In the 1950’s the leading idea behind the European integration was to liberalize, to open-up, to remove barriers at the borders of individual European countries, to enable free movement of not only goods and services but of people and ideas around the European continent. It was a positive concept. It should continue and be promoted by all of those who have liberal (in European terminology), which means not statist or nationalistic, world-view or Weltanschaung.
The situation changed during the 1980´s and the decisive breakthrough was the Maastricht Treaty in December 1991. Integration had turned into unification, liberalization into centralization of decision making, into harmonization of rules and legislation, into the strengthening of European institutions at the expense of institutions in member states, into the enormous growth of democratic deficit, into post-democracy.
Por que é interessante? Justifico. Veja só as datas. Em 9/11/89, o muro caiu. Em 21/12/91, assinaram a dissolução da URSS. Legal, não? A liberdade parecia ter triunfado. Mas em 9/12/91, foram encerradas as últimas negociações para o Tratado de Maastricht. "Integration had turned into unification". Qual a relação entre as três datas? Com a palavra, sr. Vladimir Bukovsky (via The Brussels Journal):
In 1992 I had unprecedented access to Politburo and Central Committee secret documents which have been classified, and still are even now, for 30 years. These documents show very clearly that the whole idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home.”
The idea was very simple. It first came up in 1985-86, when the Italian Communists visited Gorbachev, followed by the German Social-Democrats. They all complained that the changes in the world, particularly after [British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher introduced privatisation and economic liberalisation, were threatening to wipe out the achievement (as they called it) of generations of Socialists and Social-Democrats – threatening to reverse it completely. Therefore the only way to withstand this onslaught of wild capitalism (as they called it) was to try to introduce the same socialist goals in all countries at once. Prior to that, the left-wing parties and the Soviet Union had opposed European integration very much because they perceived it as a means to block their socialist goals. From 1985 onwards they completely changed their view. The Soviets came to a conclusion and to an agreement with the left-wing parties that if they worked together they could hijack the whole European project and turn it upside down. Instead of an open market they would turn it into a federal state.
According to the [secret Soviet] documents, 1985-86 is the turning point. I have published most of these documents. You might even find them on the internet. But the conversations they had are really eye opening. For the first time you understand that there is a conspiracy – quite understandable for them, as they were trying to save their political hides. In the East the Soviets needed a change of relations with Europe because they were entering a protracted and very deep structural crisis; in the West the left-wing parties were afraid of being wiped out and losing their influence and prestige. So it was a conspiracy, quite openly made by them, agreed upon, and worked out.
E disse também Anatoliy Golitsyn:
The European Parliament might become an all-European socialist parliament with representation from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. 'Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals' would turn out to be a neutral, socialist Europe.
Outras pessoas têm feito análises semelhantes. Só que o Golitsyn impressiona mais, porque ele cantou a jogada com anos de antecedência. O Bukovsky apenas confirmou o que Golitsyn já havia dito. Mas o que deve ficar claro é que existe uma ligação entre a União Européia (como força política) e o projeto comunista. Isso exige uma análise da natureza do movimento comunista. Mas não vou fazer. Deixo a quem é mais sabido.
E o Muro? De novo, o Golitsyn disse com anos de antecedência:
"If 'liberalization' is successful and accepted by the West as genuine, it may well be followed by the apparent withdrawal of one or more communist countries from the Warsaw Pact to serve as the model of a 'neutral' socialist state for the whole of Europe to follow."
"If [liberalization] should be extended to East Germany, demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated."
Diante disso, não há alterntiva. Somos obrigados a reavaliar a importância da queda do Muro de Berlim. Por mais que a gente comemore o 9/11/09, a longo prazo já não dá para ser tão otimista. A vitória se transformou em melancolia. O jogo está virando. Para pior. No dia 3/11/09, um dos últimos opositores à União Européia foi vencido: "Vaclav Klaus, the Czech president, this afternoon signed the Lisbon treaty, finally completing the ratification process of the charter designed to transform Europe into a more unified and influential global player." A ameaça soviética foi trocada por um super-Estado europeu. Mas se o Golitsyn estiver certo, o super-Estado europeu é só parte do problema. No fundo, ainda há o comunismo.
A Declaração de Praga apareceu durante a luta do V. Klaus contra a assinatura do Tratado de Lisboa. Não foi à toa. Condenar o comunismo é um recado ao autoritarismo soft do projeto federalista europeu. Um é cria do outro. Acontece que o assunto não é apenas europeu. É nosso também. Os motivos são bastante óbvios. Apenas menciono o Foro de São Paulo (que o Olavo vem denunciando há muitos anos). Uma condenação total ao comunismo arruinaria o Foro. A questão é saber quando isso vai acontecer. Por enquanto, a marcha da criaão da União das Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas Européias (URSSE) e da União das Repúblicas Socialistas da América Latina (URSAL) não vai parar.
URSS e URSSE/URSAL. Mestre e discípulo.
