I regularly read Czech online news and other Czech websites. One of my perennial favorites is the personal Web page of President Vaclav Klaus. President Klaus, as we know, is a hard-bitten defender of democracy and human rights – that is to say, he is an opponent of socialism, one-worldism, and other such globalist disasters-in-the-making. He is also an Euro-skeptic and a global warming skeptic. All this makes him indispensable.
President Klaus took part in the biennial EU-LAC summit in Madrid this year. His report, which I have translated below, is hardly encouraging. Everybody seems to want more government intervention in everything, more global governance, etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam. But let’s let him speak for himself. The original article, dated May 18, 2010, is titled Pocity ze summitu EU-Latinská Amerika v Madridu. Any errors of terms of translation and/or due to lack of understanding are solely my responsibility.
Summits probably have to happen. It’s better when people talk together than whey they don’t. Summits also provide a good opportunity to meet many people, talk to them and follow what they say at the summit and in private. You always discover someone interesting whom you haven’t met before. In this meeting of sixty presidents of premiers of EU, Latin American and Caribbean countries, I was pleased to make the acquaintance of representatives of certain Central American and Caribbean countries with which we [Czechs] are not very familiar.
The overall atmosphere of the summit was…something different, unique. And certainly not positive.
1. They all want more market regulation. The French President was especially explicit about it, but even the Spanish Prime Minister spoke of a paradigm shift – that is, from markets to “coordination and regulation.” Not a single voice protested against it. The President of Brazil said that we have “a lack of state,” (i.e. governmental control) because markets cannot regulate themselves. Since I’m an economist, I was particularly fascinated by the assertion that we have to “cease being the victims of fluctuations in currency exchange rates.”
2. They all want more “global governance” (the Prime Minister of Greece, for example, stressed this) and, at long last, the establishment of a “new world economic and financial order” even though that people have been talking about it for decades now. This can only mean still another fundamental limitation and suppression of the markets.
3. The French President noted the gigantic economic power of the EU and of Latin America. Let’s join together, he said, then we’ll represent fifty percent of the global GDP and no one will be able to vote or “push” us down. The anti-American barb there was obvious.
Ninety nine percent of the summit’s business was conducted in this spirit. Any differences were merely in emphasis and minutiae. In this context, the presentation by the President of Costa Rica was truly unexpected. She ignored all the above proposals and spoke of realistic things: her country doesn’t want any aid but a free market and free trade.
While discussing the post-earthquake situation in Haiti, I was fascinated by the fact that several presidents criticized today’s extremely fashionable engagement/involvement by “social institutions.” The President of Ecuador spoke of NGOism (music to my ears) and the President of Brazil pointed out that “parallel government” by such institutions is unacceptable.
During the working lunch, I delivered a brief presentation with roughly this content:
– I didn’t want to spoil the monolithic spirit of the morning plenary session, and I therefore speak only now.
– I am one of the few who have spent the majority of their lives in the communist central planning system that strove for regulation, control and blocking the functioning of the market, and I therefore know what it brings. I have lived in a world where it was considered unquestionably true that state intervention is better than the market. I happen to know that it is not true, and I therefore fear today’s proposals to regulate the market more than the financial and economic crisis itself.
– I view the issues of global warming (which happened to be the topic of discussions during the working lunch) in the same way because I do not believe in the doctrine of man-made global warming that is driven by CO2 emissions.
– It is clear and indubitable that opposition against this doctrine is growing throughout the world, that there is no scientific consensus on this topic; and, in that sense, the recent scientific “scandals” of involving the primary adherents of this doctrine are hardly decisive for me.
– I mentioned my book Blue, not Green Planet that has been published in sixteen languages.
The conclusion is easy enough. Several of the presidents, including but not limited to those of Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Panama Bolivia and Mexico, came to me for Spanish versions of my book, which I happened to have with me. And the new “president” of the European Union said to me quietly: “I also thought that this morning’s debate was too leftist.”
Scary. It’s as if people had taken leave of their senses, or rather been given leave to take leave of their senses. The lessons of the past century are forgotten, and the human lemmings (humings?) are rushing for the cliff. Truly, a man-made disaster, and definitely a worthy subject for those concerned with cognitive dissonance.