Tuesday 31 January 2012

Institutional Architecture of the European Union IV:
High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy

Introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty (1999), the High Representative was in charge for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. With the Treaty of Lisbon (2009), the post also took over the responsibilities hitherto covered by the External Relations Commissioner, and at the same time changing to the current name.

Until the entry into force of the amendments laid out in the Lisbon Treaty, the Secretary General of the Council of the European Union held the High Representative post. With Lisbon, the post became a separate one, and British Commissioner Catherine Ashton became the first one to take office.

Remaining Commissioner for External Relations and Vice-President of the Commission, the High Representative is in charge of external affairs, which is why s/he is often considered the equivalent of a country’s Foreign Minister. The High Representative holds a number of other offices, such as President of the Foreign Affairs Council (i.e. the Council of the European Union consisting of each member state’s Ministers for Foreign Affairs) and President of the European Defence Agency, established in 2004. Interestingly, de facto the High Representative can probably not be of Danish nationality, as Denmark has opted out of this Agency. However, there is nothing in the Treaties (de jure) preventing a Dane from taking this office.

Moreover, the High Representative was Secretary General of the now defunct Western European Union. Importantly, s/he also takes part in European Council meetings but cannot vote as s/he is not an actual member of the European Council.

by Bjørn Clasen

Some reference sources
Catherine Ashton’s page on the official European Union website and Glossary
Unofficial website of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
European Defence Agency’s offical website

Monday 30 January 2012

Institutional Architecture of the European Union III:
The terms supranational and intergovernmental

When we talk about ‘supranational’, we talk about a body that rules ‘over’ (=supra) the national governments. This means that the countries who by convention, for example a treaty, are under supranational authority, must follow decisions taken by that authority.

‘Intergovernmental’, on the other hand, means ‘between governments’. In other words, governments of at least two countries make decisions between them, and other countries’ governments can choose not to fall under that decision.

The difference is thus that if a group of independent nations are members of a supranational community, it is the community that takes certain decisions, according to the rules laid out between the nations in question to form this community, and each nation falls under these decisions — whereas in an intergovernmental community, each member can opt in or opt out on a single-case basis, each thus keeping their full independence.

by Bjørn Clasen

Sunday 29 January 2012

Institutional Architecture of the European Union II:
How the European Commission is appointed

The European Council appoints a Commission President, usually among a current or recent Head of Government in one of the member states, and taking into account the latest European Parliament elections. The appointed President is subject to approval by the Parliament. Should it reject the proposal, the European Council must appoint a new one within a month. Once the nominated President is approved by vote of the European Parliament, and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy is appointed, the President asks the governments of each member state, except her or his own and that of the High Representative, to suggest one Commissioner.

When portfolios are distributed among these candidates, the proposed Commission, also known as ‘the College’, must be appointed by the Council. Then, the European Parliament holds hearings at which its Members can ask questions to each Commissioner candidate and to the appointed Commission President. The Parliament may approve the entire prospect Commission or reject the entire prospect Commission, though not single members. However, should the Parliament reject the proposed set of Commissioners, the hearings will have shown who are the candidates it does not want to approve. In this case, the designated Commission President will ask the member state(s) who have suggested the candidate(s) in question to make a new choice, and again, the proposed Commission in its entirety has to be approved by the Parliament.

When the Parliament has voted for a College, the European Council puts it into office. The European Commission has a standard term of five years. Should a Commission be forced to resign, as it happened to the Santer Commission, the new College is appointed by the same procedure as described above, for the remainder of the current term.

Read more on the Wikipedia subpage on the appointment of the European Commission.

by Bjørn Clasen

Saturday 28 January 2012

Institutional Architecture of the European Union I:
European Council

Today’s blogpost and those of the three following days continue in the sign of the European Union. More precisely, they will — very briefly — explain some European Union institutions.

The European Council appoints a Commission President, usually among a current or recent Head of Government in one of the member states. The appointed President is subject to approval by the European Parliament. Should the Parliament reject the proposal, the European Council must appoint a new one within a month. Once the nominated President is approved by vote of the European Parliament, and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy is appointed, the President asks the governments of each member state, except her or his own and that of the High Representative, to suggest one Commissioner.

When portfolios are distributed among these candidates, the proposed Commission, also known as ‘the College’, must be appointed by the Council. Then, the European Parliament holds hearings at which its Members can ask questions to each Commissioner candidate and to the appointed Commission President. The Parliament may approve the entire prospect Commission or reject the entire prospect Commission, though not single members. However, should the Parliament reject the proposed set of Commissioners, the hearings will have shown who are the candidates it does not want to approve. In this case, the designated Commission President will ask the member state(s) who have suggested the candidate(s) in question to make a new choice, and again, the proposed Commission in its entirety has to be approved by the Parliament.

When the Parliament has voted for a College, the European Council puts it into office. The European Commission has a standard term of five years. Should a Commission be forced to resign, as it happened to the Santer Commission, the new College is appointed by the same procedure as described above, for the remainder of the current term.

You can read more on the European Council page on the official European Union website and the Wikipedia subpages on the President of the European Council.

Thursday 26 January 2012

History of European Integration V:
Amsterdam and Nice Treaty

The fifth and last short text of this assignment is about the treaties laying the ground for enlarging the European Union East and South. Thank you for reading, and for quoting correctly.

Both the Treaty of Amsterdam, signed in 1997 and entered into force in 1999, and the Nice Treaty, signed in 2001 and entered into force in 2003, are amendments of the Treaty on European Union. They were designed to prepare for a vast enlargement that was approaching realisation in the course of the decade following the collapse of the authoritarian regimes in Central and Eastern Europe. A European Union of twice as many member states called for modifications of the decision-making procedures in order to stay effective.

Changes were to a large extent of a mathematical nature, in terms of vote weightings and numbers of European Parliament members per country. In the centre of these discussions — or battles — were the balance between big and small member states, as well as internally between the big member states, notably founding members France and the meanwhile reunified and now thus much larger Germany. 1 2

None of the two treaties really managed to provide a satisfactory framework for the wished-for improved effectiveness. That is how talks of a European Union constitution started and ultimately the Lisbon Treaty became the new legal framework for continuous European integration.

by Bjørn Clasen, 2011

Sources
1 Hartmut Marhold: History of European Integration, 5.1.2.2 — Monetary Union, Amsterdam Treaty and “left overs”, and 5.2.1.2 — In the lowlands of integration policy: the Nice Treaty (Course text for the participants of the Certificate and first year of the Master programme of the Centre international de formation européenne
2 Historiasiglo20.org: The Treaty of Amsterdam (1997)

Wednesday 25 January 2012

History of European Integration IV:
Maastricht Treaty

The fourth part of my short account of European Union treaties. Introducing: the €uro!

Whereas the Single European Act had bound together the three European treaties, the Maastricht Treaty continued the integration — into a union, which is why its official name is ‘Treaty on European Union’. Although amended by the Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon Treaties, the Maastricht Treaty is largely what the present-day European Union is based upon. Not only did it introduce the three-pillar structure — adding the Common Foreign and Security Policy as well as Justice and Home Affairs to the already existing European Community — it also established the criteria for taking the European Monetary Union to its ultimate third stage, i.e. introducing a common currency, the euro. 1

The Treaty on European Union was signed on 7 February 1992 and entered into force only 20 months later on 1 November 1993 after quite a bit of nail-biting over its ratification in several member states. Notably Denmark and the United Kingdom were granted exceptions from certain parts of the Treaty. 2 For example, the United Kingdom was exempt from being bound by the social dimension, 3 which, along with the extension of the European Union’s competencies to other fields such as education and culture, health and environmental issues, further increased the common European influence on aspects close to the citizens’ everyday life.

by Bjørn Clasen, 2011

Sources
1 euro know: Maastricht Treaty
2 BBC News A-Z of Europe: Maastricht Treaty
3 Jens Engelbredt: Den Europæiske Unions Historie — Den Sociale Dimension

Tuesday 24 January 2012

History of European Integration III:
Single European Act

This next step in the European Union’s development went towards a real internal market. Something we — more or less — take for granted today. If you want to use parts of the text, thank you for quoting accordingly.

By the mid-eighties it was high time for the European Communities, meanwhile enlarged three times and now counting twelve member states, to take the internal market into its decisive phase. This was done through the Single European Act, signed in Luxembourg and Den Haag in 1986, and entering into force the following year. 1

A main purpose of the Single European Act was to have a fully functioning internal market by the end of 1992. 2 The means was to boost decision-making in the European Communities, by adding areas for which only a qualified majority within the Council of Ministers was needed in order to pass legislation, as well as by giving the European Parliament more power. Also, the European Court of First Instance was established, 3 and the European Council was officialised. 4

With these institutional modifications, the Single European Act was a major turn towards stronger integration and away from national sovereignty. Facing the ever-increasing competitiveness from especially the USA and East Asia, a common approach from the member states was needed to keep up with these and possible new competitors on the world trade scene, and to avoid a new crisis like in the 1970s. 5

by Bjørn Clasen, 2011

Sources
1 Wikipedia article: Single European Act
2 The Europa website: Summaries of EU legislation — The Single European Act
3 Centre Virtuel de la Connaissance sur l’Europe: The Single European Act
4 Historiasiglo20.org: The Single European Act and the road toward the Treaty of the European Union (1986-1992)
5 Hartmut Marhold: History of European Integration, 4.2.1.2 — The “Single European Act”: A revolution in disguise (1985/87) (Course text for the participants of the Certificate and first year of the Master programme of the Centre international de formation européenne

Monday 23 January 2012

History of European Integration II:
Rome Treaties

The second short text on the European Union is about the Rome Treaties, a milestone towards integration.

Signed in 1957 by the same six countries and entered into force on 1 January 1958, the two Treaties of Rome founded the European Economic Community and Euratom. It is in the former that for the first time, we see the ‘four freedoms’ that became crucial to European integration: the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital. 1 In other words, this is where a common market — in principle within all trade areas, not just coal and steel — is established and converting the territories of the six member states into a single customs area without internal customs borders and a common external customs border.

Although the base was already established with the European Coal and Steel Community, it is also with the Treaties of Rome that most of the European institutions we know today were set up:
‘The institutional balance is based on a triangle consisting of the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament, all three of which are called upon to work together. The Council prepares the standards, the Commission drafts the proposals and the Parliament plays an advisory role. Another body is also involved in the decision-making procedure in an advisory capacity, namely the Economic and Social Committee.’ 2
All subsequent treaties increasing European integration are amendments to the Treaties of Rome. Even more than the Treaty of Paris which marked the first steps, they can thus be regarded as the base foundation of what is now the European Union of 27 countries.

by Bjørn Clasen, 2011

Sources
1 The Europa website: Summaries of EU legislation — Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, EEC Treaty — original text (non-consolidated version)
2 Ibidem: ‘Institutions’, first paragraph

Sunday 22 January 2012

History of European Integration I:
A short account of the European Community of Coal and Steel

It’s EU time. Over the next couple of weeks, I will post short texts on different aspects of the European Union. They were all part of some small assignments that I wrote in December. Please be aware of the sources, quote correctly, including from ‘my own’ texts. And if you have questions, just comment on the post. Most of all: Enjoy. You might learn something :)

We start of with, well, the first treaty.


The European Community of Coal and Steel was established by the Treaty of Paris, which was signed in 1951 and entered into force in 1952. The signatory countries were Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and The Netherlands. 1 It came about in the aftermath of World War II, which had left the European continent and the European people split between hope for a more peaceful future and a state of fear of another devastating conflict. Armed conflict requires weapons, and at the time, a country’s ability to produce weapons depended especially on two factors: Access to coal and access to steel. 2

This is why France’s Foreign Minister, Robert Schuman, came up with a proposal to put the production of both these resources under a common ‘High Authority’ 3, instead of keeping the control of the production nationalised. Schuman presented his idea in a declaration on 9 May 1950. To this day, 9 May is celebrated in European circles as ‘Europe Day’, marking the very beginnings of what has since become a tight and binding co-operation between 27 European countries so far.

The European Community of Coal and Steel was an indirect success. During the first couple of decades of its existence, coal production in the member states went down, and the increase in steel production was nowhere as strong as in for example Japan or the Soviet Union. However, trade between the member states was strengthened, and the European Community of Coal and Steel proved to be the first step in a common market, which kept growing both in terms of trade areas and geographically. Moreover, a series of welfare measures for mine workers marked the first steps of a new integrated solidarity between member states. But most importantly, peace was kept in Europe. 4

The Treaty of Paris expired in 2002 and, meanwhile having been integrated into the Maastricht Treaty and subsequent European Union treaties, it was not renewed.

by Bjørn Clasen, 2011

Sources
1 The Europa website: Summaries of EU legislation — Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, ECSC Treaty
2 Hartmut Marhold: History of European Integration, 2.1.2.1 — Jean Monnet’s Plan, origins and circumstances (Course text for the participants of the Certificate and first year of the Master programme of the Centre international de formation européenne)
3 The Schuman Declaration
4 The history of the ECSC: Good times and bad, by Gilbert Mathieu (Le Monde, 9 May 1970)

Saturday 21 January 2012

Forfrosne roser

Her er så den anden af mine mildest talt ufærdige historier, jeg fandt i nogle gamle digitale gemmer. Faktisk er det kun en indledning. Har du lyst til at skrive videre på den, eller har du blot en ide til det videre forløb, er du yderst velkommen til at kommentere.

Det var en af disse dage, hvor temperaturen lå, så rimkrystallerne i de vinterdvalende græstotter hverken kunne fryses helt hårde eller smelte nok til at flyde ud. Faktisk smuldrede de ved de mindste vindpust langs den hårde jordoverflade, selvom vinden slet ikke var så råkold og hård, som den kan være, når vinteren er begyndt at vise tænder.

Han sad nede ved fjorden, på dét sted bag den gamle fabrik, hvor man kunne køre lige ud i vandet — eller nu på isen — hvis man havde for meget fart på før det snævre sving. I vintertågen flød alle omgivelserne ud i ét hernede. Den halvfrosne fjord, betonkanten på bredden, den sandgrå fabriksmur, de træer, der også om sommeren var stort set nøgne, himlen — det hele var indhyllet i en snigende dis af rim og støv.

Friday 20 January 2012

”Spontan Fiktion”
(En eksperimentalfortælling af Bjørn HBC)

I nogle gamle digitale gemmer fandt jeg et par historier, som jeg var begyndt på, men så heller ikke mere. Her er den ene. Har du lyst til at skrive videre på den, eller har du blot en ide til det videre forløb, er du yderst velkommen til at kommentere.

1.

Sveden piblede ned fra hans tindinger, ned over kinderne. Efter tre kvarter i romaskinen, ved håndvægtene og på løbebåndet var ømheden i leddene ved at bide fra sig. Han slukkede for løbebåndet og lagde for første gang mærke til, at det var et Carl Zeiss-fabrikat. Mærkeligt, tænkte han ganske flygtigt, jeg troede sgu kun, at de lavede kikkerter.

Under omklædningsrummets hårtørrer fik han så sin vision for første gang. Han så denne kvinde med langt, lyst hår stå midt i rummet. Hun smilede til ham — vistnok — men da han kiggede op, var hun væk. Hm. Sær dag. Først havde han lagt mærke til, hvilket firma, der havde fabrikeret løbebåndet. En maskine, som han havde brugt flere gange om ugen i næsten trekvart år — og netop i dag opdagede han maskinens navn. Og nu altså en smilende blondine, som var i mændenes omklædningsrum, og som ikke var der alligevel. You need sleep, Ben!

Egentlig var Ben, hvad mange kunne finde på at kalde ”ganske almindelig”. Benny Nicolaj Jørgensen, sidst i 20’erne, ungkarl, boede i en lejlighed i en Odense-forstad. Og — okay — han var arbejdsløs, men dét var jo for så vidt også ”almindeligt”. Han havde mistet sit job for små to måneder siden — et job han havde haft i otte år! Pludselig var han blevet fritstillet, som det hed, og han havde været fuldstændigt ligeglad med hvorfor, men det var vistnok det sædvanlige med, at firmaet flyttede til Portugal.

Ben faldt i søvn, så snart han var hjemme fra kondicentret.

2.

Biip-biip, biip-biip… Det irriterende, digitale vækkeur bippede Ben ud af hans søvn. Klokken var 8.30, så han havde sovet hele fjorten timer! Lidt tummelumsk og uden tidsfornemmelse vaklede han ud i køkkenet, men gik hurtigt tilbage til soveværelset igen, for det var hans time manager, han ville kigge i. Jo, den lå på natbordet. Han tog den, men inden han fik den åbnet, syntes han pludselig, at han havde set noget mærkeligt ude i gangen, da han var gået tilbage fra køkkenet. Det var bare først nået fra hans søvnige nethinder gennem hans forvirrede hjernefiltre og frem til opmærksomheden nu.

Ben flintrede ud i gangen — jo, ganske rigtigt: katten lå og var død! Den lå på måtten foran indgangsdøren. Ben var stadig rundt på gulvet, for i stedet for at kigge nærmere på katten, gik han ind til sofabordet og tænkte på, at det også var den satans dørmåtte. Han havde aldrig gidet at investere i en måtte, men når nu han havde fået en af mosteren i gave for nylig, kunne han jo lige så godt bruge den.

Der var ikke skyggen af rationalitet i Bens tankegang, for måtten havde jo ikke andet med kattens død at gøre, end at katten lå på måtten. Men han undersøgte hverken kattens død, blondinen, der ikke var der, eller mærket på løbebåndet nærmere.

3.

(ja… hvad sker der videre?)

Thursday 19 January 2012

Aggression in Albania XIII:
Everybody who is exposed to political violence, is psychologically traumatized

The conclusion to the essay on Albania in 1997, as given by the author, a 17-year old who wishes to remain anonymous.

I believe it is true, with certain exceptions, but it is true. I have been there, I have seen violence, I have witnessed it and I know what dimensions it can reach, what consequences it can produce. I have seen my nation on the flares of monstrosity as an observer, as an Albanian and as a terrified human being. I have tried to give a name to this creature of evil, but I could not. I have tried to give a reason, an explanation why we chose the worst way of reacting, but I couldn’t, till I understood that we were TRAUMATIZED.

Why all this violence? Was this a response toward the violence to which the Albanians were submitted during the past? More than 3400 people were dead during 97. Can any fact justify this?

I think any psychologist would be more than happy to study the patterns of behavior, the social structure of the Albanian society, the political influences and the psychology and mentality of the Albanians. All human, social, political, and cultural processes developed in Albania are singular and unique phenomena with incredibly speedy paces.

Wednesday 18 January 2012

Aggression in Albania XII: December ’90… (continued)

The touching and disquieting essay about Albania, written by a 17-year old, is reaching a climax, building a bridge of explanation between the 1990 events and those in 1997.

Now I ask, in front of all the atrocities witnessed, in front of the discrimination and disdain that human beings were faced with, how were they supposed to act against? How were they supposed to oppose and raise their voice for justice?
I remember the frustration of my parents; their fear to talk in front of us, because of a word that might leave the doors of my home; a word that could send my father in jail; that could humiliate and destruct my mother. I remember my father fearing the worst for us and working his all to prevent it. He was a high rank officer and a professor, and for this he was always under surveillance. I remember my mother sewing clothes staying up all night in order to save some money for her three children. She was head of finances and yet she couldn’t provide all necessary things for the family. I am not talking about luxury. I am talking about necessary living.

Another question comes to my mind. Was that political violence? Was that a massive collective psychological trauma inflicted to my people? Because if it is, I presume I can justify my country for being what it is, for being the way it is, and I can justify my people of being who they are. But does the world think the same as I?
Maybe so far, I have exaggerated with the description I depicted on the past systems. But you can’t know what a nation is, unless you know its past. And you can’t know a human being, unless you know his past, his strivings in life, his emotions and his feelings; unless you know him.

Almost every Albanian has faced political violence, be it aggressive, passive or indirect. What were the consequences of this violence?

Let’s face ’97 once more. The nation was separated into two major poles or forces, the Albanian Democratic Party and the Albanian Socialist Party. In the mean time, the nation was separated into two major geographical zones, north and south. A strange and unexpected phenomenon was created. The north opposed to south and vice versa. On the other hand, political poles had a membership of militants. Organized crime and gangs were spread all over Albania. It was unsafe everywhere. The public order was totally reversed. Anarchy and chaos prevailed all over.

People started to hate each other for their political belonging. It was so fearful to see that we had become enemies of ourselves. Political polarization was the cause of all that. It was a similar effect to the arithmetic progression of a chain reaction. It started from the leadership. Leaders of both parties were not fully aware that any statement or stand they could take would create an increasing reaction of masses against each other. One was either a militant, or a complete ignorer of politics. Chances to find persons that might enter the second group were very small. Violence was exercised from militant groups toward each other. Opposition and position were in “fighting positions” all the time.

The anarchy of each day was terrifying those who were longing to see again some good and shiny days. But it seemed as if the days to come were going to be gloomy days for the Albanians.

The collective trauma accumulated for 50 years, was now provoked and fueled by the recent events. It was a massive “flashback” to Albania. A flashback experienced during the clashes of ’91 violently crushed by the dying regime of dictatorship. A subsequent traumatizing collective experience that the Albanians lived throughout the whole history. If a post traumatic stress disorder can be devastating for a person, how vast can it be if experienced by 100 persons, 1 000 persons, by 3 500 000 persons? I think it can reach tragic and fatal dimensions. I believe that a tragic dimension was extended in the Albania of ’97 where violence, aggression, maltreatments and losses were the only things going on.

Tuesday 17 January 2012

Aggression in Albania XI: December ’90…

Part XI of the essay on Albania, written by an anonymous 17-year old, now takes us into the middle of the action of what happened in the country in 1990. The thesis of the essay is that ‘Everybody who is exposed to political violence, is psychologically traumatized’.

Students in the University of Tirana organized a massive disruption of lectures and in sign of discontent from the system and regime, entered a strike of hunger. All the population of Tirana was in solidarity with the requests of the students. In this regard, the miners of Valias (a coal mine in the vicinity of Tirana) entered a hunger strike within the mine. The rest of Albania was surprised with these new events. People started to escape the country and run for the borders with Greece and Yugoslavia. But almost all who attempted to escape were murdered by the secret services or by the border guards. It was a very dark moment for Albania. You could see dead bodies being pulled in the center of the town by military and police cars, to show to the inhabitants that this would happen to all who would try. People were terrified. For the first time, the real face of the dictatorship was being shown to the Albanians. Horror, fear and condemnation started to arise all of a sudden. All that pressure held within for almost 50 years was now materializing with massive opposition. But now, the rage was far greater than the fear and the horror. Now it was time to shout out loud against all injustice and prosecution. It was time to abolish the mask of democracy and show the true picture of an inhuman system that humiliated and destroyed the very core of the Albanian nation.

It is strange how the laws of physics can be applicable in explaining the human nature. The more you press the piston in an empty container, the more power it gains to outbreak from the pressure charged on it. The same goes for men. The more you press over men, and the more they bear, the more it is likely for them to explode into outrageous behavior. Indeed this happened in February ’91. Massive revolts and uprising were reported all over Albania. The Albanians were tired of living the illusion of being the only democratic country worldwide. They were tired of living apart as if they were quarantined from the rest of the world. This quarantine called Albania was populated by a nation who during all its existence were striving and fighting for one sole thing; a thing called FREEDOM. After year 1945 freedom was brought to Albania, but it was not freedom at all. It was liberation from the Nazi-fascist dictatorship, in order to bring the country into another sort of fascism, that fascism called communist dictatorship. It had nothing to do with communism itself. Communism was meant to be the most efficient system to be applied during all mankind history. It was a system where all were equal, where all were one, and one were all. But it was not this communism that was applied in Albania, or in USSR, or in any other eastern country, or even at all. It was a system that obliged men to behave like machines subdued in service of these new “Pharaohs” of modern times.

Monday 16 January 2012

Aggression in Albania X: Art, culture, science…

Another highly interesting, and very disturbing, chapter in a 17-year old’s essay on Albania in 1997.

In the name of socialist realism many things were truncated. Art was only realism that presented real individuals working the lands and protecting the country. Expressing individual feelings and emotions was prohibited, unless the person was expressing real life of real cooperative workers, real life of soldiers, real life of teachers teaching Marx and Engels’ philosophy on proletariat. The love of the Labor Party was to prevail in every text, in every novel and article of newspapers.
Everything was subdued to the review of the “critical eye” of the party and its selected ones. Erotic content was not only not allowed, but also prosecuted. Love was pure and idyllist. In the cinematography scenes of kisses, touching, and other intimacy were considered as obscene. No surrealism, no expressionism, no cubism, nothing of the modern streams of painting. It was obscene to have erotic poetry and poems as well. Poetry had to express love for the family, love for the country, party and so on. Intimacy was expressed in simple words of a superficial relationship. Music mustn’t contain strong rhythms and other elements of the western music. All these components were considered as decaying, decadent, and as imitation of hippie streams. Those who dared to oppose this oblivion of human nature and freedom of spirit, were imprisoned, stained in biography, were set aside or were fully ignored by the system. Despite the contribution they gave for the nation, it was immediately opposed. Everything, everybody had to be within the frames of socialist criticism.

Sunday 15 January 2012

Aggression in Albania IX: Economic development…

In part IX of the anonymous 17-year old’s essay on Albania, we learn more historical background that helps to understand what happened in 1997.

It is true that after the liberation of Albania from the Nazi occupation, the development was somehow rapid. All people were involved in the refurbishment of Albania, and more than this. Till after the war, the infrastructure has been very rural. Cities looked like destroyed villages. The new infrastructure was a typical eastern architecture. Grey buildings with small apartments to live in. The private property was no longer permitted. All properties were fused into collective properties such as cooperatives and other structures. There was no more private investment or initiative. Previous tradesmen or businessmen were considered as enemies and micro burgesses. All their wealth and richness was confiscated and was transformed into collective property. We were being told that Albania was an oasis among the desert of capitalism. The welfare and well-being of the Albanian people was the highest. But the truth was different. People used to wait in long lines and long hours for milk and bread. Everything was sold with ratios. Milk, oil, wheat, coffee, sugar, everything was with ratios. The basic work and constructions in Albania were based on voluntary work. Massive voluntary actions were undertaken, and workers were obliged to participate “voluntarily”. Everything was productive including wilderness, but the economic level of an average family was still very low. The demagogy of a highly egalitarian and democratic state, was feeding the people more than the fruits of their own work and struggle.

Though everything was household produced: mines and minerals, power, oils and fuels, vegetables, fruits, corns and crops, industrial consumables etc., the Albanian families still lived in poverty. It was as if the Buddhist, Christian and eremites’ philosophy of neglecting and denying the luxuries of this world, would lead to a higher level of emotional, physical and interpersonal well-being. But this new philosophy was the philosophy of applied communism, which had nothing to do with the utopia of the communism itself. It had nothing to do with promised richness and equality of all social classes. In deed, social and political classes were deepened by the abysses of distinction, prejudices and discrimination. Prosecution of an individual was far beyond the individual himself. The whole family and relatives were prosecuted. They were sent into camps of forced labor, into deep areas of the state, and they were forced to lose contact with all their relatives. It did not matter if the prosecuted one was a professor, a doctor, a musician, a high-ranking officer; they were all politically, socially and morally degraded and put to forced labor.

Saturday 14 January 2012

Aggression in Albania VIII: Education…

In part VIII of this essay on Albania in 1997, the anonymous 17-year old author continues to go further back in time to give us some background.

It is without doubts the part with most merits achieved by the regime. Within a short period, analphabetism was almost eradicated in all urban and rural areas of Albania. Universities, colleges, lyceums, elementary schools and gymnasiums were established within a brief time. Attendance to school was incredibly high. Many intellectuals were “produced” during this process of evolution. The system utilized the knowledge of west and east in order to fill the gaps that existed for many centuries. Many students from Albania were studying in the best universities of Moscow, Paris, London, Rome and in other countries. But anyway, there were plenty of gaps. Other taboos were not only deepening, but new ones were created. It was shameful to talk about sexuality, prohibited to talk about religion in an objective way, democracy was a misused word with a wrong meaning, war of classes was touching the elite of intellectualism, and secret services were acting everywhere. There were cases when the wife had revealed her husband for agitation and propaganda. One had to be careful with his family members because it was possible that the word might be spread all over. It was a dark time and nobody was safe unless always “on guard”.

Friday 13 January 2012

Aggression in Albania VII: Religion…

Part VII of the anonymous 17-year old’s essay on Albania in 1997 looks at more background.

No to religion! “Religion is the opium of the masses” said Karl Marx, one of the fathers of communism. And so be it. Religion had to be abolished down to the very roots. Most of churches and mosques were demolished. Only the historical monuments were preserved and were transformed into museums. Spiritual leaders were prosecuted and imprisoned, no matter to which religion they belonged. The need to believe in a supreme power that exceeded the powers of human nature was transformed in the need to believe and rely in the Party of Labor and its extreme fairness, impartiality and love for the “simple base”. What was confession? What was the mission of the clergy in accordance to the Marxist way of thinking? Confession was nothing but a way of expressing the ignorance of certain persons that fed people with false dogma. The mission of clergy was to disseminate division and separation among the people and to use their authority in order to profit and to leave them “in the shadow of ignorance”. No religious ritual or holiday was to be celebrated any more. No Christmas, no Bajram, no Easter, no nothing. The word ‘God’ was related to mythology and to harmful doctrines. The need for God was ignored and people were spiritually confused. To whom to direct when confusion, concern or distress was present? To the head of the council of neighborhood? To the secretary of the party? To the forum of youth? To whom else? Psychologically people were being emptied in order to leave space to a new era of national illumination by following the path of the fathers of communism. Russia, Yugoslavia, and all the eastern countries were rejecting the religious dogmas to free the people from obligations, ignorance and blindness. But was the clergy really the ‘Demon’ of Lermontov that was sneaking sliding through the windows of the “virgin” and telling beautiful lies to deceive her?

Thursday 12 January 2012

Aggression in Albania VI: Basis for aggression or imposed reaction?

Part VI of the anonymous 17-year old’s essay on Albania in 1997 takes us further back in time to look at some causes for the aggressions.

Now the question is whether the Albanian aggression is deeply rooted within Albanians, or it was just an imposed reaction toward the situation, or better to say toward the past.

Is there any valid justification for this aggression expressed in the form of rage toward everything?

Can this aggression be the surface of a hidden collective trauma? What does it mean to experience a collective trauma?

I would try to explain it by examples of the life in communist Albania. It was an era where people did not produce or establish the system, but it was the system that created people. People were mechanisms to serve to the apparatus of state, to serve to the Party and to the Leadership. It went that far as to ignore the individual in an individualistic and intimate prism and consider the human being as part of classes. Who did not belong to the class of eligible, was faced with severe punishment or total avoidance. Extreme measures were being taken by the state apparatus. Individuals were being prosecuted for their beliefs, ideas and even for their past. Biographies were chased till reaching to the roots of a “decaying” genesis. If there was not a thing going wrong, facts were being fabricated to support the assumption that a certain person was to be prosecuted by the regime.

Wednesday 11 January 2012

Aggression in Albania V: State apparatus…

Part V of the touching and disquieting essay on aggression in Albania 1997, written by an anonymous 17-year old. The thesis of the essay is that ‘Everybody who is exposed to political violence, is psychologically traumatized’.

Nothing was functional. Not a single school, not a single organization, not a single institution. The administration of state was totally dysfunctional. People were attacking the military bases in order to reach to the armament. All of them were armed. The archives and the cadastres were all burnt down to the soil. The people were left without identity, without property and past. This was the Albanian state of February-May 1997. People were setting fire to everything, deeming that they were bringing liberation to the nation. Liberation to whom? Liberation from what, who? They chose the most frenetic and barbarian way of expressing their rage toward the system, toward the loss of their wealth. The world was now being convinced that Albania was inhabited by barbarians of a civilian era. After the clashes and uprising of January ’91 the recent clashes were not only the most massive, but the most aggressive. If a comparison was to be made between the two periods, the difference was very big. In ’91 it was the state apparatus against the people of Albania, but now, it was the people of Albania against the people and the state of Albania. Destroying everything was not a solution, but it seemed as a relief of that pressure that was hidden within them. Or was it that the need for destruction had no other justification but destruction itself and the expression of rage.

Tuesday 10 January 2012

Aggression in Albania IV: Vlora…

Part IV of the touching and disquieting essay on aggression in Albania 1997, written by an anonymous 17-year old. The thesis of the essay is that ‘Everybody who is exposed to political violence, is psychologically traumatized’.

It was a normal day among fighting of nobody and everybody. I was at my uncle’s with my mum. We were watching the news when all of a sudden black news appeared. A ship was sunk near the coasts of Italy, close to Brindisi. The ship was carrying Albanian emigrants that wanted to escape this war and secure their families somewhere else. 84 people were sunk with the ship, women, children, elders and men. It was horrible. 84 people try to escape hell, and they struggle in the middle of the Adriatic Sea in order to find the last resort: DEATH. This is caused willingly by the Italian coast guards in order to warn other possible emigrants not to surpass the Adriatic waters. It was horrible. But what could you expect from the others, when we were killing each-other??? I remember crying and fearing for my future and the future of my family. No one was safe.

This is still remembered as the Otranto Tragedy.

Monday 9 January 2012

Aggression in Albania III: Outside…

Part III of the touching and disquieting essay on aggression in Albania 1997, written by an anonymous 17-year old. The thesis of the essay is that ‘Everybody who is exposed to political violence, is psychologically traumatized’.

People were terrified even though they themselves were the ones to create all this hell. All you could see was people shooting from the balconies, from the streets, from corners of buildings, and a few ones that were caught in the middle of the street and used to run to escape any possible bullets.

I remember myself staring out of the window like a prisoner. Outside my courtyard there was a gipsy family. The man was an alcoholic and was always drunk. He took out a Kalashnikov and started to shoot toward our windows. I sat under the bed. He was that very drunk that he couldn’t understand he was shooting at the direction of the apartments. After a while, I went to see my neighbors and they told me that while having lunch, they heard a crash in the window of their kitchen. They had spotted that the window was shot by a bullet, and it entered into the couch in the living room. It was a miracle that they had no casualties, because they were eating in the table close to the window. The gipsy man continued to fire the gun. Afterwards, he entered into a bar with the Kalashnikov in his arms. All of a sudden, I could see him flying out of the door as in the movies of Bud Spencer and Terence Hill. The Special Forces were inside the bar and when they saw him in, they threw him out. It was a funny thing to watch, but it could have been very tragic.

Sunday 8 January 2012

Aggression in Albania II: Home…

Part II of the touching and disquieting essay on aggression in Albania 1997, written by an anonymous 17-year old. The thesis of the essay is that ‘Everybody who is exposed to political violence, is psychologically traumatized’.

I was playing with my cat. It was the only thing I could do in peace when I was not reading any books. The school was closed because no one could secure the life of students. All the windows were blinded with shutters. Even the sun rays were rare during those days. I could hear shootings from all sides. They were very close. Indeed, no matter where you were in Albania, the shootings were very close. I could even hear the sound of a metal jacket hitting the ground after it was being fired by a Kalashnikov. I couldn’t think how bored I was for being locked within my home, for more than a month. I could only think how safe it was to be locked within my home for the months to come.

Saturday 7 January 2012

Aggression in Albania I: Beginning of 1997

Over the next couple of weeks, I will post what I think is an interesting, well-written, deeply touching and disquieting essay on aggression in Albania 1997 — written by a friend of mine, 17-year old back then, who wishes to remain anonymous. The thesis of the essay is that ‘Everybody who is exposed to political violence, is psychologically traumatized’.

Nobody knows how it began or how it ended. The only thing we were aware of was that a bloody war was at the doors of our very homes.

Everybody was whispering that the greed for money caused all of it. But I still believe that the roots were deeper than we thought at the time.

I was but a 17-year old girl, seeking for reasons and justifications, why my people all of a sudden had become a wild mob where everyone was target of everyone. I was ashamed to watch the news in foreign channels because I knew that my people were the first thing to appear on the screen. A war I couldn’t explain was going on. Nobody knew any good reasons for it, apart from the fact that almost all of us lost our money in the pyramid firms.

Thursday 5 January 2012

Chosen feelings are not actually feelings

‘Feelings are the one thing you cannot choose. Otherwise you wouldn’t feel them. They can seem wrong or confusing or even frustrating or devastating, but they are there. If we could just choose them, we wouldn’t have many problems in life, at least not significant ones. What we can choose is how to approach what we do feel. Even this is often tough work, and the first, biggest and maybe most important and for some reason difficult step is to acknowledge a feeling.’

Bjørn Clasen
3 January 2012