With the EU growing at the speed of global population while resources melt away, the Union’s interest is increasingly defined on a global scale. Will its Diplomatic Service be able to safeguard these interests? And what future for Europe’s relations across the Atlantic and to the emerging great powers in Asia?

By our latest blogger, eestiglew Since the well-publicised mock attacks on Stockholm by Russian Tu22-M3 heavy bombers over Easter, and the subsequent lack of a Swedish military interception, the local media has returned to an oft debated issue – that of NATO membership. For a nation that was last officially at war in 1809 (against Russia, incidentally), the idea of abandoning the policy of neutrality is one that is somewhat unpopular.

The energy director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development has made astonishing statements about coal investments prompting Bankwatch’s EBRD campaign team to react.

posted on the Bankwatch blog by Fidanka Bacheva-McGrath, Bankwatch EBRD campaign coordinator

At about the same time as scientists declared an unprecedented and increasingly dangerous CO2 concentration in the earth’s atmosphere, the Energy Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Mr. Ricardo Puliti, warned in an interview with the guardian against an “ideological” approach to financing energy projects that only takes climate change into consideration. Clearly as a reaction to a widespread call to end coal financing, Mr. Puliti specifically ruled out a “No” to coal.

The news has been received with surprise and open criticism not only by environmental organisations. [*] Colleagues here at Bankwatch were particularly astonished by Mr. Puliti’s understanding that what scientists repeatedly called for was “ideological”: to reduce carbon emissions as quickly as possible. (We were also surprised by the claim the EBRD only financed two coal-related projects between 2006 and 2012. A quick look at the database for 2006-2011 – one that includes natural resources projects and is based on Bankwatch’s own methodology – shows 16 coal-related projects worth more than EUR 600 million.) [**]

Yet, Mr. Puliti is not the only one at the bank talking about balancing [the apocalyptic threat of] climate change with other priorities such as security of supply and affordability. We have heard the same repeatedly in the corridors and meetings at the EBRD’s annual meeting in Istanbul last week, which is why it is time to make a few points in reaction:

Ideology vs. science

First of all, intensified efforts to halt climate change are not urged by ideologists, but for decades by climate scientists, on the one hand, and by respected institutions like the International Energy Agency, on the other hand. Bankwatch’s demand to exclude coal projects from the EBRD’s portfolio is informed by these scientific analyses and supported by calls from several other international institutions (including other development banks) for a discontinuation of fossil-fuel subsidies and by the warnings about the economic “cost of inaction”.

Climate science suggests one meaningful target, to keep the rise in global temperature under a maximum of 2 degrees if catastrophic climate change is to be prevented. Seemingly blind to this goal, the EBRD has expressed great satisfaction and pride with ANY contribution to CO2 reductions, even if it enforces the status quo by entrenching coal in the energy mix of countries for decades to come.

A case in point is the Kolubara lignite mine which provides more than half of Serbia’s electricity. The EBRD’s investment will bring estimated emission reductions of 200 000 tonnes CO2 equivalents while the mine’s remaining lignite reserves will produce 540 million tonnes if burned. (Other examples are the Sostanj lignite power plant in Slovenia and potentially a lignite power plant in Kosovo.)

Does excluding coal contradict affordability?

Mr. Puliti suggests affordability as one possible reason to keep coal in the mix. But affordability calculations often favour fossil fuels, because promoters

• look at a relatively short time horizon, as fossil fuel prices are hard to predict for the life-time of a facility;
• excludes the related health costs: an estimated price tag of coal power generation is from EUR 15 to 40 billion per year in Europe as a recent report has calculated;
• counts renewables subsidies, but overlooks fossil fuels subsidies.

Security for whom and what?

A 2012 report by Corner House vividly discusses the pitfalls of “energy security” (and security of supply), both as policy and as rhetoric.

[T]he more that the term “energy security” is invoked, the less clear it is just what is being “secured” as a range of different interest groups use it to signify many often contradictory goals. The multiple meanings of “energy security” are an obstacle to clear thinking and good policymaking. They are also an open invitation for deception and demagoguery, making it easy for politicians and their advisers to use fear to push regressive, militaristic social and environmental programmes.

I’m certainly not accusing the EBRD of demagoguery or militarism, but our experience with the bank has often been that where security of supply is the core justification, alternatives to the damaging energy sources have not properly been assessed.

If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading

I have been struggling to understand why in our communication with the EBRD we seldom come to a shared understanding. In the endless policy consultations in which the banks engages us these days, if we get to agree, usually it is an agreement to disagree. In Istanbul we reached one conclusion with the bank’s staff, that perhaps our disagreements have to do with our incompatible definitions of ‘sustainability’. Why else would we consider the Sostanj lignite power plant an outrageous investment that will lock Slovenia into a high carbon future while the EBRD places it under its Sustainable Energy Initiative?

If the EBRD believes in a low-carbon transition and indeed wants to act as a responsible “active citizen” (Mr. Puliti) it should invest in projects that enable the fundamental shifts in industrial, institutional, social and political relationships that are needed in our region for an effective response to the climate threat. Anything less than that will not be fit for purpose.

---

[*] The EBRD’s Director of Communications stated on twitter that Mr. Puliti has been misquoted in the guardian article, referring, however, to the notion of a possible expansion of coal funding by the EBRD, not the points discussed in this blog post. By the time of publication, no correction has been made on the guardian’s website.

[**] More details, including an outline and explanation of Bankwatch’s methodology can be found in the report Tug of War: Fossil fuels versus green energy at the EBRD

Related articles

• European energy chief puts forward case for funding coal (guardian.co.uk)
• EBRD with disastrous start in Kosovo, European Parliament not amused (bankwatch.blogactiv.eu)
• Serbia’s unabated quest for coal causes tremors among mining communities | Claire Provost (guardian.co.uk)
• Arab organisations speak out against EBRD  dailynewsegypt.com)

Il est aujourd’hui un nouveau défi qui se pose aux Etats en matière d’immigration : celui de la féminisation des migrations internationales. Alors que jusqu’alors le visage du migrant était celui d’un homme, c’est désormais celui d’une femme qui se dessine. C’est en tout cas ce qu’a pointé la Commission de la Population et du Développement (CPD) du Conseil Economique et Social des Nations Unies lors de sa 46ème session tenue fin avril.

Ce constat n’est pas nouveau : « le migrant » doit de plus en plus être accordé au féminin. En effet, dans un rapport de 2011 qui s’intitule « The Age and Sex of Migrants », la Division de la Population des Nations Unies montrait déjà ce phénomène.

 Ainsi, l’on peut constater que les femmes représentaient en 2010 49% des migrants internationaux. Ce chiffre grimpe à 52% environ dans les pays développés contre 48% dans les pays en développement. Plus encore, parmi les migrants âgés de plus de 65 ans, les femmes constituent 56% du contingent soit 57% dans les pays développés et 53% dans les pays en développement.

 Néanmoins, la 46ème session du CPD va plus loin en pointant les défis que cela pose aux Etats d’accueil notamment.

 Les migrations se féminisent et se rajeunissent. Or, ces « nouveaux migrants » sont plus vulnérables que les migrants masculins. En effet, si l’on se réfère à un rapport des Nations Unies de 2004, les femmes migrants, de plus en plus jeunes, sont bien plus souvent victimes de discriminations, de violences à caractère sexuel voir d’exploitations au cours de leur migration ou dans leur pays d’accueil.

 Un rapport de l’Organisation Internationale pour les Migrations de 2009 se fait plus précis sur ces violences dont sont victimes les migrantes. Tout d’abord, de violences intrafamiliales : les femmes migrantes sont victimes de violences conjugales, peu dénoncées du fait du manque d’information ou de confiance des victimes.

Egalement, elles sont victimes de violences de la part des représentants des autorités de l’Etat d’accueil ou de transit, souvent à caractère sexuelles. Plus encore, c’est sur leur lieu de travail qu’elles subissent le plus : exploitation, abus sexuels, viols, etc… Le rapport cite un chiffre effarant : sur 145 migrantes Sri Lankaises travaillant dans des pays arabes, 17% ont été harcelées sexuellement et 5% violées.

Il arrive aussi que les migrantes tombent entre les mains de trafiquants qui vont les exploiter de diverses manières : travail forcé, prostitution, mariage forcé, etc… Ce phénomène de trafic d’êtres humains toucherait 800 000 personnes à travers le monde parmi lesquelles 80% de femmes.

 Le rapport tente d’établir les causes et les conséquences de telles violations des droits des migrantes. Bien souvent, c’est leur double statut de migrante et de femme qui va causer ce genre de violences. En effet, bien souvent isolées, avec une faible connaissance de la langue locale, mal informées ou encore affectées à des travaux peu réglementés, elles vont être plus facilement sujettes à de telles violations. Et ces violences sont renforcées par une sorte de « cercle vicieux » : parce que les femmes sont victimes de violences, elles vont s’isolées ; et parce qu’elles sont isolées, elles ne vont pas dénoncer ces agissements.

 Le rapport de l’OIM tente d’établir les conséquences de telles violences. Pour l’Organisation, elles sont non seulement économiques (dépenses supplémentaires de santé et de justice, situations de chômage, etc…), mais surtout humaines. Au sens de l’OIM, il faut donc lutter contre ce phénomène de plusieurs manières et notamment en créant dans les Etats d’accueil des structures de soutien et d’information adéquates pour les migrantes. L’autre solution proposée est de renforcer l’application ou tout simplement mettre en œuvre les instruments de protection des droits de l’homme existants.

 Les Etats se doivent de réagir. Le CPD a adopté, lors de sa 46ème session, une résolution en ce sens, demandant aux Etats d’agir. Or, pour le moment, peu semble être réalisé en la matière. L’Assemblée Générale des Nations Unies a adopté le 29 mars 2012 une résolution visant à rappeler aux Etats la nécessité de lutter contre les violences faites aux migrants. Or, il s’agit pour l’essentiel d’un rappel de ce qui a déjà été adopté…

Le Conseil de l’Europe fait beaucoup en octroyant des droits particuliers aux migrants. Mais rien n’est fait spécifiquement pour rendre effective la lutte contre les violences faites aux migrantes.

 L’Union Européenne aussi tente d’agir notamment en incluant la prise en compte des besoins des personnes vulnérables comme élément important de sa politique d’immigration et d’asile. En effet, cette prise en compte est une obligation des Etats lors du traitement des demandes d’asile et l’accueil des demandeurs. Plus encore, l’Union a fait de la lutte contre le trafic des êtres humains un des priorités de sa politique migratoire.

Néanmoins, tout ceci n’est pas suffisant. Ce problème perdure et perdurera tant que les Etats, voir l’Union dans le cas européen, continueront d’envisager l’immigration comme un phénomène essentiellement masculin et potentiellement dommageable, conduisant par là même à des politiques restrictives.

 L’immigration est un gain économique et certains Etats l’ont déjà compris (voir notre article sur la politique migratoire américaine) : les migrants créent de la richesse aussi bien dans leur pays d’accueil que dans leur pays d’origine grâce au transfert de fonds. C’est d’ailleurs la principale motivation de l’émigration selon l’OIM.

 Notons ici que, selon un rapport de l’OIM de 2010, les femmes migrantes originaires de pays en développement envoient plus en moyenne que les hommes. De même, en moyenne, ce sont elles qui reçoivent le plus de fonds lorsqu’elles restent dans leur pays. Plus encore, la manière dont est dépensé l’argent transféré ou utilisé par les femmes dans les pays en développement est bien différente de celle des hommes. En effet, les fonds iront principalement vers des dépenses de santé, d’éducation et de nourriture.

 Malheureusement, tout ceci leur porte préjudice puisqu’elles ne peuvent épargner et investir ce qui impacte leur stabilité et donc leur intégration. Néanmoins, le rapport de l’OIM pointe le fait que cette importance grandissante des femmes dans l’envoi de fonds pourrait améliorer leur statut dans leur pays d’origine ou d’accueil.

 L’immigration peut également être un gain démographique, surtout pour les pays occidentaux à la démographie stagnante. En effet, comme nous l’avions noté dans notre article sur la politique migratoire américaine, sans immigration, c’est 79 millions de personnes entre 20 et 65 ans en moins dans l’Union d’ici 2050 contre 39 millions grâce à l’immigration.

Il faut donc désormais réinventer notre politique migratoire à l’aune de ces nouveaux phénomènes afin de pouvoir fournir notamment une véritable sécurité juridique aux nouvelles migrantes qui en ont véritablement besoin…

Jérôme gerbaud  (Institut d’études politiques de Grenoble)

 

 

Pour en savoir plus:

-            Rapport de la Division Population du Département des Affaires Economiques et Sociales des Nations Unies « The Age and Sex of migrants »  de 2011

(EN) http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/migration/age-sex-migrants-wallchart_2011.pdf

 

-            Rapport de la Division pour l’avancement des femmes des Nations Unies « Woman and Migration » de 2004.

(EN) http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/meetings/consult/CM-Dec03-WP1.pdf

 

-            Rapport de l’Organisation Internationale pour les Migrations (OIM) « Taking action against violence and discrimination affecting migrant women and girls » de 2009

(EN)http://www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/site/myjahiasite/shared/shared/mainsite/published_docs/brochures_and_info_sheets/violence_against_migrant_women_factsheet.pdf

 

-            Rapport de l’OIM « Gender, Migration and Remittances » de 2010

(EN) http://www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/site/myjahiasite/shared/shared/mainsite/published_docs/brochures_and_info_sheets/Gender-migration-remittances-infosheet.pdf

 

 

-            Résolution 66/172 « Protection des Migrants » de l’Assemblée Générale des Nations Unies du 29 mars 2012

(FR) http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/469/15/PDF/N1146915.pdf?OpenElement

 

-            Dossier du Conseil de l’Europe « Protecting Migrants under the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter ».

(EN http://www.coe.int/t/democracy/migration/Source/migration/ProtectingMigrantsECHR_ESCWeb.pdf

 

 

-          Article d’EU Logos sur la politique migratoire américaine du 12 mai 2013

(FR) http://europe-liberte-securite-justice.org/2013/05/12/la-nouvelle-politique-migratoire-americaine-exemple-a-suivre-et-si-limmigration-dans-lue-sarretait-aujourdhui-leurope-face-a-son-inexorable-d/#more-6929

-          Article du Monde « Le nouveau visage féminin de la migration » du 9 mai 2013.

(FR) http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2013/05/08/le-nouveau-visage-feminin-de-la-migration_3173506_3222.html

 

-                  Article du Guardian « Europe of the future: Germany shrinks, France grows, but UK population booms » du 27 août 2008 (EN) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/27/population.eu

 

 

Classé dans:Egalité entre hommes et femmes, IMMIGRATION, Immigration légale, NON-DISCRIMINATION

Conferences as a general rule are meant as networking events – rarely do you attend one that provides new insights into reality. Over the last three weeks I have traveled and attended conferences in Slovakia, Switzerland and Romania. Considering that the three events I attended focused much on international security and defense policy, I was surprised to observe the persistence of two general themes: the pessimistic view on the future of the European Union and the questions marks flying up in the air whenever talking about NATO.

Looking back, news coming from one country — Sweden — highlighted the two worries. Since early March, the Swedish media has been a stage for intense debate regarding the country’s defense and security policy. A Russian flyover near Sweden’s airspace prompted Danish NATO fighter jets stationed in Lithuania to shadow the Russian jets, since Sweden was reportedly unprepared to respond to the maneuver. This incident intensified the already existing debate. The discussion sharpened further after a meeting between Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko in Minsk on April 23 concluded with the announcement that Russia will deploy four advanced anti-missile batteries to Belarus in 2014.

This carries the Russian military buildup in the proximity of the Baltic region to a new level, within the context of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, something that clearly makes Sweden nervous. This situation underlines a key question: Just how important are strong partnerships for the wellbeing of Sweden?

This seems to be a difficult question to answer at a time when the eurozone is facing unprecedented troubles and NATO seems still to be reassessing its purpose in the aftermath of the Cold War. The two supranational institutions are in transition, and both seem to be undergoing a process of political fragmentation. The pessimists consider these institutions’ transitions to be proof that they are in fact beginning to fail. The optimists see the challenges in the transition, but they say that Europe has never made any progress without first being made to face a challenge. The realists see the nationalism growing in European states (and the accompanying anti-EU feeling) and the diminishing level of trust between the member states, and they believe the crisis will lead to the formation of a multiple-speed Europe.

This is why I found conference panels on EU defense policy somewhat…futuristic. The European Union, as a supranational organization, lacks a true understanding of the terms “emergency” and “decision”. The meetings and the councils are not meant to serve or even to establish a defense policy, and with so-called “égoïsme sacré” (the holy national interest) growing everywhere in the EU due to the Continent’s economic problems, we will most likely not see meaningful action on EU defense capabilities any time soon.

Let’s get back to Sweden. As an EU member, it will probably opt to stay out of the Eurozone for the time being and will most likely continue to enhance defense cooperation with some NATO countries and with other Nordic states. Sweden is not the only country opting for such a policy. While Visegrad 4 is not yet a vigorous organization, Poland would like it to see it evolve into a viable supplement if not an alternative to NATO – an organization that would ensure and improve regional defense.

Countries across Europe are grappling with the same kind of choices facing Sweden and Poland.  The circumstances in which these two countries find themselves thus vividly demonstrate the transition the Continent is undergoing.

Business Secretary Vince Cable is right to keep Osborne in check on the sale of bailed-out RBS. Osborne’s apparent desire to sell off the company quickly is rash; the nation will benefit from our politicians employing more wisdom than that.

Reports that Osborne was hoping to quickly sell off RBS fully warranted the reaction from Business Secretary Vince Cable, who encouraged the chancellor to consider other options.

Osborne was allegedly hoping to sell off the banking group to the highest bidder, at a loss from when Alistair Dowling bailed them out in 2008 under the Labour government.

Cable spoke on Sunday, commenting: “I don’t see the need for any haste.” He added, “There’s a lot to be said for the idea of using RBS to create a more competitive banking sector.”

It is true that such a move may well involve greater complications for the government from a legal perspective, yet Cable is surely right to try to hold Osborne back from throwing the bank away thoughtlessly. That would achieve less than nothing, dragging the situation between banks back to the same problems of 5 years ago.

Cable, on the contrary, is suggesting breaking up RBS and thereby creating greater competition between banks; this is in line with the Coalition’s goal to do exactly that, in order to drive us out of recession.

Reports of Osborne attempting to quickly sell off the company stink of a hasty desire to wash his hands of the problem before the next elections.

We can be grateful that, for the time being at least, not everyone in the cabinet is already overcome by this mind-set. It is, after all, our nation’s economy with which they are gambling.

A new report takes a critical look at the engagement of European development banks in Egypt after the popular uprisings in the Middle East and North African region. This article appeared originally on the Counter Balance blog and has been shortened and slightly edited.

posted on the Bankwatch blog by Berber Verpoest, Media officer for the Counter Balance coalition

Remember the Arab Spring, the wave of popular revolts that hit several Arab countries in 2011. They initially resulted in the ousting of cruel dictators and brought about impressive political changes. Following these events, the European Union decided to change its approach to the region and to channel in more resources from international financial institutions (IFIs) such as the European Investment Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Monetary Fund.

The IFIs had longstanding relationships with the Arab countries. When a new wind started blowing they were willing to change their narrative but not necessarily their methods. The positive aura of change might have left most of the Arab countries but the IFIs have not. We think that the Arab Spring is worth an evaluation of the EU’s engagement in the region, and tracking the records of development banks in the Middle East should be a key priority.

The role of development banks

Our latest report “the great Middle East beanfeast” is a first attempt in that regard. Anders Lustgarten, the author of the report, investigates the role of the development banks in Egypt and how they responded to the Arab Spring. The report reads as a fierce critique to the policies of liberalisation and privatisation promoted by those institutions in Egypt and in the MENA region (Middle East and North Africa). It also targets the use of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) and what we call the “financialisation of development finance”.

These development banks betray the spirit of the Arab Spring by the financial mechanisms they use, Lustgarten argues. While the slogan of the Arab Spring was ‘bread, freedom and social justice’, the policies and financial mechanisms used by the development banks mainly bring about the opposite.

PPPs, one of the priorities of the European Investment Bank when it is active in the region for example, are a tool to shift public assets into private hands. The list of privatisations under the Mubarak regime is impressive. It has been much contested and successfully challenged in court. Extensive recourse to private equity and the use of financial intermediaries typically benefit a small elite and subject the economy increasingly to the whims of the financial market. The increasing role of the private sector decreases the ownership of civil society and undermines the ability of the state to redistribute wealth. In brief, these were not exactly the aspirations of the Tahrir demonstrators.

Before and after the Arab Spring – a different approach?

Moreover, the author shows how the EIB and the World Bank were deeply entangled with the pre-Arab Spring dictatorships. The EIB has a significant track record of supporting the Mubarak regime for instance, lending nearly €4 billion to Egypt in the decade preceding the Arab Spring. In the whole MENA region, the EIB invested €15.5 billion in the same decade, twice as much as in any other region outside Europe.

So when those institutions now refer to “democratic development of the region”, it must be remembered that they loaned more under the old dictators’ regimes than to any other regime, and they used the same justifications to do so than as they use now. For instance, a 2004 joint financial package for the MENA region between the EIB, World Bank and EU Commission claimed that it “will be used to lend support to institutional and economic reform, human rights and democracy projects, the fight against poverty and education and training”.

Read more

• More on the launch debate that included a discussion on the use of the term “development mafia” on the original Counter Balance blog post
• The Great Middle East Beanfeast – How ‘Development’ Banks are Using Public-Private Partnerships to Carve Up the Arab Spring Countries (20 page report, pdf)
• PPPs: Not a silver bullet for public infrastructure. Our website Overpriced and underwritten exposes the hidden costs of public-private partnerships.

In EU today the ‘austerity’ measures are destroying national economies making it impossible for them to ever to pay back those debts created by banksters of virtual economy and their political cabals. At grassroots people have become the victim of parasitic credit capitalism and its unelected institutions. Neoliberal capitalism has been winning ground last 30 years. During last five years emergency economics has made it possible to replace democracy with debtocracy. EU and especially Eurozone today is in condition which was recognized by Abraham Lincoln already one and half century ago as follows:

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed.”

EU elite today does not see any alternatives to its only right policy. Lincoln had the opposite approach and he saw an alternative to the corrupt money power:

“The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principals the taxpayers will be saving immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master, and become the servant of humanity.”

So in this way said Lincoln – an U.S. Republican. Coming back to present-day EU I see two dominating trends among EU leaders: First is to cut losses of players in virtual economy at the expense of taxpayers and the second is to guide EU towards strict federation at the expense of democracy. Change to this is needed for saving 99 % of people instead saving profits of the rest one per cent. With today’s strategy there is a risk that the combination of economic insecurity and political paralysis has been recipe for an increase in extremism and xenophobia. It is slow motion death spiral of economic collapse. That is the base to my view that people and the real world should be the first priority and not virtual economy, fiscal system, euro or EU elite. In my opinion it is time to whistle game out, collect losses and start new game in Day after Euro/EU context.

The best scenario from my point of view could be some kind of EU Lite version. A bit of similar ”privileged partnership” agreement than planed with Turkey (to keep it out from EU). EU Lite should be build simply to EU’s early basics as economical cooperation area including a customs union, the EU tariff band, competition etc linked to idea of the Common Market. EU Lite could also apply a structure of Confederation. Federalist intentions, the EU puppet parliament and the most of EU bureaucracy should from my point of view put in litter basket together with high-flown statements and other nonsense. In my opinion average citizen does not need EU to decide how wide tires one have in tractor or how big curve bananas can have. Most topics can more democratic way be handled at national level. For international affairs – e.g climachange, civil liberties, development aid – there are lot of official forums as well NGO-cooperation.

Even I sited Lincoln above I see some benefits with confederalist view in new desirable politics. Policy-making starts from community assemblies based on the practices of participatory democracy and continues further by interlinking villages, towns, neighborhoods, and cities into confederal networks. Power thus flows from the bottom up instead of from the top down like today. With critical issues – such as human rights, civil liberties, international policy etc political units can adopt a common constitution while the task of central governments would be providing support for all members. Democratic confederalism is based on grass-roots participation. Its decision-making processes lie with the communities; in conclusion my vision is decentralized society a network of directly democratic citizens’ assemblies in individual communities/cities organized in a confederal fashion.

Sure the scenario above can be seen as utopistic – however from my perspective the process or moving towards that Utopia is the core question.

My bottom line:

• People first system after
• Power flow from the bottom up
• Money for the people not the banks
• From private to public money creation
• Real economy instead of virtual economy
• Investor risk instead of taxpayers risk

P.S:

Related to Eurozone crisis some background in my article

EU in Turmoil and not only in Financial One

as well in article

Common Appeal for the Rescue of the Peoples of Europe

 

After the end of World War II the United States assumed the burden of restructuring Europe from the beginning. At that time, Germany was defeated -if not humiliated in the eyes of the Europeans- and entirely devastated, France was supposed to be the new prominent power in Europe, and the United States could build on the leverage they acquire after contributing fundamentally to the end of the war and the win of the Alliances. Do we have something relevant today? Are there any given comparisons looking so similar in 1950 and 2013?

The Marshall Plan was one of the biggest investment plans ever prepared in modern history. It was assumed by the United States and it was destined to first restructure the devastated European market, and then assisting on the revitalizing of the European economy, focusing on Germany, the biggest and most robust industrial country of the continent. The United States had many to earn from this effort as dollar would be the currency that would be soaring up the European market, increasing therefore the influence of the United States. In addition to that, there was also the plan that after the first steps, Bundesmark would substitute the intrusion of dollar in the European market and starting get established as the most powerful currency of the European market. French were undermined from this development as they were expecting that their currency could be the one dominating in Europe. Nonetheless, as European development and growth should also be supported by the French economy, Paris could not handle solely such a big plan, and therefore France agreed to play equal terms with Germany through the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), which was lately developed into what we know as the European Community (EC), and then the European Union.

Even if it was agreed that Germany and France would be considered as primus inter pares in the European continent, in fact what was finally developed was a robust Western Germany that was constantly supported in every respect by the United States. This was the first sacrifice of France.

The second sacrifice of France came after the unification of Germany in the beginning of 1990s when the United States, after securing that the communist threat was no longer imminent in Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union, pressed towards this development despite the deep concerns of France. The unification of Germany was invested symbolically as the unification of Europe and the win of the liberal axis led by the United States, and pragmatically as the first significant effort for Europe to set aside the nazist ghosts of the past and the legacy of Hitler, and move towards the creation of a single market that could assist the global race of dollar.

The third sacrifice of France came when the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) was established in 1979. The basic idea behind this mechanism was to reduce exchange rate variability and achieve monetary stability in Europe. In fact, ERM had empowered Bundesmark in such a degree that Germany’s currency was synonym to monetary stability in Europe. Stability was achieved in the sense that threats against the global monetary and financial crisis, mainly affecting the dollar, could be handled more efficiently as both the ERM and the European Central Bank’s reserves would be linked with Bundesmark. After all, Germany grew immensely, and the experiment of the single currency through the establishment of the European Monetary Union and Eurozone was considered to be a safe step towards a more centralized monetary system controlled by Berlin and aligned by US dollar and the Breton Woods system.

The creation of the EMU was invested with hopes that the European economy could finally work in the mutual benefit of every member-state of Eurozone. Nonetheless, Eurozone has ended up to be a privileged field for development and growth for the German economy and the member-states that are inextricably interwoven with the German economic mindset, such as Austria and Benelux. The rest of Eurozone has been trapped into a vicious circle of sovereign debt crisis and none of them seem capable for the moment to provide or at least articulate an alternative to exit the crisis, including France. This is the fourth sacrifice that France made in favor of Germany.

Nonetheless, why euro is not weakening tremendously against dollar after such a recession and austerity in Eurozone? Answers vary, but let us try to gather different variables into one single paragraph. First, while austerity engenders fears for tough social unrest, it creates a safe environment for low-cost investments with the minimum labour cost. Here comes the term “dumping”, but it is something it really does not matter for markets and investors. In this respect, while US monetary policy is not tightening up, fears against a possible fall of dollar might increase, and chances for traders to buy dollars are falling. In the contrary, euro reserves and holdings remain high, even after the recent, joint statement of the BRICS that there were no longer determined to nourish transactions using euro. Second, there is a lot of positive news since 2012 to keep euro from collapsing. In this respect, despite the constant dickering across Europe, Germany has long supported overdebted states with continuous bailout plans, managing to diminish the cost and the falling of euro in the international markets. Third, there is also the Middle East markets that as crude oil is surging, there is a growing effort for diversifying dollar holdings instead of euro holdings in order to increase stability of investment and do not let portfolios go down due to dollar’s potential fall (i.e. as crude oil prices are counted  in / linked with dollar). Bottom line: everything seems to be controlled. This is the safe (?) bet of Germany.

But what if Eurozone disintegrates? It is very likely that in this scenario it will not be only Germany to lose, but also France. And this will be the fifth sacrifice of France. Let alone the chain of events in the global market and the reaction of the United States, Switzerland, the Middle East, the BRICS and so on. The bet of Germany might seem even weaker as Berlin has decided to retrieve its gold reserves from the Federal Reserves Bank in New York, which is mainly the gold accumulated during and after World War II and kept there for safety reasons. Therefore, is Eurozone disintegration close or far? Is the bet of Germany safe or not?

Armenian as well other people around the world paid homage to the memory of 1.5 million innocent victims of the 1915 Armenian Genocide implemented by the Ottoman Empire. 98 years after the Genocide the present Turkish nation not only deny that its predecessors plotted and committed the Genocide, but also continues its anti-Armenian policy, still retaining confiscated church estates and properties, and religious and cultural treasures of the Armenian people.

Different views about history have their impact also today when the frozen conflict of Artsakh, better known as Nagorno-Karabakh, still waits its solution. Nineteen years after the ceasefire in 1994, an agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan is still not reached and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic continues its existence as a de facto independent republic recognized by no other state.

The Balkan Wars as background

The First Balkan War, which lasted from October 1912 to May 1913, pitted the Balkan League (Serbia, Greece, Montenegro and Bulgaria) against the Ottoman Empire. The combined armies of the Balkan states overcame the numerically inferior and strategically disadvantaged Ottoman armies and achieved rapid success. The Balkan Wars resulted in a defeat of the Ottoman Empire and the loss of 85% of its territory in Europe which were and partitioned among the allies.

An important consequence of the Balkan Wars was also the mass expulsion of Muslims from the Balkans. Already beginning in the mid-19th century, hundreds of thousands of Muslims were expelled or forced to flee from the Caucasus and the Balkans as a result of the Russo-Turkish wars and the conflicts in the Balkans. Muslim society in the empire was incensed by this flood of refugees and overcome by a desire for revenge.

After the Balkan Wars (1912-13) the Turkish nationalist movement in the country gradually came to view Anatolia as their last refuge. That the Armenian population formed a significant minority in this region would figure prominently in the calculations of the Young Turks who would eventually carry out the Armenian Genocide. During the First World War, the Turkish authorities accused Armenians of sympathizing with Russia and used it as a pretext to declare the entire Armenian population their enemy.

The Armenian Genocide

The Armenian Genocide, also known as the Armenian Holocaust, the Armenian Massacres and, among Armenians, the Great Crime was the Ottoman government’s systematic uprooting and extermination of its minority Armenian population from their historic homeland in Turkey. The starting date of the genocide is conventionally held to be April 24, 1915, the day when Ottoman authorities arrested and massacred some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople(Istanbul), on orders from the Turkish government. Tragic events took place during and after World War I, in two phases: the wholesale killing and enslavement of the able-bodied males, and the deportation of women, children, the elderly and infirm on death marches to the Syrian Desert. In addition women and children were placed on boats and drowned at sea, or crucified. There is also evidence that children were put to death with poison gas in schools that were converted to death camps.

The total number of Armenians killed as a result is estimated at between 1 and 1.5 million in period of 1915-1923. Armenia claims that the total number of dead exceeds 1.5 million people, the half of all Armenians at the beginning of the last century. The Assyrians, the Greeks and other minority groups were similarly targeted for extermination by the Ottoman government, as part of the same genocidal policy. It is considered by many to have been the first modern genocide, due to the organized manner in which the killings were carried out to eliminate the Armenians.

However the Armenian Genocide can also be seen otherwise, not as having begun in 1915, but rather as an ongoing genocide, from 1894, through 1908/9, through World War I and right up to 1923. For example 200,000-300,000 Armenians were massacred in Turkey on period 1894-1896.

Genocide is the organized killing of a people for the express purpose of putting an end to their collective existence. Because of its scope, genocide requires central planning and a machinery to implement it. This makes genocide the quintessential state crime as only a government has the resources to carry out such a scheme of destruction. The Armenian Genocide was centrally planned and administered by the Turkish government against the entire Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire, it was carried out during WWI between the years 1915 and 1918 and the atrocities were renewed between 1920 and 1923.

Recognize or deny

“The nearest successful example [of collective denial] in the modern era is the 80 years of official denial by successive Turkish governments of the 1915-17 genocide against the Armenians in which 1.5 million people lost their lives. This denial has been sustained by deliberate propaganda, lying and cover-ups, forging documents, suppression of archives, and bribing scholars.”

(Stanley Cohen, Professor of Criminology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem)

In recent years, parliaments of several countries have formally recognized the event as genocide. Turkish entry talks with the EU were met with a number of calls to consider the event as genocide though it never became a precondition (so far).

The fact of the Armenian Genocide is recognized by many states. It was first recognized in 1965 by Uruguay. In general, the Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey has already been recognized e.g. by Russia, France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, Lithuania, Slovakia, Switzerland, Sweden, Greece, Cyprus, Lebanon, Canada, Venezuela, Argentina, and 42 U.S. states. Armenian Genocide was recognized also by the Vatican, European Parliament and the World Council of Churches.

The position of Israel is most interesting or even ambivalent as the Jews have first hand experience about genocide/holocaust. From my perspective more than any other nation, Israel has the moral obligation to recognize the Armenian Genocide. On November 7, 1989 the Union for Reform Judaism passed a resolution on recognition of Armenian Genocide. This year the Knesset held a ceremony to mark the memory of the Turkish genocide of Armenians. MK Reuven Rivlin (Likud) said before the ceremony that he believes that “as human beings and as Jews, we must not ignore the catastrophe of another nation for any reason, including diplomatic considerations, important as they may be. We will mark the annual memorial day for the massacre of the Armenian people regardless of the relations with today’s Turkey, which is an ally.” Turkey was of course highly displeased with the Knesset’s decision to mark the day. Various events devoted to the subject, which were supposed to be held at the Knesset, were cancelled in recent years because of Turkish pressure. Anyway Israel progressing with this issue as the Knesset’s Education Committee will hold a discussion on Monday (29th Apr.2013) regarding two initiatives presented by Members of Knesset Professor Arieh Eldad (Hatikva) and Zehava Gal-On (Meretz) to recognize the Armenian genocide 1915.

Kurdish recognition of the Armenian Genocide is the recognition of the Kurdish participation in the ethnic cleansing of Armenians during WWI, when Kurdish tribal forces attacked and killed Armenian civilians and refugees. In several of the Kurdish regions, the Kurds participated in the genocide of the Armenians while others opposed the genocide, in many cases even hiding or adopting Armenian refugees.

On 2010 the Serbian Radical Party submitted a draft resolution to the Serbian parliament condemning the genocide committed by Ottoman Turkey against Armenians from 1915 to 1923. SRS submitted the draft so that Serbia can join the countries which have condemned the genocide. At the end of 2011, the Serbs in Bosnia started an initiative to make Armenian genocide denial illegal.

Turkey has consistently denied responsibility for the genocide, which is sometimes referred to as the Armenian Holocaust. Azerbaijan, being in deep strategic alliance with Turkey and in a state of war against Armenia, shares the position of Turkey.

Some countries, including Argentina, Armenia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland and Uruguay have adopted laws that punish genocide and also in October 2006, the French National Assembly passed a bill which will make Armenian Genocide denial a crime. Last week, France ratified a bill in parliament, according to which denying the 1915 Armenian genocide would be punishable by a jail sentence of up to one year and a 45,000 Euro fine. The bill has yet to receive final approval in the French senate.

Artsakh aka Nagorno-Karabakh

Docent of the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics Alexander Perinjiyev believes that the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan is inevitable. Moreover, Perinjiyev predicts when Azerbaijan will open hostilities. It would be logical if this military campaign would start immediately after the Olympic Games in Russia’s Sochi.

Old ethnic tensios take place in region also today. Artsakh was the tenth province of the Kingdom of Armenia from 189 BC until 387 AD. Much of historical Artsakh presently overlaps with the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. Populated for centuries by Christian Armenian and Turkic Azeris, Karabakh became part of the Russian empire in the 19th century. The conflict has roots dating back well over a century into competition between Christian Armenian and Muslim Turkic and Persian influences.

The conflict started in 1989, when the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, a predominantly Armenian territory within Soviet Azerbaijan, declared its independence from Azerbaijan and union with Armenia. The resulting tension between the Armenian and Azerbaijani residents soon turned into an ethnic conflict and finally to the 1991–1994 Nagorno-Karabakh War, which ended with a ceasefire that left the current borders. As the Azeris in Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and surrounding territories fled to Azerbaijan, the Armenians in Azerbaijan moved to Armenia proper. The total number of displaced people is estimated to be one million. Today, Nagorno-Karabakh is a de facto independent state, calling itself the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. It is closely tied to the Republic of Armenia and uses the same currency, the dram. On the other side according to reports as yet unconfirmed Turkey still trains Azerbaijani soldiers in Turkey for the purpose of attacking Armenia.

The political situation in region is quite confusing. Armenia accounts for the Russian military base. Russia sponsors Armenia, actively supports it in many issues one can say that the relations between Moscow and Yerevan have reached the level of allied partnership. It is clear that Russia would not want to lose such an important ally in such a serious and potentially explosive geopolitical region. Azerbaijan has close military ties with NATO member Turkey. Iran, which borders both, is the biggest wildcard; although Shiite Muslim like Azerbaijan, Tehran reviles Baku because of Azerbaijan’s secular orientation, its close ties with Israel, and fears about separatist tendencies among Iran’s large Azeri minority. Iran, ironically, has far better ties with Christian Armenia. Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993.

Israel has been developing closer ties with Azerbaijan and have helped modernize the Armed Forces of Azerbaijan. It is claimed that with this cooperation Israel has ”bought” an airport for planned strike against Iranan nuclear facilities. On the other hand Armenian-Jewish relations date back to the time of Armenian emperor Tigranes the great , who, retreating from Judea, took 10,000 Jews with him on his return to the Kingdom of Armenia. Israel itself is home to the Armenian Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem.

The final status of Nagorno-Karabakh is a matter of international mediation efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group, co-chaired by Russia, France and the United States. At present, the mediation process is at a standstill. Azerbaijan’s position has been that Armenian troops withdraw from all areas of Azerbaijan outside Nagorno-Karabakh and that all displaced persons be allowed to return to their homes before the status of Karabakh can be discussed. Armenia does not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as being legally part of Azerbaijan, arguing that because the region declared independence at the same time that Azerbaijan became an independent state, both of them are equally successor states of the Soviet Union. The Armenian government insists that the government of Nagorno-Karabakh be part of any discussions on the region’s future, and rejects ceding occupied territory or allowing refugees to return before talks on the region’s status.

More background information from Genocide1915.info

Catherine Olier, Policy Advisor at Oxfam’s EU Office, reflects on a hard-fought victory that will force oil, gas, mining and logging companies to come clean on their finances in the developing world. The European Parliament and EU member states are expected to give their final green light to the agreement in the coming months, bringing EU legislation in line with the US Dodd-Frank Act.

John F. Kennedy could not have been more right when he said, “Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.”

Last week’s victory – the political deal agreed between EU Member States, the European Parliament and the European Commission to guarantee greater transparency on the activities of extractive and forestry companies – has countless mothers and fathers.

Just over a year ago, when I personally started working on so-called “country-by-country reporting” (the transparency obligation for extractive and forestry companies to disclose in their financial accounts their payments to governments on a country-by-country basis), I had no idea how much impact it could have on poor countries.

Then I listened to voices from Mali, Niger, Ghana, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zambia, Tanzania, and many other countries, all of whom told us that bigger  transparency in the extractive sector is crucial because:

• We will finally know if companies pay the right amount for the resources they extract, thus contributing to the development of Southern countries and helping to lift people from poverty;
• Citizens and civil society organisations will be able to play their watchdog role and hold their governments to account to ensure funds are properly used;
• Communities affected by extraction projects will be able to claim part of the benefits to increase funding for essential rights like universal access to health and education, and the right to food.

I am proud that Oxfam has engaged in this battle from the early days along with other members of the Publish What You Pay coalition, participating in a more than ten-year old movement for greater transparency. Dedicated decision-makers also carried the project through and helped make it a life-changing reality for many. It is in that sense that this is “a victory of a thousand mothers and fathers”.

By ensuring that the proposal allows no exemption for any company and obliges them to disclose information regarding payments above €100,000 – a sufficiently low threshold for communities affected by extractive projects – this proposal is sending a strong signal that it is time to end the “resource curse” from which developing countries suffer. Of course, the proposal could have gone further by requiring companies to also disclose information about the profits they make in the country and the number of people they employ – to detect possible shifts of profit to tax havens in order to pay less tax. But new debates on tax avoidance against the background of growing public anger against tax dodgers show that this is the obvious next step – one we hope will be made soon.

“Defeat  is  an  orphan” because some extractive  companies, such as Shell,  which  have been fighting   hard  against  this  EU  legislation,  are  now  publicly welcoming  more transparency  and  are  making  a commitment to play the game by disclosing requested  information.  It’s difficult to believe them when you read that several of these oil companies belong to the American Petroleum Institute (API), which is currently suing the US government to block a similar transparency obligation under the Dodd-Frank Act. But I have high hopes that companies will eventually change their mind and drop the suit because as JFK – him again – also said, “change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.”

We invite you to read a guest entry by our friend Anar Gasimli, who is an Azerbaijani lawyer, on the role and situation of advocates who defend human rights activists in Azerbaijan.

“Every time after the detention of activists, some free spirit youths, human rights defenders, or political party members call to invite me to become their advocate. This is the most, and may be the only, pleasurable time for me in my lovely profession. It is different to be with the person whose rights are violated, and it is totally different when people with free spirits want to see you next to the person whose rights are violated.

As a citizen, I feel obliged to defend the people who are detained for different false accusations because of their fight for democracy and freedom. But I also suffer when I start defending the interests of activists from the very beginning of their detention.

Be aware that from the preliminary stage of the investigation, the advocate is persona non-grata to the investigator. It is this way even in ordinary cases. Now, imagine how it works in politically motivated detention cases. In these cases, the advocate is not only persona non-grata, but also an enemy, and even a public traitor.

I had the opportunity to meet Haji Movsum Samadov, the head of Azerbaijan Islamic Party, a full week after having concluded the contract with his family members. During this period, I was trying to find him. His whereabouts were known neither to prosecuting authorities nor to the Ministers of Internal Affairs and National Security. Finally, a week later, I could meet with Haji Movsum at the Department on the Fight against Organized Crime. I was literally playing a game of hide-and-seek with the investigator.

We faced the same problem in the defense of Jabbar Savalan. It took two days after concluding the contract with his family members before we could meet Jabbar. During these two days, we had to listen to “stories” of the investigator such as “it’s a non-working day”, “the investigator must rest after being in the office”, and “Jabbar refused to see his advocate.”

The prosecutor of the Sabunchu District Police Department was in the “place of occurrence” for a week in the case of Haji Mehdi Shamilov, detained on false drug charges, and during this week, the charge of the cell phone of the prosecutor was dead. “102”—the hotline number of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, got so fed up with my continuous telephone calls that my number was blocked.

When Jamal Ali and Etibar Salmanli were arrested, the Sabail Police did not allow me to enter the police department, even though I had an order in my hands, proving that I was their advocate. After the “102” police hotline blocked my
calls, I was frozen from the carelessness of the hotline of the Ombudsman Apparatus. The police officer who was sitting at the Nasimi Police Department, where I went to visit my professor Intigam Aliyev, politely asked me to leave the department and not to create problem for him. I faced the same situation at the Yasamal and Sabail District Police Departments where I went in order to defend the people who had been detained while protesting military killings.

Although I managed to pass the security check at the Sabail District Police Department (unlike the Yasamal District Police Department), several minutes later the police officer showed his “politeness” by telling me “the boss sees through the camera; later, it will be a problem for me; therefore, please leave.” Then I asked the question, “Why can the boss object to an advocate’s visit to the police department?” The police officer answered: “You are not in uniform; how does the boss know that you are advocate?” Then decided it was better to leave the department. So, next time I go to the police department, it seems I must wear my advocate’s gown so I don’t create a problem for the police officers.

I can add to the list, but I don’t want to give you a headache. But today, half an hour before the end of the working day, when I was at the Sumgayit City Court, some important representatives of youth called to inform me
about the arrest of Ruslan Asad and Rashad Hasanov, and asked me to come to the Investigation Department on Grave Crimes of the General Prosecutors Office in order to defend one of them.

I did not object, but I was ashamed to go. I knew that if I went, I would stay outside the door. In this situation, I feel degraded. I feel ashamed to look at the eyes of the youth gathered there. I am ashamed that I am an advocate, but I can do nothing. I am ashamed that I cannot demand my right to go into the department.

I was ashamed. I was ashamed to see the question in the eyes of people with broken hopes, “How can a person who is unable to defend his own right defend the rights of others?” Frankly, I also was scared. I was scared of killing
those hopes already broken!

Thus, today I did not follow the call of the youth and later, it was known from the social networks that my colleagues involved in defense were faced the common situation, and were not allowed in.

I turned on my note-book, silenced my phone, and wrote my thoughts on facebook.

Let also the people who have put advocacy in Azerbaijan in this state be ashamed!”

Anar Gasimli

translated by Seljan Mammadli

By Arlene McCarthy MEP Following months of tough negotiations, the European Parliament has secured a deal on new disclosure requirements for the extractive and logging industries. But why do we need these rules and what difference will they make to people in the developing world? In 2008, exports of oil, gas and minerals from Africa were worth roughly 9 times the value of international aid to the continent ($393 billion vs $44 billion), yet many of these countries remain trapped in poverty.

For almost two years now I have avoided dealing on my blog with China’s spats with Japan, its tensions with ASEAN partners or its apparent inability to reign in the excesses of  its obstreperous North Korean protégé.

Although China is fast becoming an economic superpower, its foreign policy has remained far less successful than its economic performance. The seeming lack of interest among top Chinese leaders in framing a foreign policy to match their country’s economic might and long-term strategic objectives is disquieting. Their failure to deal with rather minor territorial disputes successfully could indeed jeopardise China’s economic agenda in the long run, as well as undermine stability and prosperity in Asia.

One of China’s leading objectives, for example, had been that of creating by 2015 a common Asian market, emulating the European Union. These days, however, tensions in the South China Sea between it, on the one hand, and Vietnam and the Philippines, on the other, are endangering its economic integration agenda with ASEAN. In fact, had the European Union’s integration model been studied more carefully by the Chinese, they would have noticed that in Europe the process started with France and Germany putting behind them their long-running territorial disputes and deciding to share resources essential to growth, like coal and iron.

The gap that has developed between China’s long-term integration objectives and its rather medieval attitudes in dealing with neighbours and their territorial claims has instead played into the hands of the US, not otherwise known for excellence in the field of diplomacy.

As cheque-book diplomacy or old-style kowtow policies are inappropriate for China’s current status even in our post-modern times, the new Chinese leadership should urgently seek to frame a foreign policy which closely matches their country’s long-term interests and its standing in Asia.

Les franchissements irréguliers des frontières extérieures de l’UE ont été divisés par deux en 2012 grâce aux renforcements des contrôles aux frontières.  Le renforcement des contrôles à la frontière entre la Grèce et la Turquie a considérablement fait baisser l’afflux des migrants. L’on assiste aussi à un déplacement des flux migratoires

 Le nombre de franchissements irréguliers des frontières extérieures de l’Union européenne a chuté de près de moitié en 2012 à la suite du renforcement des contrôles à la frontière entre la Grèce et la Turquie, a annoncé jeudi 18 avril l’agence Frontex. Quelque 72 430 franchissements illégaux ont été dénombrés en 2012, ce qui représente une baisse de 49 % par rapport aux 141 060 détectés l’année précédente, a précisé cette agence chargée de coordonner la surveillance des frontières extérieures de l’UE.

  Deux facteurs expliquent cette baisse, « la plus importante dans l’histoire de Frontex depuis sa création en 2005″, a indiqué son directeur exécutif Ilkka Laitinen lors d’une conférence de presse. La Grèce, qui fait face depuis plusieurs années à un afflux de migrants venant surtout d’Asie, d’Afrique ou du Moyen-Orient, a renforcé les contrôles le long de sa frontière terrestre avec la Turquie en déployant 1 800 gardes-frontière en août 2012. Athènes a également entrepris en janvier 2012 la construction d’une clôture en fil barbelé à la frontière gréco-turque dans le nord-est, longue de 10,3 km chacune et d’une hauteur de 2,5 à 3 mètres.

  »Le nombre de franchissements irréguliers a rapidement diminué, passant d’environ 2 000 durant la première semaine d’août à moins de 10 par semaine en octobre », a souligné Ilkka Laitinen. Au total, en Méditerranée orientale (Grèce, Bulgarie et Chypre), le nombre de franchissements irréguliers a reculé de 35 % en 2012, à 37 220. Deuxième raison expliquant la baisse constatée l’an dernier : le moindre afflux de migrants vers la Méditerranée centrale (Italie et Malte), après un pic atteint en 2011 en raison du Printemps arabe en Tunisie et en Libye.

 Les franchissements illégaux ont ainsi chuté de 82 % à 10 380, contre 59 000 en 2011, mais 1 660 en 2010. Ce phénomène a entraîné un déplacement des flux migratoires au premier trimestre 2013, via la mer Égée, la frontière turco-bulgare et l’aéroport d’Istanbul. « Mais la hausse observée sur ces nouvelles voies ne compense pas, en termes de volumes, la baisse enregistrée l’an dernier », a expliqué Ilkka Laitinen. « Les réseaux criminels ont besoin d’un peu de temps pour s’adapter à la nouvelle situation », a-t-il ajouté. L’an dernier, les migrants étaient principalement originaires d’Afghanistan, de Syrie, d’Albanie, d’Algérie et du Bangladesh, selon Frontex. Il s’agit d’une information frappante au point que le Wall street Journal en a largement fait état. Il s’agit bien évidemment de migrants illégaux identifiés en train de franchir illégalement les frontières.

 

Pour en savoir plus :

 

      -. Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324763404578430720376545106.html

       -. Rapport de décembre 2012 sur les demandeurs d’asile à la frontière greco turque http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/asylum-seekers-and-migrants-greece-hounded-police-operations-and-right-wing-extremists-2012-12-

       -. Rapport de Frontex http://www.frontex.europa.eu/assets/Publications/Risk_Analysis/Annual_Risk_Analysis_2013.pdf

 

 

 

Classé dans:IMMIGRATION

When I am writing these words Aleksander Kwasniewski and Pat Cox are giving a report on their Ukrainian mission at the Conference of Presidents in the European Parliament. The mission is concluded by the release of 2 former ministers in Yulia Tymoshenko government (earlier one more prisoner had been released)

The report prepared by Kwaśniewsk and Cox contains some facts and figures- several days spent in Ukraine, 15 meetings with President Yanukovych and another several meetings with his closest collaborators, Prime Minister Azarov, Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine Klyuyev, ministers, procurators, attorneys and finally prisoners themselves.

We can run a reasonable dispute over the achievements of the mission, whether it was successful or not. It is, however, indisputable that without humiliating petitions to grant a pardon, three people were released from prison. Nevertheless, the most important one is still kept in a prison hospital.

I expect the mission to be continued.

Aleksander Kwasniewski and Pat Cox together with Martin Schulz have all reasons to be satisfied. The President of the European Parliament risked a lot establishing unprecedented political operation. It was not the Commission, not the Council, not Ashton’s team, but the European Parliament that did a great job in order to set up requisite conditions to sign the Association Agreement during the Vilnius Summit.

It was not by chance that Aleksander Kwasniewski was congratulated by the EU diplomacy chief Catherine Ashton and the EU Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy Štefan Füle.