The New Federalist, webzine of the Young European Federalist

EUROPE, tear down this wall

Pia Menning — 2009-11-09T04:17:00Z

The fall of the Berlin wall at the 9th of November 1989 was an historic event, not only for Berlin and Germany but also for Europe and the integration of the European Union. Today, 20 years later, one can not only assess the implications of this turn in history that we still feel today, but it is also worth to look at the young European generation who grew up most of their conscious live without experiencing these former boarders.

More than 28 years a huge wall was dividing Berlin, the capital of East- and West-Germany, in two completely separate entities. The western part of the city was an enclave within the territory of the DDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik / German Democratic Republic). For Berlin citizens it was almost impossible to cross the border which often separated families, former neighborhoods, streets and public spaces.

At the evening of the 9th November 1989 Günter Schabowski, a high ranking member of the SED (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands / Socialist Unity Party of Germany), announced during a live press conference that East-Germans could from now on travel freely to the West. His statement (which is today mostly conceived as a misunderstanding) caused thousands of Berlin citizens to gather at the border checkpoints and demand their new right of passing the border. The border guards were overburdened with the situation and finally opened the check points. The news of the ‘open borders' traveled incredibly fast and the crowds at the Berlin wall grew every minute. West-Berlin welcomed the people that arrived from the East with applause, people were celebrating together on the streets: a dream that very few had dared to dream came true peacefully.

How do these events that took place 20 years ago affect the European youth? Most of us can hardly remember the fall of the Berlin wall themselves and do not feel connected to the events like the generation of our parents who really experienced the division of Germany and Europe. Nevertheless often even young people – especially Germans – have memories of this historic day in their life. I remember sitting in front of the TV with my father, who could hardly believe what was going on and explaining to me at the age of five that a wall in Germany which was separating families and friends for decades now ceased to exist. Even though I was obviously not able to grasp the full meaning of this act, I sensed very clearly that something of importance was going on. And it is exactly this feeling that still unites people from all generations when they think of the 9th of November 1989.

The fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the separation of Germany also has huge implications on the shape of today's Europe.

Although it is first and foremost an event of German-German history, the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the separation of Germany also has huge implications on the shape of today's Europe. Without the end of the iron curtain the 12 eastern member states would not have joined the European Union in 2004, the geographical center of Europe would be divided by strong boarders and the European identity would most probably never be as comprehensive and diverse as it is today.

Despite the huge efforts that were already made in the past 20 years and the great success of welcoming former Soviet Union states in the EU, the path is still far from being completed. Reality shows that the European continent is not as unified as it could be. Especially in the Balkan region people are affected by strict visa requirements and cannot travel freely within Europe. Of course these limitations are different from those that eastern Germans had to face during their time in the DDR, but in today's globalised world they restrict the freedom of movement of these Europeans to a similar extent than real walls did in the world of 20 years ago. This is one of the reasons why the Young European Federalists (JEF) are engaging in a pan-European street action today, where they symbolically tear down walls in various cities around Europe. ‘EUROPE, tear down this wall!' is the slogan that should remind us of the still existing walls, even though they might not be made from bricks but from bureaucracy and legal requirements.

The anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall can be considered as a reminder of the enormous European achievements of the past, as well as of the challenges which still lie in front of us.

Pia Menning

EUROPE-tear-down-this-wall?lang=en

Image: Fall of the Berlin wall, source: google images

US slowing down COP15 negotiations

Peter Matjašič — 2009-11-07T09:18:53Z

In the last round of international talks on climate change in Barcelona (2-6 November) before the Conference of Parties (COP) are to gather in Copenhagen to strike a global new climate change deal it became evident that a legally binding document is out of reach.

The Barcelona Climate Change Talks stand for the resumed ninth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and resumed seventh session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA).

There is little optimism that the persistent divisions between the developed and developing countries would be bridged on time for the Copenhagen summit; these include:

a deepening divide between Annex I countries (led by US) and non-Annex I, which became evident at the Bangkok Climate Change Talks (28 September – 9 November 2009);
trust issues (e.g. commitment of 0,7% development aid but lacking behind in implementation; some industrialised countries wanting to combine their current development aid with possible climate change assistance);
non-Annex I worried about not making it legally binding.

Despite the final words of the UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer in Barcelona being encouraging, saying that progress had been made during the week and that he was confident that Copenhagen would deliver a strong deal, which must include the immediate implementation of key actions in developing countries, this sounds more like lip-service in light of the US position on lobbying against a legally binding commitment.

The danger is that the EU could start peddling back to accommodate the US

But the real defeat did not come in Barcelona but a week before during a EU-US summit in Washington, where President Obama told his European counterparts that a binding agreement was not going to happen in Copenhagen as the US climate legislation is slowly winding its way through Congress and will not be ready in time for the summit.

The danger is that the EU, which is has a strong negotiation position of fighting for binding and comparable emission reductions by all industrialized countries, keeping Kyoto and/or staying close to it, could start peddling back in order to accommodate the US.

It's time our global leaders get their act together and make responsible, tough and visionary decisions to preserve our planet for future generations!

Peter Matjašič

US-slowing-down-COP15-negotiations?lang=en

Image: US Climate Change Law, source: Google Images

Iceland's accession bid: quo vadis?

Mark Seychell — 2009-11-05T05:00:00Z

The Government of Iceland submitted its application for EU-Membership to the current Swedish Presidency of the Council of the EU in a letter dated on 16 July. At the Council meeting on 27 July, EU Foreign Affairs Ministers acknowledged Iceland's application for membership of the European Union and invited the Commission to submit an opinion on it.

What next indeed for the Icelandic accession bid to the EU? Iceland is currently passing through a similar phase as my country, Malta, did in the run up to EU accession, and the atmosphere coming out from way up there is by and large the same as the atmosphere in Malta between six to seven years ago. The most indicative factor is the eurosceptic fever coming out of the Icelandic public, the same as what happened in Malta in the run up to the referendum. However, the public warmed to the idea of EU membership, especially after the devastating economic meltdown which saw top Icelandic banks collapse in October last year.

One wonders why the public is so sceptic on accession, especially with all that has happened to the Icelandic economy due to the recession.

The latest opinion poll in Iceland produced by Capacent Gallup for the Federation of Icelandic Industries and published on September 15, 2009 shows a majority of Icelanders oppose EU membership. According to the poll some 50.2 percent are against joining while 32.7 percent favour it. In the same poll 43.2 percent said they were not pleased with the EU application while 39.6 percent said they were. Finally people were asked how they would vote if there was a referendum now on EU membership. 61.5 percent said they would vote against joining the EU and 38.5 percent said they would vote in favour. One wonders why the public is so sceptic on accession, especially with all that has happened to the Icelandic economy due to the recession.

In fact, when an Icelandic delegate visited Malta, during the run up to the European Parliament election campaign, he made it clear that the general consensus among the population of Iceland is that had Iceland joined the EU and the Eurozone, the recession would not have hit Iceland as bad as it did. Yet the figures do not lie, and the public remains sceptic. A reason for this is because of the vital Icelandic fishing sector, which will be regulated by the stringent fishing and whaling regulations.

EU membership will be a central theme of the upcoming Icelandic election campaign, the same as it was in Malta, with the social democrats - the senior partner in the coalition interim government with the anti-EU Left Greens - pushing to join the EU and to swap the krona for the single European currency as soon as possible.

The European Commissioner in charge of enlargement, Olli Rehn, has stated that the EU prefers if two countries join at the same time, so it is possible that we could see Iceland's accession bid to be fast tracked in order for them to enter the Union in parallel with Croatia. It is believed that entry talks with Iceland may begin by February 2010, with the bid going to popular referendum by late 2011 or early 2012…ample time for the Icelandic people to be won over to the idea of EU membership. The earliest Iceland can realistically look to join the EU is sometime in 2013. What is clear, though, is that the powers that be who run this bloc we have all come to know and to love and to hate certainly believe that Iceland could bring more assets than liabilities to the EU.

Mark Seychell

Iceland-s-accession-bid-quo-vadis?lang=en

Image:

Iceland and EU, source: google images

Freedom of press in the European Union

Alessio Pisanò — 2009-11-03T07:06:25Z

At the European Parliament you can talk about Europe but you cannot talk individually about the member states. In the same way, a member state is allowed to address the European Union or to ask Brussels for help, but the EU must keep out of the member states' domestic business.

This is the result of the failure of the resolution on the freedom of press in Italy last week, torpedoed by the centre-right majority in the Strasbourg plenary session.

To sum up, the Liberals and the Left-wing deputies called for a European directive to table some general standards in order to guarantee freedom of press and media pluralism throughout Europe.

After a relatively drawn out procedure – due to the EPP's attempts to stop it before being discussed – the joint resolution tabled by the S&D, ALDE, Greens/EFA and GUE groups relating to the freedom of information in Italy has been rejected by the EPP, ECR and EFD.

this is another clear example of how the EU is seen only as a bunch of advantages and not as a means by which we might live together

«Brussels must not meddle in Italian affairs», this is the main point of contention as far as the EPP is concerned. A moot point as the Italian government itself has been requesting EU support to help dealing with illegal immigration through its Southern coastline for months. Obviously, there must be a set of criteria in place, delineating what the EU can take care of and what it cannot. Or, more likely, this is another clear example of how the EU is seen only as a bunch of advantages and not as a means by which we might live together sharing our individual strengths and a collective responsibility.

And for the EU responsibility is precisely providing freedom of information, and therefore each member state must learn to protect it and develop. Now as ever the EU ought to have approved such a resolution, as the eighth annual World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders shows how Europe is decreasing. “It is disturbing to see European democracies such as France, Italy and Slovakia fall steadily in the rankings year after year,” the Secretary-General Jean-François Julliard said last week at the presentation of the report. Indeed, according to this index, several European nations have fallen significantly in this year's index. Even if the first 13 positions are still in the hands of European countries, others - such as France (43rd), Slovakia (44th) and Italy (49th) - continue their descent, falling to the eightth, 37th and fifth position respectively. In so doing, they have given way to young democracies in Africa (Mali, South Africa and Ghana) and in the Western hemisphere (Uruguay and Trinidad and Tobago).

Nevertheless, the EPP group has strongly underlined that “in Italy an information problem does not exist, and even if it existed the European Parliament is not the right place for it to be discussed”.

A position very similar to that which Turkey's Chief European Union negotiator Egemen Bagis stated on October 14th with regard to the Commission's worries about the press of freedom in Turkey: “The tax fine imposed on the Dogan group is a matter for the Turkish Financial Ministery, not foreign authorities, and if it can't solve it, it is a matter for the Turkish judicial system”. The Dogan Yayin company is the country's largest media group, was recently hit with an outstanding fine of 2 million Euros by the Turkish government. Officially, the fine is motivated with fiscal problems, but many suspect a political interference in the press, as the group's publication charged with the fine has featured articles focussing on alleged corruption within the ruling AK party.

The European Commission has officially criticized Turkey over its lack of freedom of press in its annual report released on October 14th, dealing on how several countries wishing to join the European Union are faring in bringing their legal frameworks in line with the EU norms.

It is clear that the rules in force for extra-European states do not apply to the EU member states. Or, more likely, that the EU has missed another opportunity to regulate a market in danger – as the Reporters Without Borders' annual index shows – and to do something on behalf of the never-named discussion on European public opinion in the plenary.

Neither the Centre-Left groups nor the Liberals – who are definitely not from the Left-wing – have spoken about this concept as if it had never existed. Instead, the accurate international coverage of the Italian government's misadventures of the last months clearly shows how much Europeans care about what is going on in Italy as one of the 27 member states. For this reason, expecting to avoid European interference is not only nonsense but also an old-fashioned claim that seriously threatens the European integration. The understandable worries about the freedom of press in Turkey stand as testament to that.

At the very least it is a ‘bad example' to set for those who wish to gain membership in the EU, especially due to Italy's stance as arguably the weakest democracy within the current member states. Media experts speak of a 'virus' that approaching from Italy might infect the entire European information system.

As Chair of the former PSE, now S&D, group Martin Schultz stated in a never-to-be-forgotten discussion with the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi at the European Parliament, 'Is Italy not in Europe? Why then mustn't we speak about it?'

The EU has missed a good opportunity, and yet again we missed the opportunity to become European.

Alessio Pisanò

Freedom-of-press-in-the-European-Union?lang=en

Image: Old newspapers; source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/shiron…

The President of the European Council

Pietro De Matteis — 2009-11-01T06:41:00Z

Following the debate on the new president of the European Commission, it is now everyday more pressing the competition behind closed doors for the future post of President of the European Council.

Should the Lisbon treaty be ratified we will finally have some of the important institutional changes which has been waiting in the lobby for a few years now. Among these the creation of the position of President of the European Council and of an upgraded and “double hatted” High Representative for the Foreign and Security Policy.

In this short article I wish to underline why I believe that a more careful analysis is needed in order to clarify some of the opportunities and risks that the creation of the position of President of the Council determine in the EU framework. In particular I believe we can identify two main risks/opportunities: the institutional ones and the political ones.

The Political Aspects

With regards to the political aspects, it is often underlined that it would be important to have a high level personality as it would be able to use its diplomatic clout when dealing with the Member States as well as with the EU's external partners. However it could be argued that while this could be important in the relations between the Member States, due to its role of “facilitator”, on the other hand it might end up creating tensions with the President of the European Commission and the High Representative when dealing with international issues. Both the European Commission President and the High Representative might in fact risk to fall in the shadow of a well know and influential President of the Council, reducing the relevance of their roles.

In practice what could happen is a difficult “cohabitation”,

In practice, what could happen is a difficult “cohabitation”, as the French would say, with the additional difficulty that the competences and tasks of the three are not yet defined in a treaty to which the parties could appeal. The result could be an even less coherent representation of the EU positions, not only with regards to the policies themselves but also to the representation i.e. who represents what?

Institutional Aspects

From a more strictly institutional point of view we can then assess the risk of having a Commission (supranational organ), subordinated to the Council (international organ). This would clearly be a serious step backwards with regards to the European integration process from a federalist perspective. Furthermore it could be codified in the coming years as “practice” of the relations between the institutions determining, in so doing, a long lasting limitation of the powers of the Commission.

From here stems the preoccupation that has been shown by President Barroso on October 7th a the European Parliament when he underlined that: “The European Commission will not accept the idea that the President of European Council is the President of Europe."

Also a strong President of the European Council, having as main task the “facilitation” of the relations and agreements between the Member states, would have the opportunity to define directly or indirectly the agenda of the 27 Member States within the Council. This would also allow him to decide the amount of diplomatic pressure to use to see passed some procedures and piece of legalisation which are keener to his own interests.

For this reason it is of key importance, especially in the case of a renowned and influential personality, that he/she is willing to cooperate on an “equal footing” with the other institutional figures and that shares the European integration project in all its developments e.g. Euro, Schengen. This is important in order to build a sort of balance of powers between the roles and to avoid eventual conflict of interests. Such an approach does not necessarily imply that the Candidate must be coming from a member state that currently has in place all the the “European projects” even if this would clearly help. In any case he/she must have showed commitment to the European project and should clearly state his or her approach.

To conclude we are again in front of a key moment of the European integration process. Clearly there is a great opportunity but also a risk, which is increased by the current vacuum in the definition of the tasks and competences of this new key post.

It will be the first President of the European Council to shape this position and to define the potential and the limits in the framework of the “institutional game”.

Pietro De Matteis

The-President-of-the-European-Council?lang=en

Source of the image: World Wide Web

China 60 years on: What's in for the future?

Daniel Sammut — 2009-10-30T04:15:00Z

Sixty years ago, the People's Republic of China was proclaimed by its founding father and leader of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Mao Zedong. During those last sixty years, China has gone through a lot. It experienced 27 years of Mao's rule during which Mao Zedong tended to give more importance to revolution, class struggle and bizarre socio-economic experiments which kept China from developing economically, although Mao's plans were intended for that purpose.

In the post-Mao era, under pragmatic leaders such as Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin, China has moderated itself ideologically, opened up to the world, liberalized its economy, opened the doors to foreign investment and is undergoing rapid economic transformation. It is the world's third largest economy. However, while there is economic liberalization, political authoritarianism remains and the situation shows no chance of changing in the near future. China continues to develop very fast and by 2040, its Gross Domestic Product is expected to overcome that of the United States. The people's lives have become better economically although there is still a long way to go.

While there is economic liberalization, political authoritarianism remains and the situation shows no chance of changing in the near future.

However, one still does not forget the bloody events of 1989 in Tiananmen Square. People still haven't forgotten Zhao Ziyang. Moreover, there have been very recent events such as the Tibetan protests during the opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing and the latest ethnic tensions in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. These last two events have again uncovered the harsh truth in China. This harsh truth consists of the Communist Government's policy of ethnic discrimination in favour of Han Chinese against other ethnic minorities. The Tibet protests, the influence of the Dalai Lama and the unrest in Xinjiang throws a bad light on the Communist Government. World governments should continue reminding the Communist government that it is breaching human rights since human rights have no boundaries. The Communist government has always followed a policy of favouring the Han Chinese immigration and culture in both Tibet and Xinjiang at the expense of the minority cultures and people. On their part, the Chinese leaders should allow cultural and religious self-expression to its national minorities.

Also, China must ensure that the massive wealth created by its rapidly-expanding economy is distributed fairly among its 1.3 billion people. That is also another future challenge for China and when the current Chinese President Hu Jintao took over as President of China in 2003, he stressed the need to reach out to the poorer provinces of China in order to fight poverty. This is because most of the country's is generated in the coastal areas and it remains in those areas while the inland provinces receive a trickle of that wealth. Hu Jintao is already making efforts in the right direction and hopefully the situation will be better and Chinese would benefit from a general increase in their standard of living.

Another future challenge for China and its leaders is the global phenomenon of climate change. It is true that China is the fourth-largest wind energy producer in the world but it still relies on coal for the majority of its energy supplies. China is one of the most polluting countries of the world. The Chinese must increase its investment in renewable sources of energy such as wind, solar and even hydro-electric power. This is for the benefit of the Chinese and more importantly, to the whole world. The world needs the help of countries like China to combat this global problem. China can do more only of it has the will to do so and is sending encouraging messages that it wants to tackle its high greenhouse emissions.

Another area China should tackle in the future is its foreign policy especially North Korea. What is China going to do regarding North Korea? Should it take a harder line on North Korea? North Korea is threatening a whole region and China can help a lot to control the North's irresponsible behaviour. This is another challenge that China has to take up in the near future in the interest of the whole region.

China has liberalized economically but politically, the Mao's ghost still haunts Chinese leaders. However, the future still offers plenty of challenges such as democratisation, reducing greenhouse emissions, tackling North Korea and improving the well-being of its 1.3 billion people.

Daniel Sammut

China-60-years-on-What-s-in-for-the-future?lang=en

Image: China's 60th Anniversary, source: www.flickr.com

Writing history

Richard Laming — 2009-10-28T05:00:00Z

Czech president Vaclav Klaus wants to write his name in the history books. But is he choosing to make the right kind of history?

The Lisbon treaty, having been negotiated and agreed by the 27 national governments of the European Union, and ratified by all of their parliaments, and even passed by a referendum in Ireland, now sits on President Klaus' desk, awaiting his signature. But he cannot make up his mind to sit down and sign the treaty. Mont Blanc or Parker, or maybe a Bic biro: which pen to choose from?

But perhaps President Klaus has something more weighty on his mind.

The treaty is not perfect – no-one can claim that – but it represents the broad consensus in Europe of the best way to run the European Union.

After all, the Lisbon treaty is a complicated document, embodying as it does a compromise between the different political traditions and ideas of 27 countries. It is ironic that the people who complain most about the complexity of the treaty are the very same people who would complain if it was simple, if simplicity were achieved by straightening and standardising and ironing out all those features that make Europe the diverse and fascinating place that it is. Better to accept complexity for the time being, if that is what it takes to get an agreement.

And indeed that is what it takes. Since the Laeken summit in December 2001 started the whole process of revising the Nice treaty, only 2 out of the original 15 heads of government are still in office (Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, and one of them has served time in opposition during the intervening period). In fact, as many as 67 different people have served as head of government of a member state during that time, each of which was armed with a national veto. Complexity is inevitable, I'm afraid.

But despite these difficulties, the 27 member states have enough interests in common to make trying to agree a common set of rules worthwhile, and enough mutual goodwill to be able to reach agreement. They knew the importance of a successful reform.

But failure remains a possibility, as long as President Klaus refuses to sign.

He claims to have concerns about the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and its impact on Czech land ownership. That is an important subject, to be approached with care, but the Charter does not have the impact that he seems to fear. Leading legal experts are in agreement on this issue: this is not a reason to reject the treaty.

Even more to the point, the Czech parliament has already approved it. The processes of Czech democracy have already given the Lisbon treaty their seal of approval. Why should the president of the Czech Republic frustrate the will of the elected parliament now? How can someone claim to defend parliamentary democracy by violating it?

The treaty is not perfect – no-one can claim that – but it represents the broad consensus in Europe of the best way to run the European Union. In addition to the support from national governments and parliaments, there is the support from voters: two-thirds of the votes cast in the European elections in June were cast for pro-Lisbon parties and candidates.

So, there are not really legal issues at stake, nor are there democratic reasons to block the treaty. What remains is for President Klaus to sign it. Perhaps a kind and good-natured citizen, somewhere in the European Union, can lend him a pen.

Richard Laming

Writing-history?lang=en

The article was also published on EUobserver on 15 October 2009.

Image:

Vaclav Klaus, source google images

The Problem with Iran

Justine Micallef — 2009-10-26T04:44:00Z

Iran could make an atomic bomb, according to UN reports, having sufficient information to be able to design one. However, the real worry, as General James Jones, Obama's National Security Adviser said, is Iran's intent. UN's sanctions on Iran, since 2005, have served little as a deterrent to discontinue with such ‘progress'.

The atomic agency's reports presents evidence that Iran has done extensive research and testing, though not saying exactly how far, on how to fashion the components of a weapon.

Yet Iran has been misread many times in the past. Upon Ahmadinejad's ‘surprise' re-election as president in the last June elections, Obama's dream for a new Middle East was torpedoed. President Obama had clearly stated his intent of ‘a world without nuclear weapons', hence his disappointment with Iran's president came all too quickly.

Many people in Washington had got it wrong in thinking that Mousavi was likely to win the June election. But why? Probably the answer lies in the fact that such people heard what they wanted to hear. Despite Ahmadinejad's failure to produce the economic bounty he promised when elected in 2005, America did not appreciate the support he still had in the countryside.

America's universalism- the believe, or rather the myth, that even after the Shah fell, there exists a mass movement of people demanding liberalization has got to be put in its true light. America, as well as the West, believe in the growth of such a movement, that if encouraged would eventually form a majority and rule the country. Undoubtedly, such a movement among professional classes and students in Tehran exists, but they are not exactly the majority in Iran. Indeed, America and Europe have been misreading Iran for 30 years.

The time seems to be ripe for negotiating, but is Iran ready or even willing to compromise at all?

Meanwhile, Tehran insists that its nuclear enrichment programme is for civilian purposes only, but can such a theory hold? If one thinks of Iran itself, and Islamic Republic and anti-Semitic Republic, then other reasons would arise. For instance, the wound with Israel has not yet healed. Iran, in fact, still does not recognize Israel, and does not hold diplomatic ties with the U.S. since the Iranian revolution.

The Geneva meeting and the first formal talks between America and Iran in thirty years are both positive and aiming for the best. The time seems to be ripe for negotiating, but is Iran ready or even willing to compromise at all? The 28th of September was not a good start, as Iran tested the firing of its Shahab- 3 missile, capable of reaching Israel and beyond. Moreover, after the discovery of the uranium- enrichment plant buried in a mountainside near Qom, Iran did not exactly open its doors to inspectors. These incidents all point out to the failure of Iran's claimed peaceful purposes.

America, Britain and France are working on the harmonization of a nuclear free world; however there are two other powerful countries which must not be ignored; China and Russia- both disliking sanctions. Their cover to Iran makes the dream of a safe world improbable. Given these circumstances, Obama's nuclear free world seems hard to achieve. If ever this goal is reached, it will most probably not be in the present future.

Justine Micallef

The-Problem-with-Iran?lang=en

Image: Iran - nuclear power, source: google images

Greek Parliamentary Elections: Landslide victory for Socialists

Dimitris Kraniotis, George Kipouros — 2009-10-24T03:19:00Z

The 'Panhellenic Socialist Movement' (PA.SO.K) was the big winner of the Greek Parliamentary Elections, which took place at the 4th of October, having won a clear majority of seats in the Parliament.

The Greek Socialists will govern again after a five-year-long absence, during which the conservative party of 'New Democracy' (N.D) had the power. Former centre-right Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis faced a number of challenges during these years including corruption issues and scandals with senior members of his government, a continuously detoriating national economy and a rapidly growing debt, as well as an alarming outbreak of violence, especially in the capital city of Athens. Recent election results demonstrate the clear disappointment of the Greek electoral body and especially of the electoral basis of N.D, which seemed to have punished Mr. Karamanlis' government ill-fated policies and undelivered promises. PA.SO.K gained the 43.9% of the votes, winning 160 from 300 parliamentary seats, while N.D gained the 33.5% of the votes, winning just 91 seats; one of the historic lows for the party.

Karamanlis, elected in 2004 and re-elected in 2007, took the risk of early elections after increased pressure mounted from many senior members of his party (some of which were aiming at claiming the party's leadership following an electoral failure), as well as having to face constant criticism from the Socialist opposition. The unprecedented difference of 10.4% between the two big parties shows the magnitude of the Socialist win, if we recall that two years earlier, PA.SO.K won only 38.1% of the votes securing 102 parliamentary seats, when New Democracy had the 41.8% majority and 152 seats. Mr. Karamanlis stepped down from the Presidency of the New Democracy party immediately after the announcements of the elections results. Former Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyiannis as well as former Athens mayor Dimitris Avramopoulos are rumoured to be competing for the party's leadership at its upcoming Congress later this autumn.

While New Democracy plunges into internal disputes, PA.SO.K has a full agenda of things to deal with.

While New Democracy plunges into internal disputes and is unlikely to re-emerge before spring 2010, PA.SO.K has a full agenda of things to deal with. Newly elected Prime Minister George Papandreou comes from a family of leaders, his father Andreas Papandreou was the founder of PA.SO.K more than thirty years ago, while his grandfather was also a historic political figure for Greece. Having served as Foreign Minister in the past, as well as being President of the Socialist International, Papandreou's international credentials need little introduction; in fact his effectiveness in foreign policy issues remains one of his most appreciated personal qualities. His newly appointed cabinet reflects his personal commitment for party ‘renewal' and gender balance, with many female ministers taking key government positions.

Major challenges lye ahead for Mr. Papandreou and his government, not least the uplifting of an economy in dire state. The ‘revival plan' promised in the elections campaign will be set into action within the next weeks, while for the first time ‘green (sustainable) development' has been touted as an overarching axes of all government policies. Fighting the corruption present in all levels of governance will also probably be the second biggest challenge for Papandreou's administration, following the economic issue. The Greek PM has also vowed to make Greece's voice in Europe stronger while continuing to support further European integration; the future of Turkey in the EU is now to be more tightly connected with the progress in Greek-Turkish relations.

Dimitris Kraniotis, George Kipouros

Greek-Parliamentary-Elections-Landslide-victory-for-Socialists?lang=en

Image: George Papandreou, source: www.flickr.com

Guinea: A Wave of Horror But No UN Action

René Wadlow — 2009-10-22T04:00:00Z

A wave of horror spread among the assembled delegates at the UN Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva as news of the 28 September shootings of unarmed participants in a political meeting in Conakry was known. It was the last days of the Council session which was then in its final stage of negotiating and voting resolutions. Was there anything that the UN human rights body could do? No one wants to deal with a new issue in the final days of a session when all the energies are concentrated on finding acceptable wording on resolutions so that they can be accepted by consensus rather than by having a vote with obvious divisions being highlighted.

The context of the situation in Guinea was generally known, but the Human Rights Council and its earlier incarnation, the Commission on Human Rights, had given little attention to Guinea. There is a long-standing habit among governments to look at only a selected few countries within a geographic region. West Africa already had the long-running conflicts in Liberia and Sierra Leone. There was trouble in the Ivory Coast, and Darfur, Sudan with the spill over into Chad was really all the attention that could be given to West Africa and its near neighbors. Thus, human rights violations in Guinea were always known, but few wanted to discuss them. The African States have always been an effective bloc to prevent considerations of human rights violations in Africa, suggesting in different ways that any attention given to human rights in Africa was a result of racism.

Human rights violations in Guinea had started soon after its independence from France in October 1958 — the first of the French African colonies to be independent. The first President, Ahmed Sékou Touré, was considered a hero of the African independence movement and as a champion of Pan-African unity. His rule fast became brutal and corrupt, leading many to leave the country while many others were killed at home. However, the hero image lasted for a long time — and for some until his death in 1984.

The military officer Lansana Conté took power one week after the death in 1984 of Sékou Touré through an agreement among military officers that one of them should be president, and he stayed on until his death in December 2008. His power was never shared, and the military who thought that they deserved part of the spoils of power were gotten rid of. There was also some popular discontent as the conditions of life, always poor, got worse and worse. Lansana Conté was ill for a long time which led to his spending less time on the affairs of government but without creating alternative forms of government decision-making. People became increasingly restless with the army taking things into its own hands but in a disorganized way. Military indiscipline became chronic.

As Richard Moncrieff, West Africa project director of the International Crisis Group, has written “This indiscipline can be traced back to the bloody repression of protests in February 2007 when over 100 people were killed in a very similar crackdown. Such repression, along with a guaranteed immunity for the military's abuses against civilians, kept the ailing Conté in power…In Guinea, the weakness of countervailing powers — political parties, parliaments, media — has opened space for the military, with the disastrous consequences we now see. More worrying, the border area with Liberia, which suffered a spill over from the Liberian civil war, is the site of increasing ethnic tension.” The Liberian conflict which began in 2001 with Charles Taylor's slow march to absolute power led to the creation of a number of independent, usually tribal-based, militias, some of which went to Guinea where there were members of related ethnic groups.

There have been reports that among those participating in the 28 September shootings and subsequent looting of shops were Liberians from the United Liberation Movement for Liberia for Democracy (Ulimo) militia who have continued living in the east of Guinea, but it is also easy to pass on the blame for abuses to foreigners.

Lansana Conté was president from 1984 until December 2008. Two days after his death, Captain Moussa Dadis Camara took power, again because the army officers felt that one of them should rule. Camara had no outstanding deeds to his credit, but neither did any other officer who might have been a rival. The army felt that if there was a gap in military-held power, there would be civilians who would demand elections. Thus Camara was proclaimed president even before the funeral of Lansana Conté.

There was, however, some popular pressure to have elections, and so Camara said that there would be elections at the end of January 2010 and that he might not run. On 28 September, a large group of people, perhaps 50,000 who thought that elections would be a good thing, started entering the major football stadium in Conakry. The meeting was to have been the “Forum des Forces Vives”, and there were to have been speeches from civilian politicians who had been part of the Conté government, including two former Prime Ministers.

Before there could be any speeches but with a large crowd of people waiting, army members shot first into the air and then into the crowd. Panic followed as people tried to leave; others protested within the stadium. Looting began in the shops around the stadium. What seems certain from multiple eye-witnesses was that in addition to shooting, the military used their bayonets. It is estimated by UN sources that 150 died at the time and some 1,200 were injured, many seriously. What struck observers was the repeated attacks against women. While rape has become a widely used political weapon in African conflicts, such rapes are usually carried out in houses or in fields. Conakry seems to have been a first in the wide-spread rape and molesting of women in a public arena, leading the NGO “The Guinean Organization for Defence of Human Rights” to state that “the conscious rape of women is not only to dehumanize but to eliminate, punish, control, instill fear and dissuade them from taking part in any form of political participation.”

Government delegates at the UN Human Rights Council were worried by the events in Guinea, not only because the shootings were an obvious violation of human rights but also because the regional implications are disturbing. In all West Africa, there are underlying problems of high levels of unemployment and poor governance causing extreme frustration. The delegates were even more worried when Captain-President Camara said in an interview with Radio France International that the army was “out of control, undisciplined and without an operational chain of command.” But what to do?

There is a US expression “to pass the buck” meaning to pass a problem and the resulting decisions on to someone else. More elegantly, it is referred to in European Union circles as “the principle of subsidiarity” — having decisions made at the level closest to the problem as possible. Thus the UN Council passed the issue over to the African Union, which issued a statement deploring the violence and passed the issue on to the 16-member regional body — the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). The President of Nigeria which currently holds the rotating chairmanship of ECOWAS, Umaru Yar'Adua, appointed Blaise Compaoré, the President of Burkina Faso, as the mediator. Since Compaoré came to power in a coup in 1987, killing his former “best friend”, the then president Thomas Sankara, Compaoré knows all about coups and political violence. Compaoré flew to Conakry and called for a later meeting in Ouagadougou. Thus perhaps “the buck stops” with Compaoré, who, if not an outstanding champion of human rights, is a crafty military-politician who may work something out. Future events merit watching closely.

René Wadlow

Guinea-A-Wave-of-Horror-But-No-UN-Action?lang=en

Image:

Guinea unrest, source: google images