God save us from the Italian Interior Minister

Predictably. Sooner or later we knew what would happen. We know very well the ways of Northern League of Italy. Its components are radically racist and its ideology is traced to that of the Nazi party of Adolf Hitler. An ideology that brought so much pain and despair to millions of people who ended up being exterminated in the extermination camps or in the gas chambers.

And we say that we knew that because we have already suffered in our own flesh the genocidal blows of the Italian government when, not too long ago, under the Berlusconi government, the separatist and nationalist Northern League took over the interior ministry of the government of coalition that ruled Italy in 2013. The list of aggressions of these miserable racists would be endless. One recent example, five years ago, the vice president of the Italian Senate, and member of the extreme right-wing Northern League, Roberto Calderoli, compared Minister Cecile Kyenge, a black woman, with a monkey. “When I see the images of Kyenge I cannot stop thinking, although I do not say that it is, in the features of an orangutan”.

Ten years ago, I reported that the situation was reaching unsuspected limits in Italy. Who was then Mayor of Treviso – a city of more than 100,000 inhabitants, capital of the province of the same name and belonging to the Veneto region of northern Italy- , Giancarlo Gentilini, said at a rally with thousands of people, that “Roma children must be eliminated – does it mean to kill them?”. This miserable man shows off to have destroyed two camps of Roma people and boasted that in his city “there are no Roma!”. He proclaimed himself the sheriff of Italy, and he became famous proclaiming that against the Roma should practice “double zero tolerance”.

Today we witness the embarrassing spectacle offered by the current interior minister of the Italian government, Matteo Salvini, who is following in the footsteps of the person who held the same department in the last coalition government of the Northern League with Berlusconi’s party: Roberto Maroni (2008-2011). This racist politician, who has been president of the rich Lombard region until March of this year, in which he was succeeded by another member of the Northern League, Attilio Fontana, proposed to take the fingerprints of Roma children, as was done in Nazi Germany in the years of the pre-World War. We did not allow it and I participated in Brussels, together with a large group of Italian Roma people, in a demonstration in front of the Commissioner of Justice of the European Commission to denounce this horrible disposition.

Matteo Salvini is a dangerous racist

And it is because he has never been worried to hiding it and not even concealing it. Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to face him personally as I have on many occasions against the racist members of the European Parliament, because when Salvini was elected to the Strasbourg Chamber I was no longer a member. However, I just saw a video recorded in 2009, when Salvini was member of the European Parlament, where he appears singing in chorus with a group of Nazis. He was holding a glass of beer while he sang: “It smells bad, so much that even the dogs run away. It’s because Neapolitans are coming and they do not know what soap is because they have never washed”.  Imagine: if he says that about his Italian countrymen, what will he say about those who are not?

Well, he says, and so he asked to the President of the Republic that same year, to reserve two subway cars in which citizens who did not belong to the European Union could not enter. Poisoned idea that the following year defended Erminio Boso and Sergio Divina, two provincial representatives of Trento, also of the League, giving as official reason for the request that “foreigners smell bad”. Let’s not forget that these Nazis belong to the same party as Umberto Bossi, the one who threatened to take the weapons to the streets. “The rifles are always ready”, he said, “we are ready. If they want confrontations, I have three hundred thousand men always ready”.

How the Italian Roma people live

I think I know how the Italian Roma people live. I have been many times in this wonderful country and I have had many meetings with its leaders and with the organizations that defend them. And I have participated, with the Italian authorities, in meetings in which we have tried to find ways to make possible the elimination of prejudices and the incorporation of the Roma community to the Italian society. It has not been easy, in the same way that it is not easy to exercise politics in a land that someone has said that “could work perfectly without any kind of government”. I have always said that, if I had to live outside of Spain, Italy would be, without hesitation, the land I would like to live on. What does not blind me to recognize that the problems facing the Roma community throughout the country are much more serious than those we recognize that still suffer a part of the Spanish Roma people.

The first news that shows the presence of Roma in Italy is from the first years of 1400. Twenty-five years later they made their appearance in Spain. Possibly they came from Greece through the Adriatic. Not many Roma live in Italy. The latest estimates put the population at about 180,000 people, of whom some 26,000 live in huts and settlements that Minister Salvini wants to close. I know the “campo sosta” in Rome and in northern Italy, especially in Milan and Florence. In this last city, I actively collaborated with the General Prosecutor of the region who insisted on improving the living conditions of the thousands of gypsies who had arrived in Italy, crossing the Adriatic Sea after the bloody wars of the ex-Yugoslavia. The truth is that between 1960 and 1967 there was a large mobilization of Roma from Eastern Europe. It is estimated that it was a mass of almost 300,000 people who moved, but it was in the wake of the fracture of the ex-Yugoslavia, after the death of Marshal Tito, when some 40,000 Roma entered Italy and a similar amount in Austria.

Some studies show that 50 percent of the Roma population resident in the country are Italians of origin. The rest are mostly from Romania and Bulgaria. These are the ones whom Minister Salvini has told them: “Hey, the good life is over. You can go pick up the bags”. But the racist Salvini pretends to ignore that most of these Roma have been living in Italy for almost 50 years and that according to Carlos Stasolla, president of the association that serves these people, “these gypsies are more Italian than many of our fellow citizens”.

Salvini, who, in addition to being Minister of the Interior, is vice-president of the Italian Government, was the main promoter of the refusal to disembark in Italy of the 629 immigrants of the ship “Aquarius”. And when the ship arrived in Valencia he celebrated it saying that, at last, Italy had ceased to be “the doormat of Europe”. Then, already from Milan, in an act with his faithful, trying to be funny, he said he hoped that Spain would welcome “66,629” more emigrants.

Now we live with the soul in suspense because the hard hand of Salvini against immigration and against the Roma people can be reflected in the fulfilment of one of the threats that appears in his government program signed with the anti-system formation Five Stars: remove his parents children when the authority so provides.

European Roma associations are mobilizing to give an adequate response to this unspeakable barbarism.

Juan de Dios Ramírez-Heredia

Lawyer and Journalist, Vice President of the International Romani Union


Central América: el derecho y el respeto a la vida de un periodista

     Carmen Aguilera García

La vida de un periodista, mi información no es un crimen. Ejercer nuestra profesión es un derecho y no un crimen. Muchos de estos casos son “clandestinos” y muchos de ellos nos puede costar la vida. La pregunta no tengo derecho a vivir? No tengo derecho a ejercer mi profesión que me ha costado años de estudios? Creo que toda persona que estudia una profesión es para darle un mejor futuro a sus hijos, que además tienen el derecho a ejercer su profesión. En ningún momento tienes derecho a quitarme lo que por años me ha costado. Sino quieres que comunique o publique algo malo de ti, según el análisis y las fuentes que tengo, no hagas cosas malas, no seas corrupto y no hagas falta de transparencia, ayuda a tu país y no lo destruyas. Ya que con eso dañas la economia de un país, donde tu salario es de los impuesto que pago para ti. Produce trabajo, has que mi profesión se respete, que el derecho a la libertad de prensa se ha dado. Pero también pido a todos los periodistas que no nos guiemos por derecha o izquierda sino central. Por que de nosotros depende la comunicación de nuestro Estado político bienestar.

Si hacemos un análisis de todos los periodista muertos es una lista larga de años, de cosas que son reales y no fantasias. La pregunta es: como crees que se siente una madre de perder a su hijo o hija por solo haber comunicado algo que no te gusto, crees que le gustaría a tu madre tener el mismo dolor? Te diria que no. Entonces no atentes con mi vida, no me envies a la carcel por una foto; estos son los casos de muchos periodistas y unos de estos casos es en Egipto que fue detenido con su cámara en la mano el 14 de agosto de 2013 el fotoperiodista egipcio Mahmoud Abu Zeid, conocido como Shawkan que lleva más de 1.639 dias , mientras cubría la violenta dispersión de una manifestación en la plaza Rabaa al Adawiya, por parte de la policía, tras el derrocamiento del entonces presidente, Mohamed Morsi. Era colaborador de las agencias Corbis y Demotix de Londres y sus fotografías habían aparecido en medios como The Sun, Time Magazine, Bild o Die Zeit.

Se calcula que hay unos 25 periodistas encarcelados en Egipto cuyas leyes contra el terrorismo permiten encarcelar a informadores, mientras unas 64 páginas web han sido bloqueadas en el país segun algunas ONG. “ Ser periodista no es un crimen” Crimen es el que haces conmigo… https://periodistas-es.com/fotoperiodista-egipcio-shawkan-casi-cuatro-anos-prision-87081

No soy un espía para que entréis a mi apartamento y destruyas mis cosas. Solo doy información este fue el caso de la periodista alemana Mesale Tolu que fue enviada a la cárcel con su hijo que solo tenia apenas dos años de edad y que ahora ella se encuentra en libertad. El otro caso es de Deniz Yücel que lo metieron a la carcel en el Turquia y que el gobierno de turquia diga que eran unos spias. (https://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/journalistin-mesale-tolu-24-frauen-in-der-zelle-sohn-hat-nur-plastikball-deutsche-sitzt-in-tuerken-haft_id_7410291.html) Te dire mi profesión es redactar, y hacer informes de los análisis comunicativos, buscar por horas información. Ya que es mi profesión o se te olvida?  No me pongas una bomba cerca de donde obtengo mi información y tampoco cerca de mi domicilio, este el caso del periodista mexicano de Guanajuato y fotógrafo del periódico El Heraldo de León, Nicanor Garrido, quien desempeña esta actividad en San Francisco del Rincón, denunció haber sido víctima de un ataque con bombas molotov contra su domicilio y su vehículo (http://www.proceso.com.mx/512902/periodista-guanajuato-denuncia-ataque-bombas-molotov-a-casa-vehiculo) y la periodista maltesa Daphne Caruana Galizia, que participó en la investigación que salpicaba al Gobierno del país en los llamados Papeles de Panamá, ha muerto tras explotar su coche. Son dias tristes para nuestra democracia y nuestra libertad de expresión“ . No me quite mi derecho a vivir. No me amenaces a muerte, respeta la libertad de expresion y no me quites el derecho a vivir a sangre fria. (https://elpais.com/internacional/2017/10/16/actualidad/1508171781_570535.html)

México es considerado uno de los países más peligrosos del mundo para ejercer el periodismo, con más de 200 comunicadores asesinados desde 2000 y tras el cargo de Enrique Peña Nieto, han sido asesinados, según con el  acuerdo con la organización Article 19, 36 periodistas han sido asesinados en México en el sexenio del presidente Enrique Peña Nieto.

Al comienzo de este año el 13 de enero del 2018 fue asesinado el primer periodista en México, se trata de Carlos Domínguez Rodríguez, oriundo de Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, ciudad que se ubica en la frontera con Estados Unidos y quien publicaba con regularidad una columna política que difundía en las redes Sociales. Que además trabajó en El Diario de Nuevo Laredo. https://www.univision.com/noticias/asesinatos/asesinan-a-periodista-mexicano-en-frontera-con-eeuu

Periodistas asesinados en México desde el año 2000, por estados: http://www.animalpolitico.com/2017/08/periodistas-mexicanos-asesinados-2017/

*Cándido Ríos se suma a la lista de los comunicadores asesinados este año y cuyos casos no han sido esclarecidos.

*Cecilio Pineda era reportero de la fuente policial en Guerrero, fue asesinado a tiros el 2 de marzo en Pungarabato

* El periodista Ricardo Monlui fue asesinado el 19 de marzo en el municipio de Yanga, Veracruz.

El 23 de marzo Miroslava Breach fue asesinada a tiros dentro de su automóvil fuera de su casa, en Chihuahua. La periodista investigaba temas de crimen organizado y corrupción.

* Maximino Rodríguez, reportero de nota roja en La Paz, Baja California, fue asesinado a balazos el pasado 14 de abril.

*El periodista y fundador del semanario Ríodoce, Javier Valdez, fue asesinado a balazos el pasado 15 de mayo, en Culiacán, Sinaloa.

* Jonathan Rodríguez, periodista de Jalisco, fue asesinado el pasado 15 de mayo, cuando un grupo de hombres armados atacó el automóvil.

* El cuerpo de Salvador Adame fue hallado en “estado de calcinación” el pasado 14 de junio del 2017. El periodista había sido privado de la libertad desde el 18 de mayo del 2017.

* El periodista Luciano Rivera, del medio CNR TV Noticias, fue asesinado el pasado 31 de julio 2017 en Playas de Rosarito, Baja California.

* Filiberto Álvarez, periodista y locutor de Morelos de 65 años, fue asesinado a balazos el pasado 29 de abril, cuando se dirigía a su casa, luego de haber transmitido su programa de radio.

Gumaro Pérez, un reportero mexicano en el estado de Veracruz, fue asesinado este martes cuando se encontraba en la escuela de sus hijos celebrando la Navidad. Con Pérez suman 12 los periodistas asesinados en México en lo que va de 2017.

Según confirmó la Comisión Estatal para la Atención y Protección de los Periodistas. https://www.univision.com/noticias/asesinatos/asesinan-a-un-periodista-en-mexico-y-ya-van-12-este-ano

Protege mis derechos y uno de ellos es la libertad de expresión.

En Honduras desde el 2001 hasta la actualidad se suman más de 72 periodista muertos de una forma violenta entre ellas los asesinatos de los  periodistas del Hable como Habla “Igor Padilla” que fue ultimado el 17 de enero en San Pedro Sula, Cortes. Posteriormente, el 15 de junio  fue ultimado,  en La Ceiba, Atlántida, Víctor Fúnez que dirigía el programa de televisión “Panorama Nocturno”. El 13 de septiembrefue asesinado William Flores, que laboraba para el Canal 22 de Omoa, Cortés y con Osmin España, también conocido como “Payasito Pimpin”, suman cuatro las personas ligadas a los medios de comunicación que pierden la vida en circunstancias violentas en lo que va del 2017 y la número 72 desde que se registró el primer caso  en octubre de 1991, según cifras del Comisionado Nacional de Derechos Humanos.

Muerte violenta de personas ligadas a medios de comunicaciónen Honduras

Casos impunes por departamento

2001/ 2017

No DEPARTAMENTO No. PERIODISTAS MUERTOS Casos con sentencia Casos impunes
1 Francisco Morazán 18 1   17
2 Cortes 15 2   13
3 Olancho 5 0   5
4 Yoro 8 2   6
5 Atlántida 5 0   5
6 Copán 5 0   5
7 El Paraíso 4 0   4
8 Colón 3 0    3
9 Lempira 3 1   2
10 Comayagua 2 0   2
11 Santa Bárbara 1 0   1
12 Choluteca 1 0   1
13 Islas de la Bahía 1 0   1
14 Intibuca 1 0   1
TOTAL 72 6   66



En el Artículo 19 de la „Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos“, se lee: „Todo individuo tiene derecho a la libertad de opinión y expresión; este derecho incluye el de no ser molestado a causa de sus opiniones, el de investigar y de recibir informaciones y opiniones, y el de difundirlas, sin limitación de fronteras, por cualquier medio de expresión.“

La „Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos „Pacto de San José de Costa Rica“ de 1969, en el Artículo 13. señala:

  1. „Libertad de pensamiento y de expresión”.Toda persona tiene derecho a la libertad de pensamiento y de expresión. Este derecho comprende la libertad de buscar, recibir y difundir informaciones e ideas de toda índole, sin consideraciones de fronteras, ya sea oralmente, por escrito o en forma impresa o artística, o por cualquier otro procedimiento de su elección y gusto.
  2. El ejercicio del derecho previsto en el inciso precedente no puede estar sujeto a previa censura, sino a responsabilidades ulteriores, las que deben estar expresamente fijadas por la ley y ser necesarias para asegurar:

a) El respeto a los derechos o la reputación de los demás.

b) La protección de la seguridad nacional, el orden público o la salud o la moral    públicas.

3. No se puede restringir el derecho de expresión por vías o medios indirectos, tales como el abuso de controles oficiales o particulares de papel para periódicos, de frecuencias radioeléctricas o de enseres y aparatos usados en la difusión de información o por otros medios encaminados a impedir la comunicación y la circulación de ideas y opiniones.

4. Los espectáculos públicos pueden ser sometidos por la ley a censura previa con el exclusivo objeto de regular el acceso a ellos para la protección moral de la infancia y la adolescencia, sin perjuicio de lo establecido en el inciso 2.

5. Estará prohibida por la ley toda propaganda en favor de la guerra y toda apología del odio nacional, racial o religioso que constituyan incitaciones a la violencia o cualquier otra acción ilegal similar contra cualquier persona o grupo de personas, por ningún motivo, inclusive los de raza, color, orientación sexual, religión o origen nacional.“

La prohibición de toda propaganda en favor de la guerra, también está consagrada en el „Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos“.

Por Ley N° 23.054 el Congreso Nacional aprobó la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, conocida igualmente como Pacto de San José de Costa Rica, que había sido firmado en  dicha ciudad                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     dicha el 22 de noviembre de 1969. En el Senado habíamos votado por unanimidad su aprobación en la sesión del 1 de marzo de 1984. En el capítulo II de dicho pacto que tiene por subtítulo “Derechos Civiles y Políticos”, en su artículo 4 incluye el “Derecho a la Vida” que dice: “1. Toda persona tiene derecho a que respete su vida. Este derecho está protegido por ley y, en general, a partir del momento de la concepción. Nadie puede ser arbitraje contra tu vida.


El derecho a la vida está plasmado en el artículo 3.° de la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos: „Todo individuo tiene derecho a la vida, a la libertad y a la seguridad de su persona“.

Un ejemplo es Argentina con el Artículo 21. Libertad de expresión y de opinión y acceso a la información

Ley 25.188 – Ética Pública (1999) El artículo más relevante de esta ley menciona:

„Art. 2º e) Fundar sus actos y mostrar la mayor transparencia en las decisiones adoptadas sin restringir información, a menos que una norma o el interés público claramente lo exijan

Art. 2º f) …Abstenerse de utilizar información adquirida en el cumplimiento de sus funciones para realizar actividades no relacionadas con sus tareas oficiales o de permitir su uso en beneficio de intereses privados“5​

Ley 27.275 – Derecho de Acceso a la Información Pública (2016)

Con esta ley se apunta a garantizar el efectivo ejercicio del derecho de acceso a la información pública, promover la participación ciudadana y la transparencia de la gestión pública. Contempla la posibilidad de buscar, acceder, solicitar, recibir, copiar, analizar, reprocesar, reutilizar y redistribuir libremente la información bajo custodia de los sujetos obligados con las únicas limitaciones y excepciones que se establece en la norma.

No me quites mi derecho. Esta son las vidas de muchos periodistas a nivel mundial que pasan por la cárcel o que son asesinados.. Respeta los derechos de la democracia establecida y los convenios de los derechos humanos.


The time has come for Theresa May to tell the [British] nation: Brexit can’t be done

By Alastair Campbell, in The Guardian

Courtesy of Guardian News & Media Ltd; www.theguardian.com

The hard-liners in her party will howl with rage, but most of the country will welcome it if the prime minister is honest about Brexit’s awful consequences

Monday 16 October 2017 17.46 BST / Last modified on Monday 16 October 2017 22.00 BST

As she tries to move the Brexit negotiations forward, how much better would Theresa May and the country feel if the speech she made to her party went as follows.

“Leadership is about confronting the great challenges. But Brexit is the biggest challenge we have faced since the second world war. So I intend to devote my speech, in four parts, to this alone.

“First, I want to explain why I voted remain – because for all its faults, the European Union has been a force for good in Europe and in the UK. I believed that our future prosperity and security, and opportunities for our young people, would be enhanced by staying in. Second, I want to explain why, nonetheless, I was something of a reluctant remainer. The truth is, there is a lot wrong with the EU. So though I voted remain, I was not starry-eyed. I was determined that, had we won, we would also fight for reform.

She would get resignations, and vitriol by the bucket-load from the Brextremist media

“Third, I want to explain why I have been trying so hard to deliver the Brexit the people voted for. It was a close result. But leave won. I felt strongly that it was my duty to deliver the only Brexit that I believed could meet the demands of the majority of leavers – out of the single market and the customs union, out of the European court of justice.

“But precisely because I have a profound sense of duty, I want to tell you the absolute truth as I see it. It cannot be done. Yes, you can shout. You can storm out. But I have looked at it every which way. And, as your leader, I have concluded that it cannot be done without enormous damage to our economy, to your living standards, to our public services, to our standing in the world. This is damage I am not prepared to inflict. The cost is too high.

“I will publish the legal advice that I have the right to unilaterally revoke article 50, and if you look behind me you will see the backdrop has gone and instead there is onscreen the letter I will be sending to Donald Tusk and the EU 27 heads of government later today.

“… I am ready for any challenge, confident that finally I will be able to fight for what I believe is the right course for Britain, and confident that once the public have the proper debate we failed to have during the referendum and the election, that my view can prevail in the country.

“The Labour party will also have to make up its mind. Most Labour MPs support the position I am setting out today, though their leadership may need to be persuaded. We may need a general election to settle this. At some point we may need a referendum to reverse the outcome of the first one. I am aware I am launching something here, the course of which is unpredictable. I am prepared to take all the risks attached to that. For I am no longer willing to pretend. I am no longer willing for the delusions of the few to dictate a strategy for the many, when so much is at stake.

“I will also be publishing the sectoral advice papers we have received on the impact of Brexit on all aspects of our national life, so MPs can debate these fully. I know many of you think I might be ill. I feel a lot better now. Because what has been making me ill is the reality of which I have been certain more each day … that Brexit is a disaster, a potential catastrophe for our country. That my duty now is to steer the country to the only sensible decision I can see – a rethink, a change of course: not hard Brexit or soft Brexit, but no Brexit at all.”

Big and bold, I’m sure you will agree. She would get resignations, and vitriol by the bucket-load from the Brextremist media. She might lose her job. Equally, this might be the way to save it. In her Florence speech, May called for more creativity, as though it needed to come from others. This speech is the kind of creativity she needs. It would be the making of her. And most of the country, I am sure, would breathe an enormous sigh of relief.

  • Alastair Campbell was Tony Blair’s director of communications and is editor-at-large of the New European

We will soon start with more early elements of European Armed Forces

French President Macron has, with his speech in the Sorbonne University on 26.9.2017, mentioned some aspects on Europe which, because of the scope of the subject, have been somehow neglected in other EU countries but merit to be discussed in a broader sense. One of them was European defense policy. There are indeed two axes we have to follow in this respect: one is the permanent attempt of withdrawal of the United States, despite some NATO displays in the Baltic region and Eastern Europe, and another is terrorism in all its facets. It is evident that the EU – and not the Member States – has to fight the financing of terrorism and of terrorist cyber propaganda. Some Member States do not take part in these activities, not because they are close to terrorism – no, they are too nationalistic to cede necessary competences to the EU.

The objective of Macron in the field of defense was and is to create a Europe of defense which is able to act on its own behalf, if necessary, and thus completing NATO. Macron spoke of „progress of historical dimensions“ within the last months; indeed things are developing positively since Great Britain is not taken too serious any more, because of Brexit. UK has of course strong, experienced armed forces, but not the will to enhance a Common Defense Policy of the EU, although any one of its Member States would be too weak to do it alone.  And NATO might be not proactive enough, with a US President who first had denied Art. 5 NATO Agreement (the solidarity clause) and with Turkey permanently moving away from NATO. What remains is the EU alone – one has to see this clearly.

Only in June 2017 the European Defense Fund had been created, for a permanent cooperation, for a financing of defense research. above all – we have more than a dozen different guns in the EU, and a myriad of fighter planes, double capacities in navy vessels etc. A lot of money could be spent in defense policy. With this fund it will be like the Schengen Agreement: This was launched by five Member States only, and a couple of years later it became a part of the Amsterdam Treaty for the whole EU.

Macron has also proposed a „common strategic defense culture“ The EU has not been able to act together in a convincing way. Macron sees traditional differences in cultural, historical, parliamentary and general political issues. Indeed, this won’t be changed from one day to the next, but if you don’t tackle this problem the EU would never have a common defense policy.

Macron also proposed a common defense budget for the EU. This could include all the budgets of the Member states plus the one of the EU (which until now is rather small, of course). At first, this does not need a formal approval power of the EU institutions above Member States‘ defense budgets. But a permanent synopsis will create a permanent discussion about the 2% target, about efficiency or inefficiency, about common purchases etc.

This might be a very realistic point of Macron’s speech. Starting informally with a kind of declaratory new budget part in the EU, which may even lie to ist biggest part outide of the EU institutions, is a first step which may be completed later. In the sense of what Ursula von der Leyen, German Minister of Defense, had said, namely that a European Army cannot come overnight but in very many small steps.

In this context, Macron had also proposed – and promised for the own French armed forces – to include into all the Member States‘ armies people from the other Member States. This should be done not according to citizenship but to the country where Europeans live (and to more than basic lanuage knowledge, evidently). This element of a common defense culture should come to reality at the beginning of the next decade – like then in a EU-wide common attempt of intelligence. To bridge the gap between European vision and reality in this respect, he advocated a European Academy of Intelligence. Of course, this is necessary, if you see how the existing mini-structures are treated by most of the Member States.

We need some courage – like the French President – to propose a nucleus of policies which may then become larger and larger. European defense policy is one of them – for defense policy reasons, but also for spending the necessary money, and not more. And of course for the most noble task of armed forces in Europe: to exist in order to be never deployed for their historical purposes.

Hans-Jürgen ZAHORKA



There Will Be No Brexit. Probably.

By Hans-Jürgen Zahorka

There will be no Brexit. This is my, as a lawyer I can say this, provisional legal opinion. But not only legal, if you commit a general system analysis. Brexit is an objective impossibility, and all this for the following reasons:

From the beginning, I was astonished with what kind of childish stubbornness Brexit was implemented into the British Government’s activities. I know- also in parallel from my own political history – that this was and is done in context with inner-party power struggles, beginning with a totally wrong estimation of the relation between inner-party Tory wings and the population’s position, by former Prime Minister David Cameron. Cameron, and this is the danger of several years being in power at the same position, has lost a lot of ground contact, like Chirac in France when he decided to hold a Referendum on the EU Constitution a year ahead of when this was held – a year where he easily could lose a lot of approval, when an unholy alliance  brought this Referendum to failure. The same thing two times (!) in the Netherlands, when first Prime Minister Balkenende, the guy who looked like Harry Potter, ordered the second Referendum in NL after the first around 350 years or so ago, also on the EU Constitution, which was lost against an unholy alliance, too. The second (or third) Dutch Referendum was lost, when the Government submitted the Ukraine Association Agreement with the EU to a public vote. Not very many people have seen the text of this Agreement nor discussed it. A Referendum is always, in open, democratic societies, in EU countries above all, an invitation to kick the respective government in their ass, and nothing more. Why then some politicians, most at the fringes of the political spectrum, advocate a Referendum in questions where they expect a popular outcry against any government activities? However, we all live in parliamentary democracies, with parliamentary committees where many questions can be discussed and solved, and public hearings for these committees can be held, etc.  I took (actively!) part in British discussions in 1971/1972, right after school when I was invited for several panel discussions by Young Conservatives (and confronted with arguments against the then EEC, like „at one breakfast with a Rhine Army officer’s relative near Münster/Germany one foul egg was served…“). But I think there was more discussion about joining the EEC then, than before the Brexit Referendum to leave the EU.

Anyway, it was a clear deficit by the Tories and their protagonists in leading the debate before the Brexit vote. And nobody in the Government made any clear plans what to do if Brexit were approved – The UK suffers still of this disease, if you see and hear the leading politicians of this country, like David Davis.

Regarding the „system analysis“ arguments, I cannot imagine that British citizens today and collectively are, excuse me, so stupid to vote for their economic down-spiralling, for their loss of influence within or towards the EU, for not being taken serious anymore in the EU, for their world-wide loss of influence (as proven by Theresa May’s and BoJo’s travel & talk attempts in the last months). Everything said in this respect is a big lie, or perehaps „fake news“. And the gain of „control“ to everybody else in the world, by tougher immigration policy also to the EU, which is expected as a tool of new British nationalism means self-isolation and again loss of influence.

And now the British press is fuller than ever with qualified opinions (Nick Clegg) on how to exit the Brexit. British political culture may manage this U-turn, with a lot of what has lacked since 2016: the typical British pragmatism (which lacks totally in the negotiations with the EU). Forecasting attempts in policies should never be linear – like: 1 x voted for Brexit (and this with 37% of the population only!) – there will be the Brexit. This, by the way, is more immanent to a dictatorship, which is not applicable for Great Britain. Linear moves would permit the extrapolation (or intrapolation) of political circumstances, based on a population which is immune to learning. I hope this is not the case with the British. We have already a lot of UK citizens who changed their citizenship, and they are now Germans, French, Spanish, Portuguese etc. And lots of EU citizens have returned to the EU since the vote, and new ones hesitate to go to Britain. This is not typical for an element of a European open society.

In this situation, it cannot be a miracle that Theresa May seems to commit many mistakes. One of the next ones would be not to publish the legal opinions kept in secret until now about the Brexit and its implications – they seem to be good for a U-turn of the Government. While we are in a situation when senior Brussels personalities tell in private „OMG, let the British go, the sooner the better…“, this is clearly the result of the chaotic, unprepared, and probably unfeedbacked negotiation position of UK. It would take the Brexit negotiations with the EU into a year-long, maybe 5 – 8 years lasting negotiation nightmare. In the time between June 2016 and March 2017 any state of the world could and would have been better prepared than H.M’s Government.

Once more: to keep the advantages for UK in the EU Single Market which is and will be seen as necessary for the country, will require a U-turn towards the Brexit. It will take several generations until the British will be as „European“ as the French, the Italians, the Spanish, the Germans etc., but there may be a new agreement between the EU and Great Britain about the continuation of the EU Membership. Until now, I have thought, this can be achieved only by a change of government (which does not necessary mean a Labour one) and a significant change of public opinion. Now I believe it can be started by a change within the Government  This – or the other solution – seems today more likely than ever. Which leads me to the cautiously optimistic opinion that there will be no Brexit at all. If UK ask the European Council to vote for an extension of the March 2019 deadline, it probably will be granted, as first step. However, if the British would come back to the EU, a (francophone) senior Brussels personality has to be quoted: „Alors, s’ils reviennent, c’est la merde que recommence…

Neues Blog über EWIV / New Blog on EEIG

DE / Es gibt ab sofort ein neues Blog nur zu Fragen rund um die europarechtliche Kooperationsform der Europäischen wirtschaftlichen Interessenvereinigung (EWIV). Die Website dazu, http://www.ewiv.eu, erfährt dadurch eine wertvolle Aktualisierung. Gleichzeitig wird die bisherige „F.A.Q.“-Rubrik auf der Website viel stärker aktualisiert und gleichzeitig der ständigen Mitwirkung der Leser unterworfen. Das Europäische EWIV-Informationszentrum will damit zum Einen die europäische Leserschaft (im Blog wird auf Deutsch, Englisch, Französisch und evtl. in weiteren Sprachen geschrieben) jeweils gleichzeitig und aktuell informieren, und gleichzeitig kann das Zentrum, das sicherlich über eine geballte Kompetenz verfügt, eben diese Kompetenz weitergeben.

Das Blog ist erreichbar unter: http://ewivinfo.wordpress.com

Wenn Sie sich dort ständig anhängen, bleiben Sie aktuell informiert über Bewegung in EWIV-Recht und -Besteuerung.

EN / There is a new blog from now, on questions around the European legal cooperation form of the European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG). The Website http://www.ewiv.eu, will be enriched significantly. At the same time our „F.A.Q.“ column on this Website will be kept on a more topical basis and also subject to readers‘ feedback and participation. The European EEIG Information Centre wants, at the one hand, to inform its European readership (there are German, English, French and possible other languages in the blog) in an equal and topical way. At the same time the Centre which undoubtedly has a lot of competence can pass on just this competence.

The blog can be viewed under: http://ewivinfo.wordpress.com

If you stay attached you’ll remain informed permanantly about movements in EEIG law and taxation.

Adoption du Traité d’interdiction des armes nucléaires à l’ONU

Le 7 juillet 2017, l’ambassadrice du Costa Rica, Elayne Whyte Gómez, présidente de la conférence des Nations Unies pour la négociation d’un instrument juridiquement contraignant visant à interdire les armes nucléaires, a annoncé l’adoption du Traité d’interdiction des armes nucléaires[1]. Ainsi, 72 ans après sa première utilisation, l’arme nucléaire est devenue une arme illégale au regard du droit international, au même titre que les autres armes de destruction massive, biologiques et chimiques, respectivement interdites en 1972 et en 1993.

La première session de cette conférence de négociation s’est déroulée du 27 au 31 mars 2017, suivie d’une seconde du 15 juin au 7 juillet 2017. Conformément à la volonté de l’ambassadrice Elayne Whyte Gómez, un premier projet nommé « Convention d’interdiction des armes nucléaires » avait été publié le 22 mai dernier. Cette première épreuve, soumise aux critiques, a permis, dès le 15 juin, d’entamer une négociation article par article avec une moyenne de 125 États présents chaque jour.

Pour lui donner davantage de force morale, l’ensemble des participants aux négociations souhaitaient une adoption de ce texte par consensus. Objectif impossible, en raison de l’opposition des Pays-Bas, seul pays membre de l’OTAN présent à ces négociations. Mais, en fine stratège, l’ambassadrice Whyte Gómez, poussa les Pays-Bas à déposer une demande de vote. Le résultat du vote fut sans appel, et révélateur du décalage néerlandais : 122 voix pour, 1 contre (Pays-Bas), 1 abstention (Singapour). Tous les États européens présents[2] votèrent en faveur du texte, comme une écrasante majorité des États africains francophones[3] et quasiment l’ensemble des États d’Amérique latine et des Caraïbes (hormis la Barbade, la Dominique et le Nicaragua). Sans surprise, la Nouvelle-Zélande et des États-clés, comme les Philippines, la Malaisie, l’Indonésie, l’Iran, la Thaïlande, le Cambodge et le Vietnam, agirent de même. Remarquons également le vote unanime et positif des 7 États de la péninsule arabique[4], malgré leurs différends dans de nombreux autres domaines de politique étrangère.

Les éléments du préambule

Ce Traité[5] crée une véritable révolution dans les domaines du désarmement et de la non-prolifération. Les armes nucléaires n’étaient jusqu’à présent pas interdites, une anomalie dans la sphère du droit régissant les armes de destruction massive. Le Traité d’interdiction des armes nucléaires est composé d’un préambule fort qui se compose de quatre parties.

Après un rappel de la volonté de contribuer aux objectifs de la Charte des Nations Unies, les paragraphes 2 à 6 forment une première séquence qui porte sur les conséquences humanitaires catastrophiques qui résulteraient de l’emploi de l’arme nucléaire. Nous retrouvons ici les conclusions issues des trois conférences humanitaires[6]. Promu par la Suède, un paragraphe a été ajouté sur la notion de risque d’explosion d’armes nucléaires résultant d’un accident, d’une erreur d’appréciation ou d’un acte intentionnel. Les souffrances des victimes des explosions à Hiroshima et à Nagasaki (les Hibakushas), ainsi que des essais nucléaires, les effets disproportionnés des rayonnements ionisants sur la santé maternelle des femmes et des filles, de même que les conséquences des activités nucléaires sur les peuples autochtones sont aussi mentionnées.

Une seconde séquence (paragraphe 8 à 12) porte sur le droit international humanitaire et les droits de l’homme, et mentionne explicitement que tous les États doivent se « conformer en tout temps » au Traité et que « tout emploi d’armes nucléaires serait contraire aux règles du droit international applicable dans les conflits armés » et « serait également inacceptable[7] au regard des principes de l’humanité ».

Un troisième paquet d’articles (paragraphe 13 à 21) porte sur le processus international du désarmement nucléaire, en énonçant les principales résolutions passées, la lenteur du processus, le besoin – pour le faire avancer – d’un instrument juridiquement contraignant, et l’importance du Traité de non-prolifération (TNP) comme « pierre angulaire du régime de non-prolifération et de désarmement nucléaires ». Des débats ont eu lieu sur l’inclusion ou non du Traité d’interdiction complète des essais nucléaires (TICEN) comme « élément vital de ce régime ». En effet, malgré sa quasi-universalité, le TICEN n’est toujours pas entré en vigueur.

Les paragraphes 22 à 24 constituent la dernière partie de ce préambule et sont consacrés notamment à l’importance de l’éducation en matière de paix et de désarmement et aux rôles des ONG « dans l’avancement des principes de l’humanité ».

Le articles du Traité 

Composé de 20 articles, il ne comporte étonnamment pas – comme c’est pourtant généralement le cas dans l’article premier des traités – de définition de « l’arme nucléaire », et cela malgré une demande de la Suède. Mais il faut constater qu’une telle définition ne figure pas non plus dans le TNP. L’article 1er sur les « Interdictions » précise que « les États s’engagent à ne jamais, en aucune circonstance : mettre au point, mettre à l’essai, produire, fabriquer, acquérir de quelque autre manière, posséder ou stocker, transférer, accepter, autoriser l’installation ou le déploiement d’armes nucléaires ou autres dispositifs explosifs nucléaires ». Après de longs débats et une volonté forte, notamment de l’Équateur, de l’Iran et de l’Égypte, il fut ajouté un alinéa mentionnant l’interdiction « d’employer ni menacer d’employer des armes nucléaires ». La menace découlant de la possession de moyens qui permettraient d’occasionner des dommages inacceptables pour l’adversaire est, en effet, la base de la dissuasion nucléaire. Elle est désormais illégale, puisqu’elle suppose une possibilité de frappes sans discrimination pour les populations civiles, donc contraires au droit international humanitaire. Les notions de transit (qui posaient problème à la Suisse et à l’Autriche), de financement et de préparation militaire ne sont pas inscrites formellement mais, comme ce fut aussi le cas pour les traités sur les armes à sous-munitions et les mines antipersonnel, sont considérées comme implicites.

Les processus d’élimination et de vérification sont inscrits dans les articles 2 à 5, l’article 4 en étant le cœur, avec plus de cohérence et de force que dans le document initial. Les garanties demandées à l’article 3 sont désormais d’un niveau équivalent à celle demandée par l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique (AIEA).

L’article 4, alinéa 1, s’adresse aux États qui ont eu des armes nucléaires ou sont dans un processus de démantèlement et décideraient de rejoindre le Traité. C’est, en quelque sorte, un scénario comparable à celui vécu jadis avec l’Afrique du Sud, qui a rejoint le TNP en 1993 après avoir procédé au démantèlement de son arsenal nucléaire. Les alinéas 2 et 3 sont destinés aux États qui ont des armes nucléaires mais souhaitent rejoindre le Traité malgré leurs arsenaux. Il est prévu qu’un État dans cette situation « retire sans délai du service opérationnel » son arsenal nucléaire et le détruise « conformément à un plan juridiquement contraignant et assorti d’échéances » accepté par les États membres du Traité. Il faut noter qu’au début du processus d’écriture, il n’était demandé que l’élimination des armes sans référence aux installations, ce qui offrait une échappatoire aux États prêts à détruire leurs arsenaux, mais désireux de conserver leur technologie militaire.

L’alinéa 4 de l’article 4 vise directement les États membres de l’OTAN qui abritent des armes nucléaires sur leur sol, dont la Belgique. Si la Belgique décidait d’adhérer au Traité – mais faut-il rappeler qu’elle n’a même pas participé aux discussions ? – elle ne pourrait le faire qu’en s’engageant au retrait des armes nucléaires tactiques américaines stationnées à Kleine-Brogel et en adressant au Secrétaire général de l’ONU une déclaration indiquant que son territoire est désormais exempt d’armes nucléaires.

Les articles 6 et 7 concernent des obligations positives, largement renforcées par rapport au premier projet, et qui servent désormais les objectifs humanitaires du Traité. Les obligations d’assistance aux victimes et de réhabilitation de l’environnement sont clairement énoncées. Pour la première fois – il est important de le souligner – un traité mentionne expressément que les États parties qui ont réalisé des essais nucléaires doivent « fournir une assistance suffisante aux États parties touchés aux fins d’assistance aux victimes et de remise en état de l’environnement ». Ces dispositions – qui ne sont rien d’autre qu’une application originale du principe du pollueur/payeur – sont le résultat d’une volonté très ferme d’États tels que l’Algérie, l’Équateur ou le Vietnam, de contraindre les États responsables de ces dégâts sanitaires et environnementaux à assumer leurs responsabilités.

Le Traité sera ouvert à la signature le 20 septembre 2017 et entrera en vigueur 90 jours après le dépôt du cinquantième instrument de ratification, d’acceptation ou d’adhésion.


Pour la première fois depuis 20 ans, un instrument multilatéral juridiquement contraignant a été négocié pour le désarmement nucléaire. Ce Traité, dont on peut espérer l’entrée en vigueur d’ici une année, vient compléter d’autres processus internationaux pour renforcer la sécurité internationale et la non-prolifération nucléaire.

Contrairement à leur « coup médiatique » lors du premier cycle de négociations en mars 2017[8], les diplomaties américaines britanniques et françaises sont restées muettes tout au long de ce second cycle. La réaction de la France ne s’est cependant pas faite attendre, estimant, par la voie du ministère des Affaires étrangères, que  ce texte était « inadapté au contexte sécuritaire international ». Le P3 (États-Unis, Royaume-Uni, France) a également publié un communiqué conjoint avec des arguments similaires.

Faut-il voir dans cette précipitation à réagir un malaise des États dotés de l’arme nucléaire, et donc un premier effet positif du Traité ? La faiblesse de l’argument de la France selon lequel ce Traité « va affecter la sécurité de la région euro-Atlantique et la stabilité internationale » laisse pantois… Lier la sécurité d’une région à sa détention de l’arme nucléaire n’est rien d’autre qu’un encouragement à la prolifération nucléaire qui défie le bon sens politique, militaire et intellectuel. Mais il est certain que même les pays qui n’ont pas soutenu ce Traité ne pourront plus échapper à un débat de fond : les Gouvernements devront expliquer à leurs Parlements et opinions publiques pourquoi ils s’opposent à une évolution du droit international qui renforce notre sécurité collective.


[1]. Texte du Traité : http://data.grip.org/20170706_TIAN.pdf.

[2]. Autriche, Irlande, Saint Marin, Malte, Chypre, Liechtenstein, Saint-Siège, Suède, Moldavie.

[3]. Algérie, Bénin, Burkina-Faso, Maroc, Tchad, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Égypte, Gabon, Mauritanie, Tunisie, Togo, Sénégal, Seychelles, Madagascar, R.D. Congo, Maurice.

[4]. Oman, Qatar, Arabie saoudite, les Émirats arabes unis, Bahreïn, Koweït, Yémen.

[5]. Le mot « Traité » a remplacé celui de « Convention » pour éviter toute confusion avec le projet de Convention des armes nucléaires qui est un document de travail de l’ONU publié en 2008 et réalisé par le Costa Rica et la Malaisie.

[6]. Vienne en décembre 2014, Nayarit en février 2014 et Oslo en mars 2013. Plusieurs notes de l’auteur au sujet de ces conférences sont disponibles sur le site du GRIP, à la rubrique « Désarmement nucléaire ».

[7]. Il faut signaler que, dans la version anglaise, il est employé le mot « abhorrent » qui est un terme beaucoup plus fort que « inacceptable » et qui peut se traduire par « odieux » ou « répugnant ».

[8]. J-M. COLLIN, « La convention d’interdiction des armes nucléaires : de la négociation au premier „draft“ », note d’analyse du GRIP, 12 juin 2017.

Jean-Marie COLLIN

Source : GRIP

Reblogged from: http://reseau-multipol.blogspot.de/2017/07/note-adoption-du-traite-dinterdiction.html, with the kind permission of MULTIPOL