worth the alleged simplification and clarification brought about by the drafting of the project, driven by the laudable purpose of bringing the Treaty nearer to the citizen. Bearing in mind what the fun has costed and is going to cost to him, the citizen of the “European Union” – lucky beneficiary of the operation – could certainly have expected a performance more in line with the fees of the producers.

The Treaty of the “European Union” is, technically, literarily and even grammatically, a botched job: an expensive and reactionary, arrogant and self-satisfied, pretentious and pedantic, confusing, burdensome and cumbersome, fallacious and liar, repetitive and endless, annoying, cloying and tedious accumulation of clouds of smoke, propaganda and empty rhetoric; of patches, mendings, provisions, counter-provisions and nonsense assembled by a coarse and poor systematization, which excludes any concern on conciseness or parsimony; all of it to the service and benefit of the ideological intoxication of masses.

“The High Contracting Parties” are “DETERMINED to continue the work accomplished within the framework of the Treaties establishing the European Communities and the Treaty on European Union, by ensuring the continuity of the Community acquis.” (Preamble.)

“This Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe shall repeal the Treaty establishing the European Community, [and] the Treaty on European Union”. (IV-437)

“The European Union established by this Treaty shall be the successor to the European Union established by the Treaty on European Union and to the European Community.” (IV-438)

So emphatic a decision and so sure a guarantee of a doubly mentioned continuity, and so careless and uneven a formulation, do not prevent to expressly establish the succession of Treaties, Communities and Unions; which does exclude the institutional identity or continuity. This expedient does obviously serve the ideological interest of presenting the European Union bis as a fundamental political novelty, if not “revolutionary”, and of hiding their true and constant content: to reinforce the domination of States through a more and more tight entente against democracy, human rights and freedoms of Peoples. The “constituent” procedure gathers conditions and locks in such a way that it could not be otherwise.

The Treaty of the European Union founds its positivity and legitimacy by reference to “the States of Europe” and their euro-constituent monopoly. In doing so it does not avoid but it embeds the falsifications and wiles, the prejudices and myths, the conceptual and semantic misunderstandings, the contradictions and petitions of principle that populate the preambles and the fundamental norms of the “national Constitutions” of European imperialism. The fact that the Conventional and inter-Governmental Members constituent of the Treaty, which are their respective States, do not have clearer ideas – with regard to the concepts or terms that they are handling – than the Conventional Members constituent of the Constitutions of the States themselves, it is not either – or is not only – a result of theoretical shortcomings; it is an ideological effect of the tensions, contradictions and repression that are inherent to the imperialist system, and to the needs of its propaganda.

The French text respects at least French grammar, for want of respecting others things: it is the least that could be expected of the qualities that his subjects attribute to a former President of the Republic of sundry literary inclinations. There same cannot be said of the Spanish version: the Spanish politicians, jurists, constitutionalists and publicists have always had tense and problematic relationships with their national grammar; and the grammatical breakdowns that they perpetrate do always result in breakdowns of the logical-formal system.

The Spanish text is also more “contemplative” than the French original; without this seeming to respond to different monastic or military inclinations between the two Latin sisters, favourite daughters of the Holy Mother Church. Half monks and half soldiers (as if they were a new Order of Knights), the Spanish jurists-ideologists or ideologists-jurists have given to the verb “contemplate” a meaning as pedantic as improper and pseudo-juridical. The monopolies of press and broadcasting, communication and incommunication, information and misinformation: whose agents in nothing yield ground with respect to their jurist colleagues in the question of pedantic attacks to grammar, semantic and phonetics, have disseminated and popularized that “innovation”, now incorporated as a relevant Hispanic contribution to the Treaty of the European Union. By reason of the famous principle of equality between the State languages, the original preparatory or Conventional text does not have pre-eminence over the other versions; which, in the European Babel of the multilateral Treaty, raises different issues and problems of concordance and juridical and linguistic interpretation.

When the Treaty refers either to the citizens and the States “of Europe”, or to a Constitution “for Europe”, it is not alluding to a vague physical-geographical approach. The citizens and States “from whose will the Constitution is born”, and with it an eventual, possible, probable, future or potential “European Union”, are – in expectation of becoming members of it – exactly the same members of a homonymous prior “European Union”: the “European Union” instituted by the Twelve “countries” signatory of the “Treaty on the European Union” of Maastricht, after the long evolution of the Communities which started with the Treaty of Rome. It is the “European Council” of that initial “European Union” which has opened the process towards the new Union and the new European Council that will succeed them.

According to the “main title” that precedes its Preamble, we are dealing with a “Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe”. If – said by active – “The Treaty establishes the Constitution”, then there occurs otherness between the one and the other; which can be banal in some political systems – especially the federal or confederal ones – but not in the matrix of the “European Union”, perhaps because, in reality, here there is a “Treaty” but not a “Constitution”. In this new normative matrix of a possible new “European Union”, that’s to say: in the “Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe”, the “Constitution” is the Treaty and nothing else.

In other words: it could be understood that there is otherness (alterity) between a constituent or constitutive Treaty, and a Constitution constituted or established by it, for the establishment of a political reality different from the States; in the same way that such an otherness can appear in some political systems, especially federal or confederal. The very expression (not official but informal) “Constitutional Treaty”: not constituent or constitutive, confirms it so. However, the resulting political Organization consists in an international relationship, that’s to say: inter-State, and not in a new political subject (agent). Nor does the Treaty establish the Constitution as a part of it, since the so-called Constitution extends to all the Treaty. The term “Constitution” is worth what is worth, or what is does not. The “Constitution”, in the sense that the Treaty gives it, is a simple pleonastic doublet: the purported utility of diverting the meaning of a term, so as to give two names to the same thing, falls in the field of ideological conditioning.

The terms “create, establish, constitute” appear in the proposed Treaty as equivalent; and so, while the “European Union” bis will be created by the Constitution established by the Treaty, that is: in the Treaty with which it is identified, the current Union and the Communities were created by “the constituent (non-Constitutional) Treaties of the European Communities and by the Treaty of the European Union”.

“Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe to build a common future, this Constitution establishes the European Union, on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common.” (I-1) Thus, the citizens and the States make the Constitution, which establishes a Union without competencies: the competencies are given onto it later on by the Member States. Yet, against its own and hypostatic statement, the Constitution does not create the “European Union”, since Constitution and “European Union” are not different entities. As in the case of the World, which could have only been created – if it was so – by a creator preceding and different from it, similarly there cannot be political creation without alterity (otherness), and in this case there is not any, because the Constitution is the Union.

In other words, the Constitution: which is constitutive of the “European Union”, cannot be simultaneously also a constituent of it. “The Member States of the Union”, constituted in it, cannot constitute it: they cannot establish what is already established, nor can be members of what is not. The Union cannot be constituent and be at the same time constituted in the same Constitution. “The Member States of the Union” do not confer competences to the constituted Union: the “conferral of competences upon the Union” is itself the Constitution of the Union. One can only talk about two successive and homonymous Unions: constituted the first one by the constituent States in the long evolution started with the Treaty of Rome; and constituted the second one by the States of the first Union, constituents in the “constitutional” Treaty. The “citizens of Europe” are not either the citizens of a Union constituted by the Constitution; they are the citizens of a Union that precedes it: in the same way as the “national citizenship” is the product and not the creator of the State Constitution, which can only be constituted by the citizenship of a preceding formal or real Constitution. “Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship and shall not replace it.” (I-10) Just as the “European identity” is added to the national identity without replacing it.

The “Constitution” that is being established “for Europe” by the States of the current (i.e., the previous one) European Union cannot also have as the recipient the new “European Union” destined to succeed it; which, devoid of otherness with regard to its own Constitution, cannot be its recipient similarly as cannot be its creature. There can only be established either a Constitution of the new “European Union”, or a draft of Constitution for a possible European Union. And if it is established for the current European Union it is then about a deadly destiny, because its entry in force, which is the birth of the new Union, is also the liquidation of the old one.

As it seems, the “European Union” is born without competencies, and the competencies are conferred to it afterward by the Member States in the Constitution:

“2. Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act within the limits of the competencies conferred upon it by the Member States in the Constitution to attain the objectives set out in the Constitution. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Constitution remain with the Member States.”(I-11)

But the conferral of competences is itself the Constitution of the “European Union”, which does not exist but for the conferral of competences – by the States of the preceding European Union – upon a “collective group” that they thus constitute in new “European Union” of which they become members. Now then, those States: whatever their constituent omnipotence can be, cannot as such members confer competencies to the European Union, which they constitute by their conferral and which therefore does not yet exist. There is no conferral of competencies without otherness. Only the Member States of the preceding European Union can confer something to someone.

An inter-State organization cannot be created or constituted by its Member States, which neither can constitute what is already constituted, nor be members of what is not so. (Analogously, in the “national States” the citizens and bodies not constituent but constituted by the Constitutions, the codes of nationality or citizenship, or the civil codes, are different from the citizens and bodies of the real and primary constitution, constituent of the formal and secondary Constitution.)

If one wants to avoid all semantic misunderstanding it’s necessary to remember that, in the special genetic-political sense of those terms, all formal and secondary Constitution is eventually “constituted” by another constituent or constitutive Constitution, and that in the last analysis it is always so by a real and primary constitution that it precedes and founds it. (Which, in the case of an imperialistic régime, consists in an armed occupation and annexation.) In that sense, the Treaty, the Constitution and the Member States, unlike the Contracting States of the proposed “European Union”, are not “constituent and constitutive” of a European Union “constituted” by themselves; the same as the Treaties and Member States of the European Communities and the European Union were not so with respect to the respective Communities and their Union.

Yet, in the more general sense of the terms, all political entity is immediately “constituted” by their constituent or constitutive components, has its formal or real “constitution”, itself inherent to its existence. As members of the proposed “European Union”, the Treaty, the Constitution and the Member States will be, eventually, constitutive or constituent of the Union constituted by them, as well as the constitutive Treaties of the European Communities and of the European Union and the Member States were and continue being so of the Communities and of the Union constituted by them. (The tendency to the differentiation-specialization of the terms according to the two meanings is as semantically arbitrary as practically poorly established.)

Actually, the current “Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe” does not constitute much. The “European Union” is not a State, a Federation or a Confederation: it is a creation of the States that precede and compose it in the limits and conditions that suit them; lacks its own political power; and has not more competencies than those delegated by them nor more armed forces than those of themselves. Those who are expecting something from this Union should not expect more than what it can give.

Neither is it enough to call an agreement “Convention, Treaty and/or Constitution” so as to get it thereby turned into all those things. The invocations, the promises, the unilateral statements, the manifestations of intention and of principles, the catalogues of values, rights and freedoms, the principles and proclamations of aims, the contributions, the condemnations and imprecations, the codes of conduct and agreements of cooperation, the not-binding and gentlemen’s agreements, the commercial or cultural directives and concerts, the non-conventional Letters and acts and, above all, the propaganda and the food for fools that fill, flood and overflow the “Treaty” are not of themselves all the stuff that their high-sounding statements intend to. They are not legal or political rules either: only the norms established and guaranteed by actual or virtual, direct or indirect violence, are political and juridical norms; and only the international norms, concerted in the same way, are Treaties in a political and juridical sense.

Only by constitutive State reception: insofar as they are State norms imposed by the violence of the Governments, do the laws and other European norms have a “political and juridical value”. It is significant that the same people who deny all “juridical” value to the International Treaties: insofar as they recognize or implement the fundamental and inherent right of self-determination of all Peoples, do not find instead any juridical or political deficit in the “Constitutional Treaty of the European Union” and others that preceded it.

3. – Terminology and ideology

The original – French – drafting of the Document corresponds to its own constitutional tradition emerged from the “French Revolution”: the one which inaugurated the Dictatorship and Terrorism with a camouflage of freedom and human rights; the imperialistic Nationalism, under the cover and falsification of universalism and right of self-determination of Peoples; the warmongering, with pacifist rhetoric; and the deification of the State, on the pretext of secularism and civic morality.

Despite the ambiguous ideological notations and connotations of the term, the “citizens” of Europe, absent in the Preamble of the Treaty, appear next equated with the States, and even placed above them, as constituent of the “Constitution for Europe”:

“Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe to build a common future, this Constitution establishes the European Union,” etc. (Article I-1 Establishment of the Union.)

The aim with it is to cover or conceal the hollow left by the Peoples: suppressed and replaced as Constituents both in the revision of the draft of the constituent Convention, as well as in the Preamble of the Treaty. The “European Constitution” is not set by a Constituent Assembly: either unitary, federal or confederal, but by the Governments; and this occurs so from the beginning to the end of the “constituent process”. Mere parliamentary puppets of the Treaty, the citizens of Europe and of the States are, in fact, those that the States want them to be, and constitute what the States want them to constitute. Their participation in the “constituent process” is a puppet show planned, assembled and settled in advance by the real political powers.

The term “Nation” is preserved with its more widespread meaning in international law, with a value equivalent, close or politically corresponding to “State”. The term “People”, even more than that of “Nation”, has always had – even in domestic policy – a sulphurous subversive connotation for the French Constitutions (even for the “revolutionary” ones) and for their Spanish imitations; a connotation happily surpassed today. (Even the European Right is now “popular”, and the traditional Francoism is more “popular” than anyone else).

And yet, the initial text of the constituent Convention responsible for preparing the Constitution (under an also French Presidency, for a change), affirmed it still as born of the will “of the peoples and States of Europe”. Which, in a context that did not recognize any other Peoples but those corresponding to the Member States and denied all right of self-determination outside them, did not seem “dangerous” even to the Conventional Members themselves: hardly open to suspicion, indeed, of laxity and lack of vigilance in this regard.

As they state in the Preamble of the Treaty, the High Contracting Parties are “CONVINCED that [...], the peoples of Europe are determined to transcend their former divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a common destiny”. According to the provisions of it, the Peoples are also recipients of all the “welfare” that the Union – in block capital, that is: the Governments – aims to for them. In addition, the “European people” – “people of peoples”, no doubt – is its beneficiary: “The Union’s aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples”. (I-3) The people and the peoples are thus precarious recipients or beneficiaries of a certain interest, but not holders of a right, especially constituent.

Also in the Preamble to “The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union”: previously conventioned and then revised and incorporated to the Treaty, “the peoples of Europe” remain present “in creating an ever-closer union [lowercase] among them. [...] 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.”

Finally, the pressure of some States – guess which ones – so as to close any crack through which the Peoples and their right of self-determination could infiltrate, led to exclude as Constituents – before doing it so as holders of constituted rights – to all the Peoplesin general, whether they correspond or not to States recognized by the Treaty, replacing them by “the citizens of Europe”, authentic silent partners of the States in the “Establishment of the Union”: “Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe to build a common future”. Thus, before the second Union, the States of the first one are the only Contracting and Constituents ones; and once the second Union has been established, they are the only active and decisive members.

However, if it is postulated or assumed – as obviously it is unavoidable to do – that the right of the Governments is a product of the right of Peoples, then there is no need or reason to ignore or deny the constituent fundamental right of the latter; but in the reality, the Governments make sure of the domination over the Peoples, starting with their own one. And of course, for them there are not any other “peoples” but those ones “gifted” with States of their own, as it is evidenced in declaring: “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 organization of their public authorities at national, regional and local levels”etc. (Preamble to “The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union”.) But those “peoples” are – according to the cases – product, part, dependency, inherence or adherence of the States. In the official reality of the “European Union”, the concept of “people” boils down to the idea of “population”, politically shaped by the States.

In opposition to other meanings and to the own French and Spanish right, in which “the nation” is sometimes distinguished from the State and the “people”, and is even an ideological weapon against the latter, the term “national” is preserved in the Treaty with a value identical or equivalent to that of “State”; this equivalence being usual – although not exclusively – in the Anglo-Saxon political terminology and in international law. “The Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, [...] It shall respect their essential State functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security.” Etc. (Title I, Article 4 of the Treaty on the European Union.)

Left aside the Peoples (once they have been formally eliminated of the Project), and formally included the citizens instead of the former, there only remain the constant presence of the States as unique political reality of the Treaty. Their condition and constant name of “Members” makes think in a political organism which they belong to. Yet, in reality, the States do not belong to the “European Union”; it is the “European Union” that belongs to the States. The States make the “European Union”.

In the European institutional practice, “State” means what in international Right is called “Government”: a constituent of the State together with the People and the Territory. It is not a simple matter of vocabulary, it is an ideological means to hide that in the construction of “Europe” the States have abducted and displaced the Peoples and Nations, but the Governments have abducted and displaced the States. (A deeper consideration would make it possible to discover what real powers are those which constitute the Governments; but the mandate assumed by the Conventional and inter-Governmental Members excludes such exorbitant research.) The traditional (and not so traditional) theories, claiming the State as composed of three (or four) “elements”, do comfort the hypostatic idea of its entity: separate, prior and constitutive of Government, People and Territory.

The same fate ran the misleading qualifiers “federal” and “majority” that was intended for being applied to the Union. According to Countries and times, the term “federal” has a conservative, revolutionary or counter-revolutionary value. The State pressure transformed it into “community”, which was more positively correct and less “risky”: even the Spanish “autonomic” political nullities are now called “Communities”. Facing the monopoly of the States is affirmed a new Constituent: popular, unitary and majority, thus reproducing and extrapolating the formally “federal” scheme. The expression “majority democracy”: an allusion to a supra-State power, did not obtain the inter-Governmental approval either, having been settled the opposition of the Constituent Members to it in inverse proportion to the population volume represented by each one of them.

The fear of the States to all loss of sovereignty has fatally produced the inflation of the Treaty: the 448 articles and all their offspring. Every “Community” Norm has had to be accompanied by so many safeguards, guarantees, restrictions and exceptions of a constitutional rank in favour of the States that, at the conclusion of the Treaty, little or nothing has been left of it.

The omnipresent law of unanimity inherent to the Treaty, but also required for the management of delegated functions, reduces the “legislative” activities to a series of mini-treaties that develop the Treaty. The norms of the European Union do “force” the States to be in agreement with them, one by one and case by case. It is there about a firm, precise and unavoidable guarantee: adequate to restore the confidence and tranquillity to the citizens of Europe, who could have lost them in the light of the practice and experience of its eventful history.

Only the term “Constitution”, in olden times subversive, seemed it fairly harmless (with the extremely broad meaning that the Treaty gives it, while declaring it as “established by the Treaty”) so as to get a clear way in the prefabricated ideological Customs and Excise of the future Union. Probably because, not being there a Constitution but in name, there is nothing to fear and much to win with it. A Treaty is a pact made between independent political powers, and a Pact between independent political powers is not a Constitution. Only a power politically ordered, articulated, stabilized and already constituted as a political body can make its Constitution. The term “constituent”, applied to the Treaty, is also inaccurate; as for the terms “constitutive” and “constitutional” (banal this one, yet not official but informal), they are worth what it’s worth – or what is not – the term “Constitution”.

The fact that terms and concepts, fundamental principles and subjects of a political order appear or disappear from a Treaty from one day to the next, by the power and at a stroke of the pen of the constituents States, indicates by itself the real credit, value and function that can be recognized to them. The function of propaganda and swindling is one thing; but quite another, the actual fundamentals, norms and procedures that prepare the European Union-bis. If the Peoples and citizens allow that their “representatives” treat them with disdain, it is because their political presence in the constitutional process of the “European Union” is simply null.

The “European Union” is what it is. To play with words and concepts such as “peoples, citizens, Union, federation, majority democracy, law and Constitution” aims to be – according to the pro-Europeans, democrats and federalists who, after having accepted them, are trying to overflow the boundaries of the Treaty established by the States – a means to change the things starting with changing the words; but in fact, more generally, it is a means of hiding and distorting the reality. Anyway it is a vain thing to believe that such tricks will catch out the surveillance of Governments; or to hide that, under its Constitutional veil, the “European Union” is really naked. As it can be seen, to sell a pig in a poke to persons and Peoples is the high mission and the necessary function of the Constituent agents and Constitutions of the political systems that the forces of imperialism and totalitarianism continue to build, develop and disguise everywhere.

4. – “Europeanist” ideological inflation, as a supplantation of human rights and democracy

The High Contracting Parties are “BELIEVING that Europe, reunited after bitter experiences, intends to continue along the path of civilization, progress and prosperity, for the good of all its inhabitants, including the weakest and most deprived; that it wishes to remain a continent open to culture, learning and social progress; and that it wishes to deepen the democratic and transparent nature of its public life, and to strive for peace, justice and solidarity throughout the world”. (Preamble.)

The “pro-European” propaganda has kept on presenting the various European Institutions as a model in matters of democracy, human rights, civilization and progress: that’s what seeks to achieve the overwhelming, pretentious and hypocritical rhetoric of the Union, “drawing its inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law”. The inheritance of absolutist or oriental despotism, fanaticism, persecutions, wars of religion and conquest, crusades, imperialism, colonialism and genocide: which have founded Europe and have devastated and desolated the World, has not deserved to be mentioned.

The human dimension of the Communities and the Union: a humanistic model “which makes of it a special area of human hope”; the common, indivisible and universal “values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law [the ‘rule’ and the ‘law’ that they make] and respect for human rights [those of themselves]” in which they pretend to be based, and also “in a society in which pluralism (that of themselves), non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men (provided that they be those of them) prevail”; the “area of freedom, security and justice” that the Union shall constitute; the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person and the democratic and transparent nature of its public life that it affirms; the solidarity among the Member States that it promotes, as well as “the solidarity and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages and traditions of the peoples of Europe [those of themselves], and for the national identity of the Member States, inherent in their fundamental political and constitutional structures”; or the principles that have inspired its [sic] creation, development and enlargement, and that seek to affirm and promote in the rest of the world the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, all this, is proclaimed in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the UN and the international law, as well as with the principles of the Helsinki Final Act and the objectives of the Charter of Paris etc.

The obsessive reiteration of commonplaces indicates the superhuman effort of the Constituent Members in order that they may be themselves convinced, or at least to convince the others, with visibly unsatisfactory results. But anything is ideologically possible, where the monopolies of violence, expression and communication exclude all truthful information and any criticism.

The entire ideology of the Union rests on the postulate – turned into an intangible dogma – of the non-violent and democratic character of the contracting States. Upon such data, which constitute a logical absurdity (namely: the “non-violent States”) and a historical-sociological falsehood/falsification (because of the denial of the existence in their midst of occupied and subjugated States and Peoples, holders of an inherent and imprescriptible right of self-determination; and the assertion of the democratic nature of the imperialistic States that are subjugating them), is founded and built its dogmatic vision of the political “reality”, with the radical exclusion of all experience; which evacuates and condemns any empirical observation and any critical consideration that can challenge the dogma of a democratic and non-violent character of the Union.

The futility of such fundamentals of justification explains the growing appeal to the common theory of the “rule of law” for the same purpose. But it occurs that – even in the very official, residual and “constitutional” meaning of the terms of this “formula” – this concept cannot found or justify anything: its sole ideological virtuality lies precisely in its qualities of darkness, emptiness and equivocality, which enable to impress, confuse, deceive, intimidate and blame a public opinion stupefied, intoxicated and reduced to helplessness by the one-way propaganda of the monopolies of information/disinformation.

The reality is very different from what the propaganda aims to. The fundamental human rights are not a product of democracy, they are its foundation. A democratic régime can only be founded and constituted upon fundamental human rights: where these rights do not exist, there is no democracy.

The “European Constitution” and its “Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union”, previously conventioned and then annexed in the Constitution, are a characterized and significant leap backward by reference to the Moscow Declarations, to the Charter and the United Nations’ General Assembly Resolutions (UNGAR), to the International Covenants on Human Rights, to the Treaty of Rome, to the Final Act of Helsinki, to the Charter of Paris. They are also so by reference to numerous Charters, Conventions and Declarations of Countries and Continents that the European Imperialisms have subjected and exploited through History, and to which the insufferable and disgusting arrogance, xenophobia, racism and sense of superiority of the “great” Nations of Europe dare to give lessons and examples of freedom and democracy.

That’s what the overwhelming Unionist rhetoric on “the human dimension, the human rights, the democracy” etc. calls to “contribute [...] to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter”. (I-3) But in the “European Union” there are no more democracy or more human rights but those that the dominant Member States do want to, tolerate, authorize or establish.

5. -The Right of self-determination in the Treaty

A true democratic régime can only be constituted upon fundamental human rights. All democratic attitude implies the respect for and defence of human rights: there is neither freedom nor democracy where there are no human rights, and there are no human rights where is missing the right of self-determination or independence of all Peoples: “first of human rights and prior condition of them all”. The right of self-determination is constitutive of democracy. The fundamental and inherent right of freedom, free disposition or self-determination of all Peoples is the right of unconditional and immediate independence against imperialism.

The imperialism and colonialism are not a light “democratic deficit”: they are the supreme forms of totalitarian oppression and discrimination, which do deprive races, languages, cultures and whole Peoples of the fundamental human rights and do exclude them of the international society; they are theoretical and practical denial of freedom and democracy; they are crimes against the laws of war, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity, whatever may be the State or International Organization that performs or protects them. Their agents and accomplices: however many dignities and honours though they may attribute or mutually recognize among themselves, and whatever may be the façade, the rhetoric and the ceremonial with which they conceal themselves, are criminals, murderers and delinquents. As such, they do not have rights and are not victims of anybody, less still of their own victims. The national or international Organizations that are built on crimes of war, against peace and against humanity are associations of malefactors in a big way: the bigger it is, the bigger is the capacity of violence and terrorism that they have.

By the decision of “We, the peoples of the United Nations” (that is: the belligerent Allied States), “our respective Governments” established in 1945 the Charter of the Organization of the (homonymous) United Nations, in whose text the Peoples were the base of the Governments, founded the States, and held the right of self-determination of all Peoples. The Charter and numerous international Resolutions and Conventions that confirm and develop it are simply declarative – not constitutive – of the fundamental right of self-determination, which is inherent to all Peoples. But the ideologists of imperialism have not remained idle, and have taken a lot of work to reduce all this to “contradictory or with no legal value statements”. For them, the logic and the right are – on a case by case basis – what best suits imperialism and colonialism.

In the post-war process of independence, the new recognition of Peoples, Nations or States as “Movements of National Liberation” displaced the traditional recognition of “Insurgent, Belligerent and Nations”, which did not entail a recognition of immediate State effectiveness. The new situation implied the recognition of the rights of self-determination and of legitimate defence, and of the right to conclude treaties: especially those concerning the participation in international organizations, the armed struggle against the alien domination, and the establishment of State independence.

“The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.” [UNGAR 1514 (1960)]

 

“The General Assembly, [...]; 2. Reaffirms the inherent right of colonial peoples to struggle by all necessary means at their disposal against colonial Powers which suppress their aspiration for freedom and independence.” [UNGAR 2621 (1970)]

 

“The use of force to deprive peoples of their national identity [which includes acts of hostility directed against historical monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of Peoples] constitutes a violation of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention. [...] Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive supportin accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter.” [UNGAR 2625 (1970)]

According to numerous Resolutions of the UN,

“the continuation of colonialism in all its forms and manifestations, as noted in General Assembly resolution 2621 (XXV) of 12 October 1970, is a crime and the colonial peoples have the inherent right to struggle by all necessary means at their disposal against colonial Powers and alien domination in the exercise of their right of self-determination recognized in the Charter of the United Nations” etc. [UNGAR 3103 (1973)]

Since the acceptance of the Purposes and Principles of the Charter conditioned the admission in the Organization of the UN, all the States had to recognize them formally although without the less intention of complying accordingly. If Spain (at that time excluded from the community of the presentable Nations) and France (then in the immediate post-war situation) had been in conditions of imposing something to the Allied, the right of self-determination of all Peoples – incorporated by initiative and requirement of the Soviet Union and developed by the majorities constituted by the Communist Bloc and the States of the Third World – would have not appeared in the Charter of the United Nations’ Organization, just as it does not appear in the Treaty of the “European Union”. After having breached it with insistence and with the most terrible consequences for the oppressed Peoples, the UN have abandoned it openly, without daring – for now – to renounce it formally and expressly. Their representatives try to make us forget the unspeakable weaknesses, the sins of youth, or the illusions and resolutions of the UN Organization. The total submission of the UN to the imperialism has led them to the same situation and by the same causes that led to the ruin of the Society of Nations.

Proclaimed by various States and International Organizations, repeatedly formulated e insistently unfulfilled by the UN, and formally accepted by all its Members, the right of self-determination of all Peoples has been distorted and always fought – from all angles – by the world imperialism. The attack on the right of self-determination of all Peoples is now a central task for the imperialistic undertow that has followed to the two large waves of decolonization and to the end of the nuclear duopoly and the Cold War in the world.

To the frontal denial of the right of self-determination of all Peoples has followed, preferably, its ideologically oriented “interpretation”. The ideologists of the imperialism counterfeit and confuse the concepts and terms of “self-determination, People and Nation”, whose positive import recuperate and transfer to different ideas so as to serve their own political objectives. For the States of the European Imperialistic Union (EIU), that they do recognize to each other, the Peoples and Nations with the right of self-determination are always and necessarily those of themselves and of nobody more, because just for that purpose there have been prefabricated and appointed the corresponding concepts. For them there are no more “nations” that the recognized States nor more “peoples” that those constituted by them; whereupon the imperialism, the national question and the right of self-determination of all Peoples disappear from the European “area of freedom, security and justice”. The old method of changing things by merely changing their names has more followers than ever in the EIU.

Other times they turn the fundamental and inherent right of self-determination of all Peoples into a right “to the autonomy” or a right “to vote and decide”; or into a conditioned or subsidiary right, or reserved for some Peoples but denied to the others. For greater security, the right and those who hold it are made correlative, and their definitions, reversible. For example: it’s right of self-determination that which assists “the peoples and nations” (officially recognized); the (officially recognized) “peoples and nations” are the social groups with the right of self-determination. Truisms, petitions of principle and vicious circles are constant and banal procedures in the National-imperialistic propaganda and ideology.

The right of self-determination of all Peoples was adopted also, formally, by European States and Institutions, which have never respected it. The Treaty of Rome did claim or intend the union of Peoples. The reunified Germany and the post-Soviet independent States, which invoked the right of self-determination, obtained the Community recognition but for different reasons.

In the Treaty for Europe there is no place for the right of self-determination. The occasion of the Yugoslav crisis was used to undertake the theoretical reduction of the fundamental human right of self-determination of all Peoples. The Peace Conference and its Arbitration Commission on Yugoslavia, constituted by the Twelve, could not give a different result from that for which they were made. The appropriate selection of its members among the States with imperial domains and national problems had put the Conference under two successive British presidencies, together with The European Communities’ Arbitration Commission on Yugoslavia created by French initiative and integrated with the Presidents of the constitutional courts directly concerned, including the Spanish. Its President Robert Badinter (president of the French Constitutional Court, who pre-determined the role of that group known as the “Badinter Commission”), reputed as a human-rights defender, was on the contrary well known for his declared ultra-nationalist positions against the Peoples of the “Hexagon”, to which he does not leave another way but their liquidation for the benefit of the French national identity: the only one compatible with the régime established by the French imperialism.

In the context of that crisis, the “realistic and pacifist” statism of the States and the European Economic Community, applied in the “privileged area” of the dreaded “balkanization”, affirmed the permanence and intangibility of the known and recognized States: self-proclaimed bearers of eternal values, and denied both the reality and the right of self-determination of all Peoples. The French jurists-ideologists came to replace this right with a very new and anti-juridical version of a principle agreed in the South-American “decolonization” in favour of the Colonists-Creoles: the uti possidetis juris principle, turned by them into a fundamental norm of international right. In doing so,

“[They] perhaps do not take full account of that doctrine’s own special, intrinsically regional character as a concept limited to disputes inter se of the South American Succession States to the former Spanish and Portuguese colonial Powers. The Badinter Commission’s attempt in 1992 to extrapolate the Latin American uti possidetis doctrine to the international boundaries of the succession States to the Former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia may be questioned substantively on the same basis”. (Edward McWhinney.)

In this way, apart from the usual rhetoric about respect to the Charter of the UN etc., the most important theoretical “contribution” of the EIU – revealed in relation to the Yugoslav crisis – was the conversion of the unconditional, fundamental and inherent human right of self-determination of all Peoples into subsidiary and conditioned right. The fear of the precedent that would be created with it, and the shadow of Corsicans, Irish, Basques and other subjugated Peoples had weighed more on the Community than the Yugoslav conflict itself.

The force of reality and of the right of self-determination had led the EIU only to the opportunistic inhibition, cloaked as negotiation, and to a punctual and immediate version of the principle of effectiveness. The proposed solution in those moments of crisis changed every month as a result of the changes in the situation on the ground, in a new revival and recognition of the “right of conquest”. In our Country, the ideologists of the imperialism and its indigenous accomplices: in order to explain the movements of independence of the others, hurried to proclaim that what was happening in the Soviet Union was the “consequence of a dictatorship” and that the events in Yugoslavia were “tribal struggles”; denying any relationship or analogy with the problem of the Basque Country, where, as it’s known, there has never been a dictatorship, neither tribes nor right of self-determination.

The corresponding Protocol annexed to the Constitution, and the Declaration relating to that Protocol annexed to the Constitution, recognize as a distinct people (region, not “Nation, State, Country, territory or area”) the “Sami people”, divided into fragments subjected to four States. As it is evident, it is implied there the denial of the right of self-determination of all Peoples: a fundamental and inherent right which naturally also obliges the Governments and the Union. But according to them all, instead of the right of self-determination, the Sami People can invoke a non-fundamental right, founded on the agreed right of the others, since the “Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States”

“[...] recognizes the obligations and commitments of Sweden and Finland with regard to the Sami people under national and international law”, by which those Countries “are committed to preserving and developing the means of livelihood, language, culture and way of life of the Sami people.”

Nevertheless, according to the International Law and the Charter of the UN etc. that the States and the Union do affirm to respect, and according to the simple formal logic, the recognitions – whether unilateral or agreed – cannot found what they recognize: they are simply declarative and optional, as all recognitions.

The Treaty of the EIU goes still further: it denies the right of self-determination of all Peoples of Europe, whether they correspond or not to the recognized States. The Peoples are being replaced by the Member States. The right of self-determination of all Peoples has been radically excluded from the “Constitution” of the “European Union” by the Convention responsible for preparing it under the also – debated – French Presidency, for a change. And the “Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States” adopted the project after reviewing and interpreting it, naturally, in a statist sense; without prejudice of vacuous preambular references to the norms of international law, which confirm it.

In the “European Union” the subjugated Peoples do not exist, and the dominant Peoples are supposed to be “indirectly protected” for the rights of the recognized Governments; thus, the right of self-determination appears absurd or superfluous:

“The Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional,[...]. It shall respect their essential State functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaininglaw and order and safeguarding national security” etc. in the frame of its exclusive rights. (Title I, Article 4 of the Treaty on the European Union.)

In these circumstances, “what need do we have already of any right of self-determination?”, they would say. In the “European Union” the right of self-determination of all Peoples is replaced by the “right of self-determination” of the Member Governments.

However, all the Peoples of the world claim their own right – even though not that of the others – to live free and safe in their free homeland, with the territory and the resources that constitute it; to preserve their national freedom and identity against the imperialistic aggression and occupation; and to defend themselves against them by all necessary means, with the right of legitimate self-defence as last or first warranty. All throughout History, past and contemporary, is a demonstration that, where such a right is denied, peace, harmony and collaboration between human give way to conflict, war, hatred and ruin of the fundamental rights in general.

The “nationalism” is the way of being of the nation, and it only occurs where there are Nations. It reveals and shows, by itself, the existence of Nations and constitutes the right of self-determination. The “nationalism” makes the Nation, just as the Nation makes the “nationalism”; yet, only the offensive Nationalism of the oppressive Nation makes and precedes the defensive “nationalism” of the oppressed Nation. There is no “danger to the national unity”, but quite the opposite, in affirming the right of self-determination of all Peoples there where there are no subjugated Peoples, that’s to say: there where the imperialism does not exist.

And yet, the fact that the States participating in the Treaty – which have at their disposal the monopolies of violence and information, the supreme control of the economic system, and huge bureaucratic-administrative apparatus of domination – have still a great and unlimited fear to the slightest idea, the more isolated word, the slightest initiative even evoking a threat to their absolute power on the Peoples, Nations and States that they have subjugated, dismembered, occupied, excluded and oppressed for centuries; that they still accumulate supplementary locks, parapets and shieldings to get “protected” from them; that they do not dare even mention the fundamental right of independence or self-determination of all Peoples, it is by itself revealing of the nature of the system which they are clutched at with fanatical and deadly obstinacy, and which could only be established and maintained by means of cannons, repression and dumbing of the ideas. It shows the fear of Governments to the rights of Peoples conscious of themselves, and reveals the internal contradiction of their own propaganda: it is the proof and the involuntary confession that they know very well that the Peoples, Nations or States that are part of their sphere of domination are not nor want to be part of the Peoples, Nations or States that have snatched them their freedom, their identity and their dignity, and that – finally – deny them their very existence. And those Governments know quite well that the former will make use of the slightest opportunity presented to them so as to regain their freedoms.

Against the illusions that the monopolies of propaganda disseminate, the political conflict between “the offensive nationalism of the Nation that oppresses, and the defensive nationalism of oppressed Nation” has only two possible solutions. On one side is the final solution: the total liquidation of the Peoples and States that have had the misfortune of falling into the clutches of the oppressor. On the other, the end of the imperialistic policy; which implies putting into practice, without traps or falsifications, the inherent and fundamental right of independence, free disposition or self-determination of all Peoples: “first of fundamental human rights and precondition of them all”.

To avoid or limit the extension, the expansion or the “contagion” of the right of self-determination of all Peoples in Western Europe, ensuring the “territorial integrity” of the imperial and colonial States, and to prevent the birth of new States or the restoration of the former ones by the Movements of National Liberation: such is the obsessive and priority concern (not a simple objective, therefore, but the absolute condition of possibility) of the Communities, of the Union and of its “Constitution for Europe”. The Peoples of the new and recent Member States of the Union in Western Europe have been fully right insofar as they have resolved “the national question” before entering this prison of Peoples. Because in the lintel of the “European Union”, and destined to the intention of the subjugated Peoples that seek their freedom, can be seen a sinister inscription: “You, which here are entering, give up all hope”.

The negativism of the “European Constitution” against the right of self-determination of all Peoples is not a matter that is limited only to the fact that it has been established in it one number less – and what a number! – in an accessory list of rights. Nay. Quite differently, its negativism towards the right of self-determination is precisely the necessary condition and the political and ideological foundation of the Treaty and of the Union. Contrary to what – taking their wishes as reality – some real or feigned visionaries, utopians and idealists believe or affirm to believe; and to what other “realistics, possibilists” and opportunists would have us to believe, the right of self-determination of all Peoples and the current “European Union” are incompatible. With the right of self-determination of all Peoples, it is not possible this “European Union”; with this “European Union”, there is no right of self-determination of all Peoples. The rigidity of the “European Constitution” is inherent to the structure of the Treaty: it is what the States have wished for it.

The “reform” of the Constitution of the EIU to incorporate the right of self-determination of all Peoples, as well as the “reform” of the French and Spanish Constitutions with the same purpose, is an illusory political enterprise that is located out of the real of formal and, especially, real constitutions. The “reform” of the Treaty to include the right of self-determination of all Peoples would not be a reform but a revolution that would end with the Treaty and with the European Imperialistic Union. The State builders of the future Union, directly or indirectly affected by the national question, do have it well clear.

The inevitable, contemptuous and insulting gnawed bone of “the nationalities, länders, autonomies etc. and the regional, local or territorial rights; the ‘minority’ cultures and languages; and the human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities”: a bone that is thrown to the subjugated and occupied Peoples and States instead of admitting their inherent fundamental right of self-determination or independence, is a corollary of the full recognition and acceptance of the administrative configuration of the imperialistic Member States. In this “Union” what is recognized, and what is about, is the rights of the recognized States and of anybody else; which, when required, includes a “flexible, simplified and abbreviated procedure of revision, reform and improvement” of the Statutes: mediated, concealed or invaded by the Member States or the Union itself.

“Any Member State may decide, in accordance with its own constitutional requirements, to withdraw from the Union”,in which it enters voluntarily and from which it can exit by unilateral and unconditional decision. According to the monopolistic propaganda, this right “reinforces the democratic nature of the Union, which does not oblige to be part one State and citizens who do not wish to be so”.

Indeed, the Union does only oblige to be part of it, without personality nor rights, to the citizens, the Peoples and the States that have been subjugated and occupied – by means of violence, war, repression, terrorism and violation of all their own constitutional norms – at the hands of the “democratic and non-violent” imperialistic Member States, which enjoy of all rights and considerations. For the European Imperialistic Union, those subjugated Peoples and States are non-citizens, non-Peoples and non-States without identity or existence that have no will to enter in anywhere, and much less to withdraw from nowhere. According to its ideologists, the unilateral and unconditional decision to withdraw that the first ones have is a democratic right; that of the second ones, is fascism. The constitutional semantics is also immediately adapted to the ideological needs: when it comes to States that have voluntarily entered, the Constituent Members prefer delicate and innocuous terms such as “withdrawal or exit”, instead of the vulgar, aggressive and bad connoted terms “separation or secession”, reserved for the Peoples and States tucked into under compulsion.

The Peoples and their inherent right of self-determination: first of human rights and precondition of them all, have been excluded from the Treaty because the Governments know very well that imperialistic Nationalism and the oppression of the Peoples are in the base of the European Imperialist Union. But the empires fall apart, forced to abandon their domination over the Peoples that they subjugated by means of criminal Violence and Terror, and which recover – one after the other – their national independence. There is only one form of preventing the march to the freedom and liquidating the Peoples’ political resistance, and the dominant Nations know it: to put an end the sooner the better with the Peoples themselves.

Fascism is today the terminal, finished, necessary and inevitable form of imperialistic Nationalism; because the systematic enterprise of subjugation and liquidation of States, Peoples and Nations: which is intended to be absolute, total and final, cannot already continue without having to resort to the more “sophisticated” totalitarian forms of repression and ideological conditioning of masses, characteristic of and inevitably linked to fascism. The consequences are to be paid by all, included the dominant Peoples. The recent experience has shown that their own freedom, their dignity, identity and well-being do well with the freedom of all Peoples; and lose out with the inevitable rotting of the imperialistic, colonialist and fascist system of oppression. But the Peoples are not always reasonable, and the military and bureaucratic castes that wield real power almost never are so.

The absolute imperialism, either original or adventitious, implies violence and terrorism, genocide and extermination in their various forms, deportation, colonization and economic, cultural and linguistic oppression, and persecution and deprivation of the national identity. Any human group can destroy another one if it manages to consolidate the war of aggression against it and its military occupation by means of the liquidation, deportation or colonization of populations.

The denial of the right of self-determination of all Peoples highlights the “European Union” as the western bunker of the imperialism, or as “heart of colonialism”, according to an expression of Countries with extensive experience on the matter. It shows the capacity of imperialistic Nationalism to destroy from the root all international democratic construction, and to ruin the peaceful coexistence among the Peoples, comforting in its place imperialism, colonialism, military occupation, repression, criminal Violence, war and State Terrorism, and hatred among Nations. In spite of the universal brotherhood proclaimed in its hymn, the EIU holds in its formal Constitution, and above all in its real constitution, the virus of national oppression that has ended with so many unions stronger than itself. In it, all the ideas that can join the Peoples in freedom and equality have disappeared.

Given that, by definition, the right of self-determination of all Peoples is “absent” from the European Treaty, its opponent and correlative concepts: imperialism and colonialism, crimes of war, against peace and against humanity, are also so. Yet, it’s only “by definition”, that in the “European Union” there are no things like that.

6. – European imperialism: denial of the subjugated Peoples

The most radical, direct, discreet, simple and helpful ideological means of denying the right of self-determination of a People is to deny theoretically and practically the very existence of the People that holds it; with which it makes no sense at all to talk about its right of self-determination, since what does not exist has no rights. The formal Constitutions of the French and Spanish States: which in every sense “constitute the European Constitution”, do establish the French and Spanish peoples-nations as the sole source of law, with the exclusion of the dominated Peoples by themselves, which do not exist and do not have, therefore, either right of self-determination or right of anything.

The “non-war of pacification” of Algeria was waged not by denying but by officially invoking “the right of self-determination of the [French] people”, since “Algeria is France, and France cannot wage the war against France”. The proposal of the Presidency of the Republic concerning the “Corsican people”, and even its subsequent corrected version in the formula: “Corsican people, as an integral part of the French people”, were both repealed by the Constitutional Court in interpreting the French Constitution in the opposite sense, since “in the territory of the Republic there is not any other People but the French one”. The corresponding Spanish version “People of peoples” and “Nation of nations” did not get that far, and the statement “in the Spanish State there is not any more People or any more Nation or any more source of power and right but the Spanish ones” is the foundation of the Spanish Constitution and recurring theme of the State monopoly of propaganda. The “European people”: repeatedly alluded in the Treaty, seems to be also a “people of peoples” with no rights other than those of the peoples that officially form it.

The only recognition of the national reality of the Basque People recorded by the European Institutions was given on the part of the Council of Europe; and, curiously enough, it occurred at the behest of the Spanish Government. The Council of Europe is a club for simple cooperation between the States mutually recognized; and it adopts and endorses the false fabrications of the Spanish Government and nationalist Party with the same automatic speed with which Pope Wojtyla repeats and reverberates those of the Spanish Francoist Bishops and Cardinals. This is precisely what it did with the “Report” (dated 9 March 2001) by its first Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr. A. Gil-Robles, “ON HIS VISIT TO SPAIN AND THE BASQUE COUNTRY” [CommDH (2001) 2], made on his own initiative. Thus the Council of Europe did limit itself to endorse that “Report” drafted by its Commissioner: a chromosomic Basquephobe Spaniard, and a zealous Agent of the Francoist Party and its Government; yet not for that reason recused but recognized and accredited by the “Government” of the autonomous Basque Community (Cav) and its “Council for human rights”.

The “Report” did not note any trace whatsoever – not even occasional, sporadic, permanent or non-systematic – of violence, terrorism, racism, intolerance or xenophobia in the Spanish and French imperialistic domination established over the Basque People and its State by means of the liquidation of all their human rights and fundamental freedoms. Instead, the general – political or cultural – manifestation of Resistance to the Spanish imperialistic Nationalism that occurs in the Basque Country appeared qualified as aggressive, racist or xenophobic:

“[...] but unfortunately involving the option of exclusion and aggression against those who are not nationalists, sometimes borders on the giving of encouragement to racist and xenophobic positions” etc. (V. Final considerations.)

However, xenophobia is fear, aversion, hatred or hostility to foreigners, and – from a tautological need – it can only occur between foreigners. If it is admitted that the Basques are xenophobic towards the Spaniards, then it is being admitted that the Basques are not Spaniards. If the Basques are Spaniards, as the author of the “Report” does claim, then he cannot affirm that the Basques are xenophobic towards the Spaniards. This is: he cannot affirm that they are xenophobic towards the Spaniards, and that at the same time they are Spaniards. Trying, once more, to use all the ideological ways to the service of the imperialism, much formally contradictory though they be, the Francoist Nationalism, the Spanish Government and the Council of Europe have come thus to recognize indirectly and involuntarily – by their own express although crooked confession – the differential national entity of the Basque People. “Without ever admitting it officially, the Spaniards are convinced that the Basques are different from them.”

These things occur when the authentic and deep national consciousness of the Spanish imperialistic Nationalism comes out to the surface and manifests itself to the impulse of the prevailing Basque-phobia, whose exasperation can only appear, effectively, against the foreigners: Basques, in this case; anyway, without the formal irrationality harming therefore the dominant ideology. The “incoherent, not-reasonable or absurd conclusions”, which as indicated are disqualified by the Right of Treaties, are nevertheless an essential part of the particular logic of the Council of Europe and of the Member States. Against what is affirmed by the panegyrists of the Union, which claims “that it wishes to promote scientific and technical progress, to remain a continent open to culture, learning and social progress”, the fact is that its Institutions are fully involved in an enterprise of destruction of the reason that is not privative of the Spanish Nationalism.

The Nationalist-imperialistic xenophobia is the hatred to human rights and to the freedom of Peoples; instead, the “xenophobia” of the Basque People is its inextinguishable hatred to imperialism and fascism. It shows with this its vitality in the fight for its national freedom: essentially and existentially attached to human rights and freedoms in general.

7. – Suppression of the Human rights under imperialism: the “terrorism”

Conditioned by the right of self-determination or independence of all Peoples, the human rights in general cannot escape the fate of that one. Only the hypocrites can pretend that the war of aggression, the military occupation against States, and the repression against the Peoples, can be sustained without destroying – in general – the rights pointed out in the “International Bill of Human Rights” (1948), in the “International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights” (1966), in the “Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” (1984), as well as in its numerous “Committees and Mechanisms of Surveillance or Appeal”; or – at the European regional level – in the “European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” (1950), in the “European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” (1987), and in “The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union”, now embedded in the Constitution of the new Union.

So repetitive an accumulation of Bills, Charters, Covenants and Conventions shows already the incapability of their authors to fight in reality – and their capability to hide and protect – the crimes that they so much condemn in words. Under the Nationalist-imperialistic régime, the authentic political and ideological opposition cannot be maintained but in the marginalized areas of power, in the illegality, or the clandestinity; which do show, by their mere existence, the fascist and totalitarian nature of a political régime.

The “European Union” does not spare to add taunt to hypocrisy: each of its “clarifications” confirms the limitation of fundamental human rights carried out by its Member States (of course, always “in benefit of the human rights”), just the same as all repressive or warmongering law of the Governments goes always accompanied by invocations to the freedom and security of their “citizens”.

There remain “the Rights and Freedoms recognized by this Charter”, that the Member States “adapt” and meet when it suits them. To say – in the section “Scope and interpretation of rights and principles” – that “Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognized by the Union” (II-112), is a reverse, euphemistic and artful way of saying that the rights and freedoms may be limited when it is “necessary and of general interest” according to the Union, that is: according to the Governments of the Union. According to that, it seems that there will not be made those limitations if it is estimated that they neither are necessary or of general interest; nor if they are necessary but not of general interest; nor if they are of general interest but unnecessary. (The Treaty does not explain the specific difference between the three figures.)

But the recognized Europeans, “drawing inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe,” stimulated by a “Union [that] is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; [and] based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law”, are not savages. In the “European Union” one only kills, imprisons, tortures and represses the freedom of expression, information, assembly and association when the Governments deem it useful and necessary, and certainly not by pleasure, passion or caprice of Governors or Officials. That is to say: except in outstanding, individual, occasional and sporadic – but not permanent or systematic – cases that the States and their Union are the first ones in regretting. How could it be otherwise?

The text of the “European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” was revised and improved by the Convention for the elaboration of “The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union”. According to its Preamble, “To this end, it is necessary to strengthen the protection of fundamental rights in the light of evolution in society, of social progress, and of scientific and technological developments, by making those rights more visible in a Charter”. This Charter was adopted and subsequently incorporated to the project of Treaty by the “Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States”. Along with the recognized principles, rights and obligations (constitutional and international, conventional and jurisprudential), the Preamble of the Charter does also incorporate the “Declaration concerning the explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights”, as set out in the Final Act of the “Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States”. (Brussels, 25 October 2004.)

In this Declaration, “The Conference takes note of the explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights 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, as set out below. [...] These explanations were originally prepared under the authority of the Praesidium of the Convention which drafted the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. They have been updated under the responsibility of the Praesidium of the European Convention, in the light of the drafting adjustments made to the text of the Charter by that Convention [...] and of further developments of Union law. Although they do not as such have the status of law, they are a valuable tool of interpretation intended to clarify the provisions of the Charter.”

Moreover, and according to the Preamble itself, “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” etc. etc. In short, as it can be seen, fundamental human rights do not have the slightest chance of getting a clear way, neither safe nor sound, through the batteries of filters, the lines of traps and the mine-fields sown by the constituent States of the EIU.

Actually, the “technical” contribution of the explanations of the Conference of the inter-Governmental Representatives is null. If the citizens and courts of the Union and the Member States need that their rulers do “explain” them that, one may well ask questions about that privileged area of human hope of this continent open to culture, learning and social, scientific and technological progress. Since, there where the freedom of thought, criticism and communication does not exist for political issues, it cannot develop itself in the whole of the economic or cultural production either.

The concern of the inter-Governmental Conference-Members in the face of any “uncontrolled” formulation-interpretation of fundamental human rights is visible but it is due to different reasons; since, by dint of spreading its propaganda, the inhabitants of the Union and even their courts could eventually end up believing it. Now then – a contradiction inherent in the system – no modern totalitarian régime could survive if its leaders believed themselves and above all if they put into practice the ideology of illusion that their ideologists invent and preach for others to believe it. That’s why the ideology of illusion is always to be subordinate, controlled and kept at bay by the ideology of reality, because its reckless distribution would endanger the political régime. The former is reserved for the weak and dominated social classes, whose capacity of criticism and spirit of resistance did long ago disappear by the effect of the terrorist repression and the psychological conditioning of masses.

Despite the well-known docility of the courts of the Member States and the Union, the Court of Justice: activated by the Netherlands against the European Parliament and Council, had to sentence that the fundamental right to human dignity is part of the right of the Union. The set of obstacles that the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments calls “negative explanations and definitions” is intended to strengthen, by making them more visible, the limitations of the fundamental human rights, generically affirmed in the Charter.

“Sire, Geben Sie Gedankenfreiheit!”; “Sire, give freedom of thought!” (“Don Karlos”; F. Schiller).

The fear of the censorship of the despotic régime: the reason by which the literary author of the Anthem chosen by the “European Union” (overshadowed in the Treaty by the author of its music, what this latter would have never allowed) was forced to change the title of his Ode an die Freiheit (“Ode to freedom”) to Ode an die Freude (“Ode to Joy”), is a reality that is still present in the totalitarian States of the “Union European”, mainly Spain and France. But the current totalitarianism has in addition managed to camouflage itself in clothes and rhetoric of democratic appearance with the help of the monopolies of ideological manipulation and intoxication of masses, and of an “opposition” recuperated by the real political power and put to its service, as it will be exposed next.

According to “The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union”:

“Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected. Everyone has the right to life. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed. Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity. [...] No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. [...] Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person; to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications; to the protection of personal data concerning him or her. [...] Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. [...] Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. [...] Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association at all levels; to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions.” Etc.

Instead, the criminal Violence, the war of aggression and the military occupation are rights reserved for the recognized States, founded in the – exclusive or excluding – possession on the weapons of massive destruction and of the others.

“The common security and defence policy” of the Union “shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.” (I-41)

“The Chapter [on the ‘Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’] shall not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.” (III-262)

The “internal security” of the imperialistic States of Francespain, Members of the EIU, means the maintenance of their criminal domination over the Basque People and its State, the Kingdom of Nabarre, which they did illegally and criminally annex. In the peculiar Euro-Kominform that the EIU is building,

“The Constitution shall not preclude the application of the following rules: (a) no Member State shall be obliged to supply information the disclosure of which it considers contrary to the essential interests of its security; (b) any Member State may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material;” etc. (III-436)

Thus, the States are “obliged”, if they consider it convenient, to supply information about what – according to their own judgment – they consider accidental, accessory or unimportant. The self-proclaimend “democratic and transparent character of the European public life”, and its obligations in this regard, have their limits and safeguards – established in favour of the own States – in the same “Constitution” that proclaims them. The citizens and the Peoples of Europe have thus the constitutional guarantee that they will have all the information that the Governments deem that they should have.

All policy and every State, whether legitimate and democratic, or criminal, are founded on violence (whether legitimate and democratic, or criminal); but in the European Union, champion of peace and non-violence, there already are no wars, or armies, or armed forces, or spies strictly speaking. Judging by the terminology used, and mostly in the French and Spanish versions of the Treaty (those in which the systematic totalitarian propaganda of their respective States shows especially the need of spreading its ideological mystification, on the basis of the subjected Peoples which those versions are addressed to), it would seem that there are left only non-violent, humanitarian and humanistic missionaries, teachers and instructors of democracy, sisters of charity, pacifists and peacemakers, and services of health and protection of childhood and human dignity.

Indeed, in “the common security and defence policy” of the “European Union”, which “shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civil and military assets” afforded and put at its disposal by the Member States, the “missions outside the Union for peace-keeping” (I-41) are not already called actions of war, violence or terrorism but – seeking its deliberate positive connotation – are named only and always with that word: “missions”, in the French and Spanish Dialects, where in English is used the word “tasks”:

“joint disarmament operations, humanitarian and rescuetasks, military advice and assistancetasks, conflict prevention and peace-keeping tasks, tasksof combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making and post-conflict stabilization [tasks]. All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories.” (III-309)

According to the refined and delicate vocabulary of the Treaty, the competent authorities of the “European Union” and the Member States will have “coercive measures” (III-276). But they will – at the most – make use of “force”, not of “violence”: which is, officially, what others do. “In Corsica, the State will respond with the force to the violence”, says the ultra-nationalist, imperialistic, ciminal and violent Republican State of France; whose monopolistic propaganda, transmitted even by indigenous Traitors “Basque moderates and radicals” Pnv-Eta (due to the incapability to surpass it, either because of their corruption or political illiteracy if not because of both things) presents it as “the symbol of freedom and democracy”. The splitting – ideologically functional – of the fundamental idea/reality common to any policy, namely: violence, in order to present it as two supposedly different realities, is thus consolidated due to its differentiation-specialization in two corresponding terms: “force” and “violence”; so that, thanks to this terminological differentiation, there is not left any trace of the identity of the concept corresponding to boht terms.

However, an “explanation” of the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States affirms in its aforementioned Final Act: “[...] Therefore, the ‘negative’ definitions appearing in the ECHR [European Court of Human Rights] must be regarded as also forming part of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the Union]: [...] ‘Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence’; [etc.]” (Explanation 3 to ARTICLE 2 of the Final Act, incorporated as Article II-62 of the “Constitution”, which runs as follows: 1. Everyone has the right to life. 2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.)

Even so, admitting the existence of violence that is qualified as “unlawful” implies the recognition of a correlative lawful violence; which breaks the aforementioned terminological specialization. (Whether “force” and “violence” are taken as synonyms or not, the “lawful violence” is opposed to the “lawful force”; and – eventually and symmetrically – the “unlawful violence”, to the “unlawful force”, according to differential criteria that the “explanation” does neither explain nor define, nor positively or negatively, but refers to the legislation and the provisions of the Member States.) Anyway, the States of the Union “cannot” do wrong and always do well, because Good is what they do; and Evil, what others do.

By virtue of the “anti-terrorist” conventions of the “European Union”, every State pursues what is a crime in the others, even if it is not so in its own. Thus, the Communitary Europe is a common repressive area even without having arrived to be a common criminal area. Europol and Eurojust, without prejudice of Interpol and Interjust, are the largest institutional advance of the political community. Not even the most sensitive warders of the “national” sovereignty find nothing to object to its exorbitant transgressions; the same as nothing had they to oppose to the Convention of Latché, held for implementing the organized crime in the Basque Coast. The legal homicide or the murder, when the raison d’état makes them absolutely necessary, compensate advantageously for the official abolition of the death penalty. This is the reality of the area of Oppression, Repression and Terrorism without borders that the “constitutional” self-promotion calls “area of freedom, security and justice in accordance with the respect of the fundamental rights and of the different juridical systems and traditions of Member States” etc.

The support of the “European Union” and the UN to the Nationalism, the Imperialism and the Terrorism is now absolute, and all the recognized States can count on the support, the approval, the concealment or – at least – the “understanding” of the inter-State Organisations, in their enterprise of liquidation of the fundamental human rights. The “universal and European” Institutions, which do claim to serve the peace and harmony among humans, condemn – in words – “the violence and terrorism” in general and especially the torture. Yet, it is not in the Charters, the Constitutions and the speeches in the media where it is revealed the reality of a political organization but on the behaviour of its military-police apparatus of violence, which is the real foundation of the “Member States”.

The Governments condemn also in words the “terrorism” in general and torture in particular; but they all, and particularly “the non-violent armed forces”, know the use that must be made of such statements and know the difference that exists between what is to be done and what is to be said, in issues of legal and “illegal” fight against “the violence and the terrorism” of the others. The judicial and police “European Union” will always persecute the defenders of freedom, human rights and right of self-determination of all Peoples; instead, the great criminal States and their assassin hitmen: “resistance fighters against freedom” at their service, will always remain outside their aims and scope.

Violence and Terrorism are inseparable from imperialistic Nationalism. The Terrorism of State is the hypertrophied manifestation of the criminal Violence that constitutes it. Torture, like Terrorism, is today more than ever a “necessary and honourable” European and universal institution, which all the States of the world do practice without restrictions whenever the war grows harder, or the national and democratic Resistance of the subjugated Peoples under imperialism reaches the level of alert. That practice is not a “democratic deficit”, an abnormality, an exception or a failure of the democracy; it is a normal, necessary and revealing component of the totalitarianism, imperialism and Terrorism of the criminal State, which has eaten and assimilated the human rights and the democracy without ceasing to invoke them.

The presentation of the torture as “more than occasional or permanent but non-systematic” is a new conceptual discovery of the refined and Jesuit casuistry of the Committee against the torture of the UN. It does formally highlight that legislators and law-enforcers of the Member-Governments can operate through it with the impunity and tranquillity that their high functions need, in the new globalized imperialistic and fascist order. When the Treaty of the Union states that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”, its rapporteurs are simply considering that the moral perversion or mental alienation of “citizens” – caused by the monopolies of violence and (dis)information – has reached such a point in which all resistance and all capacity of criticism have already disappeared from the “privileged European area of freedom, security and justice for the human hope”.

The “European Union” has not almost any enemies left. To tell the truth, given its “cultural, religious and humanist heritage”, and the purposes and values that it proclaims, the fact that it still has to defend itself from someone or from something is proof that indicates the extreme perversity of the forces of Evil. For the Governments of the “European Union” and the new hegemonic world order: in need of an incarnation of the absolute Evil that occupies in the collective emotion and fears the vacuum left by the communism and anarchism, the “terrorism” is the most negative and virulent force-idea that they have been able to find. Being a shapeless and undetermined concept, of a virtually universal comprehension and extension, it surpasses thereby all its illustrious predecessors in the identification of Evil. The “terrorism” is now the ideal, supreme, global, unique and multi-purpose political crime. Its success and diffusion are unprecedented in the task of ideological manipulation of the masses. The discovery has already surpassed all hopes that were pinned on it, and it is not unreasonable to predict a long and fruitful future for it in the service of the global reactionary backlash: why should this one deprive itself of such a bargain that constitutes this new “criminal type”, which can be applied without possible recourse to whatever, whenever and wherever one wants to?

The “universal and European” Institutions of the Union, which intend to serve the peace and concord between the humans, have shown themselves “unable” – and with reason – of producing the announced but “not much practical” definition of the crime of “terrorism”. Apparently, the “European Union” persecutes with the maximum rigor a crime that it does not even know to say what it is. It has certainly made a variable listof “terrorist organizations”; but a list is not a definition. On the other hand, how has it been possible to draw up a list of terrorists without “knowing” what terrorism is? And if – by the reverse method – a concept and a definition are deduced starting from the “previously” established list, it becomes then clear that they do not correspond to the “vulgar” meaning and idea, nor to those of the traditional political and juridical sense, nor to those of the international right according to the UN, nor to those of the repeated and centennial International Conferences and Conventions on terrorism, not even to those of the States of the “European Union”, whose official or informal, governmental, administrative or penal definitions do not agree between themselves either.

The list of “terrorists” of the “European Union” is a sum of those established by the Governments, with the extension that the particular ideological and political interest of each one of them determines. Corrections and additions to it are made by simple demand of the vilest and most reactionary Politicians and Rulers that Imperialism, Nazism and Fascism brought to the world. The undefined inter-Governmental idea of “terrorism” is also an addition of the diverse ideas: formally contradictory but functionally complementary, which serve to the complex objectives of action and propaganda of the Governments. The UNO faces still greater difficulties in the projected definition of terrorism, due to the number and diversity of their political bases. (If the definition of aggression took twenty-nine years in being agreed by its General Assembly, the definition of terrorism could leave us waiting during all the new millennium, if what is left of the Organization does not disappear before.)

Actually, if there is no Communitary official definition of “terrorism” it is because there is no a presentable and usable concept to be defined, nor interest in getting such a concept but quite the opposite. And this is so because any eventual definition would entail both to place into evidence the real totalitarian concept: the State terrorism, as well as to decrease the ideological and political scope of the corresponding propaganda.

The misunderstandings, ambiguity, confusion, contradictions and diversity of the concepts and of the terms are always profitable for the fascism and the imperialism, which can thus qualify as terrorism all that’s best for them, excluding all that does not suit them. And they are particularly profitable in all that refers to the question of fascism, imperialism, democracy and the fundamental and inherent right of Resistance or legitimate defence, inseparable of the right of self-determination of all Peoples. To interpret, review, define or redefine the new “universal” concept of terrorism: in the “practical” form that imperialism and fascism need, implies to interpret, review, define or redefine all the key concepts of the political society, starting with the official normative of the very General Assembly of the United Nations, that the “European Union” recognizes in words.

The lack of definition of “terrorism” is the most suitable “simplified procedure” in order to end up with the juridical, constitutional, penal and procedural guarantees and rights. Raison d’état, Lettres de cachet, Loi des suspects (Law of suspects), Lois scélérates (“villainous laws”), Decrees of White, Jacobin or Bolshevik Terror, Law of Vagrancy, Law of Defence of the Republic, terrorist Pacts now called “anti-terrorist” etc. do always incorporate the degree of indeterminacy that allows to apply them to whatever one wants to.

The formal extension of the legal, governmental, administrative, penal and judicial arbitrariness: applied to fields allegedly acquired for freedom and democracy, is a despotic regression, a characterized leap backward with regard to the Charters, the Magna Carta, the Provisions of Oxford/Westminster, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus Amendment Act or the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights; but it is so even with regard to the Fuero of the Spaniards, the Penal Code or the Law of Criminal Prosecution in force under General Franco’s fascist régime. According to formulas authorized by the Tyrant General, “no action or omission may be punished if it is not defined as a crime by the criminal law”; “nobody will be punished but by facts that the law defines as crimes or misdemeanour”; all criminal offence “shall be the object of a specific definition”.

However, in the EIU the “terrorist” indictment is set with the help of super-extensive criteria of authorship, of analogy, and of collective and social, of purpose and result responsibility; which achieved their most notable theoretical and practical elaboration from the totalitarian systems of the pre-war period. All political repression is now repression of “terrorism”. (Thanks to the virtually unlimited extension of the undefined crime of “terrorism”, the nearly 10,000 incriminations listed in the French law can experience a reduction that will please all those who in the Council of Europe advocate the numerical “decriminalization”, while the European Council itself ensures the “simplification” of the repressive régime by means of the concentrated criminalization of all political opposition.)

8. – Strategic liquidation of the political opposition: the voting turnout

Only the higher capacity of control of social violence gives the political power, whatever it may is. And the only enterprise capable of altering the current totalitarian reality consists of the creation of a strategic opposition agent, able to alter the rapport of forces in which that reality is founded.

The imperialistic Nationalism has established its power by means of aggression, war, repression, terrorism, violation of all human rights, and monopoly of criminal Violence on the subjugated People: now deprived of its inherent and fundamental rights of self-determination and legitimate self-defence. The propaganda of the imperialistic Nationalism hides and falsifies the oppressive nature of the established régime, which its victims can only avoid by continuous and degrading submission to the dictates of its armed forces.

Through the advantage, impunity and shamelessness conferred on them by the fascist monopolies of Violence and communication, its agents and ideologists present themselves as “democrats and opposed to all violence coming from where it may come”; without the formal contradiction of terms affecting their ideological effectiveness. The executioners affirm to be victims of the Basque People which they and their predecessors have crushed under the Fascist and National-Socialist bombs, and to which they oppress under their monopoly of criminal Violence; and denounce “the dictatorship of the attempts”: a formal contradiction and a logical and sociological absurd that, like so many others, does not harm but benefits the domination over a population reduced to ideological misery and helplessness. The food for fools about “the zero-point, the turn of the page, or the clean slate”, as they call a purportedly neutral current starting point, has as its purpose to hide the historical construction, continuation and consolidation of the French-Spanish imperial-totalitarian system to which they serve.

Today more than ever, by the very development and implications of its political and ideological line, the ideology of the official French-Spanish imperialistic power: contrary to all violence that is not its own one, has the need of hiding – in the prudent and limited measure that the objective conditions allow – the reality of criminal Violence of its “pacific, democratic and non-violent” régime established by means of war of aggression, repression and terror. The “moderate, non-violent and institutional opposition of the Pnv”, and the “radical, violent (or ex-violent) and no less institutional opposition of the Eta”, need it too, because the simple consideration – without reductions or blinders – of the crushing base of criminal Violence of the French-Spanish régime, and of the means of Terrorism that this fascist imperialism has, would expose to ridicule and remove all credibility to “the elections, persuasion, dialogue, negotiation, consensus, general and hunger strikes, armed struggle and revolutionary war”, which form the set of insanity, stupidity, corruption and bad faith to which the “strategy” of the bureaucracies of “Basque moderates and radicals” is reduced.

The ones and the others: without exception and without shame, collaborate in the delirious speech of non-violence that all the time repeats the monopolistic propaganda of the mass media, leading to mental alienation a population also deprived of all means of ideological defence. This phenomenon demonstrates, by itself, the function – supplementary but essential and decisive – that the armed and disarmed “Basque official opposition” Pnv-Eta performs at the service of ideological and political fascism; which for half a century these bureaucracies have accepted as democracy, and as the legitimate regime and State and their own.

The entire opportunistic-realistic-possibilistic-minimalist ideology of the autochthonous armed or unarmed Pnv-Eta services: local auxiliaries of French-Spanish imperialism and fascism, rests on the postulate, made an intangible dogma, of the democratic and non-violent character of that régime established on the military occupation of the Basque People and its State. Upon this dogma is founded and built the vision of the political “reality” that these bureaucracies maintain, by a radical exclusion of all experience.

That is to say: since the régime is by definition democratic and non-violent, it “necessarily follows” from this that it cannot commit acts of Imperialism, Fascism, criminal Violence, Terrorism etc. since, otherwise, it would not be democratic and non-violent. If, even so, it does commit them, it only can be about “secondary or occasional violence, democratic deficit, state of exception, political but not juridical acts” etc. that do not affect the democratic system as such. And when such acts appear, the hypocrite protests and lamentations of the armed and unarmed “opposition” are only referred to the “excesses” that affect their own corporate and bureaucratic interests.

All the components of imperialism: “not-violent” military and civilians, clerics, bishops and popes, armed and unarmed bureaucracies and corporations, ideologists and “informers”, educators and moralists, do actively participate in the task of collective mental alienation of the Peoples. The armed and unarmed “abertzale” (patriot) corporations Pnv-Eta and their satellites have also installed themselves fully in this task as they have integrated themselves in the imperialistic régime: in “the (French and Spanish) State”, as they call it and whose General Budgets they live on; which these bureaucracies, ignoring their own one, affirm it without further concretion as their own State and recognize it  as democratic and non-violent. In short, they have incorporated themselves to the profitable enterprise of fascist intoxication: first condition for an individual, bureaucratic and corporate career, compatible with “the institutions”of French-Spanish imperialism and fascism.

Against what the armed or unarmed auxiliary services of Pnv-Eta propaganda want to make believe, there is here no “danger of an uprising of the army, with the arrival or the cannons”, nor does the imperialism have any need of it either. The armed and unarmed institutionalists and their “warnings” arrive seventy years later from the last uprising, and many centuries later from the first invasion. The Spanish political-military caste or class that holds the real power cannot neither uprise, because it already did it with full success many years before, nor access to the absolute power that it already exerts since then. To send this issue to the art. 8 of the Spanish Constitution, which lays down apparently the power of the Spanish Army, is to ignore or hide both the nature of the political power on our Country, which is founded on the initial military occupation, as well as the foundation of the formal Constitution, based in that real constitution and in the role of the armed forces.

The European “Constitution” is going to be voted by the Organizations officially approved in the territories “officially belonging” to Spain and France,  in the conditions imposed by their fascist monopolies of criminal Violence and propaganda. The Referendum on that “Constitution” is addressed, here, to the Spaniards and French. Only the Spaniards, with a Spanish identity card in order, are going to vote in February [20-II-2005], in the conditions of the military occupation régime, in the friendly company of its local agents and under the protection of “non-violent armed forces”. In May [29-V-2005] the French voters will do the same. The European “democracy” is the continuation of the “democracy” of the Member States; and, just like the latter, it respects “the right to vote and decide” of those who are in power, and everything that those who are in power want to.

We are going to expose the mechanism of the suffrage, as a “legitimation” of the totalitarian-imperialistic régime and as a cover of its real base of criminal violence; and of the induced ideology on the purported “natural” base of the State. The armed and unarmed moderates and radicals do actively and without reservation participate in the ideological enterprise of mystification that strengthens the belief: logically, historically and sociologically absurd but ideologically operational under the fascist monopoly of (dis)information and propaganda, according to which “the vote, the universal suffrage and the will of the majority” are the means of policy and the foundation of democracy. In this way are comforted the vast spaces of irrationality and stupidity that imperialism and fascism fabricate there where they get to be imposed on defenceless Peoples, so as to hide the real fundamentals of their criminal totalitarian power, established since its real and primary constitution not on “the vote, the universal suffrage and the will of the majority” but by means of horrendous and countless imprescriptible crimes.

The truth is that no political régime: whether democratic or not, has ever existed by such means and on such basis, and will never exist. And this is so because any more or less “universal” suffrage does already presuppose a previously constituted political power, and the establishment of borders within which that political régime operates. Starting from there, the dominant ideology does subsequently intend that all this is founded on suffrage. However, they are not the elections and referenda the means and foundation of the political power; it is the political power that conditions, produces, founds, regulates and decides elections and referenda.

No “consultation” can found nor modify the political régimes that organize and regulate such “votes”.  Even in the actual and formal limits that they establish for the “consultations” that they themselves organize, the political powers have learned to obtain the “good” results and to protect themselves against the undesirable ones. The elections and referenda are not falsified or won already through the archaic methods of fraudulent polling and counting of votes but before them and by much more secure means. No serious State, in serious affairs, accepts the risks of consultations that not are won in advance. (The fact that purported “euro-socialists and euro-liberals” do support without reservation those referenda, shows that in the Europe of the “Union” there are no Socialists or Liberals, there are only left Nationalists.)

In particular, imperialism and fascism value and reward the exercise of the “universal vote” as long as the voters, the rules, the conditions and the options are determined and imposed by them. In such conditions, imperialism and fascism can “win the consultations by the majority”, in any occupied Country, if they manage to consolidate the war of aggression and the military occupation through the colonization and liquidation or the colonial displacement of populations on the scale necessary for this purpose. Only colonialism, fascism, and the indigenous armed and unarmed accomplices and Traitors, as there occurs with the Pnv-Eta bureaucracy and its satellites, have the shamelessness to call that as “democracy”.

In the conditions of fascism and militaty occupation unilaterally established by the imperialistic power, the subjugated People either has no strength, or it does have it. In the first case the “elections” are always lost; and if the case is the second one, then there are not even “elections”.

The official “Basque nationalist Party” (Pnv) “abstained” in the 1978 Referendum for the Spanish Constitution “because it is not our Constitution, but we will comply with it because it is righteous and democratic”. With “abstentions” like that, are not needed adherences. If now in the Referendum on the European Treaty it is going to vote “Yes”, without subterfuges, it is because the recent and rapid supplementary and reactionary drift of its bureaucracy, and the growing weakness and credulity of the clientele that this bureaucracy is exploiting, allow it.

However, the recognition and “legitimization” of the established régime are formally accomplished by the simple participation in the “electoral” scheme; a participation that determines the consequent recuperation of the “opposition” as an integral organic par of that régime. Those who voted “No” to the formal (or secondary) Constitution of the occupying States, were accepting it in advance as an eventual result of the Referendum; just as they were accepting – without any referendum having been held on it – the real (or primary) constitution that had preceded and founded it. In the same way, voting “No” in the Referendum on the European Treaty implies to keep a hypocritical “opposition” that “rejects” in words the formal Constitution, but that accepts the real political system that produces it and the one which will be arisen from it.

Voting “No” in the Referendum means, to start with, the recognition of the State – formal and real – constitutions in whose conditions it – the Referendum – is called and voted. It also implies the acceptance in advance of the eventual victory of the “Yes”, with all its consequences; and, in the case of “triumph” of the “No”, it implies the continuity of the existing Treaty and the current European Union, instead of the proposed new Treaty and “European Union”, because the European “democracy” does not offer any other “alternative” but national oppression under the ones or under the others. There is no added factor that allows interpreting in a different way the vote of the armed and unarmed institutionalists Pnv-Eta and their satellites.

Directed, strengthened and manipulated to that effect by the established monopoly of propaganda, the moderate and radical indigenous “Basque” bureaucracy Pnv-Eta tries to convince its followers that in our circumstances: of military occupation of our Country under the fascist imperialism of France and Spain, the dialogue, the vote and the attempts are the basis of the correct political action; and that the French-Spanish imperialism and fascism will retreat in the face of them, or what is the same: that imperialism and fascism do not exist.

The question of the participation in the institutions of imperialism and of the totalitarianism is part of the strategic question of the Resistance to the imperialism and to the totalitarianism: only through their inclusion in the general rapport of forces, and through the achievement of its transformation, do the institutional participation and its results achieve political and ideological sense.

In the absence of an unequivocal strategic National Resistance, the totalitarian powers do interpret, reduce, digest and recuperate in their own interest everything that is not framed in a consistent political opposition. Therefore they only see, fear and proclaim as supreme and unrecoverable evil the political abstention and the boycott of masses: a natural, spontaneous and immediate resource of the oppressed Peoples against imperialism and the totalitarian conditioning; an expression and instrument of an unambiguous strategic opposition to the system that highlight the limits of power; and a factor of strategic development of the Resistance and Independence of Nations.

Even being in the typical conditions of the imperialistic régime and in the absence of all right of information and expression: which are the typical conditions of the “universal” suffrage under an imperialistic régime, the traditional Spanish fascists and the “Basque” Pnv-Eta electoral-opportunists, supporters of the armed and unarmed institutional path, have always met – here and in other parts – with the corresponding abstentionist opposition, close to half of the Basque People. It is a real opposition that here those “Basque moderates and radicals” try by all means to reduce and hide, in order or at the cost of recognizing, swelling and enhancing the colonial vote – in any of its variants – in the imperialistic and fascist elections. But the first abstentionists, who did never vote after the “Transition”, are the countless victims that were left in the mountains, ditches, bullrings and walls of the cemeteries; and the children who never reached adulthood, the women and the men burst under the bombs, all of them excluded forever from the electoral roll by the civil, military or ecclesiastical murderers: defenderes of French-Spanish imperialism and fascism against the Basque People and its State, the Kingdom of Nabarre.

The so-called “useful vote”, under the conditions of the régime of military occupation, does always and necessarily benefit the established power that summons and conditions it, to which the former does in its turn comfort, recognize and “legitimate”. The political opposition of a negligible portion of voters lacks all credibility and all efficiency. In the proposed Referendum, the micro-Parties of the Cav and of the autonomous Navarrese Community (Can) are even more ridiculously minority that those which voted the delirious “Plan of free association of Euskadi and Spain”. Even more than those who once and again vote for fear that the traditional Francoist Party should take the power that it already took seventy years ago without the need for elections. More than those who vote for the reform of article 2 of the French “Constitution”, whose previous reform for establishing it they could not stop before, when they had the “advantage” of the procedure for constitutional reform “in their favour”. More than those who vote for the establishment of “a French Department with a Prefect” in a sector of the Nether Pyrenees, and those who, “in order to save democracy”, did – under the “logic” of the fear to the National Front – vote to reinforce the really established imperialism.

(On the occasion of the campaign for the Spanish-European Referendum, the ideological indigence of the “Basque” armed and unarmed reaction has forced its representatives to dig up the famous “social-national, class-nation dualism” etc., which so many havocs had produced during more than one century in the helpless political conscience of the subjugated Basque People. The official fascist propaganda had itself buried it for the sake of “the transition, the national reconciliation, and the end of the class struggle” in Spain; but the armed and unarmed Pnv-Eta moderates and radicals do delay even compared with the very propaganda of Spanish  imperialism.)

If the “utility” of the electoral participation consists in the fact that “this is the only way to become known and to be able to say something in this Country”, and in other similar examples of “realism”, opportunism and minimalism that so verified a performance have provided for fifty years, then the moderates and the radicals armed and unarmed of the Pnv-Eta group are thereby affirming the incapability of the Basque People to access political conscience without the “help” of the French-Spanish imperialism; which is inherent in their incapability to access any ideology and policy other than those of imperialism. They thus confirm their radical hostility to all opposition of a strategic level corresponding to the actual rapport of forces, which would put in evidence and danger the system of which they form part, and to which they fear above all.

Going to the elections in order to be able to say something proves to be impossible, contradictory and absurd, when what there is to be said is precisely that one should not go. The ineptitude, the obscurantism, the bad faith and the repression of thought: embodied by the official Pnv and its epigones, are not concessions to which they have been forced to compromise due to the alleged ideological and political incapacity that they attribute to the Basque People. Quite on the contrary, they are themselves: those who have long been for forty years saying reactionary gibberish in this Country, the same ones who have reduced it to the ideological and political impotence. In order to be able to say something (in this Country or anywhere), first of all one must have something to say; and in order to be able to communicate ideas, one must first have ideas to communicate: eventualities that any consideration of the propagnda issued by “the Basque moderates and radicals” during the last fifty years does absolutely exclude from them.

The armed and unarmed institutionalists Pnv-Eta and their satellites have no more ideas than those that the imperialism supplies them with when it suits; just as they have no more policy and more results than those promoted by French-Spanish imperialism. In at least forty years of participation in the imperialistic “non-violent democracy”, not a single one of the so-called patriot leaders, candidates, representatives, deputies, senators or councillors has been able to “discover”, let alone denounce, the fundamental criminal Violence that constitutes the French-Spanish imperialistic and fascist régime of military occupation on our Country, without which there would neither be totalitarian institutions or elections, nor exist the functions and emoluments of their servers. The stupidity, the bad faith and the corruption have never been better represented than by themselves.

9. – The reform of the “European Constitution”

According to its local apologists Pnv-Eta, the “European Constitution” that is proposed to Referendum presents some defects but “has good things [although they take good care not to reveal which ones they are], and offers channels for improving it”. The same was said – and they keep now saying – about the French-Spanish formal or real “Constitutions” of France and Spain for centuries. They still continue without discovering that they have not any competence or capacity – either formal or real – to “improve” or reform them.

The ones and the others: protagonists of the armed or unarmed institutional path, try to make believe that when a Constitution denies – as the European does – the rights, the identity and even the very existence of the Basque People, and recognizes and supports without reservation French-Spanish imperialistic domination on it, the “useful, realistic and possibilistic” policy consists in voting, recognizing and supporting it, and “then reforming, little by little and from within”, what has established and “legitimized” before. However, all experience – like all induced policy – does on the contrary show that forces, either real or imaginary, incapable of preventing the establishment of a political system, are still more incapable of replacing or modifying it, once it has got established and consolidated.

They try to make us believe that the “European Union” offers an alternative to the State totalitarianism and imperialism: “the more Europe, the less State”, they say. But the fate of the “European Union” is to strengthen the State power: for that purpose it has been done, and the new “Union” that is being proposed reinforces it much more than the former one. Contrary to what we are being told, with today’s Europe and the one that is being prepared “the more Europe, the more State”; because the “European Union” stretches out increasingly more the area of action of States, puts the whole Europe within reach of its minions, removes checks and balances, and reinforces the collective and solidary repression of fundamental human rights.

In its multi-centennial fight for freedom against imperialistic Nationalism, Totalitarianism and Terrorism, the Basque People has had the most accomplished experience of war of aggression and occupation at the hands of the Spanish and French oriental Despotism and Absolutism, of the governmental omnipotence, and of the fascist monopolies of criminal Violence and Terror of masses. It has suffered or known, as a victim or witness, the Inquisition, Royal Justice, the witch hunt, the “Council of Blood”, the revolutionary tribunals, the military tribunals and the fascist judiciary; even so, all of them encountered – at least – the limitations inherent to the diverse national, religious and State configuration of the Continent. Whereas now, with the repressive common area of the EIU, the limitations disappear; and the Governments, judges and armed forces without borders do access directly: with discretionary jurisdiction and powers, to territories and populations that before the States forbade to each other.

The Pnv-Eta bureaucracies of “the institutional path and the armed struggle” have placed in the hands of the now assembled Powers that occupy our Country an incomparable source of information and propaganda, as well as powerful added means of control, provocation and repression over the actual and virtual political life of our subjugated People, to which the “irresponsible” action of its purported political class has deprived of the essential reserve and protection required by the conditions of the political Resistance under a régime of military occupation. In reality, “the armed and unarmed moderates and radicals” Pnv-Eta do not care to preserve a political resistance in which they do not believe, and which diverges radically from their bureaucratic and corporate interests.

According to their inveterate and imaginative mania of forging delirious fantasies and presenting them as realities (a scheme that allows them to feign that they believe them [?], and then be able to deceive others with them while maintaining the hypocritical and Jesuit cover of an alleged good faith), the Spanish formal “Constitution” was presented by “the moderates and the radicals” as a result of the “constitutional Pact between equals: the Basque Country and Spain”; which, after almost thirty years of practical “verification”, generates now the proposal of the “Plan of a free association of the Basque Country and Spain” (2004).

At a European level, journeys and stays of management and information, at the expense of the taxpayer, did already allow the moderate institutionalists to “discover” that the European Convention on Human Rights denies the Cav and the related administrations all competence to demand anything before the European Court of Human Rights of the Council of Europe. They, therefore, know what is coming upon us and what can be expected from the “new” Europe. Anyway, if – as its propaganda proclaims – the “European Constitution” opens from now on “a space of peace, welfare, democracy, freedom and progress”, then there is not much left to be reformed; and thus, thanks to the generosity of the superior Peoples, the inferior no-Peoples can waive their independence and their purported and ridiculous nationality, so as to access as Spanish and French citizens to the “European Union”.

Even the most positive of the European Institutions: the Common Market, shows more than once its perverse effects over a Country devoid of all political identity and protection. Instead, the Member States escape without difficulty the “normative” that they themselves have requested, proposed and concerted, and that they can unilaterally turn into “negotiable recommendations”; always under cover of the terrible and inexorable community “sanctions” that threaten to all the infringers who put in danger the budget stability, the public deficit and other pillars of the European construction. In the “European Union” the norms are to be fulfilled; and the sanctions, to be imposed, if the States want to. Otherwise, the sanctions are ignored and the rules are changed.

The Conference of the Representatives of the Governments has once more demonstrated its utmost respect to the linguistic rights of the Member States in expressly adopting the “Declaration by the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Hungary on the spelling of the name of the single currency in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe”. According to this Declaration, “the unified spelling of the name of the single currency of the European Union [...] has no effect on the existing rules of the Latvian and the Hungarian languages”. The only thing missing is that Conventionals and inter-Governmental, in exercise of the political and linguistic competencies conferred to them by their Governments, could establish also the European norms that are to replace those own of each Language or Dialect of the Member States. But the danger exists, as it is testified and acknowledged by the Declaration of the cited Republics: nobody makes Norms or Declarations where there is not, or it is not considered that there is, anything to be feared or prevented.

As regards the non-Languages of the non-Peoples of Europe, it’s been a while since the Member States dictate norms, regulate and replace the existing rules of the languages with the help of official and native “specialists”, whose competence in the field of linguistics is as null as that which they evince in the fields of policy and of political linguistic. The “European Constitution” – whose Rapporteurs didn’t want to waste time with tricks and misunderstandings for local use, even if they were for Spaniards – has corrected also the provisions of the Spanish “Constitution” to this effect, unequivocally calling “Spanish” the official dialect that the ideologists and propagandists of the imperialism call, when it suits them, “Castellano, Castilian, Gaztelania or Gaztelera”. (The corresponding “Francien” has not had the same fortune nor found the same complicities.)

Actually, the panorama of the “European Union” is so black that – according to a usual resource in the electoral campaigns of the Pnv and its armed or unarmed subsidiaries – there can only motivate to its clientele the fear to another still blacker future, if it is not accepted the project that “we’ve got to accept although we do not like it, because we haven’t any alternative”. It is the new “constitutional swallow-it-down”. The fear to the worst is: in politics as in economics or theology, more effective than the desire of the best. The ideological terrorism, catastrophism and blackmail do stoke the fear of a clientele infantilized and helpless, with traditional formulas that were typical of the colonial propaganda in all the world.

According to the cataclysmic Apocalypse with which imperialism threatens us, the oppressed Peoples who regain their freedom “will eat grass, or gravel, or iron; they will not be able to cook by lack of oil and garlic; they will not be able to put out the forest fires by lack of Canadair aircraft that take off from the Continent; and they will face the embargo of the ‘European Union’ or suffer the rigors of the climate”, because “outside Europe, there is much wind and cold”. But, both in proper as figurative sense, the Cav and the Can are under the snow, below zero and at the mercy of the hurricane during the campaign, and from the “warm” Europe does not precisely come much hot; which would rather recommend the union or the free association with them “cold” States from outside Europe: Congo, Cuba, Brazil or the Dominican Republic.

The underlying or eventual idea according to which “the third” States – without direct interest in the imperialistic subjugation of the Basque People – will compensate or alleviate the French-Spanish imperialistic duopoly that we are enduring, either it is an illusion, or one more exercise of wishful thinking: escapisms so devoid of foundation as the others. The Peoples, free or subjugated, take care of themselves, of their own affairs and their own interests; they little care that it is to the expense of the others.

The supposedly “indifferent” third States: whether they are small or large, whether they have preserved or regained their independence remotely or recently and even if they have not gained it yet, they are certainly less passionately or materially involved in the enterprise of domination; however, because of peculiar political and psychological reasons, they are not less but more radically strange to the knowledge and recognition of the subjugated Peoples than they are so the occupying Peoples themselves. The solidarity of the colonized and the oppressed of the World is a romantic story to fool the eternal dreamers.

Many Peoples of Europe did not even exist when the proto-European Basque People had already been living many millennia in its peri-Pyrenean refuge; and their official or unofficial dialects or sub-dialects had not still appeared when there lived from immemorial times the Basque Language, to which now they deny the existence in “the Europe of the diversity of its peoples and of its cultures”.

Also, many States did not exist when the Kingdom of Pamplona, the predecessor of that of Nabarre, was constituted; not even when – according to the panegyrists of the conquest themselves – “the Spaniards invaded, subjugated, confiscated and retained the Kingdom of Nabarre”: occupied, dismembered and annexed by means of the war of aggression, the criminal Violence and the Terrorism of its European neighbours and its civil, military and ecclesiastical accomplices. Starting from there the solidarity and recognition have always been given here to one-way: from us towards the others, and have earned for the Basque People a little enviable international reputation of naïveté.

All the States of the “European Union”: big and small, original, recent or pretenders, allied, accomplices or “indifferent”, do recognize and support, without no reservation, the imperialistic domination, the repression, the terrorism and the torture such as the “big” predatory States wield them against the dominated Peoples. The proclaimed formal equality between the States does not prevent the two States that have destroyed the national freedom of the Basque People, and that are maintaining it in their power by means of criminal Violence and Terrorism of war and State, from enjoying in the “European Union” of disproportionate privileges and influence in relation to their community satellites and partners.

We are speaking, of course, about France: because of its condition as a reputed untreatable and unavoidable member of the “Union”; and of Spain: because of its strategic limitations along with other historical, political and psychological reasons that converge in the same direction. The new Berlin-Paris-Madrid Axis does now reveal, adapt, renew and develop the strategic affinities, constants and balances that seventy years before, in 1936, the aggression and the domination of international fascism had already highlighted towards General Franco’s Spain. And, as always, with the suppression of the Peoples’ freedom as a fundamental objective: in Africa, in Chechnya, in Kurdistan, in Yugoslavia or in the Euro-Community West.

10. – By way of recapitulation

Like the French and Spanish formal “Constitutions” in which it is founded, the “Constitution of the European Union” denies in idea the existence of the Basque People, Nation and State so as to better finishing with them in reality. The European imperialism, like the French and Spanish imperialism, has as its purpose the liquidation of the Basque People as a final solution to the Basque problem; he who is still not aware of this fact does neither know which world he lives in nor whom he is risking with.

For the “European Union”, the Basque People does not exist, and therefore the Basques have no right to constitute or to vote anything because what does not exist has no rights. Only as Spanish and French transvestites do the Basques have access to the “democratic civil and political rights of the European area of freedom, security and justice”. The Basques who do ideologically and politically resist the imperialism and the totalitarianism of the French-Spanish criminal legality are delinquents and criminals; but Spanish and French delinquents and criminals, because not even for this can they have their own personality.

The “European Union” does here confine itself, in principle, to recognize, comfort, and apply the French and the Spanish rights. For the first one, in the territory of the Republic, there is no other People or other Nation than the French ones. For it, the Basque fact is neither active nor passive subject of anything, not even by way of a region or other administrative constituency: le Pays Basque; ça n’existe pas [“the Basque Country; that does not exist”].

And similarly, for the second one, there is no other Nation or other People than the Spanish ones; the recognition of a “Basque” autonomous community, and another “Navarrese” one, should not lead us to confusion or deception. (Just for this motive has been made the existing denomination, which incorporates the manipulation of terms and concepts for purposes of ideological intoxication. In this sense, the project of Treaty has amended even downwards – what is quite an amendment! – the Spanish “Constitution”, calling “regions” what the latter recognizes as “nationalities”.) In the Spanish right, either “common or autonomous”, they are “Basques or Nabarrese” the Spaniards with an administrative neighbourhood of Spanish right in the respective constituencies of the Spanish State.

The Pnv-Eta official “abertzale [patriotic] opposition”: either armed or unarmed, participates of the same trickery with similar formulas of ideological sabotage, which empty of all content the fundamental idea of Euskal-Herria as a different People and Nation. However, neither the Basque People nor any other can be reduced to a population that receives its “identity” from an administrative ascription. According to this, the “Spanish Basques” are simply “Spaniards”, and the “French Basques” are simply “French”. Yet, it’s not possible to be Basque and at the same time Spaniard or French: the Basques are neither Spaniards nor French; and the Spaniards and the French are not Basques. If this is denied, it is denied the Basque People and, with it, its right of self-determination and all policy of national liberation. Once more, the counterfeiting and confusion of the terms and the concepts do only favour imperialism.

Deeply permeated by the French-Spanish imperialistic ideology, the “leaders” of the vast Pnv-Eta conglomerate that is leading the so-called “institutional path and armed struggle” do participate, with all the resources that the régime of military occupation puts within their reach, in the falsification and denial of the right of self-determination or independence of all Peoples, distorted by them up to leaving it converted it in its own negation so as to make it “acceptable” to the established imperialistic régime. This is, first of all, a consequence of their own ignorance and of the theoretical and ideological ruin that the bad faith, the obscurantism, the repression of freedom of expression and communication, and the single thought do entail for their own agents and beneficiaries; but it is also a consequence of the reactionary attempt to modify or “update” the right of self-determination or independence of all Peoples with the illusion or the pretext of making it “reconcilable” with the criminal, imperialistic, colonialist and fascist French-Spanish régime.

It is not – or is not only – about bad faith and incompetence on the part of them, or about a sectoral abandonment in ancillary matters. It is about a denial of the fundamental right of self-determination or free-disposition of all Peoples, and about a consequential recognition and acceptance of the French-Spanish régime of military occupation on the Basque People ans its State; a criminal régime that for almost half a century these “abertzale leaders” describe as democratic and non-violent. In this way, “the moderates and the armed and unarmed radicals” Pnv-Eta deny the fascist political reality of the régime of military occupation that subjugates our Country; and in doing so they are – on pure logic – taking for solved or non-existent the problem that they nevertheless, in a full contradiction, “pretend” that is to be resolved. It is the triumph of incongruity and absurdity: the complete inability to apply reason to the political struggle against imperialism and fascism; which fatally does always favour the criminal established régime.

The Referendum on the European Treaty/Constitution is proposed when the catastrophic results and the terrible costs of “the institutional path and the armed struggle” force to the “Basque”official Corporations involved in them, and to their leading bureaucracies, to arduous adaptations in order to preserve the privileges and clienteles, and to hide the fundamental fact that they do not have the least intention nor the slightest idea of how to get the People that they pretend to defend out of the deadly trap in which the stupidity, dogmatism and obscurantism, charlatanism and illusionism, exhibitionism, sectarianism and authoritarianism, corruption and petty ambitions of them all have locked it up. Voting in the referendum or in whatever is presented, the more often the better; and exercising or begging “their right to vote in democracy”, is for the armed or unarmed institutionalists Pnv-Eta and their satellites an absolute necessity, because they don’t know what else to do in order to hide the reality.

The Pnv-Eta armed or unarmed constitutionalists who are struggling so much in reforming the Spanish and French Constitutions, which they had voted and accepted before, will have now another Constitution more to vote and then reform. Their “useful vote” to the “European Constitution” will take them, once again, to ideologically and politically strengthen Despotism and Imperialism. Yet, the “reform” of the Constitution of the “European Union” in order to incorporate in it the right of self-determination or independence of all Peoples, as well as the “reform” of the formal and real French and Spanish Constitutions with the same purpose, is in fact a political enterprise that is located outside the formal and, above all, real “constitutional” field.

When the “national and European Constitutions”, united in the “Union”, fall with all their weight on this helpless Country in form of new laws, recommendations, decisions, resolutions or euro-orders, or as a result of the simple exercise of the factual powers, perhaps those Pnv-Eta “constitutionalists and institutionalists” will remember then – if their usual hypocritical lamentations and recriminations leave them time and place for it – that they were adopted and “legitimized” with their votes.

The pro-European vote of the supporters of “the institutional path and the armed struggle” is the continuation of the enterprise of ideological and political liquidation that has plunged this Country in helplessness, division, strategic nullity, political putrefaction, and material and mental alienation. Like other manoeuvers, voting the “European Constitution” is a mode of hiding that they neither do know or want to know what else to do, nor have another thing to propose.

The Basque People has still potential – moral and material – resources to carry out a true democratic policy, although its situation is now much worse than thirty or forty years before; but only an ideological and political opposition capable of mobilizing and structuring its active forces, of creating and restoring its own national and State Institutions, of restoring the internal freedom and democracy, and of developing a National Resistance of strategic level against the French-Spanish imperialism, could get it out of the imperialistic and fascist trap in which it has allowed being locked up.

There are “consultations” that are not to be answered. Because even voting “No” to the proposed Constitution means saying “Yes” to the constituted Entity that is proposing it. But there happens that Entity denies the existence of the subjugated Peoples; and there is not a spiritually free and honourable People that admits participating in a consultation in the conditions that the imperialism imposes to it, thus “legitimizing” with its votes a proposal that denies its fundamental rights and its very existence. A similar proposal, which was addressed to the Member States, would not cause a negative response but the immediate liquidation of the “constituent” process. Only the wretched Peoples deprived both of freedom and at the same time of dignity can vote in such conditions. The fact that an indecent and insulting proposal for a true People obtains here the affirmative or “negative” response of its “armed and unarmed moderate and radical leaders and representatives” Pnv-Eta, shows the moral degradation and political ruin to which they themselves have taken this Country.

Contrary to what the armed or unarmed “moderate and radical” representatives of the Pnv-Eta liquidationist bureaucracy aim to make-believe, the weak or weakened Peoples that do not assert and defend their right to their own Homeland and territory, and that forget their dignity and hide their identity as if it was a shameful blemish, do not obtain the interest, or the respect, or even less the adherence or incorporation of anybody. On the contrary, they do only obtain the contempt of all: they exasperate the repressive violence of the occupying forces; mobilize, reorganize and radicalize the population of Colonists from the occupying Powers; and enhance the number and action of the Renegades. All of them: leaning on the imperial Metropolis of which they are the outpost and spearhead, form and affirm their capacity, their right and their willingness to impose their own law and their own national identity in the occupied Territories of the indigenous Peoples, up to achieving the final liquidation of those whom they hate and see as tribes of unfortunate infra-humans: too flimsy and too fool as for deserving anything else than being thrown into the water.

Entering or staying in the “European Union” as Spanish and French transvestites: with the pants below the knees, is a bad way of entering or staying in the “European Union”. A People that is willing to do everything for it, that accepts the régime of alien domination with all its humiliation, that kisses the boot that stomps it and that – on top of all – goes to vote on its oppressors’ whim and in the conditions imposed by them, does only deserve the contempt of the EIU, and will not have anything else.

Peoples are not mobilized or united by means of submission and strategic liquidation. The rights of the Peoples are not defended by dragging their dignity on the soils. Only the Peoples that do not relinquish their national dignity and identity, and that resist the imperialistic domination, do eventually have access to life, freedom and progress. The others are already rubbish of Peoples, without another destination but the dustbin of History.

Actually, “the moderates and the radicals”: from the official Pnv to the unofficial Eta that are going to vote the “European Constitution”, do believe neither in the political capacity of the Basque People nor in an opposition of strategic level that corresponds to the real rapport of forces, which would put in danger the system of which they form part and to which they fear above all. They are, all of them, expression of the incapability and the corruption of that purported political class: a false “vanguard” that in fact delays in relation to the real situation and capacity of the People they claim to represent, to which they have reduced to ideological and political helplessness, division and nullity.

The supporters of the armed and unarmed “Basque institutional path” do not believe in the reality of French-Spanish imperialism, nor in the Resistance to that imperialism. The very word “imperialism” did since time immemorial disappear from their propaganda; and the term “pacification”: of a sinister resonance, has replaced the national liberation in their “plans to resolve the Basque conflict”. They have accepted, supported and recognized as “legitimate, democratic, non-Nationalist and non-violent” the criminal French-Spanish imperialistic and fascist régime of military occupation over our Country, thereby denying the reality of imperialism and the national and political entity of the subjugated Basque People.

The Pnv-Eta “moderates and radicals” are corporations that have as vital objective their own survival, expansion and reproduction. The institutional path is not part or supplement of their policy; it’s all their policy. They are neither the legal nor the illegal opposition to the French-Spanish imperialistic régime: they are the opposition of that imperialistic régime, which they do not only deny as such but have accepted it as legitimate, democratic and their own, and to which they are existentially, ideologically, politically, corporately and bureaucratically attached. They neither can nor want to face their own political existence it they do not obtain the recognition and protection of that régime. Legalistic and constitutionalists as they are, they depend on the privileges that the power grants them because of their invaluable services in the task of reducing and keeping the democratic resistance of the Basque People to an infra-strategic level, in the creation of false and lethal illusions for our People, and in the administration of the corruption from which they live and thrive.

Lacking bail or illegal alibi after “the collapse of the armed struggle” of the Eta, those who have promoted or profited from it end their long march of return and incorporation to the paternal home of the Pnv. They need, at any cost and as a priority, to get or retrieve the official respectability and honourableness, to legalize re-legalize their bodies and activities, and to maintain, recover or beg for their permanent presence in the “elections” and other institutions that they call “democratic”.

Yet, without actual or virtual imperialism there is not right of self-determination or independence of the Peoples either, which is its correlative contrary. The right of self-determination presupposes imperialism, just as the remedy presupposes the disease.

The right of free disposition or self-determination is fundamental and inherent to all subjugated Peoples: it is their right of unconditional e immediate independence against imperialism. Therefore, this right does neither admit nor is it conditioned by any decision or vote, which – realized in any case after the abolition of imperialism – are its secondary, derived and late avatar; neither does it depend on purported alien recognitions, which involve and are its denial. When the Pnv-Eta moderate or radical institutionalists or constitutionalists: both armed and unarmed, ask for the “mandatory recognition” of the right of self-determination from the part of the occupying States, they are not only inverting the order of the things but also claiming a non-existent right and obligation, exorbitant of the right of self-determination of all Peoples. (The so-called “declarative recognition” is a pleonastic addition; the so-called “constitutive recognition”, a contradiction in terms; and that purported “mandatory recognition”, is an extension as superfetatory as the “inherent declaration” to the fact).

The right of self-determination is not an “objective or product of the democracy, or compatible with it”, as the Pnv and its satellites do pretend in “opposition” to the traditional imperialism, which affirms its contradiction with it. The right of self-determination is constitutive of the democracy, which excludes the imperialistic domination.

“To vote freely and democratically so as to decide” does previously imply the realization of the right of self-determination or Independence of the People, as it is evident. “To vote so as to decide freely and democratically in the three [sic] territories of Euskal-Herria, and to be able to have legitimate representatives democratically elected”, and all of this in the conditions and according to the norms of the French-Spanish imperialistic and fascist régime of military occupation,  are either propositions contradictory in their own terms, or the negation of the reality of imperialism.

The “negotiation in key of self-determination”, or the “process of self-determination in absence of all violence, either legalized or of response”, are equally reactionary stupidities: objectively or formally contradictory, to which the supporters of the armed or unarmed institutional path have for some time accustomed to their helpless victims. Such “propositions”: which start from the denial of the anti-democratic and criminal character of the French-Spanish régime of military occupation, are the caricature of freedom, democracy, and the right of self-determination. In these conditions, there is no possible strategic implementation of a right whose nature is unknown, hidden or distorted. In an imperialistic and foreign régime of colonial occupation, there is no other freedom, no other democracy, and nor other process of self-determination that the ideological and political Resistance against imperialism and fascism.

“Resolving the Basque conflict through strictly democratic means through persuasion, dialogue and negotiation, in the absence of any violence”, is now the declared aim of all the agents that do allegedly form the Pnv-Eta “Basque policital class”. Foolishnesses of such calibre are not, or are not only, a result of the incompetence and the bad faith, or of the will of ignoring or hiding the most obvious reality. They correspond – once more – to the recognition: with all its consequences, of the French-Spanish imperialistic and fascist régime of military occupation as democratic and non-violent, as well as to the constant and systematic concealment of the action of the fascist monopolies of propaganda and criminal Violence; and they do show the political, ideological and mental alienation in which this purported political class has plunged the People that it claims to be defending.

Pacts, Plans and Proposals are occurring at an increasing speed, in order to hide that their genitors do neither have the slightest idea of how to get out of the situation that they themselves have made for their own benefit and to the detriment of the Country that they claim to be representing, nor the slightest intention of trying it. Opportunism, corporatism and bureaucracy are factors of the strategic liquidation that has destroyed all effective opposition of the Basque People; not only illegal but also legal, since there is no real political opposition if it does not have a strategic foundation. In such conditions the Peoples do not unite and mobilize themselves, they only decompose.

A last consideration. For the “Euro-Constituents” of the Treaty, the mention of the Peoples and of their inherent right of self-determination or independence, as well as of the correlative crimes of imperialism and colonialism against them, has undoubtedly been considered superfluous, since the reference to the Charter of the UN and to others international texts that they have established in it, and also the very privileged area of freedom, security and justice that is in itself the “European Union”, “guarantee” that there is not and there cannot be imperialism in it: there can only be free Peoples in freely constituted States. However, the same could be said of all the values, rights and correlative crimes that the Treaty does enunciate, enumerate, analyse, emphasize, confirm and reiterate once and again throughout their 448 articles; values, rights and crimes that – despite these aforementioned references – the same “Euro-Constituents” have nevertheless decided to detail.

Yet, as there seems to be deduced, in this prolix context the omitted inclusion of the Peoples, their rights and the correlative crimes against them would have amounted up to... at least four or five lines more!; which was clearly excessive for such an austere, strict, succinct and, above all, simple and transparent document.