Podemos is the new hope on the left here in Spain for those who no longer feel represented by either mainstream politics (PP/PSOE) nor even third parties (IU/UPyD). Its reach exceeds that of Spanish politics and also gives hope to many on the left around the world.
Podemos claims to be an offshoot of the 15-M movement. However, as I mentioned in my previous post, there are reasons to believe that they not only represent no threat for the elites, they also in some regards participate – willingly or not – in fulfilling an agenda that seeks to build a regionalized European bloc under US domination.
Indeed, there are serious signs that Podemos is indeed in favour of the political consolidation of the European Union, which is, in my opinion as well as that of many analysts, an extension of US hegemony. In its 36-page program, there actually is not even a hint that Podemos might want Spain to exit the EU. In fact, quite the contrary, every reference made to EU law and institutions is mainly to either enforce it or expand it. Though they often express the wish to reform the EU, they usually then forget to mention how to overcome the institutional deadlock in which the EU and its 28 member states finds itself.
Also, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Podemos is indeed in favour of the independence of both the Catalonia and Basque regions of Spain. Its leader Pablo Iglesias may say otherwise in the papers but when one reads the full interview he typically goes on to say the exact opposite and states that his party favours self-determination, meaning that Catalans as well as Basques should decide whether or not they want independence. Also the fact that Podemos has participated in pro independence demonstrations in Catalogne and Basque Country seems to indicate that they favour secession.
These and many other signs seem, in fact, to indicate that Podemos supports the regionalization of Spain and possibly Europe, which is a project that the United States as well as other powerful lobbies have wanted for a long time.
Now, how about the constitution of a european army? Where does Podemos stand in that regard?
Now, this is more of a tricky issue. Indeed, Podemos anounces in its 36-page program that it wants a referendum for Spaniards to decide whether they wish to leave NATO, thus leaving the impression that they do want to emancipate Spain from NATO (ergo the US) command and not to participate in foreign interventions that only serve so-called “US interests”. However, another look at it offers a different perspective.
Indeed, as I was getting prepared to write this blog on another topic, I accidentally saw something on Spanish tv that immediately caught my attention and urged me to write about Podemos once again.
On a talk show called “Las mañanas de la Cuatro”, Juan Carlos Monedero from Podemos – he is considered to be #2 in the party – was asked to comment on a short report on the subject of corruption in the army. The report was about a young lieutenant facing prison for publishing a book that revealed high levels of corruption in the Spanish army. Monedero’s comment was: “…a modern army of the european union should listen to young people like him”.
Indeed, this statement is quite interesting and very revealing. It also does seem to fit more with the spirit and the vision of Podemos that shows through their political program and their interviews. According to their critique and their analysis, what is wrong is mainly that Spain and its political institutions are basically rotten with corruption. Not a hard case to raise in this country, one might say. In fact, its leader Pablo Iglesias famously refers to the political elite as a “caste”, which has become, in a way, his “catch phrase”. However, and perhaps more importantly, according to that diagnosis, the EU can and should be an instrument of social progress, overriding Spanish politics altogether. Also, one could easily argue that their view seems to be that Nation States – France, Spain, Italy, the UK, etc. – must me dismantled – or at least reduced to a bare minimum – and autonomic regions (Basque Country, Catalogne, Brittany, Corsica, Scotland, etc.) as well as EU institutions should be strengthened.
Now, none of these prescriptions are explicitly stated, but it is the only explanation left when reading and hearing what Podemos and its leadership have so far produced.
As for one example, Podemos states in its program that it wants to “…reduce military spending”. This evidently must be interpreted as a reduction of military spending in Spain only. There is no mention, however, of reducing military spending in the EU.
In conclusion, it is hard to really know for sure where Podemos stands regarding the EU political institutions, on the Euro or on the subject of an EU army. Indeed, other than vague statements, little is explicitly said on those subjects. However, it is clear that its leadership does not see national sovereignty as an issue worth defending and it is also clear that it coincides with a – not so secret – agenda of the EU institutions, of the powerful lobbies and the US hegemons.
Having said that, one might ask: what is wrong with an EU army?
An EU army implies a common defense and security policy in the European Union. It means, for instance, that France would no longer have its own “defense” (a word often used to describe agression). It means that countries like Italy or Portugal would follow every other European country in a military venture, regardless of its own interests. It means if Spain found itself in a situation where it is intervening militarily against one of its trade partners it could not, in practice, do much about it.
Now who would lead such a defense and security policy?
A common security and defense (CSDP) policy is the object of article 42 of the Lisbon Treaty. It states clearly how the EU must work toward building a common security and defense policy to the point – even though this is not stated explicitly – of having its own army. This would mean that there would be a European army replacing national armies.
In fact, current events seem to be corroborating this view. The fact that every country in the EU is dismantling its army might be proof that EU member states are willingly participating in making this common defense and security project a reality.
Moreover, article 42 mentions how: “The policy of the Union (…) shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), (…) and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.”
This very important article means, in this rather complicated jargon – a common feature in the boring world of EU Law – that the CSDP will be under NATO command for countries that are part of NATO. Knowing that most countries in the EU are part of NATO – practically a prerequisite to be part of the EU (see Ukraine) – it is clear now that being in favour of an EU army, in other words, being in favour of a Common Security and Defense Policy, is equal to being under the command of US army generals and equal to following US foreign policy.
A European army under the command of NATO would mean that a veto in the UN Security Council in 2003 by France against the US military offensive in Irak would no longer be possible. It means we would institutionalize our submission to the US, making it impossible to act independently with regard to Latin America or regarding the occupation of Palestine.
When the EU backs the decision made in Washington to sanction Russia in the murky MH-17 airplane affair, in clear contradiction of most of EU member states interests, we have to see that this is article 42 in action. It is nothing but the EU implementing aggressive US policy against Russia against its own interests.
Isn’t nationalism precisely what leads to global wars and isn’t the EU the best way to prevent it?
Finally and perhaps more importantly, locking every country in the EU to such a large military alliance would go against anything that History might have taught us.
Indeed, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the beginning of WWI. Though this event became an opportunity for the EU leadership to organize a propaganda campaign in favour of the EU and against nationalism, a quick look at history teaches us otherwise.
Without being too specific, most historians agree that one of the main factors that lead to an escalation, in the summer of 1914, from a regional conflict between Austria and Serbia, to a global war – 9 million lives taken – is the fact that all nations involved had previously locked themselves in a military alliance that triggered an unstoppable domino effect. Precisely the opposite of what EU propaganda says.
In fact, a “nationalist emancipation”, understood as the preservation of each member state’s sovereignty in the EU, should probably be a priority for the left, as it would get us closer to the kind of social change we want to see. These are the kind of hard decisions that leftists movements who really care about real social change need to take. A strategy that would not factor the geopolitical context of each region it speaks from has little chance to achieve anything, just like a chess player that would follow a game plan regardless of his opponent’s moves.
Strategic considerations for the Left
In conclusion, it is still uncertain what Podemos really represents. It is still too soon to tell with absolute certainty whether they will evolve into a real participatory movement or whether they do not represent an actual threat to power. It is important that we remain critical of Podemos and always remember to put their political standpoints in a larger context.
Also, beyond the scope of party politics, this issue of an EU army raises questions that might influence our strategy in the short or medium term.
The need for the left to understand that sovereignty does not lead automatically to lunatic nationalism nor to fascism is important. Fascism and militaristic nationalism of the kind we see in history books or in some militaristic societies today must be kept in check from the inside, not by building supranational entities that override the national institutions. Abandoning our sovereignty to supranational institutions like the EU or NATO would be akin to cutting off the patient’s leg to heal an ingrown toenail.
No individual, no group of people, no genius, no mad scientist and no brave politician, woman nor man can ever implement even the best ideas unless it has some control over its most basic levers: monetary, fiscal, defense and trade policies. Otherwise, there no point in arguing where to go when someone else is driving the bus.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate