Switzerland is an Obstacle on Merkel's Way into EU Finance Dictatorship

by Karl Müller, Germany

Currernt Concerns (Zeit-Fragen) 16 March 2009

"Once the mechanics of the shock doctrine are deeply and collectively understood, whole communities become harder to take by sur­prise, more difficult to confuse - shock re­sistant. "

  Naomi Klein: The Shock Doctrine  The rise of disaster capitalism, p. 459

[Germany's Reasons of State

“Today we can say: The responsibility of Germany for the European agreement, for the transatlantic partner­ship, for the existence of Israel - they all belong to the core of our country's reasons of state and to the reasons of our party."

Extract of a speech of the German CDU chairman, Angela Merkel, on the occasion of the commemorative event "60 years CDU“ on 16 June 2005 in Berlin.   (Translation Current Concerns)]

On the occasion of the press conference to the G20 London Summit Preparation Meet­ing on 22 February in Berlin, the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said some­thing, which let us start and take notice: "As far as the common interests that we are pursu­ing - look, there is the possibility in the next few months of a global new deal (....) ". And getting more concrete, he said that we were all well aware that in areas of worldwide fi­nancial flows we would not only have to have national control boards but as o worldwide supervisory authorities that would guarantee that all financial institutions which are active on the markets must fully reveal everything they are doing.

Gordon Brown did not say, what exactly he meant. Wilhelm Hankel, however, one of the plaintiffs against the Euro's introduction in Germany, explained in an interview with the "Frankfurter Rundschau" what it meant on EU level: "Politically this would mean the end of democracy in European states. Instead of constitutions and parliaments an economic government would rule in Brussels, equipped with dictatorial authority" ("Frankfurter Rundschau", 11 February)

At the press conference in Berlin on 22 February, the organizer of the meeting, the German Chancellor Merkel was asked what was the meeting's most tangible result for her. Her answer: "Compared to the action plan of Washington, we are much clear­er today with respect to the persecution of tax havens, of 'white dots', as far as insti­tutions, products, but first of all single plac­es are concerned." Before she had already threatened, "we must develop a mechanism of sanction towards those, who do not co-op­erate - whether they are tax havens or areas in which non-transparent businesses are made. That must be done in a very definite way. In our view, lists must be set up by 2 April at the latest, perhaps even as early as at the meeting of the finance ministers, which clearly expose those who have so far refused to co-operate internationally." And the hatch­et man, the French President Sarkozy second­ed: "We will not accept, if someone or some­thing obstructs the ambition of the summit on 2 April (the G20 summit in London on the worldwide financial crisis]; because this summit will have historical consequences. If a success we will open a new chapter."

As a result of the Berlin summit, the Ger­man government spokesman Steg informed the public that very day: "All financial mar­kets have to be subordinated to an appropri­ate supervision or adjustment" and "we want to develop sanction mechanisms, in order to be better protected from the dangers arising from cases , of un co-operative jurisdiction, in­cluding tax havens."

Without naming the corresponding coun­try in one of the official announcements, it was nevertheless quite clear against whom this summit was directed: against Switzer­land. No wonder the "Frankfurter Rund­schau" headlined "Harder Punishments for Tax Evaders" on 23 February" and added a picture with a Swiss city and the Swiss flag. It is no coincidence therefore that on 23 Feb­ruary the Deutschlandfunk, the pro-govern­ment radio program broadcast a book review with the malicious title "Rogue State Swit­zerland?" This bo ok alleges that the world­wide financial crisis was Switzerland's fault­ and not the faults of the big money ladies and gentlemen in New York and London.

Fact is that Switzerland is seen as an obsta­cle, because large assets are deposited there, which awakens desires. Desires of mainly certain big money institutes outside Switzer­land, who are determined to increase their fortunes by national tax collections and re­distributions.

One must disconnect from the idea that neo-liberalism alone - in form of ever more deregulation or privatization - serves the funding and power interests of big money while simultaneously thinning any national action. If it serves their ends, they will switch to another instrument. This instant seems to have come. It marks the change from the Bush to the Obama politics.

The owners of big money do not have any principal preferences for a certain economic or social order. They are only concerned with their profits. They profited from US capital­ism, from communism in the Soviet Union and from fascism and National Socialism in Europe. That will not be any different today Just consult the book by C. Edward Griffin: "The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve" (ISBN 978- S! 0912986395). They also profited from a US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who "played into their hands with his new deal [t] and other laws starting from 1933." This can be read in Antony C. Sutton's book "Wall Street and FDR".

What they see as an obstacle are sovereign peoples and states, in which the citizens de­termine the political course of their country as well as economic and social life.

So nobody may be surprised, if an ever more centralistic, more dirigiste, more coer­cive machinery of power develops that cur­tails more and more civil rights and liberties'. It snatches and abuses national structures in I order to make the people believe that it cares for their interests, while in reality it only serves the interests of a few. Thus, what we see is the blatant opposite of a free constitu­tional and democratic welfare state based on the rule of law.

In Europe, this role within the EU is to be allotted to Angela Merkel. In the USA, this role will be taken over by the new President Obama. His suggestions to the "solution of the financial crisis" sound exactly like those of the European Union.

In fact, we as the citizens of these coun­tries are not at their mercy. Every German citizen for example, who now decidedly pro­tests against the low blow attack on his neigh­boring country Switzerland and the attempts to scapegoat it, does a good thing for the free­dom of all.  Germans may also ask themselves, who is responsible for the fact that Germany has a clearly higher ratio of public spending to GNP, more tax burdens for the citizens, a three times higher unemployment rate, less good social se­curity benefits and also less content citizens than Switzerland. Perhaps this has also got something to do with a German policy, which does not treat the country's people like citi­zens in a republic, but like subjects at the lead­ing string. In addition, it also does everything in order to divert from its own serious defaults of the past few years.