ΑΡΧΕΙΟ ΑΝΑΡΤΗΣΕΩΝ ΤΟΥ MACEDOINE BLOG

alpha.georg@googlemail.com

alpha.georg@googlemail.com
HOLA DOLOR ( ES ) ..:-P

Πέμπτη 4 Ιουνίου 2009

Obama: 'It's time for a new beginning'


President Barack Obama makes his much-anticipated keynote speech in Egypt

I am honoured to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the west includes centuries of co-existence and co-operation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a cold war in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalisation led many Muslims to view the west as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the co-operation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognising that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us: "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan [the Muslim call to prayer] at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognise my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote: "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our founding fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum – "Out of many, one."

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected president. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores – that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practise one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the US government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognising our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as president to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al-Qaida and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al-Qaida killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al-Qaida chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonising for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

That's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths – more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.

We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5bn (£914m) each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8bn to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honour our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantánamo Bay closed by early next year.

So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and antisemitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighbouring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the centre of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognise past agreements, and recognise Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognise Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognise that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognise the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the cold war, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against US troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

There is no straight line to realise this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it first-hand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshipped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfil zakat.

Likewise, it is important for western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practising religion as they see fit– for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's Interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action– whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the west that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalisation is contradictory. The internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations – including my own – this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities – those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognise that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasising such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programmes, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a summit on entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centres of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and south-east Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programmes that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitise records, clean wate and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organisations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek – a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many – Muslim and non-Muslim – who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort – that we are fated to disagree, and civilisations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country – you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort _ to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples – a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilisation, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells u: "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you.

Τρίτη 2 Ιουνίου 2009

Votes for Sale in EP election?

A common utterance “money talks” is sometimes used also related to elections.One could suppose that if voting matters the parties or candidates are investing more to win elections.Normal marketing is sometimes not guaranteeing enough votes so in many societies more crude means are used such as election fraud/rigging, non-transparent and illegal political campaign and party financing.A simple vote buying maybe tells most about importance of elections. I wonder if there exists in any EU member state a barometer showing current price level of votes in EP elections, not only the official campaign costs but the unofficial price per vote.

Buying a polling station or enough of them could be one possibility which from my opinion is complicated to implement in EP elections. I was quite surprised while reading from BNP pages that some party really thinks this to be possible.A quote:

All British National Party members and supporters have been urged to be on the lookout for polling station fraud committed by corrupt officials who may seek to cast ghost votes in the election on June 4th, party leader Nick Griffin has announced. “We have received information that certain corrupt officials at some polling stations have devised a plan whereby they intend to vote on other people’s behalf towards the end of polling day,” Mr Griffin said. “Apparently the plan is to wait until late on polling day, and then to start crossing off names of people on the electoral register who have not yet voted and then voting on their behalf,” Mr Griffin said.

If buying votes via election organisation is difficult there is always possibility to buy them directly from electorate.In Finland there is a tradition to transport free people in rural areas from their home to polling station and maybe give them a cup of coffee and expect that they may vote “right way”;otherwise these voters would maybe stay home. Of course one can select the persons to which give free transport but it does not guarantee the “right” vote. During this EP elections I have impression that free transport services are lower level than before indicating the unimportance of coming election.

More effective way is to bay vote with money. In Finland I have not heard this to been done but in Balkans situation is a bit different or what to think about following quote from Bulgaria April 2, 2009:

Bulgarian MPs have passed a new set of punishments for anyone found to be involved in ‘vote buying’ after the second reading of a new bill Thursday. Bulgarian MPs have passed a new set of punishments for anyone found to be involved in ‘vote buying’ after the second reading of a new bill on Thursday. Anyone found to be involved in vote rigging or buying will now receive a jail term of 1-3 years and a fine of between BGN 1 000 and BGN 10 000. This new law includes anyone found threatening or conning voters during local or national elections. For more serious offences judges will be able to give a jail term of up to 6 years and a fine of up to BGN 20 000. The bill was passed soon after Bulgaria’s Chief Prosecutor, Boris Velchev, called on all political parties to slam vote buying practices. “Vote buying is nothing new but it has recently entered court-rooms,” Velchev stated. He expressed concerns that this practice may cast a shadow over the upcoming general and EP elections in the summer.

Modern technology helps to monitor that buyer gets what (s)he is paying for.E.g. the voter takes a picture with mobile phone about voting slip, shows it to payer and gets money. In Balkans I have heard the sum vary between 5 to 50 euro per vote;I wonder what’s the value during these EP elections.

Vote buying is one kind of political corruption – misuse of political power for private gain for preserving or strengthening power, for personal enrichment or both.A candidate can use also indirect means get power for benefits like cronyism, clientelism, nepotism, patronage, insider trading, speed money, embezzlement or abuse of public property.These indirect ways are hard to proof.

For me it would be interesting to get feedback about different variations of vote buying during this EP elections – variations which are outside normal marketing, legal, sometimes even transparent campaigns.Even in overall this EP elections seems to have low market value there maybe are candidates who want to collect their million from Brussels and are using unusual means to get it.Learning these bad practices could help to improve countermeasures for next next EP quality in future.

Κυριακή 31 Μαΐου 2009

Would you bank on them?

Why we shouldn’t trust the EU’s financial “wise men”

Profiles

Jacques de Larosière
Callum McCarthy
Otmar Issing
Leszek Balcerowicz
Onno Ruding
Rainer Masera
José Pérez Fernández
Lars Nyberg


Authors:

Kenneth Haar
Andy Rowell
Yiorgos Vassalos


2



Would you bank on them? Why we shouldn’t trust the EU’s financial “wise men” Would you bank on them? Why we shouldn’t trust the EU’s financial “wise men”
Executive Summary


The financial crisis has unleashed a huge debate on the state of the global financial system.
As politicians examine fiscal solutions and regulatory reforms, the big question is how
supervision and regulation should be changed to avoid a repetition of the present meltdown.

In the EU, the Commission and the Council has set up a High Level Group of eight experts to
advise them on how to reform the financial system in terms of supervision and regulation.
Given the now obvious failings of the current system and individual financial sector
institutions, it would seem prudent to seek advice from a diversity of sources, including from
independent experts who had expressed concern about the flaws in the current financial
architecture.

However, the group - named the de Larosière Group after its chairman - is comprised of
people closely linked to the financial industry, or to institutions that, to a greater or lesser
extent, have been implicated in the crisis. Four members of the group are closely linked to
giant financial corporations that have all played a major role in the current financial crisis, a
fifth was the head of the UK Financial Services Authority that completely failed in its
supervision of bust bank Northern Rock, a sixth is a fierce enemy of regulation and a seventh
works for a company whose clients include major banks.

Beyond this, some members of the Group failed to warn of the impending financial crisis and
lately they have even played down its extent and severity. The majority have expressed strong
support for a deregulated financial sector and can be deemed to have supported hard-line,
neo-liberal policies that arguably created the financial crisis. They are the very kind of people
who got us in to the mess. The eight members are:

Jacques de Larosière: Co-chair of the financial sector lobby organization, Eurofi and until
recently, adviser to the French bank BNP Paribas for a decade
Rainer Masera: Former Managing Director of a European branch of Lehman Brothers,
which went bankrupt after heavy losses on subprime loans
Onno Ruding: An adviser to Citigroup, owners of Citibank that received billions of US
dollars in a bail-out
Otmar Issing: Adviser to the financial giant Goldman Sachs
Callum McCarthy: Former head of the UK Financial Services Authority, accused of
systematically failing in its duty over bust British bank, Northern Rock
Leszek Balcerowicz: A strident advocate of deregulation
José Pérez Fernández: Works for a financial market intelligence company, which counts
big banks as clients
Lars Nyberg: A career banker, now vice chair of the Swedish National Bank.

That such a group has been selected to play a key role in the EU debate on the response to the
crisis is deeply worrying. It is unlikely to open up any debate on real alternatives to the
present financial architecture.

Policy capture by vested interests results in flawed policies and regulations. Europe’s leaders
must end the privileged access to decision makers enjoyed by the powerful finance sector
lobby. At the same time, they must also curb the power that the private sector holds over the
political process in the EU and make decision-making democratically accountable.

3



Would you bank on them? Why we shouldn’t trust the EU’s financial “wise men”
Introduction


“In the case of legislators, I am convinced that over the years there has been too

much ‘regulatory capture’ by the sell side of the financial services market: Their

lobbies have been strong and powerful.”

Charlie McCreevy, Commissioner for Single Market and Services, February 2009.1

Throughout Europe millions of ordinary workers are asking themselves if they will be out of a job
in the near future. The economic crisis is now impacting on peoples’ livelihoods across the EU. As
politicians, governments and officials struggle to respond, they are asking how the crisis could have
been avoided and how to escape what is now seen as the worst recession for over 50 years.

The answer to a question, inevitably depends on who you ask. In the case of the financial crisis, the
Commission and the European Council have decided to seek advice from a group of eight financial
experts. These eight are members of what is known as a High Level Group, which was approved by
the Council in October on the recommendation of the Commission. This High Level Group on EU
financial supervision, often referred to as the de Larosière Group, is tasked with proposing a
response to the crisis before the European Council’s Spring Summit in March.2

The High Level Group will exert significant influence on the international response to the crisis.
According to the President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso, the Group’s
recommendations “will help us to develop our proposals for shaping global financial markets”.3
Even before seeing the group’s conclusions, Commissioner McCreevy has stated that the
recommendations will form the basis of a Communication, to be discussed at the Spring European
Council.4 This will happen just days before the crucial G20 summit on the financial crisis in London
in April, attended by new US President Barack Obama.

This is a group with huge responsibility and an important mandate. Consequently one would expect
the Council and the Commission to have shown the utmost care when selecting the members. This
is particularly important given the recent acknowledgment by the Commission that there has been
too much “regulatory capture” by the financial industry and that this is part of the root of the crisis.5

McCreevy has also conceded that the Commission must be more “objective”. 6 Given his comments
and the severity of the present crisis, the public could expect the Commission to have consulted a
broad range of independent experts, including representatives from all interested stakeholders and a
variety of political if not economic views.

For this report, we examined whether the group’s members represent a range of stakeholders, or
whether they are firmly tied to the financial services industry. We also investigated the diversity of
opinion among the members. This report outlines these views, examines the institutions they are
connected to and what role these organizations are playing or have played in the current crisis.

In our view, the composition of the group is astonishing. It is hard to imagine a clearer example of
privileged access to decision-makers by vested interests. The report’s conclusion stresses a point
repeatedly made by transparency campaigners over the years: privileged access by corporations
should end and a new open culture of expert advice introduced.

4



Would you bank on them? Why we shouldn’t trust the EU’s financial “wise men”
Jacques de Larosière

•
Senior advocate of “common sense” over regulation
•
Co-Chair of banking industry lobby group
•
10 years as an advisor to BNP Paribas
Jacques de Larosière is a highly regarded senior figure within the banking
industry. He was Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) in the 1980s. He was then Governor of the Bank of France. During
the 1990s he was head of the European Bank of Reconstruction and
Development (EBRD), which was established to support economic
reforms in Central and Eastern Europe, and is widely seen as a driver of
privatization. He resigned from the EBRD in 1998.

From 1998 until July 2008, he advised Michel Pébereau, the Chairman of BNP Paribas, one of
Europe’s major banks. BNP Paribas was the first European bank to sound the alarm in August
2007. The bank froze €1.6 billion, citing uncertainty as the reason. BNP Paribas said it was unable
to assess the value of the investments in asset-backed securities and barred investors from cashing
in on them. However, BNP Paribas lost comparatively little compared to its competitors and is in a
strong position today. BNP Paribas may be the largest deposit bank in Europe and, consequently,
has a very high stake in EU decision-making.

No more regulation, just “more common sense”

Jacques de Larosière is also the Co-Chair of Eurofi, a Paris-based think tank and lobby group,
which is “dedicated to the integration and efficiency of EU Financial, Insurance and Banking
Services markets”.7

Eurofi was set up in 2000 “with the aim of “Don’t jump to hasty
contributing to the convergence of views conclusions... Many of the between practitioners and public institutions
regarding the integration of the European required improvements
capital market.” Its membership includes

should be the result of

many key players in the financial sector:
Axa, Aviva, BNP Paribas, Cassa Depositi E better standards and
Prestiti, Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations, principles agreed upon Caisse Nationale des Caisses d’Epargne,
CNP Assurances, Citigroup, Crédit Agricole, by the industry.”
Deutsche Bank, NYSE Euronext, Goldman
Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, La Banque Jacques de Larosière, March 2008
Postale, Société Générale, and the European
Investment Bank. 8

In March 2008, de Larosière wrote an article posted on the website of Eurofi on “The present
financial crisis, a tentative list of possible avenues”. Included in his recommendations were that
“banks should give priority to risk assessment and management”; that “the ‘parallel banking
system’ should be required to abide by minimum reporting obligations”; and that “the positive
aspects of securitization, which has an important role to play, need to be strengthened”. His final
note warns against “jumping to hasty conclusions”.

5


Would you bank on them? Why we shouldn’t trust the EU’s financial “wise men”
By his own admission, most of his recommendations “do not require more regulation”. Instead,
what is needed is a “more common sense in the implementation of existing rules”. “Many of the
required improvements” he says, “should be the result of better standards and principles agreed
upon by the industry” (emphasis added).9

Jacques de Larosière’s statements show a clear preference for “self-regulation” of financial services
institutions. This is a very different message from what most independent analysts of the financial
crisis are saying, which is that the lack of oversight and control on banks contributed significantly
to the current crisis. His thinking is similar to the major banks in Europe, one of which, BNP
Paribas, he has had a long-standing relationship with.

Callum McCarthy


•
Chairman of the UK Financial Services Authority, 2003 –
2008
•
Presided over FSA’s “systematic failure of duty” over
recently nationalized UK bank, Northern Rock
•
Failed to see risky business models
•
Previously worked for banks such as Barclays
Sir Callum McCarthy was Chairman of the UK financial regulator, the
Financial Services Authority (FSA), from September 2003 to September
2008. He previously held senior positions in Barclays Bank and the private
bank Kleinwort Benson, as well the UK Department for Trade and Industry.

Northern Rock: “not just sleeping, you were comatose”

In early 2007 as the financial crisis began to intensify, the FSA, under McCarthy, was still arguing
for “light touch” regulation for hedge funds, seen as a key driver of financial instability.10 In autumn
2007, McCarthy said the growing calls for increased regulation of the financial services industry
were a “mad dog” reaction.11 By then the European Central Bank had already pumped €95billion
into the market to improve liquidity and the UK had experienced a run on a bank, Northern Rock.

Early in the crisis the FSA reassured people that Northern Rock was “solvent.”12 Economics
journalist Alex Brummer, author of The Crunch, noted that the FSA’s “actions suggested it hadn’t a
clue about the weakness of the Rock’s securitization model.”13

The FSA was widely seen as the regulatory authority with the most to blame for allowing Northern
Rock to fail. It was accused by the British MP John McFall, head of the influential Treasury
Select Committee, of “not just sleeping, you were comatose” over Northern Rock.14 The
Treasury Committee’s report on the scandal determined that the FSA had “systematically failed in
its duty.” “The failure of Northern Rock, while a failure of its own board, was also a failure of its
regulator,” it said.15

6



Would you bank on them? Why we shouldn’t trust the EU’s financial “wise men”
McCarthy’s refusal to accept responsibility for the FSA’s role in Northern Rock’s downfall angered
parliamentarians. One MP on the Committee, Sion Simon, told McCarthy: “You are the Sugar Ray
Leonard of the financial services sector; a world-class ducker and diver, bobber and weaver.”16

Silencing critics, failing to see the risks

When a senior UK politician, Liberal Democrat

“The failure of

Treasury spokesperson Vince Cable, raised concerns
about Northern Rock, it was reported that McCarthy Northern Rock, while
had tried to “gag” him. Cable said: “Sir Callum

a failure of its own

said I was scaremongering, that there was no problem
with the bank and that it had a good loan book, and board, was also a
any problems were due to international markets

failure of its regulator.”

beyond its control.”17

In February 2009, McCarthy’s ex-Deputy Chairman, UK Treasury Select Committee
Sir James Crosby, resigned from the FSA after report on Northern Rock
allegations that he had helped silence a whistleblower
from within HBOS, one of Britain’s largest
banks, who had repeatedly warned about the
excessive risk being undertaken by the bank. 18

In fact, the FSA failed to examine the risky nature of the whole banking sector. McCarthy’s
replacement at the FSA, Lord Turner, has now admitted that the FSA and other regulators had
failed to see that by 2004 the banking system was moving in a direction that created a “large
systemic risk”. “With hindsight” said Turner “the FSA was focused too much on individual
institutions .... and not adequately focused on the totality of the systemic risks across the whole
system, and whether there were entire business models, entire ways of operating, that were risky.”19

Given, McCarthy’s controversial background, it is surprising that he was picked as the only
member of the group with recent experience in banking supervision.

Otmar Issing


•
Orthodox monetarist views
•
Advisor to US giant Goldman Sachs, which has been
short-selling during the crisis
Otmar Issing has been called “Europe’s High Priest of Monetary
Orthodoxy”20 and is seen as a die-hard monetarist. After a career at the
German national bank, the Bundesbank, he joined the European Central
Bank (ECB) and was one of the key architects of the Euro. He served for
eight years on the ECB’s Executive Board and Governing Council, and as
the Bank’s chief economist.21


7



Would you bank on them? Why we shouldn’t trust the EU’s financial “wise men”
Like Leszek Balcerowicz (page 9), Otmar Issing is a member of the board of trustees of the German
Friedrich August von Hayek Foundation that promotes a neoliberal economic and social order
(Hayek is regarded as one of the founding fathers of neoliberalism).22 In 2003 Issing won the
Foundation’s International Prize along with ex-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. 23 He is
also the president of the Center for Financial Studies, a research institute affiliated with the
University of Frankfurt. It is financed by the ”Gesellschaft für Kapitalmarktforschung” (Society for
Capital Market Research), which comprises of more than 80 banks, insurance companies,
consulting firms and commercial enterprises.24

Wall Street’s powerhouse, inside Europe

Issing retired from the ECB in June 2006. Four months later he was advising the giant investment
bank Goldman Sachs. Normally the ECB would require a 12 month “cooling-off period” to avoid
conflicts of interests, but in this case it accepted Issing’s move on the grounds that his job would be
a “loose advisory position” unconnected to
the daily business of the finance house.25

“With the nomination

It has been pointed out that Issing’s
appointment on the de Larosière panel gives to the group of Otmar
Goldman Sachs a competitive advantage in

Issing, Goldman Sachs

Europe. Financial analyst Klaus C. Engelen,
a contributing editor to The International landed a strategic coup.”
Economy, a specialized quarterly magazine
covering global financial policy, argues


Financial analyst Klaus Engelen on the de

that “with the nomination to the group of

Larosière Group

Otmar Issing, Goldman Sachs landed a
strategic coup”.26

Engelen also notes Issing’s other role as an adviser to German Chancellor Angela Merkel on the
crisis, as part of a similar “expert group”. He says: “Wall Street’s powerhouse now has its own man
in the most important new European expert panels - a nightmare for main rival Deutsche Bank.”27

Did Goldman Sachs’ tactics contribute to the crisis?

Goldman Sachs’ role in the subprime crisis is markedly different from other investment banks. By
February 2007 Goldman Sachs was “poised to profit from the subprime meltdown”.28 The company
started selling the securities related to subprime loans in a move called “short-selling”, by which the
losses incurred through the falling prices on subprime loans was more than outweighed by the bet.29

Short-selling became a controversial issue in 2008 when it was used by many investors to make a
quick profit. The contribution short-selling was making to financial instability prompted several
countries to temporarily ban it. Even so, when a German expert group, under Issing’s leadership,
came up with its first proposals in November 2008, it ignored the issue of short-selling, even though
it is seen by many as a key contributing factor to the current crisis.30

The issue of short-selling might present a potential conflict of interest for Issing and his association
with Goldman Sachs in the de Larosière Group’s discussions.

8



Would you bank on them? Why we shouldn’t trust the EU’s financial “wise men”
Leszek Balcerowicz

•
A free-market champion and advocate of deregulation
•
Long associated with US and EU free-market / libertarian think
tanks
Leszek Balcerowicz is a Polish economist and former chairman of the
National Bank of Poland. He is chair of the Brussels-based think tank
Bruegel, whose stated aim is “to contribute to the quality of economic
policymaking in Europe”. Its corporate members include Deutsche Bank,
Goldman Sachs, Unicredit and Fortis (one of the first European banks to
seek a state bail-out). As of February 2008, Bruegel had not registered on
the Commission’s register of lobby organizations. 31

Architect of the Polish Economy

As Poland’s Finance Minister in the early 1990s, Balcerowicz steered the country from a state
planned economy to a capitalist free market economy, with what is known as the “Balcerowicz
Plan” or, more commonly, “shock therapy”.32

His economic plan used “recipes that sound now like a caricature of Thatcherism: tight monetary
policy, free prices, privatization, cuts in the state budget”, wrote The Times in 2006.33 At the time
Balcerowicz conceded “that as a result of his plan the real income of Poles may fall by 20 per cent
next year, industrial production may drop by 5 per cent and hundreds of thousands of workers may
be laid off”.34 Poland’s free market capitalism also threw up “scandal after financial scandal”. As
the Washington Post wrote: “unscrupulous entrepreneurs profited from loopholes, corrupted
politicians, and made off with billions”.35

“Free market capitalism provides the greatest security”

The European Enterprise Institute, a rightwing think in Brussels gave Balcerowicz the award for
“The Greatest European Reformer 2007”. The EEI argue that, to a large extent, the financial crisis
has been created by government intervention, and that the world needs freer financial markets and
less government intervention.36

The same year, Balcerowicz was dubbed “a free-market champion” by The Wall Street Journal.37
He is “one of the great heroes of liberalism in the world” according to Ed Crane, founder and
President of the think tank, the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank that promotes deregulated
markets and limited government, with which Balcerowicz has had a long association.

For example, in April 2007, the Washington Post
noted that “Balcerowicz was at the Cato Institute in “One of the great
Washington doing what he likes best -spreading
the gospel of free markets” and outlining the heroes of liberalism
“intellectual arguments for deregulation, privatization in the world.”
and lower taxes”.38

Ed Crane, founder and President of

These arguments have proved disastrously wrong. In

the Cato Institute

March 2007 Cato senior fellow, Daniel J. Mitchell “a
top expert on tax reform” wrote: “Listen up, Gordon

9


Would you bank on them? Why we shouldn’t trust the EU’s financial “wise men”
Brown and George Osborne [UK Conservative shadow chancellor]… Tax reform and economic
liberalization have helped Iceland prosper. Let’s hope that other industrial nations …. will learn
from Iceland’s success”.39 Eighteen months later, Iceland’s banking system collapsed, forcing the
government’s resignation. It became the first Western European nation for 30 years to get an IMF
loan.

Balcerowicz is also associated with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a neo-conservative
think tank.40 In one speech he said that it was “the introduction of free market capitalism that
provides the greatest security for democracy in the long run”, without which “civil society
degenerates into interest groups which endanger economic growth and poison public life.”41

Balcerowicz brings to the group a dogged promotion of deregulation backed by well organized
neoliberal networks of intellectuals and think tanks.42

Onno Ruding


•
Former Vice Chairman of Citicorp, now on Citigroup’s
International Advisory Committee
•
Warns against “a backlash of aggressive regulation”
Ruding’s career has seen him move in and out of the public and private
sectors. He worked for the International Monetary Fund and Dutch bank
AMRO before entering politics in the early 1980s, becoming Minister of
Finance under Premier Ruud Lubbers. Lubbers’ government was famed for
its deregulation and privatization agenda, and Ruding used his tenure to
draft the early liberalization of the financial sector in the Netherlands.


Throughout the 1990s, Ruding worked for
Citicorp, now Citigroup, becoming Vice
Chairman of Citibank in 1992.43 In the “Problems will come to
early nineties he also acted as a lobbyist,

light in the United States and

for Dutch and European employers
especially, on issues of corporate taxation. maybe also in Germany. The
He retired in 2003, although he remains on

Netherlands is expected to

Citigroup’s International Advisory
Committee.44 He is also Chairman of the remain out of that. This is
Board of the Centre for European Policy

partly thanks to our

Studies (CEPS) one of the most important
neo-liberal think tanks in Brussels.45 supervisory structure.”


For many years Citigroup was the world’s Onno Ruding on the financial crisis,
largest bank (by revenue). However, by August 2007
November 2008, it was forced to accept a
bail out from the American government,
which provided it with $20 billion in
additional capital whilst guaranteeing a
further $306 billion of Citigroup’s assets.46


1



Would you bank on them? Why we shouldn’t trust the EU’s financial “wise men”
Warning against a backlash of aggressive regulation

In the same month that Citigroup was bailed out by American taxpayers, Ruding made a speech in
which he defended liberalization saying that: “Since 1980, the world has experienced a wave of
deregulation and liberalization, particularly for financial markets and institutions. These
developments have contributed substantially to economic growth… We should take the needed
corrective actions to curtail this excessive use, but we should also avoid overreacting by a backlash
of aggressive regulation or re-regulation”.47

Ruding’s failure to predict how far and wide the financial crisis would extend was proved wrong in
the Netherlands. It contrasts with the view of others who foresaw the scale of the crisis, but who are
absent from the de Larosière Group.

Rainer Masera


•
Head of Lehman Brothers FIG, Italy. Parent company filed
for bankruptcy in 2008
•
Long time board member of the European Investment Bank,
criticized for its lack of accountability
Rainer Masera is an Italian banker. He has been on the board of the
European Investment Bank, the long-term lending institution for the EU, for
over a decade. He was formerly Central Director at the Bank of Italy, head
of the Italian Sanpaolo IMI banking group, and chairman of the former
Italian private bank, Banca Fideuram.48


Lehman Brothers’ catastrophic impact on confidence

From May 2007, Masera was also Managing Director and Chairman of Lehman Brothers’ Financial
Institutions Group in Italy.49 In September 2008 parent company Lehman Brothers filed for
bankruptcy, sending shock waves through the financial system. The bank was very exposed to
unsecured mortgages in the US subprime market, where it was said to be a “dominant force”. As
one US magazine reported: “Lehman’s crown jewel was its real-estate businesses”. However, “real
estate was where all the problems were”.50

The International Economy, noted that “The nomination to the [de Larosière] group of Rainer
Masera, a former managing director of Lehman Brothers which collapsed recently causing terrible
losses to European institutions and investors, met with sharp criticism.”51

European Investment Bank’s lack of accountability

During the 10 year period that Masera has been on the board of the European Investment Bank
(EIB), it has been the subject of much criticism: for its lack of transparency, accountability and the
potential conflicts of interests of some of its directors.52

Masera was one of those criticized in 2004 for his potential conflict of interest. At the time he was
President of the Italian bank Sanpaolo IMI which received more than €800million in loans (not
including loans to subsidiaries) between 1995 and 2004. Sanpaolo IMI was also the majority
shareholder in two other EIB intermediary banks: Slovenia’s Koper and Hungary’s Inter-Europa.
An article in EuroMoney noted, under the headline ‘Doubts about transparency’ that “Directors

1


Would you bank on them? Why we shouldn’t trust the EU’s financial “wise men”
have to declare their other directorships internally and abstain from discussing any matter that might
raise conflicts of interest for them. But potential conflicts have not been made public.”53

The problems at EIB did not escape the attention of Europe’s politicians. In 2004, Spanish MEP
Mónica Ridruejo prepared a controversial draft report for the European Parliament’s Committee on
Economic and Monetary Affairs on the activity of the EIB. It noted that the bank “failed to comply
with good governance rules” and criticized its policy on conflicts of interest and risk management.54

BankWatch has argued that the “EIB has shown a notable disregard for addressing a number of
important policy issues”, including transparency and accountability.55 Friends of the Earth called
EIB “a ghost bank, which is in no way properly accountable to the people who fund it.”56

Until recently Masera held a senior position at Lehman’s, which encouraged unsustainable risk
taking. The same concerns that have dogged the EIB, with which he has been closely associated for
a decade - over transparency and accountability - are now being directed at the de Larosière Group.

José Pérez Fernández


•
President of a financial market intelligence company, which counts big banks as
clients. He also previously worked for BBVA
José Pérez Fernández has spent most of his career working for Banco de España, the national bank
of Spain.57 He then moved to the private sector to Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (BBVA) 58
where he was Managing Director.59

He is currently the chairman of InterMoney, a web-based service specializing in currencies and
bonds.60 InterMoney is a project of IDEAglobal which is “a leading supplier of independent and
impartial advice” to banks. It claims that “of the 50 largest financial institutions as ranked by
Euromoney, all but four are clients of IDEAglobal”.61

Lars Nyberg


•
Warns against becoming “overzealous about regulation”
•
Opposed to regulation of hedge funds, which he thinks didn’t contribute to the
crisis
•
Worked for decades in the private banking sector
Lars Nyberg spent two decades in the private financial sector before becoming Deputy Governor of
the Swedish central bank, Riksbanken in 1999.

Nyberg acknowledges that the present crisis calls for further regulation, but warns repeatedly
against becoming “overzealous about regulation”.62 Lately he has suggested that there’s a need for
more regulation on investment banks, but in January 2008 he also denied the need for the regulation
of hedge funds.63 He has been and remains fundamentally favorable to the creation of very
complicated financial products, but emphasizes the need for transparency and “clear and continuous
pricing information.”64

1


Would you bank on them? Why we shouldn’t trust the EU’s financial “wise men”
Conclusion


An economic recession on the scale predicted should lead to radical and comprehensive reform of
the financial industry. Certain regulations, structures and procedures need to be put in place to
ensure that a crisis of this kind never happens again. To identify such reforms, Europe’s leaders
must not just listen to the views of those closely associated with the present system, or with the
financial giants whose interests have generally been accommodated in the past.

In these terms, the de Larosière Group is clearly a failure. It seems designed to produce a result that
will be no real challenge to the present financial architecture. Four members are closely linked to
giant financial corporations, such as Goldman Sachs, BNP, Lehman Brothers and Citigroup. A fifth
was the head of the UK Financial Services Authority that completely failed in its supervision of
Northern Rock. A sixth member is a fierce enemy of regulation, and a seventh works for a company
that relies on banks. On top of this, most of the members of the Group support strong monetarist,
neoliberal and de-regulatory policies that many analysts are saying created the financial crisis.

There are numerous reforming ideas and proposals being discussed by different groups in society
that cannot be expected to be addressed by this group because of its composition. For instance, there
is the strong debate in the European Parliament on the regulation of capital and equity funds, which
could have been raised had an MEPs or independent experts been on the Group. Other ideas include
the various proposals for supervision of the financial sector put forward by UNI-Finance65, a trade
union body in the financial sector. The views of consumer organizations are also absent.

The Commission’s own codes of conduct hold it responsible for ensuring broad representation in
expert groups. However, this is far from standard practice.66 As recent research by Friends of the
Earth Europe has shown, the de Larosière Group is typical of the general trend of corporate
dominance in the High Level Groups set up by the Commission.67

With the de Larosière Group, the Commission has repeated the mistakes of the past. It has set up a
High Level Group dominated by the very kind of people that created the crisis in the first place. It
could have taken the opportunity to consult widely to try and create a more democratic and stable
financial system. But instead of a broader public policy debate, the Commission has again gone for
a process ‘behind closed doors’. This puts policy-making on a key issue for all Europeans into the
hands of a small group of experts with strong connections to the financial industry. The de
Larosière Group highlights once again the vice-like grip the financial lobby has on decision making
in the European Union.68

The fact that such a group has been selected to play a key role in the EU debate on the response to
the crisis is deeply worrying. Policy capture by vested interests results in flawed policies and
regulations. It is time to end the privileged access to decision makers enjoyed by the powerful
financial lobby, and more generally to curb the power corporations sector hold over the political
process in the European Union.

1



Would you bank on them? Why we shouldn’t trust the EU’s financial “wise men”
References


1



1 Charlie McCreevy, European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, Speech at the Institute of International
and European Affairs, Dublin, February 9, 2009.
2 Mandate of the group, which has been interpreted broadly and covers both supervision and regulation, can be seen at
the Commissions website; ‘High Level Group on EU Financial Supervision to hold its first meeting on 12 November’,
press release from the European Commission, November 11, 2008.
3 J. M. Barroso, It is possible to overcome this difficult situation, Government of the Czech Republic, Press Advisories,
February 12, 2009.
4 Charlie McCreevy, Financial Markets & Economic Recovery - Restoring Confidence and responding to public
concerns, 7th Annual Financial Services Conference Brussels, January 27, 2009.


Charlie McCreevy, European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, Speech at the Institute of International
and European Affairs, Dublin, February 9, 2009.
6 Charlie McCreevy, Financial Markets & Economic Recovery - Restoring Confidence and responding to public
concerns, 7th Annual Financial Services Conference Brussels, January 27, 2009.
7 Eurofi website -http://www.eurofi.net/who.php
8 Eurofi website -http://www.eurofi.net/who.php
9 Jacques de Larosière, The present financial crisis : Why has the system derailed? Some thoughts on securitization,
March, 2008.

Melanie Wold, Letting hedge funds be hedge funds: FSA tries to show rest of Europe that a light touch is enough,
Securities Industry News, February 12, 2007.
11 Sean O’Grady, FSA chief warns clamour for regulation is ‘mad dog’ reaction, The Independent, October 22, 2007,
p40.12
Alex Brummer, “Watchdog that failed to bark”, Daily Mail, November 21, 2007, p75.
13 Alex Brummer, “Watchdog that failed to bark”, Daily Mail, November 21, 2007, p75.
14 Richard Northedge, The rise of The rise of John McFall, credit crisis key figure, The Sunday Telegraph, December
16, 2007, p6; Sam Fleming, City interview: the TSE’s John McFall, Daily Mail, August 7, 2008, p74.

Christine Seib, MPs demand new regulator as FSA stands condemned, The Times, January 26, 2008, p52.
16 Hansard, Uncorrected Transcript of Oral Evidence to be Published as HC 999-ii, House of Commons, Minutes of
Evidence, Taken before Treasury committee, Financial Stability and Transparency, October 9, 2007.
17
Financial Watchdog boss ‘tried to gag MP’ over Rock crisis alert, Mail on Sunday, February 24, 2008, Section FB,
p2.18 Nick Mathiason Heather Connon, Richard Wachman, Banking’s Big question: why didn’t anyone stop them?, The
Observer, Business Section, 15 February, 2009, p4-5.
19Terry Macalister, City watchdog chief admits regulators failed to spot looming financial disaster, The Guardian, 16
February, 2009.

See for instance: Outgoing Euro chief warns of tensions, Daily Telegraph, May 31, 2006.
21 Otmar Issing’s intervention at the conference Lessons from the Subprime Crisis at the Cato Institute – an institute
closely connected to the ideas of Milton Friedman, November 19, 2008.
22 See the website of the foundation: www.hayek-stiftung.de/115.html.
23 Friedrich-August-von-Hayek-Foundation, Recipients of the Friedrich-August-von-Hayek-Foundation, Press Release,
March 7, 2003.
24 See the website of the Center for Financial Studies, http://www.ifk-cfs.de/index.php?id=12 and http://www.ifkcfs.
de/index.php?id=120.

Former ECB chief economist Issing accepts advisory post at Goldman Sachs, AFP, October 16, 2006.
26 Klaus C. Engelen, Barely contained outrage: what the Europeans really think about America’s regulatory blunders,
The International Economy, September 22, 2008.
27 Klaus C. Engelen, Barely contained outrage: what the Europeans really think about America’s regulatory blunders,
The International Economy, September 22, 2008.
28 Kate Kelly, How Goldman profited from subprime meltdown, Wall Street Journal, December 17, 2007.
29 Jenny Anderson & Landon Thomas jr, Goldman Sachs rakes in profit in credit crisis”, New York Times, November
19, 2007.

Pressestatements von Bundeskanzlerin Merkel, Bundesfinanzminister Steinbrück und dem Vorsitzenden der
Expertengruppe „Weltfinanzmarkt“, Issing, zum Weltfinanzgipfel, November 14, 2008. Pierre Paulden and Caroline
Salas, Goldman targeted by investor complaints of naked short selling, Bloomberg, November 17, 2008. Bill Saporito,
Are short sellers to blame for the financial crisis, Time, September 18, 2008.
31
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin/consultation/search.do#searchResult
32
His history in government and think tank based opposition is covered by Dorothee Bohle and Gisela Neunhöffer:
Why is there no third way? The role of neoliberal ideology, networks and think tanks in combating market socialism
and shaping transformation in Poland, p.89-104 in: Plehwe, Dieter, Walpen, Bernhard, Neunhöffer, Gisela, eds., 2006,
Neoliberal hegemony: a global critique, Routledge.
33 Bronwen Maddox, Can we bank on Poland to look back -or forward?, The Times, October 13, 2006, p43

34 Steven Greenhouse, ‘Shock therapy’ for Poland: jolt might be too damaging, The New York Times, December 26,
1989, Section D; p1.


35 Konstanty Gebert, ‘Shock’ crock; Poland’s overrated reforms’, The Washington Post, May 2, 1993.
36 European Enterprise Institute website -http://www.european-enterprise.org/
37 Joellen Perry, “Poland’s top banker is seen as a step back”, Wall Street Journal, January 17, 2007, p2.
38 Steven Pearlstein, “Poland’s economic revolutionary”, Washington Post, April 11, Financial, D01, 2007, p2.
39 Daniel J. Mitchell, Why Tax Havens Are a Blessing, March 17, 2008.
40 American Enterprise Institute; event ‘American Economic Way; Its Character, Effectiveness, and Applicability, 22-23
October 2004, Warsaw, Poland.
41 Leszek Balcerowicz, Atlantic Economics, speech at the Congress of Prague, May 12, 1996.
42
See Plehwe, Dieter and Bernhard Walpen, Between network and complex organization: the making of neoliberal
knowledge and hegemony, 27-50 in: Plehwe, Dieter, Walpen, Bernhard, Neunhöffer, Gisela, eds., 2006, Neoliberal
hegemony: a global critique, Routledge
43
Onno Ruding’s CV, RTL group website, accessed 23 February 2009.
44 Onno Ruding’s profile, Forbes website, accessed 23 February 2009.
45
Onno Ruding’s CV, RTL group website, accessed 23 February 2009.
46
Citi soars as $300bn bail-out is agreed, Financial Times, November 25, 2008.
47 The international financial crisis, Introductory note, H. Onno Ruding, Trilateral Commission (Europe), Meeting in
Paris on November 8, 2008.
48
Reiner Masera’s CV, EIB website, accessed 23 February 2009.
49 Siobhan Kennedy, Lehman Brothers appoints Italy Director - Rainer Masera, A banking veteran, will head Lehman’s
Financial Institutions Group in Italy, The Times, May 22, 2007.
50 Steve Fishman, Burning down his house - is Lehman CEO Dick Fuld the true villain in the collapse of Wall Street, or
is he being sacrificed for the sins of his peers? New York Magazine, November 30, 2008; Phillip Inman, Q&A: The
collapse of Lehman Brothers, The Guardian, September 15, 2008.
51 Klaus Engelen, Barely Contained Outrage: What The Europeans Really Think About America’s Regulatory
Blunders, The International Economy, September 22, 2008.
52 Jon Ungoed-Thomas & Nicola Smith, “EU ‘Ghost’ Bank Is Under Fire”, Sunday Times, Quoted in The Australian,
September 8, 2004, p33.
53 Mark Brown, ‘Calling the EIB to Account’, Euromoney, May 2004; Giles Tremlett, Conflicts at the heart of the EIB,
The Observer, March 7, 2004.
54 Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, Draft Report on the Activity Report of the European Investment
Bank, Rapporteur: Mónica Ridruejo, 2004/2012(INI)); Mark Brown, ‘Calling the EIB to Account’, Euromoney, May
2004.
55 CEE Bankwatch Network & Heinrich Böll Foundation, Brussels Office, The European Investment Bank:
Accountable Only to the Market? EU-Policy Paper No. 1, December 1999
56 Jon Ungoed-Thomas & Nicola Smith, ‘EU ‘Ghost’ bank is under fire’, Sunday Times, Quoted in The Australian,
September 8, 2004, p33
57 El Economista, El español José Pérez formará parte del grupo encargado de proponer mejoras en la supervisión
financiera’, October 22, 2008.
58 Finanzas.com, Barroso pide mayor coordinación financiera en UE como base de acuerdo global, October 22, 2008.
59 Cinco Dias, September 29, 1998 .
60 Intermoney website -http://www.intermoney.com/
61 IDEAglobal website – http://www.ideaglobal.com/products/info/about.html.
62
The Financial Crisis, Speech by Mr Lars Nyberg, Deputy Governor of the Sveriges Riksbank, at HQ Bank, 15
October 2008.
63 Lars Nyberg; Hedge Funds and the Recent Financial Turmoil, January 28, 2008.
64 ‘The Financials Crisis’, 2008.
65 See for instance A Complementary Bottom-Up Approach For Financial Supervision, UNI-Finance, November 3,
2008.
66 See for instance COM (2002) 704 and COM (2002) 713. See also the ALTER-EU’s press release Commission to
NGOs: business rules OK, December 16, 2008.
67 Christine Pohl, Whose Views Count, Friends of the Earth Europe, February 2009.
68 For the fundamental lack of democracy, accountability and transparency in European decision-making processes on
financial market issues see also Myriam Vander Stichele, Financial Regulations in the European Union. Mapping EU
Decision Making Structures on Financial Regulation and Supervision. Report commissioned by Eurodad, WEED,
Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale and Bretton Woods Project, December 2008.

GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eG (Ökobank)

Ökobank

aus Wikipedia, der freien Enzyklopädie

Wechseln zu: Navigation, Suche

Die Ökobank eG war eine deutsche Genossenschaftsbank, deren Initiatoren sich aus der Nachrüstungsdebatte der 1980er Jahre und der aufkeimenden Umweltbewegung im Rahmen der Auseinandersetzung um Alternative Ökonomie rekrutierten und warb mit Leitsätzen wie „Alternativen sind möglich“ und „kein Geld in die Rüstung“. Die Ökobank eG wurde 2003 aufgrund einer selbstverursachten wirtschaftlichen Schieflage von der GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eG übernommen.

Ziele der Ökobank waren die Bereitstellung von Finanzmitteln für die damals aufkommenden alternativen Betriebe, die zu jener Zeit noch nicht von traditionellen Banken unterstützt wurden, und die Entwicklungsförderung in der so genannten Dritten Welt. Gemäß der Satzung sollte der „Förderung von Betrieben und Projekten auf dem Gebiet der Selbstverwaltung, des Genossenschaftswesen, der Ökologie und des Friedens ... besondere Bedeutung beigemessen (werden)“.[1] Das Bankgeschäft wurde deswegen in einen Förderbereich und einen Normalbereich unterteilt.

Mit der Gründung der Ökobank waren Visionen von einem „alternativen Wirtschaftskreislauf“ verbunden. Die Ökobank sollte die finanziellen Mittel bereitstellen, um einen solchen Kreislauf in Gang zu setzen.

Der am 17. März 1984 gegründete Verein Freunde und Förderer der Ökobank hatte die Aufgabe, das Gründungskapital zu sammeln, ein Bankkonzept zu entwickeln und die Zulassung der Bank zu erreichen. Die Frage der Einlagensicherung erwies sich von Anfang an als schwierig. Schließlich konnte die Ökobank mit Erlaubnis des Bundesaufsichtsamts für das Kreditwesen und mit einem Genossenschaftskapital von 7,8 Millionen DM, das von rund 12.700 Treugeber/innen zur Verfügung gestellt wurde, am 31. März 1988 in das Register eingetragen und am 2. Mai 1984 in Frankfurt am Main gegründet werden.[2]

Das Konzept umfasste alle traditionellen Bankgeschäfte mit Ausnahme der Forfaitierung und des Effekten- und Depotgeschäfts. Sie bot Sparbücher, Umweltsparbriefe und Kredite an, deren Obergrenze auf maximal 750.000 DM je Kunde festgesetzt war. Das Gesamtkreditvolumen blieb auf 60 Prozent der Bilanzsumme beschränkt oder durfte nicht höher als das Dreifache des Eigenkapitals sein.[3]

Nach jahrelangen Verhandlungen erfolgte im Jahr 1996 die Aufnahme in den Einlagensicherungsfonds des Bundesverbandes der Deutschen Volksbanken und Raiffeisenbanken (BVR), wobei der damals bestehende Verlustvortrag von 3,3 Mio. DM anderweitig abgesichert werden musste. Letzteres gelang durch die Zeichnung von Sicherungsbriefen durch 542 Mitglieder.[4] Dadurch waren die Voraussetzungen für eine Erweiterung des Kreditgeschäftes gegeben.

In den Jahren 1999 und 2000 geriet die Ökobank durch Managementfehler in eine finanzielle Schieflage. Sie hatte zu dieser Zeit ein Bilanzvolumen von 380 Millionen DM und 24.000 Mitglieder. Zur Sanierung wurde das Bankgeschäft zunächst an die Bankaktiengesellschaft (BAG) Hamm ausgegliedert. Nach zweijährigen Verhandlungen wurde dieses Anfang 2003 von der GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eG übernommen.[5][6] Die abgewerteten Geschäftsanteile der Ökobank wurden in neue Anteile an der Finanzdienstleistungsgenossenschaft Oekogeno umgewandelt. Einmalig dabei war, dass der Einlagensicherungsfonds einen Teil des Verlustes den Mitgliedern aufbürdete.




A brief portrait of the GLS Bank


The GLS Bank was the first social and ecological bank in Germany. GLS stands for "Gemeinschaftsbank für Leihen und Schenken", which translates as "community bank for loans and gifts". The bank was founded in 1974 and it currently finances around 6.500 projects and businesses.

The Bank focuses on cultural, social and ecological projects which try to tackle challenges in our society by developing creative solutions. Loans are offered to projects like independent schools and kindergartens, organic farms, institutions using therapeutic pedagogy, nursing homes, projects for the unemployed, health-food stores and communal living projects, as well as sustainable businesses. Transparency is one of the key aims of the GLS: details of all initiatives that receive loans are published in its magazine "Bankspiegel>>", together with information on the development of the bank itself.
As of 31 December 2008 the balance sheet total was 1013 million EUR.

The GLS Bank offers its savers the usual range of financial products:

  • Current Accounts
  • GLS Savings Accounts
  • GLS Savings Certificates
  • Investment funds
  • Bank Membership

What distinguishes the GLS Bank is not only the fact that the GLS invest their savers’ money responsibly, but also that savers with the GLS can choose the area in which their money will be invested.

Moreover, when customers choose reduced interest payments for their savings, the GLS Bank is able to grant loans to charitable projects with an interest rate that only covers the basic loan administration costs of the bank (in 2009: 3.4 % p.a.).

The work of the bank is supported by more than 14.000 cooperative members.

The GLS Bank has its head office in Bochum and has established branches in Stuttgart, Frankfurt, Freiburg, Hamburg, Munic and Berlin. GLS cooperates with the GLS Treuhand in Bochum and the GLS Beteiligungsaktiengesellschaft. The bank is part of the German "Bundesverband der Deutschen Volksbanken und Raiffeisenbanken" and has signed up to their guarantee system for the depositors’ money.

GLS Treuhand
The GLS Treuhand>> (GLS Charitable Trust Foundation), founded in 1961, is an association of more than 288 (Dec 2008) charitable organizations. The GLS Treuhand has comprehensive experience in the arrangement of donations and large fortunes and in handling wills and estates. Its main areas of activity are fundraising, consultation regarding private legacies and transforming business into charitable capital. At present major emphasis is placed on small private donations.

The GLS Treuhand acts as a charitable trust administrating various foundations and it is supporting the social, ecological and cultural aims of its charitable member-organizations. As of 31 December 2008 the business volumel was 70,97 million EUR.

With the 5 “Foundations for the Future” (“Zukunftsstiftungen”) the GLS Treuhand is engaged in the areas of

  • Agriculture
  • Development aid
  • Education
  • Health care
  • Social welfare

GLS Beteiligungsaktiengesellschaft (BAG)
The GLS Beteiligungsaktiengesellschaft (BAG) was founded in 1995 and is a subsidiary owned by the GLS Bank. Its objective is to assist companies with finding equity capital and its share capital amounts to 3,2 million EUR. The BAG has issued funds for renewable energy and the social economy. One example is a fund which was used to purchase the power-supply-system in Schönau, a small town situated in the Black Forest in Germany. A substantial part of the BAG investments consists of windmill parks, a growing source of energy in Germany.

For further information
Please send us an email.
Find here the Annual Report 2008 of GLS Bank and GLS Treuhand (4,5 MB)>>

Contact
Bochum
PO box 10 08 29 D-44708 Bochum
Visiting address: Christstr. 9, 44789 Bochum
phone: +49-234-5797-0
fax: +49-234-5797-133

Berlin
Schumannstr. 10, D-10117 Berlin
phone: +49-30- 5268858-80
fax: +49-30-5268858-88

Frankfurt
Am Hauptbahnhof 6 D-60329 Frankfurt am Main
phone: +49-69-2 56 10-0
fax: +49-69-2 56 10-169

Freiburg
Merzhauser Str. 177, D-79100 Freiburg
phone: +49-761-7 66 18-77
fax: +49-761-7 66 18-76

Hamburg
Mittelweg 147 D-20148 Hamburg
phone: +49-40-41 47 62-0
fax: +49-40-41 47 62-44

München
Herzog-Heinrich-Str. 18, D-80336 München
phone:+49-89-544162-0
fax: +49-89-544162-33

Stuttgart
Egonsplatz 5 D-70184 Stuttgart
phone: +49-711-23895-0
fax +49-711-2389555

Weltweite partnerschaftliche Zusammenarbeit

Die GLS Bank arbeitet weltweit mit Verbänden und Organisationen zusammen, die in den GLS-Arbeitsschwerpunkten tätig sind. Wir tauschen uns regelmäßig über aktuelle Entwicklungen und Vorhaben aus. So bleiben wir in Zeitfragen immer auf dem Laufenden und können wegweisende Impulse setzen.

Zu unseren Partnern gehören

Belgien
INAISE (International Association
of Investors in the Social Economy)
Brüssel
tel: + 32-2-230 16 07
fax: + 32-2-230 49 65
e-Mail: inaise(at)inaise.org
www.inaise.org

Dänemark
Merkur
Kopenhagen
tel +45-70-27 27 06
fax +45-70-27 27 06
e-mail kbh(at)merkurbank.dk
www.merkurbank.dk

Deutschland
Gemeinnützige Treuhandstelle Hamburg e.V.
tel +49-40-41 47 62 0
e-mail gts(at)treuhandstelle-hh.de
www.treuhandstelle-hh.de

Institute for Social Banking
tel +49-234-57 97 185
fax +49-234 -57 97 188
e-mail info(at)social-banking.org
www.social-banking.org

World Future Council
Hamburg
tel +49-40-30 70 914-0
fax +49-40-30 70 914-14
e-mail: info(at)worldfuturecouncil.org
www.worldfuturecouncil.org

Frankreich
Société Financière de la NEF (Nouvelle Economie Fraternelle)
Bureau principal
Bourbon L'Archambault
tel +33-4-70 67 18 50
fax +33-4-70 67 18 54
e-mail: lanef(at)lanef.com
www.lanef.com

Société Financière de la NEF (Nouvelle Economie Fraternelle)
Bureau de Paris
Paris
tel +33-1-44 87 97 00
fax +33-1-44 87 97 04
e-mail: paris(at)lanef.com

Italien
Banca Etica
tel +39-49-8771111
fax +39-49-664922
www.bancaetica.com

Neuseeland
The Prometheus Foundation
Napier
tel +64-6-8 35 71 38
fax +64-6-8 35 24 28

Niederlande
Oikocredit International
Amersfoort
tel +31-33-422 40 40
fax +31-33-465 03 36
e-mail info(at)oikocredit.org
www.oikocredit.org

Triodos Bank
Zeist
tel +31-30-693 65 00
fax +31-30-693 65 55
e-mail: info(at)triodos.nl
www.triodos.nl

Norwegen
Cultura sparebank
Oslo
tel +47-22 36 17 90
fax +47-22 36 17 95
e-mail: cultura(at)cultura.no
www.cultura.no

Schweden
Ekobanken
Järna
tel +46-8-551-714 70
fax +46-8-551-749 90
e-mail info(at)ekobanken.se
www.ekobanken.se

Schweiz
ABS (Alternative Bank Schweiz)
Olten
tel. +41-62-2061616
fax +41-62- 206 16 17
www.abs.ch

Freie Gemeinschaftsbank
Basel
tel +41-61-2698100
fax +41-61-2698149
e-mail: info(at)gemeinschaftsbank.ch
www.gemeinschaftsbank.ch

USA
Rudolf Steiner Foundation

New York
tel +1-518-672 44 14
fax +1-518-672 42 14

Rosa Luxemburg (1871–1919)

Name: Rosa Luxemburg (1871–1919)
Studium: Naturwissenschaften, Ökonomie, Philosophie, Jura
Abschluss: Doktorin der Ökonomie
Beruf: SPD-Politikerin, KPD-Gründerin
Nebenjob: Journalistin
Kernkompetenz: Revolution machen
Besondere Vorkommnisse: wurde am 15. Januar 1919 ermordet
Wichtigste Auszeichnung: Dissertation über »Die industrielle Entwicklung Polens« mit magna cum laude.
An der Jahreswende 1918/19 gründete sie mit Karl Liebknecht die Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands. Dass es führende Sozialdemokraten waren, die Mitverantwortung an ihrer Ermordung in Berlin im Januar 1919 trugen – das hätte sie sich wohl kaum jemals vorstellen können.
ZEIT ONLINE 29.5.2009 - 16:52 Uhr [http://www.zeit.de/online/2009/23/rosa-luxemburg-leiche]

Mysteriöse Leiche
"Rosa Luxemburg wurde nie begraben"

Von Dagny Lüdemann
Der Leiter der Berliner Rechtsmedizin, Michael Tsokos, hat an seinem Institut eine Jahrzehnte alte Wasserleiche gefunden. Er hält sie für die echte Rosa Luxemburg. Ein Interview mit dem Pathologen

Alles begann mit einer unidentifizierten Wasserleiche, die seit Jahrzehnten im Institut für Rechtsmedizin der Berliner Charité liegt. Ohne Kopf, ohne Hände und Füße – und ohne einen Zettel dran, woher dieser Körper stammt und wann er gefunden wurde.

Für eine Ausstellung über die Geschichte der Rechtsmedizin hatte Institutsleiter Michael Tsokos Anfang 2007 den Fundus durchstöbert. Dabei entdeckte er die getrocknete und dadurch mumifizierte Wasserleiche einer Frau.

Genau wie die Leiche hatten auch Gerüchte am Institut die Jahrzehnte überdauert: Angeblich soll es sich bei der Toten um Rosa Luxemburg handeln, die 1919 nach ihrer Ermordung aus dem Berliner Landwehrkanal gefischt wurde. Doch wer ist die Tote, die offiziell als Rosa Luxemburg obduziert und auf dem Friedhof Berlin-Friedrichsfelde begraben wurde? ZEIT ONLINE sprach mit Michael Tsokos über seine Vermutung.

ZEIT ONLINE: Herr Professor Tsokos, wie sind Sie überhaupt auf die mysteriöse Wasserleiche gestoßen?

Michael Tsokos: Die Leiche liegt seit etwa 90 Jahren hier am Institut herum. Früher war es Usus, Leichen aus interessanten oder ungeklärten Fällen aufzubewahren. Damals konnte man Befunde noch nicht gut fotografieren und auf diese Weise archivieren – deshalb hob man die Leichen für eventuelle weitere Untersuchungen auf.

ZEIT ONLINE: Wie sind sie darauf gekommen, dass ausgerechnet diese Tote Rosa Luxemburg sein könnte? Deren Leiche wurde doch 1919 geborgen, obduziert und begraben?

Michael Tsokos: Nach meinen Recherchen bin ich mir sicher, dass die damals obduzierte und begrabene Tote nicht Rosa Luxemburg war. Als ich durch Gerüchte am Institut auf den Gedanken kam, dass es sich bei unserer Wasserleiche um die ermordete Revolutionärin handeln könnte, habe ich mir den Obduktionsbericht aus dem Jahr 1919 besorgt. Obwohl bekannt ist, dass Rosa Luxemburg zunächst niedergeschlagen und dann durch einen Kopfschuss getötet wurde, konnten die Pathologen keine Spuren eines Einschusses finden. Außerdem wurde die Leiche bei der Leichenschau nicht als Rosa Luxemburg identifiziert – lediglich vor Beginn der rechtsmedizinischen Untersuchung fällt der Name der Revolutionärin. Die litt an einer angeborenen Hüftverschiebung, wodurch ihre Beine unterschiedlich lang waren. Auch davon steht in dem Obduktionsbericht von 1919 nichts.

ZEIT ONLINE: Konnten Sie denn an der Wasserleiche aus der Charité eine solche Hüftverrenkung feststellen?

Michael Tsokos: Zumindest hat die Leiche unterschiedlich lange Beine – das lässt sich trotz der fehlenden Füße rekonstruieren. Am Leibniz-Labor für Altersbestimmung und Isotopenforschung der Uni Kiel haben wir die Wasserleiche mit der C14-Methode untersuchen lassen. Dabei kam heraus: Sie stammt aus der Zeit Rosa Luxemburgs.

ZEIT ONLINE: Reicht das als Beweis, dass es sich bei der kopflosen Toten um die Revolutionärin handelt?

Michael Tsokos: Nein. Ich würde mich auf keinen Fall hinstellen und sagen: Das hier ist Rosa Luxemburg. Aber es gibt auch keine Indizien, die dagegen sprechen. Allerdings bin ich mir ziemlich sicher, dass die 1919 obduzierte Tote jemand anders war.

ZEIT ONLINE: Was hat sich denn Ihrer Ansicht nach vor 90 Jahren zugetragen?

Michael Tsokos: Darüber kann ich nur spekulieren. Sicher ist, dass im Jahr 1919 mehrere weibliche Leichen aus dem Landwehrkanal geborgen wurden – dazu gibt es Unterlagen. Ich könnte mir vorstellen, dass das damalige Militär-Regime den Fall schnell abschließen wollte. Vielleicht wurde mit Absicht irgendeine Frau obduziert und als Rosa Luxemburg begraben. Als man ihre echte Leiche fand, wurde sie einfach heimlich in die Rechtsmedizin gebracht und dort aufbewahrt. Außerdem weist unsere Wasserleiche keine Spuren einer Obduktion auf – sie wurde also offenbar nie untersucht.

ZEIT ONLINE: Wie erklären sie sich, dass Kopf, Hände und Füße der Leiche fehlen?

Michael Tsokos: Historiker berichten, dass Rosa Luxemburgs Körper mit Drahtschlingen gefesselt und mit einem Steinklotz beschwert wurde, bevor man ihn in den Kanal warf. Möglicherweise wurden Hände, Füße und der Kopf durch den Draht abgetrennt. An dem ausgetrockneten Körper der Wasserleiche lässt sich das aber nicht erkennen – das ist nur eine Vermutung.

ZEIT ONLINE: Wie ließe sich die Identität denn endgültig klären?

Michael Tsokos: Klarheit kann nur ein DNA-Test bringen. Wir haben auch tatsächlich Erbgut der Wasserleiche isoliert. Doch es fehlt eine Vergleichsprobe von Rosa Luxemburg. Am besten wäre es, wenn man einen Mantel oder einen Schal von ihr finden könnte. Vielleicht gäbe es darauf geeignete DNA-Spuren. Ich habe bereits Briefmarken aus Rosa Luxemburgs Korrespondenz untersucht – doch die waren mit Wasser, nicht mit Spucke befeuchtet worden. Auch in Archiven in Warschau und den USA konnte ich bisher keine Gebrauchsgegenstände von Rosa Luxemburg auftreiben.

ZEIT ONLINE: Könnte man nicht zumindest den in Friedrichsfelde begrabenen Leichnam exhumieren, um zu untersuchen, ob dort eine andere Frau begraben ist?

Michael Tsokos: Meines Wissens wurde das Grab bereits zu DDR-Zeiten geöffnet. Es ist leer.

Die Fragen stelle Dagny Lüdemann.
Zum Thema

DIE ZEIT 2/2009: Dr. Rosa Rot
Erst studierte sie Botanik, dann Ökonomie, danach veränderte Rosa Luxemburg die Welt. Was wäre heute aus ihr geworden? Teil 15 einer Serie über Studenten von früher.
[http://www.zeit.de/campus/2009/02/ehemalige]

DIE ZEIT 36/2008: Tatorte
Der Mordfall Liebknecht/Luxemburg: Eine Tatortbegehung in Bildern
[http://www.zeit.de/zeit-geschichte/2008/03/bg-zg-tatorte]

ZEIT ONLINE