This staggering fact should lead the EU member states to seriously rethink their strategies and methods if they do not want all their efforts to evaporate. With some $75 billion of Official Development Assistant (ODA) to its name, the EU is by far the largest donor in the world, representing over 55% of the total yearly ODA. [1] But the reality is that the European Commission (EC) is entrusted with only one-sixth of the EU member states' aid, while five-sixths is still being channelled by European governments themselves. This article will therefore argue that only a more federal European development policy driven by the Commission will result in the delivery of more, better and faster aid which does trigger genuine economic growth in Africa.

What went wrong?

The main reason for which development policy is sometimes declared to be on the edge of bankruptcy is that EU member states cherished hidden national economic, security or postcolonial agendas far too long. Tied aid required recipient countries to purchase their equipment from companies residing in donor countries; strategically important but corrupt governments squandered money on mega projects that were by no means viable; and short-term technical assistance served as a charity sweetener to prolong influence in former colonies. Aid was centred on the interests of the North instead of those of the South. High officials of national development institutes admit that still too much time and money are being wasted on administrative micro-management and (Western) consultants. [2] Moreover, everybody was involved in everything and the three crucial C's of coordination, complementarity and coherence were totally disregarded. Too many cooks spoil the meal, especially when the recipes are full of flaws and the ingredients have passed their expiry date.

New strategies with fresh ingredients

An excellent recipe with modern ingredients is presented in the 2009 Industrial Development Report from UNIDO “Breaking In and Moving Up” which was co-authored by Professor Paul Collier, who wrote the famous bestseller “The Bottom Billion”. [3] The Report is innovative in proposing that the government partner with the private sector while emphasizing the role of institutions and infrastructure in stimulating a business climate open to trade. It is quintessential that aid is directed toward creating an “enabling environment” for the economy since Africa will need 7% growth on a yearly basis in order to reach the MDGs. [4] But in order for the poor to participate in the growth and for wealth to be redistributed, in other words, for development to be sustainable, aid must be managed by the recipient country. Strengthening country ownership was singled out as the first key issue in the 2008 Accra Agenda for Action because developing countries must obtain the capabilities and capacities to steer their own development. [5]

Now, the 2006 European Consensus on Development has spelled out the Commission's comparative advantage in governance and trade and recognized budget support as a preferential aid modality. [6] The EC should therefore be granted more supranational clout for it is a frontrunner on these best practices:

• Firstly, the EC is the most prominent advocate of budget support which draws on the government's self-management capacities thus drastically reducing paperwork. The grants come with incentives for the state administration to improve its national accountability mechanisms, such as the quality of public financial management and parliamentary capacity for democratic oversight on the executive to avoid corruption and assure good governance. Tranches of funds are only dispersed depending on performance indicators. In well governed states, “MDG Contracts” can be concluded in dialogue with the partner country to support for instance the health or education sectors. In fragile states, investments should be oriented to reforming the security sector, improving the checks and balances between the three branches of government, ensuring the freedom of expression & association for CSOs and strengthening the rule of law for enforceable contracts and guaranteed property rights. For example, in the framework of the 10th European Development Fund, the European Commission is now allocating 44% of its resources to budget support. [7]

• Secondly, the EC is rightly a champion of ever more aid for trade with a view to shift revenues away from levies to production. Aid for trade compensates for incrementally removing tariff and quota barriers and targets the strengthening of trade-related infrastructure (transport, communications, energy supply and storage space) as well as better macroeconomic policy and regulation. It supports small and medium sized enterprise associations (like chambers of commerce) so as to improve the supply-side capacity of the private sector, the investment climate and, eventually, create employment. For example, the Commission is close to allocating €1 billion to aid for trade (which is more than all EU MS together) and the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) aspire to gradually open-up markets to incite regional trade and integration. [8]

New method with less cooks

The cacophony of European aid still puts a tremendous administrative burden on African countries.

In the past, development policy suffered from a proliferation of aid actors, structures and activities which caused overlaps, duplications and boundless bureaucracy. Worse, donors tended to favour their “darling countries” while leaving “aid orphans” behind. That is why the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness calls for donor harmonisation and alignment on the partners' own strategies, in the interest of lower transaction costs. The 2007 EU Code of Conduct on Division of Labour already fulminated against the fact that in each developing country there are, on average, 350 donor missions per year. [9] But the cacophony of European aid still puts a tremendous administrative burden on African countries which could spend their precious resources far more usefully. For the sake of efficiency and effectiveness, pro-federal reforms are required in the institutional set-up of the EU, both at headquarter (HQ) and at field level:

- At HQ level:

• The artificial split between the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states and other countries must disappear in order to centralise all development policy under one single Directorate-General for Development (DG DEV), headed by one single Commissioner, who has to be responsible for the implementation by EuropeAid, too.

• A “Consistency Unit” in DG DEV should oversee the 3 C's in overall EU development action. This Unit should be in charge of coordination with DG Trade regarding the negotiation of the EPAs and the reduction of EU tariffs on imports, of coherence with DG Agriculture to slash trade-distorting subsidies and of complementarity with member states' development policies.

• The intergovernmental European Development Fund (an envelope of currently €22.6 billion) has to be brought into the general budget of the community, so as to increase oversight by the European Parliament and reduce earmarked funding dominated by national interests while still allowing EU member states to co-finance Commission aid programmes.

- In the field:

• In line with the principle of “delegated cooperation”, EC Delegations should (as “lead” donors) negotiate on behalf of the member states (the “delegating” donors) the Country Strategy Papers (CSP) with partner governments, in an effort to rally donors behind one concerted and uniform approach. In such a strategy, the Commission could for instance be tasked with budget support, infrastructure and democratic governance, while the member states take on health and education. Such a division of labour would guarantee more in-country and cross-country complementarity.

• In terms of evaluation, monitoring and auditing, it would cut red tape drastically if recipient countries only had to report back to one single donor and deal with one standard set of rules. CSOs would need to play a crucial role as watchdogs and brief the Commission on progress made.

Raise the level of aid

According to the OECD statistics, only 30% of ODA is channelled multilaterally whereas 70% still goes through bilateral channels. [10] In the name of reducing the costly fragmentation of aid and increasing the predictability and transparency of flows, more aid has to be channelled via the European Commission, the UN or international development banks.

Finally, concerning the “Financing for Development”, the Commission should not only just keep track of member states' performance on a scoreboard but it should start taking measures against EU countries that do not fulfil their commitments enshrined in the 2002 Monterrey Consensus and reiterated in the 2008 Doha Declaration. Since they already promised to spend the symbolic sum of 0.7% of their GDP on ODA back in 1970, they have had more than enough time to reach 0.56% by 2010 and at least 0.7% by 2015. Political leaders are held accountable for not keeping their promises on the national level, but who will hold them accountable for not meeting their obligations towards the developing world?

Conclusion

It always has to be borne in mind that aid is not a goal in itself but only a way of spurring sustainable human and economic development. Development has to be driven by the developing countries themselves and the 2007 Joint EU-Africa Strategy proves that African countries also underline democratic governance and trade amongst their strategic priorities. [11] The European Commission is at the vanguard of supporting these policies, by granting budget support and aid for trade, and strives for a simplified EU aid architecture. The quantity of aid could be improved if the Commission were to be given more authority in assuring that member states stick to their commitments. And the quality and speed of aid could be improved if the Commission were to push for a binding division of labour and assume more competences in delivering aid itself. Unless more powers are shifted to the supranational level, the sum of the parts will always remain smaller than the total.

How long will EU member states continue to think they can dodge sharp criticism? They would do better to federalise their aid policies before they get accused by their citizens of spending billions of taxpayers' money without benefiting the development of Africa at all…

Federalise-EU-development-aid-for?lang=en

Milosevic's reign was marked by war, isolation, lack of freedom and civil rights in almost every way. The Revolution of 5th October 2000 was thought to be a revelation-like event and most of youngsters (including me, even if I was 15 at the time) were expecting a lot…it turns out, a whole lot more.

It has been 9 years since then, so where is Serbia today? Yes, we have pro-European democratic government, we have freedom of speech, we have foreign investments, we even have, officially, gross economic development. We do not have a rule of law (elementary law suits last for, literary, years), social security basically does not exist, we have lousy infrastructure, church is still highly influential in the government, around 10% of the population lives in poverty, around 10 people hold most of Country's economy, bureaucracy is pain-staking complicated, for instance, in Serbia you have to get up at 01:00 AM and go wait in the freezing cold until 07:00 AM in order to submit documents for the passport (and I am not kidding or exaggerating) and we are not even on the ''white Schengen''…and the list could go on forever, but I'll stick to the really important things – corruption and political nepotism.

The government and the parties do not have any sort of long-term-overall-country-beneficial strategies and they are driven mostly by day-to-day political and personal interests.

It is a fact, that 100% of the large public-company managers are assigned directly from currently ruling political parties, regardless of their professional competence and merit. It is a sad, repetitive, straightforward process of putting the ''most appropriate'' members of the ruling parties in charge of important, strategical resources of the Country. The cycle lasts four years, until the next elections. In the meantime, by forcing corruption in the public companies, the political parties earn money through minor and major financial crimes. Alongside the tycoons, this is one of primary mechanisms for Serbian political parties to gain finances.

The brutal truth is that after the fall of Milosevic's regime, political scene did become democratic and that many positive baby-steps have been taken, but also the level of corruption and political nepotism has been absolutely unchanged if not changed for the worse in past nine years. Political parties have complete absence of ideals and the only goal is to stay in the government. Important laws are made so they fit the current political and economical elite (several mentioned tycoons). The government and the parties do not have any sort of long-term-overall-country-beneficial strategies and they are driven mostly by day-to-day political and personal interests. Serbia has constant changes of fundamental laws, rules and even the Constitution is still not stable as it ought to be.

In light of such truths, there is no motivation for young intelligent and prosperous population to engage in any of the current political parties in Serbia, even though there are many who are politically aware of themselves and the situation. The current law basically makes it impossible for anyone to form a new political party without enormous financial support. In addition, the effort in order to struggle with highly developed corruption mechanisms, even for a relatively large group of people, would be equivalent to trying to slay a gigantic corruption-hydra which, sadly, represents the Country itself.

Cross-section-view-of-the-current?lang=en

Until this day, 30 different payment systems had been operating in the European area, thus rendering cross-border payments more expensive than domestic payments, and forcing European citizens (merchants, students, business) to maintain more than one “electronic wallets” –bank accounts-, one for each country of operation. With the introduction of SEPA national payments are aligned, and cross-border payments are treated in the same way as domestic payments, thus enabling consumers to maintain a single bank account for all Euro payments. SEPA is composed of four payment tools: SEPA credit transfer, SEPA direct debit, SEPA credit cards and SEPA cash, which is none other than the Euro.

The SEPA system is an innovation for the European banking industry, created at its own initiative and applicable to all electronic payments (direct debit, credit cards, credit transfer) of small Euro value. It is, therefore, a banking system aimed at the creation of a common and harmonized pan-European payment structure. SEPA's basic objective is the promotion of European financial integration through a competitive payment market that will provide a higher level of payments, more effective products and cheaper solutions for the realization of cross-border payments. Under the SEPA system, customers will be using a single bank account and a set of standardized means with which they will carry out cross-border payments with the same cost, security and effectiveness as domestic payments, with a substantial profit for all sectors of the economy.

In particular, consumers will benefit as long as all cross-border payments are considered domestic. Payment cost will be reduced to a standard fee structure across Europe, benefiting citizens in countries with high cost. For instance, Italian banks charge 252€ a year for consumer payments whilst Dutch banks charge only 34€ a year. This disparity will disappear, with the expectation that the average cost for payment services for citizens will be around 100€ as a choice and competition amongst financial providers increases. In addition, those citizens who travel or own properties in other EU member states can now manage their requirements through a single bank account with standard charging and fee structures, encouraging more business and commerce across Europe.

Corporations, and especially multinationals, will be able to maintain a single SEPA account through which they will realize all of their payments and manage their assets effectively. The management of payments will be simplified since incoming and out coming payments will have the same form. With the unification of the management of payments, corporations with activities in the Euro zone will save money and time. Services of added value are also in order, such as e-invoicing and e-reconciliation, which will improve corporate accounting systems.

Last but not least, with SEPA, banks will deal with pan-European infrastructures for the clearing and settlement of payments. This will enable banks to reap over €10 billion in savings through the consolidation, rationalization and sharing of infrastructures. A further €5 billion will be saved through reduced cash usage as Europe citizens move towards increasing usage of cards, prepaid or other electronic payment transactions. Banks can also generate new revenue streams by moving towards new products and services. Finally, in this new SEPA environment banks are in position to extend their activities to Euro zone level, as they are able to offer services throughout the Euro zone. The completion is intensified and banks can negotiate with service providers under better terms. The banking market becomes more effective, and European financial integration is enforced.

The banking market becomes more effective, and European financial integration is enforced.

Notwithstanding, as regards to banks, the gain from their participation in the SEPA system will not be immediate. Firstly, the banking industry will be called to invest in its systems, so that they will correspond to those of SEPA. According to an ECB study, these investments will cost 5,2-7,7 billion Euros in total. The economic consequences will also depend on the level of the evolution and assimilation of SEPA, which can be classified as following:

• 1st level: Non-existence of SEPA;
• 2nd level: Parallel function of SEPA and current system;
• 3rd level: Only SEPA products;
• 4th level: Domination of SEPA electronic payments and reduction of the use of bills. Studies have shown that the fourth level of electronic payment domination is the most profitable for banks, contrary to the second level, in which systems co-exist. For this reason banks, following their accession in the SEPA system, developed policies for the publicizing and spreading of SEPA products to their customers.

According to the timetable set by the European Payment Council, the first stage, the stage of design, started in 2004 and has reached completion. The second stage, which concerns the realization, started in 2006 and was completed late 2007. Today, we are in the final stage, the stage of the migration where the SEPA system co-exists with the old national system. It will be complete by the end of 2010, by which time the mass of transactions will have migrated to the SEPA system. However, European states will come under the SEPA systems in different periods, observing the stages mentioned previously. An important factor for the migration of countries to the SEPA system is the state of the current national payment system. Each member state has already developed a timetable for migration to SEPA under the aegis of EPC, which also controls the observation of the timetable.

In other words, the SEPA system responds to targets set in 2000 in Lisbon, that is a more globally competitive European economy. It also responds to the E-Europe program regarding the transition to digital economy, the expansion of electronic commerce, and the use of the Internet and mobile communications, as well as the interconnection of networks on a pan-European basis. It is, therefore, a program with references to the past, as it provides a boost to the four freedoms met in every aspect of everyday lives of European citizens, and the future, by setting the foundation for a widespread exploitation of the advantages of technology in the banking sector.

Single-Euro-Payment-Area-The-New?lang=en

If useless bickering has to be avoided, it is important for the European socialists to recognize the collective mistakes made during this campaign. If they do not do so now, they run a double risk: that the disagreements reappear at a less appropriate time, and (worse still) that the same mistakes are made again in the next campaign, which could only results in even more disappointing results. There would be much to say about the identity crisis that socialism in Europe is going through, but it is exclusively on the campaign mistakes that we will focus here. Without mercy, but always keeping the criticism constructive, let's see what these mistakes were.

An over-nationalization of the stakes

This cannot be highlighted enough. Just like a national campaign is fought on national issues, a true European campaign should be focused on European issues. Sadly, most socialist parties went in the opposite direction, going for the easy option. In France for instance, the PS heavily criticized the MoDem for focusing the debate on opposing the president Sarkozy. But the compliment could really have been returned to them. Talking about a “sanction vote” or purely national matters means considering the voters too stupid to understand what is at stake, and further reducing their little interest in European elections. Admittedly, the fault is shared and the socialists weren't the only ones to adopt such a political stance. But they missed a good opportunity to stand out and boost their political visibility by really talking about Europe.

A lack of leadership

This has also been repeated throughout the campaign, but it is worth insisting: the Party of European Socialists (PES) should have proposed a candidate for the presidency of the Commission. Whether Martin Schulz likes it or not (read about this his unconvincing reply to a post criticizing his stance on the issue), the parliament could perfectly have imposed another president to the governments (today this seems extremely unlikely). Anticipating their own defeat, a number of socialist leaders preferred to take the safe bet by announcing their support for Barroso. The results seem to prove them right. Except that this strategy is based on a self-fulfilling prophecy: it is because the socialists failed to appear united and capable of proposing a real alternative that they failed, not the other way around!

Too much focus on the criticism, not enough on the proposals

Criticism is healthy as long as it is used as a springboard to put forward a true alternative. But clearly, in many countries the socialists have not been able or willing to focus on their concrete proposals, preferring to concentrate almost exclusively on criticizing the right and what they have done the past few years. This can only yield counterproductive results, as the right is put at the middle of the campaign and the left gets trapped in the image of the frenzied opponent. This is even more of a pity considering credible proposals (notably an efficient response to the crisis) were to be found in the PES manifesto, which has insufficiently been used.

Unexplored political fields

It is of course logical that in this time of crisis the campaign focused on economic issues, but it is regrettable that the socialists didn't take the initiative to expand the debate to other important topics. For instance, the refusal by the right to expand the maternity leave, or to condemn the pope's shocking declaration were (missed) opportunities for the left to highlight its positions in front of the current conservative climate. Criticizing (ultra-)liberalism is no longer enough: if socialists want to embody tomorrow's progressive force, they must be more daring, and in all political fields.

In spite of those important mistakes, there were also some positive aspects in this campaign: a vigorous criticism, numerous campaign exchanges, and a manifesto largely recognized as excellent. Based on this critical assessment, let's hope the socialists will learn the lessons from this campaign and make the appropriate conclusions. Because in the meantime Europe will not wait, and the challenges are many.

Collapse-of-the-socialist-at-the?lang=en

I believe that this election (and the controversy that it has generated) has long term consequences. The fact that the Supreme Leader's authority was and is still being challenged in the streets has important implications. These include that Iranians are fed up with the lack of basic freedoms and human rights, the system of almost divine rule of the Supreme Leader has lost credibility in the eyes of many Iranians and that the system of government has to undergo radical changes to make it less complicated and more transparent and more respectful towards human rights. The theocratic system has lost its credibility and it is clear that Iranians want a major change in the system of government. In my view, the Iranian clerics are going for the wrong option of suppressing by force which could lead to another revolution in the long run… just as what happened to the Shah in 1979. The Shah, during his rule, chose repression and ended up overthrown in a revolution within a few months. The clerics must keep in mind that if they retard change (like the Shah did); they will have to face the hostility of the very people who put them in power 30 years ago. The writing is on the wall, but the clerics do not want to see it. So, I believe that they will manage to suppress the people this time by force but the reform movement will grow stronger until one day it will become strong enough to topple them.

This election generated a lot of enthusiasm compared to the election of 2005. The youths and the women featured very strongly in this election and showed a lot of enthusiasm. The majority of the youths and the women showed that they were displeased under Ahmadinejad. Iran's rulers have to take note of this if they want to stay longer in power. They have to brace themselves for a radical change in the system of almost divine rule by the Supreme Leader and the powerful, unelected Guardian Council. They have to make it more accountable and friendly towards human rights.

The election was accompanied by a high turnout. Some 85% of the eligible voters voted in this election. Hours later, it was suggested that Ahmadinejad got 63% of the vote and Mousavi got just 34% of the vote. This statement was not believed by Mousavi and his supporters. It was time to strike for democracy.

Protests

The protests resulting from accusations of alleged fraud in the election have been the most serious since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. For more than a week, Iranian protesters have been defying the election result attracting considerable international interest. Despite harsh restrictions on the media, Iranians have taken videos on mobile phones and uploaded them on the internet for the whole world to see. Disturbing images and videos of the Basij (a voluntary paramilitary force loyal to the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei) beating protesters and shooting at them have been released. It is amazing how the Iranians are using the internet to defy the authorities: this was something unimaginable a few years ago.

At the Friday Prayers, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei showed that he was not impartial when the Supreme Leader should supposedly stay above the political fray and take balanced decisions. His stern warning to the protesters shows that he is supportive of Ahmadinejad. But although he has come in the limelight now, the protests have continued and the challenge is against him. Now, Khamenei is under fire.

A young woman called Neda who was killed by a Basij militia member has become a sort of martyr and an icon of the Iranian freedom movement. This will only strengthen the Reform Movement in Iran in the long run. Her widely publicised death will make the challenge to the clerical leadership more serious than ever before. This time the opposition movement is stronger than ever before and it is also organized in the sense that it has clerics and powerful figures in the top leadership supporting the protesters. Important figures such as Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri give the protests strength. This has surely led to serious divides among the clerics (behind closed doors).

Divisions in the Clerical Establishment

These protests are the birth of the freedom and democracy movement in Iran which is getting stronger.

The aftermath of this election has revealed serious disagreements within the clerical establishment. Some clerics such as Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, who is a strong opponent of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad and favours human rights and democracy in Iran, openly support the protesters. Grand Ayatollah Montazeri had issued warnings in the past to the current clerical establishment to change their anti-democratic ways, or else face the anger of the people who put them in power thirty years ago.

The clerics are at a crossroads now. Either they grant human rights and let democracy work properly or suppress the people's demands through the use of force. The latter prevailed and this will have serious consequences in the long run. These protests are the birth of the freedom and democracy movement in Iran which is getting stronger. The clerics would be extremely foolish to ignore such an important development in Iran's political history. Such a mistake could lead to their downfall in the long term… just like what happened to the Shah in 1979. So, Iran's leaders….Quo Vadis?

Iran-Quo-Vadis?lang=en

The situation of human rights is among other problems, such us the economic situation (unemployment and corruption), the role and the intervention of military in the country's politics, the Kurdish issue, the problem of Cyprus and some reactions of European leaders. In the current article, the issue of human rights will be examined and especially the aspects of torture and ill–treatment and the freedom of expression and press, as well as the death penalty problem and the situation of women rights.

According to Yildiz and Muller, ‘torture is defined by the international community as one of the most severe violations of human rights, and the international prohibition against torture and ill–treatment is well known, evident and absolute'. Torture and ill–treatment problem exists in a wide range in the country. There were various efforts to prevent these phenomena, such as the legislative reforms and the constitutional amendments in 2001, however no sound result could have been attained. According to the Report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment (CTP), “a considerable number of Turkish citizens had been subject to various forms of torture and ill–treatment at the hands of police officers”. For example, during the first six months of 2004, 455 reports of torture were sent to the Turkish Human Rights Foundation Insan Haklari Dernegi. The President of the European Council Jean-Claude Juncker aptly described the situation by arguing that “it cannot be that a country where torture and ill–treatment is still practiced has a place at the European Union table”

The freedom of expression and press is another aspect of huge significance. According to the Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, “everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”. There are many articles in the Turkish Constitution, which show that there is no total freedom of opinion and press. Articles 26.2 and 26.3 place many restrictions on freedom of expression and thought. Courts are allowed to close publications from the Article 28.10 of the Constitution. There are also many articles of the Penal Code that put obstacles in the free expression, such us the Article 158, which prohibits insulting “the President of Republic” and the Article 159, which prohibits “insulting the moral personality of Turkiness, the Republic, the Parliament, the Government, State Ministers, the military or security forces, or the Judiciary”. Furthermore, the Article 4 of the Law Concerning the Founding and Broadcasts of Television and Radio (RTUK) gives the power to the High Board for Radio and Television Broadcasting “to fine or shut down TV channels for days or even weeks if their content is deemed by it to offend national or family standards”. A strong and current example is that of the novelist Orhan Pamuk, who was sentenced with three years for his statement that “1 million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds have been killed in this country”. EU knows the huge problem of the freedom of expression and press and it considers it as one of the most important aspects that have to change in the issue of human rights. Undeniably, there is a noticeable progress in the issue, for example with the democratization package of 2002 – 2003, which strengthened the freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of press and freedom of association. There is an effort of the Turkish Government to show progress in the issue of human rights and especially in the freedom of expression and press. In order to accomplish that, it needs not only changes and amendments, but a real will to implement these changes.

It needs to believe in that effort and to implement any radical changes in all the fields, such us economy, military, political issues and, moreover, in the field of human rights.

There are other problems that have to get resolved, such as the total abolition of death penalty and the improvement of the situation of women rights. Ataturk pointed the priority on the equality between men and women, when he gave women the right to vote in municipal elections in 1930 and in national elections, in 1934. We can find a positive background in that issue. In 2000, Turkey signed the UN Convention of the rights of Women and Convention of the Rights of Children. In 2004, famous footballers and actors participated in a comprehensive awareness programme about the crimes of ‘honour' and domestic violence. Even though, there are still many problems and ‘honour crimes' is one of them. Indeed, EU included it in the 2008 Report for Turkey. In its “2008 progress reports on Croatia, Turkey, and FYROM”, European Parliament expressed its concern about the augmentation of the number of ‘honour crimes' in Turkey and it demanded more efforts for the prevention of the family violence. Finally, the existence of death penalty is also a sensitive issue in the country. There is no execution from 1984, but the death penalty is not yet abolished totally. Turkey's judicial system is not harmonised with the European Convention on Human Rights and this is a significant concern for the EU. Turkey has not also yet signed the Sixty Protocols to the European Convention on Human Rights. Today, the Article 37 prohibits the death penalty, except of cases during war or threat of war. The amended on 2002 Article 37, as a result, still does not conform with Protocol 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Turkey is a country in search of its identity. As many argue, it is a bridge between the West and the East. It is the only Muslim country with that great level of “Westernization”. It has also a great strategic role, located next to the Middle East. As we can observe from the analysis of the situation of human rights in the country, Turkey is also in the middle of the bridge that leads to the final destination, the EU membership. It needs to believe in that effort and to implement any radical changes in all the fields, such us economy, military, political issues and, moreover, in the field of human rights. Of course, there is not a one-sided process. EU has to put the sensitive and important Turkish issue up to the list of its priorities, by having, first of all, a clear and common voice regarding the enlargement process and, furthermore, by prompting Turkey to make bigger efforts in the field. Only then, after an effective and interactive cooperation between the two parts, we will be able to get the first real results of that effort.

Turkey-Human-Rights-A-relationship?lang=en

Consequently, the EU leaders have called the initiative of drawing up a joint plan as a recovery of this incumbent period. The European Central Bank has also injected billions of money into the system to entice purchasing power and give a guarantee to bank depositors. But the situation remains confound. The EU also pressed for more regulation and stricter accountability and transparency, to strengthen the financial sector through more supervision, proposing the formalisation of this under a directive. But conversely to the US, the EU is characterized by a heterogeneous economy, thus, this crisis is exerting different pressures on EU member states – 27 economies require varied measure to curb malignant effects and prosper economic growth.

Conversely, the USA has a much less structured regulatory framework compared to the EU. Moreover, the collapse of the Dollar is looming, as has been also cited during the G20 summit held on 2 April in London. In the last decades, too many dollars have been issued by the Fed (semi-privately owned), and government has no control on M3. Such subside should have occurred much earlier since devaluation dates back to the 1970s. But, the global GDP keeps on securing the US Dollar, while people still believe in its value and maintain their purchasing power. Up to now, the excess in US Dollar has always been engaged in some market, such as the automotive, housing, venturing in the Middle East which pushed oil prices to an exorbitant level, as well as terror wars. Subsequently, the Fed issued another 1.2 trillion US Dollars this March to give a boost to the economy.

Worldwide action is surely needed as measures only in EU or America would be simply futile, given that we are living in a globalisation era.

On a broad-spectrum the focus must be shift to emerging economies, which have not been affected badly. More investment should be allocated, so as to promote the creation of jobs. In fact, the EU, being home for over 23 million SMEs, is putting a lot of effort to reduce bureaucracy which puts burdens inversely proportional to the size of SMEs. In addition, with all the obligations to our abused environment, the greening of jobs is essential while at the same time resourceful in these times of crisis for further job creation.

But worldwide action is surely needed as measures only in EU or America would be simply futile, given that we are living in a globalisation era. While the Obama administration believes that protectionism could take us back to the great depression, the Maltese government is injecting huge investments in manufacturing companies to safeguard employment. Fortunately enough, Malta was not as harshly hit like other EU member states, at least so far! This is also thanks to the banking system which remains highly conservative in fractional banking reserves. Besides, the Central Bank of Malta has forecasted a GDP growth up to 1.1% for this year. Indisputably Malta will sense the crisis effects in the coming years, being a country highly dependent on tourism especially British. This could be overcome, by focusing on tourism niches and investment in sustainable tourism as is already in the pipeline with 10 million Euros secured from Structural funds for this purposes.

Coming to a close, a gloomy perspective will only result in the endurance of a recession. This will keep on slugging the economic cycle, giving room to pessimistic speculation, and a curb in spending patterns to put aside for the rainy days being conjectured. A combination of EU's management with a high degree of US Presidency's positivism which brought around a confidence for a better future in American's mindset, are essential for a way forward to a more rapid economic upturn.

Therefore, in these times of challenges, all countries must do a joint effort to resolve the issue, putting in practice the ultimate message conveyed in the last EU-USA summit stating ‘We start from the belief that prosperity is indivisible; that growth, to be sustained, has to be shared.'

The-economic-crisis?lang=en

Launched after the French and Dutch “no” to the Constitutional Treaty in 2005, this symbolic threshold is a great achievement for this magazine entirely fuelled by young volunteers coming from all over Europe.

The New Federalist and its team of young Europeans includes 4 linguistic versions (English, Italian, German and French) and delivers an inventive and activist analysis of European affairs. Since 2005, the magazine issued 3.000 articles, 1.500 short-news and received over 67.000 comments, sign that The New Federalist is a place of an ongoing democratic and vivid debate. The Italian, German and English editions issue several articles per week, the French edition one every day. This collective experience brings to our readers a multicultural approach to the European topics.

After all the efforts made since 2005, The New Federalist has become a prominent source for analysis and comments on the European affairs, gathering 90.000 unique-visitors every month. The 2 million visitors confirm the magazine's top-ranking, as shown in the European Web Map study from Touteleurope.fr.

A federalist point of view? It works !

The New Federalist aims at understanding what is at stake in Europe today, and what will be tomorrow. If facts and pedagogy are central in our articles, the ability to express an independent point of view remains the first expectation from our readership. The magazine claims its pro-European and federalist identity and will continue to look at European issues with this identity, in opposition with the recurrent national approach.

Our ever-increasing audience is the proof that talking about Europe and politics as we do reaches a real demand of debate and information. This success also strengthens our belief in the key role of internet to catch up with the lack of European public space.

The Editorial Board of The New Federalist is very proud of this success and thanks all of your for your fidelity!

2-Million-visitors-for-The-New?lang=en

During the MEP election campaign, this fanaticism has been used as a political weapon by both of the major parties. Furore has been raised on a nationwide scale regarding certain national affairs such as the exaggerated raise in the utility tariffs, public transport reform, student grants, and prices of healthcare services and so on and so forth. These are very important issues, but on a national scale. The problem is that these national issues were being used as bait for votes by the major parties. Can you imagine a MEP making a motion in the European Parliament to reduce the utility tariffs in their respective member state?

The other problem is that European-Maltese liaison issues were somewhat sidelined in the latter part of the election campaign to make way for the national issues which are the issues mostly being felt by the people. The European issues mainly being raised in Malta are the abolition of spring hunting by abiding with EU regulations, which is a major talking point among hunter and euro sceptic alike, since hunting is a popular hobby among the Maltese. This case regarding spring hunting has also been referred to the European court. Another issue is VAT charged on car registration, which is against Community Law, is a case which has been referred to both the national court and the European court by the Labour Party, representing circa 17,000 people claiming damages.

The problem with the two major parties cancelling each other out on such issues of utmost importance in the European Parliament has led to a European election campaign being turned into a purely local contest.

Also, of course, one cannot ignore the phenomenon of human tragedy that is illegal immigration. It is a tragedy, which unfortunately, perhaps even insensitively, is a problem for Malta and fellow Mediterranean countries. This tragedy has been turned into a political game by certain Maltese political parties. The some minor political parties, such as the National Action Party encourage the repatriation of illegal immigrants, an act which is condemned by the Geneva Convention. The major political parties squabble endlessly over the issue, most of the times even needlessly so in order to attract voters. One of the Maltese EPP-ED (Partit Popolari Ewropew u d-Demokratiċi Ewropej) MEPs, Simon Busuttil, commissioned a report to amend the Dublin II Regulation, a vote which won with a clear majority in the European Parliament, a vote of great importance for Malta's plight, a vote which secured obligatory burden sharing among other competences. Yet even this motion was greeted with hostility and contempt among the opposition party in Malta.

The problem with the two major parties cancelling each other out on such issues of utmost importance in the European Parliament has led to a European election campaign being turned into a purely local contest. The course of the election campaign has been run by having the Nationalist Party putting forward European proposals, the Labour Party then skilfully play into the citizen's hearts, by exploiting discontent over long-standing national complaints, which then led the Nationalist Party to respond in a reactionary way. Why do the parties do this? They do this because the people are insufficiently educated as to how the European Union and its institutions work. Why are the people ignorant of such important matters? They are ignorant because, for the parties, it is convenient that they remain so. This is because the parties can then do what they do best, play the blame game, sometimes spinning lies, and hoping that they do not get caught; and thus playing right into the hearts of the unsuspecting citizen by highlighting broken promises. If we truly want to see the beauty of populism at its peak in European Elections, it is vital that the people be educated on the institutions of the EU.

On Saturday the electorate turned out in force, with 78% of eligible voters casting their vote, the highest in Europe. Unlike with our European brethren, the socialist Labour Party won with an absolute majority of 55%, giving them the majority of the seats within the bosom of the PES (Partit tas-Socjalisti Ewropej). Incumbent Simon Busuttil (EPP-ED) was immediately elected, while confirmation of election took much longer for others. David Casa (EPP-ED) was also re-elected. Throughout Europe the EPP-ED group were the dominant political party, however in Malta it was not the case, similarly to five years ago. The Labour Party, elected incumbents Louis Grech and John Attard-Montalto, along with new comer Edward Scicluna. Joseph Cuschieri was also elected as the sixth MEP, should Malta be awarded the additional seat by the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

Since Malta does not have many seats in Parliament, which is why it is imperative that the candidates we chose act in a consistent, credible and responsible manner in the European Parliament. Hopefully, when voting, the Maltese electorate asked themselves, “do I think that this candidate will make a difference in Parliament?”. Unfortunately, in my honest opinion, there were some Maltese candidates who would have been ineffectual in the European Parliament. Hopefully the elected MEPs, who will start to prove themselves with the start of plenary on the 14th of July, will make our country proud, and not just their party, but that is another story in another article.

The-mess-of-electoral-campaigning?lang=en

With the military defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelan (LTTE) in mid-May 2009, their proposal of a ‘two-State solution' for the island is probably dead forever. The idea of creating a Tamil State from the north and part of the east of Sri Lanka was unrealistic from the start as Tamils live in all parts of the country even if there are concentrations in the north and east. However, the LTTE was able to become the ‘voice' of the Tamil population and effectively silenced all serious discussion of other avenues of structuring the State.

Now, there will be a real possibility of discussing different types of decentralization of authority. While the responsibility of finding new State structures that give confidence to all in Sri Lanka that the State is fair and works for the common good, federalist thinking from outside may play a positive role.

As there is a large Sri Lankan community in Europe, many of whom are educated Tamils, discussions with federalists in Europe could be organized. The Government of Sri Lanka, while currently in a strong nationalist phase after its military victory, nevertheless expressed a willingness to have international attention paid to the decentralization process. This process is part of Amendment 13 to the Sri Lankan Constitution though it has never been put into practice. The willingness to have international discussion of the application of the 13th Amendment was part of the final resolution of the UN Human Rights Council Special Session held in Geneva on 27 May 2009. The Ambassador of Sri Lanka played an active role in writing the resolution, indicating what was and what was not acceptable to his government.

A Special Session is the prime method that the Human Rights Council has to attract attention to a country situation and to give its resolutions added weight as only one country is considered. Normally, a session of the Human Rights Council produces 10 or more resolutions on a host of issues so that, in practice, none stand out very clearly unless there has been a good deal of debate about a particular issue. The recommendations, which we will discuss in detail, set out a framework for action by the Government of Sri Lanka, the UN humanitarian and development agencies and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).

The fact that human rights issues were raised in the case of the Sri Lankan Special Session and that political guidelines concerning the decentralization of power were part of the final resolution are important milestones.

This Special Session on Sri Lanka is innovative in two respects. The first is that it was the Human Rights Council which took the lead in setting out clearly post-conflict guidelines. In the past, it has been the UN Development Programme (UNDP) that would call a post-conflict conference. The usual aim was to raise money for reconstruction and some economic development planning. At these UNDP meetings, human rights and political issues were avoided. I had participated years ago in the UNDP-sponsored conference after the change in government in Equatorial Guinea, a country under review in the then UN Commission on Human Rights. Representatives of the Centre for Human Rights — the UN Secretariat section responsible or all human rights issues — were not invited to the meeting. Despite my efforts in the hallways as an NGO representative to inform government representatives of the continuing human rights violations in Equatorial Guinea, human rights and political issues were never raised. The same was true later of a post-conflict UN fund raising conference on Mozambique, which I had attended, as the Ambassador from Mozambique had been one of my students. The terms of the peace accord that brought the civil war to an end in Mozambique should have been discussed because economic development depended in part on the terms of the peace accord being carried out. However, the whole conference turned around how much money could be raised.

Thus, the fact that human rights issues were raised in the case of the Sri Lankan Special Session and that political guidelines concerning the decentralization of power were part of the final resolution are important milestones. The UN, as an institution, works on precedent. If something has never been done, it is very difficult to get an innovation through. If something has been done once, the next time it is easier to do it. [1]

The second innovation of this Special Session was the important recognition given in the final resolution to the concept of the Responsibility to Protect. As has been said in the preparation to the UN General Assembly resolution recognizing the concept of the Responsibility to Protect “If we believe that all human beings are equally entitled to be protected from acts that shock the conscience of us all, then we must match rhetoric with reality, principle with practice. We cannot be content with reports and declarations. We must be prepared to act.” [2] There were two post-Cold War events that started the intellectual policy wheels turning. The first was the 1994 Rwanda genocide, and the second was the slaughter of Muslim men at Srebrenica, ex-Yugoslavia in 1995, hardly a year later. Neither the Rwanda genocide nor the systematic killing of prisoners of war in Srebrenica could be explained in political terms. Any political aims that the participants had could have been gained better with less killing. If one was not to limit one's analysis to saying that the Rwandans and Serbs were ‘savages' motivated by unknowable but primitive passions, some explanation of events had to be presented and then some avenues to prevent their recurrence was necessary.

Explanations of irrational political behaviour are difficult for policy makers. It is a slippery slope, and ‘original sin' is not a popular explanation these days. Thus, it is easier for policy makers to discuss what to do when such conflicts start, or better, on the eve of starting.

The first calls for action came from Bernard Kouchner, who had been a French Red Cross doctor in Biafra in the late 1960s and for whom action was more important than long discussions on the fine points of international law. He had been surprised by the restrictions placed by the International Committee of the Red Cross on denouncing conditions in Biafra. Thus, he and some of his French Red Cross co-workers in Biafra created a new organization ‘Doctors without Frontiers' which would go where they were needed if governments liked it or not. Kouchner became a highly popular figure in France and always had good relations with the media to spread his ideas. The fact that his wife is a leading television news journalist is not a handicap. Kouchner was taken into the Socialist-led French government in 1980, first for humanitarian affairs and later as Minister of Health. He started speaking of the “duty of humanitarian intervention”. The idea was taken up by NGOs and by a few international law professors, in particular Mario Bettati who was active in NGO circles. Bettati helped to give a legal foundation to Kouchner's ideas. As there are periodical meetings of ministers of the European Union, Kouchner's “humanitarian intervention” proposals were increasingly discussed. No other government took up the idea, but it was a difficult idea to oppose.

Kouchner's “duty of humanitarian intervention” was progressively transformed into the Responsibility to Protect.

Kouchner's “duty of humanitarian intervention” was progressively transformed into the Responsibility to Protect. The idea found its way to the UN Secretary-General's High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, which then passed it on to the UN Advisory Committee on Genocide Prevention. Finally, the Responsibility to Protect was formally and unanimously embraced by the UN General Assembly meeting of heads of state at the 2005 World Summit. Many of these same heads of state have lawyers who can advise them that the Responsibility to Protect is no more binding on them than their 2000 pledge to cut world poverty in half by 2015.

There was a good deal of closed-door negotiation prior to the start of the Special Session. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay, had publicly called for an independent investigation into war crimes committed by both sides, especially in the last two months which saw the last round of the civil war. She said “In no circumstances can the end justify the means. There are strong reasons to believe that both sides have grossly disregarded the fundamental principle of the defence of civilians”. The Swiss delegation, while not going as far as calling for an independent investigation, raised the issue of the violations of humanitarian law. Switzerland is particularly active on humanitarian law issues being the home of the Geneva-based International Committee of the Red Cross. The dynamic Sri Lankan Ambassador Dajan Jayatilleka was active in explaining just what was acceptable to the Sri Lankan government and setting out what he considered to be the “domestic matters” of the Sri Lankan state.

Thus, what is important in the four action points of the final resolution of the Special Session is not so much the ideas than the fact that they were agreed to by the Sri Lankan government in advance and thus serve as internationally accepted policies on which the UN has a duty to follow the progress of these policies. This is an important breakthrough.

The first important element is the recognition of the status of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). The status of refugees — people crossing state frontiers — is fixed by the 1948 Refugee Convention with some follow up measures. The reality of internally displaced persons is not set in a treaty and exists in international law only through UN General Assembly resolutions and the creation of the post of Representative of the UN Secretary-General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons. The current Representative, Walter Kaelin, has recently been to Sri Lanka for talks. Thus, the government of Sri Lanka recognizes the existence of IDPs and their right to safe drinking water, sanitation, food, medical and health-care services. Moreover, the resolution acknowledges the commitment of the Government of Sri Lanka to provide access as may be appropriate to international humanitarian agencies in order to ensure humanitarian assistance. “As may be appropriate” is a phrase that government hold to as it opens doors to possible limitations, but the importance must be on the word access.

The second important element is to set a time limit for resettlement. When the detention camps were first set up at the end of April 2009, some government administrators were speaking of two years before everyone would be resettled. Now there is a 6-month deadline to which the Sri Lankan government has agreed and to which it must be held.

The third important element of the resolution is the agreement to a policy of the rehabilitation and reintegration of former child soldiers. The LTTE had made wide use of child soldiers. There are real difficulties in their reintegration into society. The government of Sri Lanka has agreed to recognize this special category of people — an important step in the implementation of the rights of the child.

The fourth element is a crucial one, because it recognizes an international legitimacy in following the evolution of the political structures of Sri Lanka. This is the agreement in the UN resolution to implement the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution. The 13th Amendment concerns the decentralization of power and the creation of administrative councils so that political power may be closer to the people. The provisions of the 13th Amendment had never been put into practice. Thus the Sri Lankan government has promised a decentralisation of the administration and by including the item of the 13th Amendment in the UN resolution, gives UN bodies the right to follow its real implementation.

While each of these elements may seem small in contrast to the suffering caused by the civil war, they add up to a major step forward for the rule of world law.

Federalist-insights-for-Sri-Lanka?lang=en