This website is currently in a testing phase. Your feedback is valuable to us. Please use the form here.

Essay Writing Contest

"Decoding the Dilemma: Naming the Doings of an EU Member State"

 

INTRODUCTION

The contest is being organized as an introductory, pilot project for a future public debate between an individual, an ordinary EU citizen and one of the large EU member states**. The reason behind this debate is that this large EU member state was involved in an unlawful confiscation of the individual's money and has refused to return it. The mentioned public debate represents a curious and somewhat unusual, but evidently necessary, test for citizens living in the mentioned EU member state as well as in other Western countries founded on shared values of humanistic heritage, human rights, public morality, as well as the roles of the state and parliamentary democracy.

This essay writing contest is open to students worldwide, with a prize of up to 5,000 USD for the best essay.

1. ABOUT THE FUTURE PUBLIC DEBATE BETWEEN AN EU CITIZEN AND A LARGE EU MEMBER STATE

The ordinary citizen in the future debate with the large EU member state is Željko Markota from Zagreb, Croatia.

The name of the large EU member state is omitted from this contest, because the specific name could impact the freedom of expression of essay authors, which could make the essay writing contest less successful, and possibly biased and unobjective. The documentation with full details will be provided first to interested citizens from section B of this chapter and to the selected arbitrators from section C of this chapter. It will subsequently be available to the essay authors from section D of this chapter, and ultimately to all citizens during the public tribunal phase from section E of this chapter. Here, I only mention that we are talking about one of the largest EU member states, which has a rich humanistic heritage and a strong economy. All detailed explanations are also omitted as they are unnecessary for the purpose of this contest. Only sufficient explanation for participation in this contest is provided.

Essentially, the large EU member state, through its majority-owned company*, has unlawfully confiscated significant amounts of money in Croatia to the detriment of the Republic of Croatia and Željko Markota. The money seized in such a way was first transported to the large EU member state and then to its state budget, from which public expenses of that country have been covered for over 20 years, including with the help of the mentioned stolen money.

In relation to all the mentioned aspects, there is first-class documentation in the form of court decisions and judgments, making my claim about the seizure of money completely solid, undeniable and publicly disclosed multiple times in Croatia, as well as in the USA and the EU. The modus operandi in several other countries confirms that Croatia was not an isolated case of immorality related to the large EU member state and the company under its majority ownership.

After collecting sufficient documentation, Željko Markota requested the large EU member state to either refute his arguments or return the money to him. He has informed the government, ministries, cultural institutions, academies, and leading intellectuals, including philosophers, in the large EU member state multiple times about the matter. As a significant amount of time has passed during which the large EU member state neither denied the confiscation of the mentioned money nor attempted to clarify it as a mistake by irresponsible individuals, nor returned the money, a crucial question has arisen regarding how to appropriately and publicly label such doings of the large EU member state and the state itself.

After a rather unusual and synchronized silence from reputable institutions and individuals in that country regarding my inquiries, it was logical and legitimate to conclude that this is something that they cannot find a way to address or discuss. Indeed, although everything initially pointed to a mistake of irresponsible individuals, it seems that my inquiries are pointing towards the need for a deeper and more systematic examination of the doings of the large EU member state. Historians, as well as philosophers, sociologists, and legal experts, qualify the phenomenon I am pointing out with the following terms:

  • • immoral geostrategy,
  • • international supremacy,
  • • neocolonialism,
  • • non-recognition of rights as a source of future conflict,
  • • lack of any moral objections regarding stolen money in the state budget,
  • • state capture,
  • • sovereignty deprivation,
  • • human rights violations, etc.

I am still inclined to believe that my case is more a matter of mistakes by several individuals in the large EU member state rather than a systematic conduct, although the silence of state institutions and individuals increasingly worries me. Due to the aforementioned, the entire #NOMORESILENCE project can be suspended at any time if and when the indicated EU member state decides to act morally and returns the stolen money or provides valid counter-arguments.

The selection and subsequent public use of the correct term for what a large EU member state has done is what I (Željko Markota) am currently attempting to resolve, as I consider it to be almost crucially important for the future public debate.

The choice of a public debate is necessary and legitimate because state judiciaries cannot deal with immorality if it comes from the state itself. Therefore, in defense of my human rights and general principles of public morality, I have prepared a public debate with the major EU member state, through which I will seek assistance from citizens around the world to reclaim my money from the large EU member state. After the aforementioned public debate is concluded, if necessary, traditional legal proceedings will be initiated against the large EU member state due to immoral and unlawful doings related to the confiscation of money in Croatia, its transportation to the large country, and its use for financing its public services.

The future public debate will unfold in five phases, each phase serving as a prelude and preparation for the next phase, with the aim of ensuring that the sixth phase – the public tribunal is of the highest quality. The phases are:

A. The first phase in developing the public debate is precisely this essay writing contest “Decoding the Dilemma: Naming the Doings of an EU Member State”, the objectives of which are described in Chapter 2 of this text.

B. The second phase is the publishing of the Book "#NOMORESILENCE: My Letters to the .............................." (Prime Minister of the EU Member State in Question). The Book will be written and published in English on the Amazon platform, consisting of specific letters and appropriate elaborations. A professional writer and publisher from the USA will be hired to write the Book, while the initiator of this project will be the author of the Book. A GoFundMe campaign will be launched to cover the costs of writing and publishing this Book. The Book will be presented as a guide for citizens of the globalized world, who, after learning about the real ethical profile of the country and company in question, will be able to make informed decisions about their future purchases of goods and services associated with the mentioned country and company.

C. The third phase is organizing a campaign of writing citizens' letters to the government of the large EU member state in question here. Namely, the initiator of the #NOMORESILENCE project firmly believes that the EU member state in question here is sufficiently successful, wealthy, and ethical. Therefore, it is necessary to conclude that the embezzlement of funds in another country is merely the result of the actions of a certain number of irresponsible individuals, and by no means the result of systematic thinking by that country. Because of the this, a letter-writing campaign will be organized for the citizens of that country to their government and parliament, in which citizens will persuade their politicians that their country can become even more prosperous and successful without embezzled funds in its state budget.

It is realistic to expect that politicians of the mentioned EU member state will carefully consider the letters from their citizens, who will urge them to act morally and remind them of the discomfort that comes with the knowledge that public services used by all citizens are funded by money stolen in a small, poor, and friendly EU member state and money that one citizen of that country has been seeking for over 20 years.

D. The fourth phase involves a process of moral arbitration, where top global intellectuals, most likely philosophers, will assess the mentioned money confiscation and the refusal to return the funds through introductory reviews. If necessary, public input will also be considered to evaluate the situation. The mechanisms that facilitated such immoral actions will also be evaluated, placing them in the context of the history of the large EU member state, as well as in the context of the impact of such doings on citizens and states world-wide, in the present and the future.

The moral arbitration will commence by Željko Markota (me) appointing my moral arbitrator, who will conduct an introductory review. Such a review will be submitted to the large EU member state, along with an invitation for them to appoint their own moral arbitrator who will respond to the submitted moral review concerning the described unlawful seizure of money. I believe that the mentioned review and its response will effectively address the described money confiscation through the lens of the actions or lack thereof by the major EU member state. Such a review will be shedding light on the assumptions regarding its fundamental nature, background, and the consequences to which stolen money in its state budget may lead or has already led. The written materials produced in the moral arbitration will be available, along with other documentation, to participants of the major global essay writing contest from section E of this chapter.

E. After the moral arbitration is complete, a global essay writing contest will be held on the topic of "What Would Goethe Say?" (WWGS?). The future essay writing contest will be the first of its kind in the world, with a prize of up to 1 million USD. It will be conducted using the same technology as this introductory, pilot contest "Decoding the Dilemma: Naming the Doings of an EU Member State ".

The goal of the future big essay writing contest within the public debate is to gather as many opinions and ideas as possible from students around the world regarding the reasons behind the doings of the large EU member state, as well as potential solutions for the return of unlawfully confiscated money. The best essays will be available to all citizens of the world to facilitate the formation of their personal stance in the public tribunal process mentioned in section F of this chapter.

F. After the first five steps, through which the global public will be acquainted with the doings of the major EU member state and its ethical profile, the process of a public tribunal according to the rules of public morality will follow, where detailed arguments and documentation from this case will be presented to all citizens of the world. In essence, the tribunal will be presented as a website where all documents, court rulings and decisions, research papers on this topic, correspondence with institutions and individuals of the major EU member state, links to the two essay writing contests, as well as documentation from the moral arbitration, will be displayed. Citizens of the world who purchase products from the large EU member state, as well as its residents who have consumed public services financed with confiscated funds, have the right to access information regarding the ethical profile of the specific large EU member state. Familiarity with the ethical profile will serve citizens in making informed decisions about future purchases of products from the mentioned EU member state or their relationship with the public services of that country.

If citizens of the world find the presented arguments and documentation from this case useful, they may choose to donate a symbolic amount to me as a form of compensation and moral distancing from the doings of the large EU member state. The stance taken by each individual citizen, along with their subsequent decisions based on that standpoint, as well as any potential donations, represent a small verdict of an individual in relation to all the presented insights. The sum of such small verdicts and donations constitutes the final and fair judgment of the public, with aspects of compensation for one party and loss of trust in the other party. This process will serve as an alternative to conventional, traditional judicial trials, which are not suitable for cases where immorality comes from the state itself.

By participating in the #NOMORESILENCE Project, citizens of the world will gain insights into the true ethical profile of the large EU member state and its company. This, as part of their right to an informed decision, will be beneficial for their future purchases of products and services from the state in question. The information about the ethical profile of the state and its company will serve as the primary justification for the donation that the citizens of that state and the world may contribute to my account. Citizens of the large EU member state will also have the option, as an act of moral distancing and instead of their state, to return a proportional share of my stolen money if their government fails to fulfill its civilizational and moral obligation of either refute my arguments or return my money.

This was a brief description of the future public debate and public tribunal and serves as an introductory and, for the time being, sufficient information about the context of the essay writing contest titled "Decoding the Dilemma: Naming the Doings of an EU Member State".

2. ABOUT THE ESSAY WRITING CONTEST "DECODING THE DILEMMA: NAMING THE DOINGS OF AN EU MEMBER STATE"

As mentioned in the introduction, this is an essay writing contest aimed at helping me resolve a qualified dilemma that arose during the elaboration of the future public debate.

A. Namely, a dilemma has arisen regarding the choice of the correct and most appropriate term (word) to describe the doings of the large EU member state while unlawfully acquiring funds for its state budget. Indeed, due to the planned intense public presence of the future public debate, it is important to determine an appropriate word that best describes the action undertaken by a major EU member state, and subsequently for the state itself. It is important for the term not to be overly harsh or overly indirect. A more detailed description of the dilemma is given in Chapter 4 of this text.

B. The upcoming major essay writing contest within the public debate, which will have a prize of up to 1 million USD, described in section E of the previous chapter, involves a highly complex technology for essay submission, assessment, and prize distribution. This pilot essay writing contest, "Decoding the Dilemma: Naming the Doings of an EU Member State", aims to test the technology for the upcoming major essay contest within the public debate – “WWGS?”.

C. Additionally, this pilot contest, "Decoding the Dilemma: Naming the Doings of an EU Member State", also serves as a kind of teaser for the public. It could also serve as a remainder for the major EU member state, its key government and cultural institutions, and esteemed intellectuals, whom I have already informed about the unlawful confiscation of funds, initially believing it to be a mere mistake on the part of irresponsible individuals. I expect that this contest will also help in resolving the indicated issue, and I sincerely hope that the solution will be based on the fact that my case arose from a mistake of several irresponsible individuals on the part of the major EU member state, and not a systematic conduct.

The essay writing contest will follow the detailed rules which can be found on this webpage.

3. WHY IS THE ESSAY WRITING CONTEST INTENDED ONLY FOR STUDENTS?

I believe that the future is most important for students, for four simple reasons:

A. Students will spend the longest time and operate in what we currently call the future, so it is in their interest to help realize the version of the future that is the best in the long run among all possible versions.

B. Students are at the beginning of their mature lives, still young enough to remember the society provided to them by their mothers and fathers, grandmothers, and grandfathers. At the same time, students already possess a sufficient combination of maturity and intellectual freedom to envision their own version of the future for themselves, their loved ones, and society as a whole.

C. The essay writing will involve students from the specific major EU member state as well as students from other EU countries and the world. They will read and evaluate each other's essays, striving to delve deep into the core of human nature, moral principles, the role of the state, as well as specific works from the rich humanistic heritage of the West. In this way, the best essays will serve as valuable guides for students in shaping their future.

D. In conclusion, I believe that participating in this essay writing contest will not only stimulate students' intellectual curiosity but also prompt them to decide whether the doings of the major EU member state, discussed here, are what they would like to encounter in their future, or whether they would prefer their parents to address these issues before they themselves take on the responsibility of governing state and society.

4. A MORE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE DILEMMA TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE ESSAYS

An appropriate term is sought for the set of actions that the major EU member state either planned, approved, concealed, or a combination thereof, which resulted in the illegal confiscation of money in Croatia and the revenue to the state budget of the mentioned country. For this purpose, strong and direct terms or softer and more nuanced terms can be used.

Due to the size and uniqueness of this case, the significance of the large EU member state in the world, the substantial amounts of money involved, distinctive historical parallels to this case, and the specific moment in Europe and the world, the planned public debate could generate significant attention. As the organizer, I bear a great burden of choosing the best term that will enable people worldwide to quickly and accurately understand the situation, in a way that does not overstate the qualification of the large EU member and what it has done. I expect and welcome familiar and unfamiliar words, neologisms, and archaisms. It is essential that the chosen terms are strong, energetic, and that their usage is successfully defended in the form of an essay.

As an individual citizen in a challenging and somewhat unenviable situation, who is compelled to confront a major EU member for the realization of my human rights, I have chosen the public as my partner in this struggle, and public morality and humanistic heritage as the principles of that fight. I believe that only this approach would give me a chance to protect my human rights, as traditional judiciaries are not suitable for addressing cases where immorality originates from the state itself. If I were to use overly harsh and direct terms in that fight, I would risk offending the large EU member and jeopardizing potential talks about a resolution of our dispute. On the other hand, if I were to use overly soft, veiled and indirect terms, I would risk less understanding and support from the public, which could jeopardize the effectiveness of my fight.

Through this essay writing contest, I aim to deepen my understanding and gain support for using the most appropriate terms specifically suited for this case.

5. IS IT POSSIBLE TO WRITE A GOOD ESSAY IN THIS CASE, IF THE COUNTRY IN QUESTION IS UNKNOWN?

Here, I will attempt to defend the thesis that writing a quality essay in this contest is possible even if the specific country in question is unknown. In the previous text, I emphasized how the anonymity of the country is significant in this stage of the public debate due to the impartial approach towards all profiles of future contestants. Namely, it should be avoided that the disclosure of the name of a specific country attracts not all, but only certain categories of essay authors.

The question of whether, despite the justified need, it is possible to write a quality essay without knowing the name of the country, is a legitimate question to which I provide my answer: Yes, it is possible!

For the purposes of writing the essay, I emphasize that we are dealing with one of the larger and more influential members of the EU, which belongs to the system of Western liberal democracies that proclaim human rights and public morality within the framework of well-known Western humanistic and cultural values. I believe that the need for ethical consistency of states, in the sense that they practice what they preach, is universal. The fact that a specific state has not aligned the actions of its government apparatus with the proclaimed humanistic values and the public ethical profile of the state is a sufficiently universal problem that could arise in any of the EU member states. Therefore, the name of the specific country should not influence the choice of an appropriate term for the acts or doings connected to the misappropriation of funds and violation of someone's human rights.

In conclusion, those participants who perceive anonymity regarding the country's name as an obstacle to their participation can, after the contest concludes, participate in public voting for the essays submitted in the contest, thereby still taking part in this unique essay writing contest.

6. IS THIS CASE AN ABSURDITY, CURIOSITY, OR SOMETHING ELSE?

Working for years on this case, I have collaborated with reputable, top experts and university professors in the fields of theology, philosophy, sociology, law, economics, literature, and communication studies. Not all, but some of the collaborators I consult with, often initially concluded with skepticism that everything I mention in my documentation is too incredible to be true. In the last year, I have been communicating more intensively with institutions and individuals of the major EU member, but without receiving a response from the other side. After introducing my collaborators to the aforementioned case, all of them now consider it a true curiosity from multiple aspects, the resolution of which would significantly contribute to understanding the importance of public morality in international relations.

Finally, I would kindly ask all students to give a chance to this contest and dedicate 10 to 15 minutes to read the content presented on this website, and to follow the further development of this project together with their friends, parents, and professors at their respective universities. I believe that the participating students will be glad and, in the end, proud to witness their own role in this intriguing case.

7. READ THIS TOO

• Originality is not prohibited. It's welcomed.

• The shallow can become the new profound if you dive in and look horizontally.

• Quoting and inventing appropriate quotes from historical figures is not prohibited.

• Humor and metaphors, sarcasm and irony, they all exist.

• Ideas mostly become great when noticed by many. So, don't hold back.

• If you win here $ 1,000 or $ 5,000 that will be the least important thing for everyone, including you.

• Construct something grounded, daring, significant, influential, and unique. You are unique too!