title
stringlengths 15
139
| content
stringlengths 459
61.8k
| author
stringlengths 0
519
| description
stringlengths 37
471
| keywords
listlengths 0
5
| category
stringclasses 23
values | datePublished
stringdate 2023-01-02 06:25:02
2025-10-28 21:57:05
| url
stringlengths 35
74
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Time to stop loophole that allows Shein and Temu cheap parcels from China
|
Europe is drowning in cheap parcels. In 2024 alone, more than 12 billion low-value packages poured into the EU, 91 percent shipped directly from China. The delivery itself often costs more than the products inside the parcel. Shoppers may celebrate €5 T-shirts and €10 blenders, but behind every parcel lies a silent cost: bankrupt retailers, violated consumer rights, exploitative labour conditions, and rising threats to public safety. It is time for the European Union to act immediately and close the door to companies that profit from breaking the rules. The evidence of Shein’s and Temu’s misconduct is overwhelming. At the top of the list stands the most fundamental concern: consumer safety. Authorities have found beauty products and children’s toys containing high levels of toxins and carcinogenic substances. Even more alarming are the failures in products meant to save lives. Smoke detectors that stay silent, helmets that shatter, and electronics that spark fires. These products would never be sold on Europe’s store shelves — yet millions enter each day, without inspection. Digital safety is equally compromised. In France, Shein faces a €150m penalty for illegally retaining cookies on websites despite user rejection. Temu goes further, collecting biometric data, location history, and even microphone access — without clear consent. These aren’t minor breaches. They are systematic abuses of trust. And still, Shein and Temu remain closer to consumers than the nearest store. One click is all it takes. If products that violate EU law so clearly, why are these companies still granted access to Europe’s consumers? The loophole The answer lies in the so-called “de minimis” loophole. Under this rule, any parcel worth less than €150 bypasses both customs inspections and tax payments. Shein and Temu exploit this by shipping millions of orders directly to consumers instead of bulk deliveries that could be inspected. The result is paralysis: customs officers cannot possibly check billions of micro-parcels. On top of that, the tax exemption itself creates a massive cost advantage: while European businesses pay their share, these platforms exploit a loophole that lets them undercut competitors and distort the market. Consumers lose. Governments lose. But Shein and Temu cash in. Shein’s revenues soared from $3bn [€2.55bn] in 2019 to $38bn in 2024, sustaining double-digit growth year after year. Temu’s trajectory is even steeper — from $3m in 2022 to an expected $71bn in 2025. Yes, the EU knows this is a problem. Yet its response remained timid. It plans to abolish the low-value tax exemption on de minimis parcels — but only in 2028. Additionally, it reduced fees on bulk imports to encourage consolidation. But this is too little, too late. Three years of delay is three more years of poison in our children's toys, spyware on our phones, and fire hazards in our homes. Three years of watching ethical European businesses collapse while lawbreakers prosper. Europe has a choice. It must decide what it values. Do we accept cheap products that endanger our children’s safety? Do we tolerate loopholes that hand foreign platforms an unfair advantage while European businesses are driven out? Do we look away as companies exploit workers and abuse consumers, so long as the price tag stays low? The answer must be no. Shein and Temu are not innovators; they are exploiters. If they will not respect our laws, they should not have access to our markets. Every parcel we accept without scrutiny is a silent endorsement of their abuses. Europe has the power to stop this. The question is whether it has the will. Amelie Kraaz is an international business student at Maastricht's School of Business and Economics . Amelie Kraaz is an international business student at
|
Maastricht's School of Business and Economics
|
Europe is drowning in cheap parcels. In 2024 alone, more than 12 billion low-value packages poured into the EU, 91 percent shipped directly from China. But how safe are they for European consumers? Some of these products would never be sold in Europe’s stores — yet millions enter each day, without inspection.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-19T08:56:58.300Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar95cf5ade
|
Moscow's interest in this autumn's Czech and Moldova elections
|
In the coming weeks, both Moldova and the Czech Republic will hold elections. In Moldova, authorities estimate the Kremlin will spend €100m — €31 per registered voter — to influence the outcome. In the Czech Republic, Kremlin-linked outlets are pumping out more content each day than the country’s major news outlets combined. This is no longer unusual: Moscow interfered in elections earlier this year in Poland, Germany, France, and Romania. Indeed, it would be more newsworthy if there was a vote Moscow didn’t attempt to manipulate. And its influence operations have inflicted damage far beyond the ballot box, fueling civic unrest , harming national economic interests , damaging public health , undercutting core foreign policy priorities , and straining European unity ( around Ukraine , above all). It is continually testing new tactics and increasingly leverages offline actions like paid protests, vandalism, bomb threats against polling stations, and even vote buying. Given Moscow’s ever-more brazen attempts to foster instability in Europe; it’s no wonder that its leaders increasingly see themselves, as German chancellor Friedrich Merz said at the end of August, “already in conflict with Russia”. Europe needs to act now on this growing sense of alarm about the urgency of the threat Russia’s interference poses to European security and democracy. While there are models of good practice for pushing back on Russia’s destabilising operations, far from every European nation has a strategy to address these threats. Four fightback measures Each country will need to develop a national information defence strategy, tailored to its own specific circumstances and constraints, but focused on the same four goals: build public resilience; detect and expose; close policy loopholes and vulnerabilities that facilitate Russian operations; and push back. In each area, they will benefit by learning from one another’s experience. To build resilience, European nations might look first to the Baltic and Scandinavian states, which have long integrated media literacy, critical thinking, and other relevant skills into their public education programs. Estonia , for example, has a longstanding kindergarten-through-high-school curriculum which tailors its modules to the age of students; high schoolers, for instance, are required to take a 35-hour “media and influence” course. Sweden’s Psychological Defence Agency is mandated with working not just in the school system but in broader society to educate citizens. The Dutch Media Literacy Network offers another approach, leaning on more than a thousand organizations to advance media literacy among priority groups across society. Detecting and exposing interference operations is essential for raising awareness among the public, as well as to minimise the impact of a particular operation. Analytical and investigative capabilities should be developed inside a government, as France did when it established Viginum: a government agency which tracks, identifies, and exposes foreign nation-states' malign influence operations targeting France and its interests. Alternatively, countries might partner with local civil society organisations, as Lithuania and other smaller states have done. In either case, governments would do well to increase funding to the many civil society organisations across Europe with relevant expertise which are now in funding crisis (in part because of the United States’s general withdrawal from supporting civil society abroad ). Each country should also seek to reduce its vulnerabilities that facilitate Russian influence operations by tightening its regulatory and judicial framework. One obvious first step is strict prohibitions on foreign funding to political parties (Norway offers a good model). A related approach had tightened disclosure or registration requirements; the UK, for instance, recently mandated that anyone acting on Russia’s behest register with the authorities. Each will also need to consider its position on limiting Russian propaganda access: while the EU blocked many (though not all) of Russia’s major propaganda outlets in Europe; some individual countries, like Latvia and Lithuania, have gone further and banned additional websites or broadcasters, while non-EU members Switzerland and Norway opted to allow broadcasts to continue. The major social media platforms should not escape attention; at minimum, governments should push for maximally strict EU enforcement of the Digital Services Act to raise the stakes on the social media platforms that serve as a primary conduit for foreign malign influence activity — even when this causes tension with Washington, which argues , with spurious evidence, that the DSA represents a form of censorship. Finally, European governments should look for opportunities to push back, and perhaps even go on the offensive against Russia. Sanctions are one measure; the EU has levied them against individuals and entities involved in Russia’s operations, while some individual member states, like the Czech Republic , have unilaterally sanctioned additional implicated actors. Governments should also increase funding provided to enable independent Russian-language media outlets (as well as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the longstanding US government-funded network now in jeopardy), and deepen support for Russian civil society actors who aspire to a different future for their country. Governments with the stomach for it might also consider more direct operations to target Russia’s hybrid capabilities, along the lines of as the reported American operation to take Russia’s Internet Research Agency offline on the eve of the 2018 mid-term elections. None of these measures will stop Russian interference operations or mitigate them entirely. But by hardening defensive measures, building resilience in society, and going on offence, when warranted, Europe can make itself a harder target, and perhaps eventually begin to move off its backfoot. That would put it in a markedly better position for the long battle that still lies ahead. David Salvo is managing director of the Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD) at the German Marshall Fund (GMF) think-tank. Nathaniel Myers is visiting fellow within the Transatlantic Trusts at the GMF. David Salvo is managing director of the Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD) at the German Marshall Fund (GMF) think-tank.
|
Nathaniel Myers
|
In Moldova, authorities estimate the Kremlin will spend €100m — €31 per registered voter — to influence the outcome. In the Czech Republic, Kremlin-linked outlets are pumping out more content each day than the country’s major news outlets combined.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"EU Elections",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-18T13:12:59.586Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar5ca4cf82
|
Ahead of EU regulation: assessing vehicles’ total lifecycle emissions
|
Back in 2023, the European Commission introduced its Fit for 55 package, with the goal to reduce the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 percent by 2030. Among the proposed measures was the aim to develop a standardised Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology to assess the full environmental impact of vehicles throughout their entire lifespan. Such a life cycle assessment aims to measure the emissions involved in every phase of a vehicle’s life cycle, from the extraction of raw materials and the energy used in manufacturing, to the emissions produced while driving, and finally, the disposal and recycling of components at the end of its life. The European Commission aimed to present a unified LCA methodology and translate it into regulation by 2025. In June of this year, a step in that direction was made with the EU-funded TranSensus LCA project publishing a set of harmonised LCA guidelines specifically for zero-emission vehicles. The commission is now working on developing a regulatory methodology to assess LCA across the EU. With the launch of their new website on Thursday (18 September), Green NCAP are taking the lead, moving ahead of regulation, by introducing a comprehensive LCA methodology which estimates emissions of combustion engine vehicles and electric vehicles ‘from cradle to grave’, and allows consumers to evaluate a vehicle’s true impact on the environment in three assessment categories. Adding LCA to exhaust emissions Green NCAP awards a star rating to each car which reflects its overall sustainability, going from one star for the worst performers to five stars for the greenest vehicles. This sustainability rating comprises three indices, each individually scored out of 10: the Clean Air Index, the Greenhouse Gas Index, and the Energy Efficiency Index. The Clean Air Index analyses the most important pollutants emitted during a vehicle’s different life cycle phases, while the Greenhouse Gas Index measures the emissions of specific greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4 and N2O) during those phases. Starting with the operational phase, Green NCAP measures the gases emitted from a vehicle’s tailpipe when it is being driven. Of course, an electric vehicle (EV) does not have any exhaust emissions and will therefore achieve full marks in this phase. For a combustion engine vehicle, however, its exhaust emissions are evaluated using a wide variety of different tests, ranging from warm and cold weather tests in a laboratory, to a short city trip simulation and a congestion simulation on the road. For each of these parameters the vehicle receives a score out of 10, which in turn make up the vehicle’s total ‘exhaust emissions’ score out of 10. This is familiar territory for Green NCAP who have been measuring tailpipe emissions since their creation in 2019. “We have always measured exhaust emissions,” Green NCAP’s Alex Damyanov says, “the difference is that we are now introducing a holistic approach with the full Life Cycle Assessment.” To complete the evaluation of pollutants emitted during a car’s operational phase, beyond those released through the exhaust pipe, Green NCAP also looks at vehicle properties that influence brake and tyre abrasion, which release polluting particles on roads and in the air. The difficulty with the emissions of the other life cycle phases, however, is that they cannot be measured in a lab-like exhaust emissions. “We cannot measure them, we can only estimate them,” Damyanov explains, “we are essentially using a science of estimations based on data-collections and databases available to us.” This ‘science of estimations’ is the LCA methodology which Green NCAP uses to make calculated estimations of the pollutants that have been (or will be) emitted in the various stages of a vehicle’s life other than the operational phase. Certainly for electric vehicles, LCA reveals crucial information regarding their environmental footprint. An electric car’s emissions on the road might be zero, but its contribution to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere happens well before it is ever driven. As is the case for combustion engine vehicles of course, albeit to a lesser extent. In addition, Green NCAP also considers the emissions originating from the processes related to the supply of the propulsion energy — factoring in, for instance, the emissions coming from the factories and powerplants producing fuels or electricity. Not every electric vehicle is the same The new and improved Energy Efficiency Index calculates a vehicle’s total energy consumption, starting with the energy it uses locally while driving, and supplemented with data from the other life cycle phases. “Once again, we see that in production, recycling and maintenance, there are also other things that use energy — considerable amounts of energy,” Damyanov points out. A vehicle’s energy consumption over its whole life cycle can vary significantly from model to model, depending on factors such as efficiency, weight, and battery capacity. Larger, heavier cars with bigger batteries typically demand more energy across their lifetime, while smaller, lighter models tend to be far more energy efficient. A big 2.5 tonnes 7-seater electric SUV, for instance, will use a lot of energy in its operational phase, as well as in its production phase. “This type of electric SUV will have the most energy-intensive production phase of any car in Europe,” Damyanov says, “such a big car needs a big heavy battery, which can weigh significantly more than half a tonne, and in order to compensate for that additional weight of the battery, it can be necessary to put even more aluminium and other lightweight materials in the chassis, in the glider, and these increase the greenhouse gas bill. So mass just makes it worse and worse.” He continues by putting this into perspective: “Combustion engine vehicles have the advantage that there is no battery to be produced. However, the benefits of EVs in the usage phase can outweigh the small drawback in production by far. And as the electricity mix is becoming continuously greener, the picture will become even more favourable for EVs.” Driving experience With the new website also comes a new assessment. The Driving Experience evaluation introduces a wide array of different parameters which influence how user-friendly a vehicle is. “This comes as an addition in 2025, it is something new that we are showing because we learnt that it is of high importance for consumers. But we don’t want it to take the stage, the stage is for sustainability,” Damyanov states. A vehicle can be very green and sustainable, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it will become a common sight on the road. Consumer choice often comes down to practicality in everyday life — and if a car charges too slowly or offers too little driving range, people might refrain from buying it. “There are a lot of prejudices against electric vehicles — and we wanted to target exactly these,” Damyanov explains, “because we can reliably measure this and we can make a comparative analysis with different vehicles. Consequently, people can see whether this vehicle is something for them or not. And manufacturers can compete with each other in improving those aspects.” Green NCAP gives accurate estimations of a vehicle’s real-world energy consumption in different scenarios, driving on a highway, in an urban area, or a rural area, and under different weather conditions. “Our estimations here are addressing the gap between the official figure given by the manufacturer and the figure that you experience in real life. We believe that this is a very important point, so that people have confidence and don’t fear receiving inaccurate information from manufacturers,” Damyanov says. Parameters like accuracy of display, cabin heating performance and cabin insulation are estimated and evaluated here too. Level playing field Green NCAP’s new website will function as a tool for consumers, for fleet managers, sustainability experts and environmental engineers to have complete information on a vehicle’s impact on the environment. The full life cycle assessment of a car’s emissions reveals valuable information on how green EVs really are, and crucially, it offers a level playing field for all vehicles, electric or combustion, to be compared and evaluated on their overall sustainability and environmental footprint. Green NCAP is a green-vehicle assessment programme hosted and supported by the European New Car Assessment Program (Euro NCAP) in cooperation with European governments. This article was produced in collaboration with EUobserver.
|
Green NCAP
|
With the launch of their new website, Green NCAP is introducing a comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment to measure vehicles’ total environmental impact from production to disposal. It aims to give consumers a transparent, comparable view of each vehicle’s true environmental footprint.
|
[] |
stakeholders
|
2025-09-18T10:32:17.004Z
|
https://euobserver.com/stakeholders/are7081bb2
|
Listen: Green funds, black gold - Amundi’s fossil fuel investments exposed
|
Amundi Investment Solutions. You may not have heard of them, but they’re Europe’s largest asset manager and one of the ten biggest worldwide, handling more than two trillion dollars in assets. The company claims to focus on green and responsible investments. But when we look closer at where the money actually goes, a very different picture emerges. So, how sustainable are Amundi’s so-called green funds? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: Amundi Investment Solutions. You may not have heard of them, but they’re Europe’s largest asset manager and one of the ten biggest worldwide, handling more than two trillion dollars in assets. The company claims to focus on green and responsible investments. But when we look closer at where the money actually goes, a very different picture emerges. So, how sustainable are Amundi’s so-called green funds? An investigation by IrpiMedia and Voxeurop has revealed that Amundi has quietly invested nearly one and a half billion euros in fossil fuel companies over the last two years. Not through openly labelled oil and gas funds, but through so-called “green” funds, the ones that are supposed to comply with Europe’s Environmental, Social and Governance standards, short for ESG. The European Union created a system to make financial flows consistent with the Paris climate goals. Under the rules, funds are divided into three categories: Article 6, which doesn't bother with environmental factors; Article 8, the so-called “light green” funds that promote ESG characteristics; and Article 9, or “dark green” funds, which are supposed to have clear sustainability objectives. But here’s the catch: Article 8 funds can still include fossil fuels. And when the EU tightened the rules for Article 9 funds last year, Amundi didn’t clean up its portfolio. Instead, it simply relabelled. Eleven of its funds had their names changed, in six cases the terms “Net Zero” or “ESG” were simply dropped. The money, however, kept flowing into oil and gas. And we’re not talking about small change, TotalEnergies alone has received 438 million dollars from Amundi’s green funds. Shell got 145 million. Then came Repsol, Exxon Mobil, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial, and others. According to Carbon Tracker, none of these companies have climate strategies aligned with the Paris Agreement. Now, on paper, Amundi is a champion of sustainable investing. On its website, the section on “responsible investment” appears right at the top. The company insists climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time and urges clients to invest in its ESG funds to “make a difference.” The reality is much less inspiring. At best, Amundi is bending the rules of sustainable finance. At worst, it’s misleading investors who genuinely believe their money is going to fight climate change when in fact it’s propping up oil giants still drilling in Brazil, Nigeria, or the North Sea. The EU’s regulatory framework also shares some blame. By allowing fossil fuel companies to sit comfortably inside so-called green portfolios, Brussels creates a loophole wide enough to sail an oil tanker through. For European citizens that means trust in sustainable finance risks evaporating. So how can practices like these be held to account? The European Securities and Markets Authority, ESMA, has tried to tighten rules by forcing clearer labelling. But as the Amundi case shows, asset managers can simply change names without changing practices. And so far, there’s little evidence of serious penalties. The bigger question is whether the EU is willing to confront the finance industry more directly. If the bloc is serious about reaching net zero by 2050, then loopholes that let billions flow into fossil fuels under a green label can’t remain. Otherwise, “sustainable finance” risks becoming just another piece of financial marketing, where fine words mask business as usual. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
Amundi Investment Solutions. You may not have heard of them, but they’re Europe’s largest asset manager, claiming to focus on green and responsible investments. But how sustainable are Amundi’s so-called green funds?
|
[
"Green Economy"
] |
green-economy
|
2025-09-17T10:29:47.036Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/ar3ed0c0f5
|
What's missing in the new EU-India trade deal? Workers' rights
|
With much of the political limelight focused on Donald Trump’s erratic and damaging trade measures, the European Union and India are now in the final stretch of negotiations on a major trade agreement, with talks intensifying in recent weeks. Yet a crucial element appears to be missing: a credible and enforceable Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapter. For trade unions and workers across Europe, TSD chapters are not a technical detail — they are a defining test of whether the EU is committed to the values it claims to uphold. In a world where those values are increasingly under pressure, this test could not be more vital. A trade deal that lacks strong commitments to labour rights and sustainability would not only undermine workers in both Europe and India — it would also damage Europe’s credibility at a time of growing global trade instability. The EU must not abandon its principles in pursuit of expediency — not now, and certainly not in the current geopolitical climate. These negotiations are taking place against the backdrop of escalating tensions with the US and a renewed urgency on both sides to conclude the deal by the end of 2025, where the second Trump presidency marks a revival of protectionism, unilateralism, and hostility toward multilateral institutions. Trump has consistently disregarded international labour standards, environmental cooperation and rules-based trade. If the EU responds by diluting its own standards — or worse, by doing so in a bid to gain geopolitical leverage — it will not fill the vacuum left by US disengagement; it will only deepen it. Europe cannot win a race to the bottom — and, needless to say, it shouldn’t try. The only viable path forward is to double down on the EU’s distinct role as a global standard-setter for fair, sustainable and rules-based trade. That starts with ensuring that the EU–India deal fully reflects the values of democracy, social dialogue, and respect for fundamental rights. India is an increasingly important strategic partner. It is the world’s most populous democracy and a rapidly growing economy with significant global influence. But labour rights in India face serious limitations. Millions of workers are in informal employment. Trade unions face systemic constraints. The country has yet to ratify core International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions on freedom of association and collective bargaining. ILO Conventions set down basic human rights in the labour field that are universally applicable. The EU-India FTA should insist that fundamental conventions should be ratified and enforced, including being subject to the dispute settlement mechanisms that apply to other areas covered by the agreement. EU-New Zealand deal set a good example - why not India? The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) had hoped that the EU agreement with New Zealand, that includes such provisions, had opened up a new era for sustainable development in European trade agreements, putting labour and environmental considerations on a par with the economic aspects. We are concerned that the EU may follow the UK’s toothless deal with India, in which the language on labour rights is merely aspirational. To negotiate a trade deal that ignores these realities would be short-sighted and deeply damaging. It would send a dangerous signal: that the EU is willing to overlook human and labour rights in exchange for market access. Plus the UAE This issue isn’t confined to the India deal alone. Similar concerns arise in the EU’s newly launched trade negotiations with the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The UAE has a well-documented record of restricting freedom of association, suppressing independent trade unions, and relying heavily on precarious migrant labour under the kafala system. Entering into a trade agreement without enforceable labour and human rights provisions would not only legitimise these practices — it would demonstrate that economic interests are being prioritised over the EU’s core values. Such a model of globalisation is unacceptable. Trade and Sustainable Development chapters, when done properly, anchor trade agreements in a framework of accountability. They include binding commitments, oversight mechanisms, and civil society involvement. Crucially, they send a clear message: trade is not exempt from human rights, environmental obligations, or democratic scrutiny. If these principles are excluded from the EU’s trade deals, what remains? Agreements that not only fail to reflect Europe’s values — but actively undermine them. This is why the ETUC insists on the inclusion of strong, enforceable TSD chapters in both the ongoing EU–India negotiations and those with the UAE. It is a test of whether Europe is prepared to stand up for fair globalisation at a time when the rules-based system is under siege. The EU cannot respond to the erosion of international norms by weakening its own. To do so would be to fall into the very trap laid by authoritarians and economic nationalists. So, as president Usrula von der Leyen and her commissioners prepare to publish their joint communication on a new Strategic EU-India Agenda, set to be published this week, let’s remember: trade is not just about tariffs or market access. It’s about the kind of world we want to build and live in. If Europe cannot defend its values in trade policy, then where will it? Claes-Mikael Ståhl is deputy general secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation . Claes-Mikael Ståhl is deputy general secretary of the
|
European Trade Union Confederation
|
We are concerned that the EU may follow the UK’s toothless free trade deal with India — in which the language on labour rights is merely aspirational, warns the European Trade Union Confederation.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Green Economy",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-17T09:39:37.508Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arb7386135
|
State of the Union 2025: A Europe for profits, not for people
|
EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen’s State of the Union presents a real contradiction. On the one hand, she spoke about affordability, jobs and the pressures of rising prices. On the other, the actual substance of her speech leaned toward competitiveness deals with industry and yet more of the deregulation she seems so proud of — the very deregulation that threatens the hard fought for protections of workers, communities and the environment. Nurses, teachers and firefighters were central to the rhetoric, but only as a backdrop to bigger promises for business. They were name-checked for applause, not offered a plan: no pathway to safe staffing, no commitment on investment, no guarantees on collective bargaining. Recognition is welcome; without resources and rights, it is not respect. So who does von der Leyen’s agenda really serve? Based on her own words, it’s certainly not the people who keep Europe running. There is a better path. The European Federation of Public Services Trade Unions Public Services Agenda is a political alternative to austerity and deregulation: invest in people; fund and staff the services we all rely on; guarantee the rights set out by the European Pillar of Social Rights; and put public services and workers’ rights at the centre of every EU initiative. Quality jobs The promised Quality Jobs Act will only matter if it raises standards for all workers, with public service workers fully covered — no carve-outs. This must come with strong collective bargaining coverage in every member state; clear protections against psychosocial risks, rules for digitalisation and AI at work; and an end to abusive subcontracting. Addressing safe staffing levels is key for quality public services. Hospitals and care homes cannot retain nurses, carers, cleaners or technicians if wages lag, schedules are unsustainable and stress is treated as “part of the job.” Firefighters face an impossible job if they have to cover large areas with few comrades. And a lack of teachers means overcrowded classrooms and even cancelled classes, leaving children behind. A serious Quality Jobs Act must support safe staffing standards, paid training, career pathways and retention. It must turn praise for essential workers into enforceable rights. Anything less reduces “quality jobs” to a headline, while the services people rely on continue to be hollowed out due to austerity. Poverty, energy and housing The recognition that people are struggling with the cost of living, energy bills and housing is welcome. But the path chosen will not fix anything if the EU continues to put profits first. Pledges on an EU Anti-Poverty Strategy and energy affordability will only work if backed by strong public services built on funding from a just tax system. That means an end to austerity. It means promoting progressive taxation measures — including windfall and wealth taxes — to reduce inequalities, save our democracies and invest in public services. The ideological blindness to the role European public companies can play in so many areas is extremely problematic Publicly-owned, sustainable energy systems must be part of the answer; otherwise, families will keep paying while private interests profit, as seen during the energy crisis. The announced Grids Package and “Energy Highways” need public-interest conditionalities and worker protections, not blank cheques. An EU Affordable Housing Plan and a first-ever housing summit are welcome steps. The crisis will not be solved by market fixes though. The EPSU’s position: exclude social-housing investment from deficit rules; revise state-aid to enable large-scale public, municipal and cooperative building of homes; curb speculative pressures (including via EU rules on short-term rentals); attach strong social conditionalities to EU funds; and build a sizeable public/non-profit housing stock with decent, collectively bargained jobs for the workers who deliver and maintain these services. Missing from the speech were commitments to public health or the creation of public digital infrastructures. People and public authorities are begging for alternatives to the profit-driven US tech companies dominating the provision of IT services. The ideological blindness to the role European public companies can play in so many areas is extremely problematic. Firefighters Von der Leyen used her speech to applaud the work of Europe’s firefighters over the last summer, singling out EU level cross-border civil protection and announcing a European firefighting hub in Cyprus. But a roaming EU team is not a long-term sustainable solution. Budgets for firefighting remain stagnant and the challenge will only grow as Europe’s climate becomes more unpredictable. EU-level cooperation on fires is welcome, but each country must above all have enough responders of its own. If von der Leyen is serious about Europe’s security and preparedness, she must push member states to strengthen professional firefighting services, increase funding, and prioritise prevention through robust regulation – and not weaken it through Omnibus packages . Europe needs a Public Services Agenda SOTEU 2025 leaves us with a blunt question: who does the EU really serve — the corporations and wealthy, or the public? If von der Leyen’s answer is “both,” as her name-dropping suggests, then public services cannot remain an afterthought. EPSU’s Public Services Agenda sets a different course: end austerity; fund and staff public services; raise collective-bargaining coverage; use procurement and state aid to reward fair employers, protect our environment; and hard-wire social, environmental and tax conditionalities into EU spending. Europe will not win the future by deregulating for competitiveness and by outsourcing social policy to the market. It will win by investing in people and in the services that make rights real. Name-checks are easy. Delivering funded, well-staffed, high-quality public services is the real test. The commission should choose the people who keep Europe going and adopt a Public Services Agenda worthy of them. Jan Willem Goudriaan is the general secretary of the European Federation of Public Services Trade Unions (EPSU) . Jan Willem Goudriaan is the general secretary of the
|
European Federation of Public Services Trade Unions (EPSU)
|
State of the Union 2025 leaves us with a blunt question: who does the EU really serve — the corporations and wealthy, or the public? If Ursula von der Leyen’s answer is “both,” as her name-dropping suggests, then public services cannot remain an afterthought.
|
[
"Labour"
] |
labour
|
2025-09-17T09:39:15.012Z
|
https://euobserver.com/labour/arf07add84
|
EU 'unlikely' to meet 2030 goal on trade support to poorer countries, auditors say
|
The EU is not expected to meet its 2030 target of providing greater trade support to the least-developed countries, a report by the European Court of Auditors found on Tuesday (16 September). The so-called “aid for trade initiative” was an idea initially adopted by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2005 to assist poorer countries in building trade capacity and infrastructure to benefit from the global economy. A few years later, the EU implemented its own strategy with the aim of investing 25 percent of its budget for “aid for trade” to the 44 countries that are identified by the UN as the least-developed countries. But this European goal is still far from being achieved. “It is very unlikely that the EU will meet its 25-percent funding target by 2030”, warned Bettina Jakobsen, the auditor in charge of the report. Speaking to reporters about how trade can help lift people out of poverty, Jakobsen also said that the commission should reconsider whether the target is still “appropriate” and if an action plan would be needed. In its written answers to the auditors, the European Commission said that it will now internally examine what went wrong. While Brussels increasingly financially supports countries in northern Africa that help the EU deal with migration, investment in trade infrastructure with the poorest countries in the world is in decline. In 2022, the last year for which data is available, only 12 percent of the EU's investment in supporting trade went to least-developed countries — compared to 18 percent between 2010 and 2015. Still, the EU is considered the largest donor in the world of this “aid for trade initiative,” being accountable for 36 percent of global flows of $51.1bn [€46.5bn] in 2022. EU collective "aid for trade" peaked at nearly €23bn in 2020, before returning to about €18.5bn, according to a 2023 report of the European Commission.
|
Hannah Kriwak is a junior reporter at EUobserver covering European politics.
|
The EU is not expected to meet its goal, of supporting trade in the least-developed countries with 25 percent of its spending by 2030, according to European auditors.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Green Economy"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-16T15:13:03.387Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar0b7bd401
|
Listen: Israel intensifies Gaza offensive as UN commission declares genocide
|
After a night of intense bombardment, Israel has launched an expanded operation in Gaza. The military says it is targeting Hamas’ infrastructure and has once again warned civilians to flee south. But for many in famine-stricken Gaza, leaving is impossible: the roads are dangerous with ongoing military operations, and the south is already overcrowded. And today, the UN Commission of Inquiry presented the results of its two-year investigation, officially calling Israel’s actions in Gaza genocide. But can the UN’s damning conclusion influence future action for Gaza? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: After a night of intense bombardment, Israel has launched an expanded operation in Gaza. The military says it is targeting Hamas’ infrastructure and has once again warned civilians to flee south. But for many in famine-stricken Gaza, leaving is impossible: the roads are dangerous with ongoing military operations, and the south is already overcrowded. And today, the UN Commission of Inquiry presented the results of its two-year investigation, officially calling Israel’s actions in Gaza genocide. But can the UN’s damning conclusion influence future action for Gaza? The situation in Gaza is deteriorating today with the ground offensive by Israel. Hospitals are overwhelmed. At Shifa, staff reported receiving dozens of bodies and nearly a hundred wounded after strikes hit residential buildings. The UN estimates over 220,000 people have fled the north in the past month, but that still leaves a million trapped in Gaza, under bombardment and with food supplies cut off. The Integrated Food Security Classification has called the famine “entirely man-made.” The UN Commission of Inquiry presented today the findings of its investigations and named what is happening “genocide.” It says Israel has committed at least four of the five acts defined under the Genocide Convention: mass killings, serious harm, deliberate conditions of destruction, and even preventing births. Israel rejects the charge as “distorted and false,” and the International Court of Justice will now have to weigh the case using this report. Inside Israel, anger is also rising. Families of hostages are camping outside Netanyahu’s residence, accusing him of sacrificing their loved ones for political survival. Still, Netanyahu insists the mission will continue “until Hamas is defeated.” Now this is no longer a military campaign against Hamas, this is a turning point for Israel’s democracy. Netanyahu himself admitted Israel is becoming isolated, but instead of acknowledging Gaza, he blamed Muslim immigration in Europe, Chinese disinformation, and Qatari influence. He even warned Israelis to prepare for a future as a “Super Sparta” a militarised, semi-autarkic state, cut off from much of the world. If that was meant to inspire confidence, it hasn’t. Israeli commentators have called his remarks “reckless” and “madness.” And Europe? For all the outrage, EU leaders have yet to respond in any meaningful or unified way. The European Commission has hardened its tone, they proposed pausing payments to Israel and sanctioning extremist ministers, but heads of state remain largely silent. Luxembourg is joining France and Belgium in their recognition of Palestine, but the rest of the bloc is dragging its feet. In the meantime, over sixty thousand Palestinians are dead. What’s Next? For now tanks are reportedly moving into Gaza. More airstrikes are expected. Negotiators, led by the US in Qatar, are racing to salvage even a temporary ceasefire, but as the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio admitted: the window is closing, and fast. At the UN General Assembly later this month, we will see a wave of European recognition of Palestine. That could shift the diplomatic landscape, but it won’t change the fact that civilians in Gaza face an impossible choice, either to flee again into danger and risk their lives, or stay under bombardment and starvation and again risk their lives. And the longer Europe’s leaders stay silent, the harder it becomes to claim any moral authority in this conflict. And the longer Netanyahu clings to his “Super Sparta” fantasy, the deeper Israel drifts into isolation, because what happens in Gaza will shape not only the fate of Palestinians, but also the future of Israel. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
As Israel escalates its military offensive in Gaza, the UN Commission of Inquiry has released the findings of its two-year investigation, formally designating Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-16T10:42:49.600Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar6e265eed
|
What this week's Belarus-Russia military drill tells us about Lukashenko's new posturing
|
The Russian-Belarusian bilateral “Zapad” exercises, which Belarus hosts once every four years, usually attract a lot of attention. “Zapad-2017” was viewed by analysts as a preparation of the absorption of the country by Russia. “Zapad-2021” served as a cover for the then forthcoming Russia’s invasion into Ukraine. In comparison, “Zapad-2025” that took place on 12-16 September, received a lot less visibility. Nato countries, of course, took measures to guarantee security in the alliance’s eastern flank. They carried out a series of exercises, “Iron Defender-2025” in Poland being the largest one. In response to Russia’s sending the drones into Polish airspace on the eve of Zapad, also via Belarusian airspace, Warsaw closed both the land border with Belarus — until further notice — and the air in the vicinity of this border. Latvia and Lithuania repeated the latter step. Yet, the political resonance around “Zapad-2025” was fairly small. That reflects the minuscule size of the games. In the context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops on both sides of the frontline, 8,000 Belarusian military and 2,000 men arriving from Russia to be directly involved in the exercises, do not look formidable at all. De-escalation? The main intrigue of “Zapad-2025”, however, manifested itself through an attempt by the Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko to exploit it to start the process of de-escalation of relations with the West. In August, Belarus loudly pre-announced the move of the exercises into the centre of the country, away from its southern or western borders. Furthermore, during the above-mentioned drone provocation against Poland, Minsk demonstrated its “goodwill” and shared some information with Warsaw. Lukashenko made an odd statement that the main task of Belarusian diplomacy should now be helping US president Donald Trump to bring about peace. Finally, on 11 September, Minsk released 52 political prisoners in exchange for the lifting of the US sanctions against Belavia, the Belarusian national airline — apparently in hope to shift the attention away from security towards the humanitarian agenda and emphasise that his regime is ready to negotiate with the West in general, and Washington in particular. This Minsk activity reveals that Lukashenko finds his current situation threatening. Western economic sanctions work. Exports of key Belarusian revenue-generating commodities, like potassium, are grossly impeded. Attempts to induce China to deepen economic ties failed — the opposite happened. The closure of the Polish border, if it continues, will be another major blow — this time affecting what was left from the Asian transit. In the meantime, Russia, while ordering and paying for the products of the Belarusian military industry, neither wants nor has the resources to subsidise Lukashenko’s regime at the level seen before 2022, and multiple meetings with Putin cannot change this reality. Minsk outshone by North Korea and China Most importantly, Lukashenko no longer enjoys the status of Russia’s closest partner and ally. Unlike North Korea, Belarus does not send its military units to fight alongside Russia’s. Unlike China, it does not have the economic or political weight to make a difference in today’s diplomatic bouts. In other words, the label of “co-aggressor”, which in 2022-23 Lukashenko was boasting to have, by now has become a burden. Minsk is trying to repeat the trick which had worked many times before — namely, to re-engage with the West and thus to enlarge its own manoeuvring space vis-à-vis Russia. However, this time it is not likely to succeed. In 2020, Europe had its fingers burnt: Lukashenko did not hesitate to throw off all the results of bilateral rapprochement of 2015-20 and stay in power relying on massive repression . At the moment, Europeans would expect not simply a release — and deportation, as it happens now — of relatively small groups of political prisoners, but substantial domestic liberalisation. Moreover, nothing can today change the image of Lukashenko in the West as Putin’s vassal. In contrast to 2019, the nature of his relationship with Moscow has changed profoundly and not in his favour. Even if the Belarusian leader abruptly decided to stop using the migrants as a hybrid weapon against Europe and find a way to resolve an acute crisis in Polish-Belarusian relations, this would not guarantee the recognition of Lukashenko’s domestic legitimacy and Minsk as an international actor by the EU. Europe cannot simply turn the page the way Donald Trump’s administration may intend to do. Minsk would need to revert the strategic subordination to Moscow in the way convincing for Europe. But such a change of tack is completely unrealistic, and the best proof of it is the calm with which Moscow is watching a new episode of the saga about Lukashenko’s 'drift to the West'. Most likely, Lukashenko has been left with only two scenarios and neither is in his hands. One is to fall 'between two stools' — being ostracised by Europe while not sufficiently propped up by Russia. The other one is more radical and implies the replacement of Lukashenko by someone more to Moscow’s liking. All in all, the West may be advised to start preparing for a new political and security crisis in Europe — this time in and around Belarus. Arkady Moshes serves as the director of Russia, the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood and Eurasia Research Programme , and Ryhor Nizhnikau is a senior researcher at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs . They have an extensive policy and academic publication track record on Russian foreign policy, the post-Soviet region and Belarus in particular, and are members of the Programme on New Approaches to Research and Security in Eurasia (PONARS Eurasia) at George Washington University. Their latest publications is “Russian Policy toward Belarus after 2020 At a Turning Point?” (Lexington Books, 2023). Arkady Moshes serves as the director of Russia, the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood and Eurasia Research Programme , and Ryhor Nizhnikau is a senior researcher at the
|
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
|
The main intrigue of the joint Belarus-Russia “Zapad-2025” military exercise, which ends on Tuesday, is the attempt of the Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko to exploit it to start the process of de-escalation of relations with the West.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-16T09:15:53.645Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar34c6ae86
|
Listen: Trump calls for Nato allies and the EU to stop buying Russian oil
|
This weekend, US President Donald Trump once again made waves in Brussels with a post on his social media platform, Truth Social. In what he described as a “letter to Nato nations,” Trump demanded that every member state stop buying Russian oil and gas. His message was blunt, as long as countries like Hungary, Slovakia, and even non-EU Nato ally Turkey continue to purchase Russian energy, the United States won’t move forward with its own sanctions against Moscow. Is this wishful thinking or the key to the EU's 19th sanction package against Russia? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: This weekend, US President Donald Trump once again made waves in Brussels with a post on his social media platform, Truth Social. In what he described as a “letter to Nato nations,” Trump demanded that every member state stop buying Russian oil and gas. His message was blunt: as long as countries like Hungary, Slovakia, and even non-EU Nato ally Turkey continue to purchase Russian energy, the United States won’t move forward with its own sanctions against Moscow. Is this wishful thinking or the key to the EU's 19th sanction package against Russia? In the same post Trump went further, calling Nato’s commitment to Ukraine “less than 100 percent” and labelling the continued purchases of Russian oil “shocking.” He also floated the idea of slapping tariffs of up to 100 percent on China, arguing that Beijing’s support for Moscow could be broken by economic pressure. His post landed just as EU officials were trying to finalise a 19th round of sanctions against Russia. And while most EU countries have cut back sharply on Russian energy since the invasion, from 45 percent of imports in 2022 to around 13 percent today, Hungary and Slovakia remain heavily dependent. Turkey, meanwhile, continues to buy large volumes through the TurkStream pipeline. Trump’s intervention is awkwardly timed: it followed a major Russian drone attack on Poland that triggered Nato consultations under Article 4. And despite his insistence that the war “would never have started if he had been president,” his threats so far haven’t translated into real action. Deadlines have passed, sanctions have been promised but not delivered, and a much-touted summit with Putin in Alaska produced no results. For Brussels, Trump’s words are a double-edged sword. On one hand, EU diplomats quietly welcome the pressure on Hungary and Slovakia. Viktor Orbán’s government has long blocked or watered down sanctions, and if Trump, a leader Orbán openly admires, is the one telling him to cut ties with Russian oil, it could shift the dynamic. But there’s a problem: Europe has heard this before. Trump sets conditions, threatens action, then fails to follow through. Linking US sanctions on Russia to a complete halt of Russian oil imports by all Nato allies isn’t just unrealistic, it risks paralysing transatlantic coordination. Brussels knows it cannot compel Turkey to stop buying energy from Moscow. And the idea that tariffs on China could “end the war quickly” is, at best, wishful thinking. Since 2022, European countries have spent more than €200bn on Russian energy, money that has, in effect, helped finance the invasion of Ukraine. Kyiv is urging its allies to stop all energy deals with Moscow, but the political will to go that far has been missing. What’s next? In the short term, Trump’s post may give the European Commission some leverage to push through its next sanctions package. If Orbán and Fico calculate that it’s better to align with Trump than to keep stalling Brussels, that could unlock progress. But beyond that, the view in Brussels is less optimistic. By tying American sanctions to conditions that are nearly impossible to meet, Trump may actually be delaying tougher action from Washington. And if Nato allies spend months debating oil imports and tariffs on China instead of coordinating sanctions on Russia, the Kremlin gains precious time and revenue. The bottom line? Europe is cautiously cheering Trump’s rhetorical shift against Moscow, but most officials know better than to bank on it. Until his words translate into action, they remain exactly that, words. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
This weekend, in what he described as a “letter to NATO nations,” US president Donald Trump demanded that every member state stop buying Russian oil and gas. Is this wishful thinking or the key to the EU's 19th sanction package against Russia?
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-15T10:35:46.832Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar897b7cb8
|
We all lose when politicians attack the European Court of Human Rights
|
The European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights are under attack — again. In May, nine European Union states, including Poland, Italy and Denmark, suggested that the human rights court was constraining their ability to act for public safety, particularly over immigration, and had strayed beyond its original mandate. The UK government has since joined the chorus, with the then-lord chancellor saying in June that the way courts interpret the convention is “out of step with common sense, ” against a domestic backdrop of calls for the UK to leave it altogether . Even the Council of Europe’s secretary general said the convention needed to “adapt” (though confusingly, he also said it did not need reform ). To understand why the court and convention are so important, it’s worth recalling their origins and understanding the potential consequences of these attacks. With the horrors of World War II fresh in their memory, European leaders, including Winston Churchill , created the European Convention on Human Rights to help guard against future human rights violations. To uphold its promise, they also founded a regional court to step in when national courts were unable or unwilling to protect people’s rights. (Despite sharing part of their name, they have no connection to the European Union). For the most part, the court has done its job of protecting convention rights well. Many of the human rights protections we enjoy in Europe today arise from the work of the court — including ending corporal punishment against children in schools, protecting press freedom , and protecting the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people . The court will only take a case if a person has already sought and been unable to find justice in national courts. It rejects most applications that are brought to it. And historically its judges have deferred significantly to governments on questions of how rights should be interpreted in national law and policy. So why is it that the court faces such opprobrium from democratic governments? The first answer is obvious — the court holds governments to account for their actions, including with fines and orders to address violations. And governments don’t like having their power constrained, whether by courts, the media or otherwise. Two misconceptions Beyond that there are two main criticisms: first, that the court’s judges interpret the convention to “find” rights that were never intended by its framers 70 some years ago. Second, that the court’s interpretation of the right to family life has led to deportations being blocked in immigration cases. The criticism about judges “finding” rights is misplaced. The court does apply the convention as a living instrument to factual situations that were not envisioned when the treaty was drafted. In doing so it applies the rights in the treaty rather than creating new ones. And its actions ensure that the convention continues to protect the rights of people as the framers intended. On immigration, it is true that national courts apply the convention in ways that sometimes frustrate government efforts to deport foreign nationals. In some cases, those decisions draw on European court rulings. But the main obstacle to removing migrants is not international human rights law. A key issue is that the states from which the migrants originate frequently decline to accept or cooperate with their return, frustrating deportation efforts. As governments in Europe blame human rights for tying their hands on migration, so the media has followed, stirring negative public sentiments. 'Right to family life' is there to protect children While the right to family life is sometimes cited by domestic courts as a reason why foreign nationals convicted of crimes cannot be deported, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the basis of those decisions. It is the impact on the rights of other family members (for example, children) who are lawful residents and often citizens rather than the person facing deportation that are often crucial to the decision. Their rights are often forgotten in the political debate around the issue. While the European court undoubtedly constrains state action at times, that is what it was designed to do: to protect people from overreach by the state, and ultimately to serve as a bulwark against tyranny and war. It protects 700 million people across the Council of Europe region. While the court is not without problems — a long backlog of cases means decisions can take years — genuine reform efforts have helped streamline its decision making. The main obstacle to its effective functioning remains the reluctance of some governments to fully implement its rulings and tackle the persistent abuses that lead to them. At a time when Europe faces some of the gravest threats since the end of World War Two, European governments should be commending and strengthening its regional institutions, not undermining them. Benjamin Ward is deputy Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch . Benjamin Ward is deputy Europe and Central Asia director at
|
Human Rights Watch
|
The European Court of Human Rights is under attack — again. But the main obstacle to its effective functioning remains the reluctance of some governments to fully implement its rulings and tackle the persistent abuses that lead to them, warns Human Rights Watch.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Migration",
"Rule of Law",
"EU Political",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-15T10:34:40.138Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar0cbd7720
|
EU to offer Egypt more incentives at October summit
|
The EU will use a bilateral summit with Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in October to improve its offer to the North African state, which has emerged as a key regional ally of the bloc on migration control and energy. EU officials confirmed this week that the bilateral summit will be held on 22 October in Brussels. For their part, EU diplomats held their first exchange of views on the draft joint statement that will follow the summit earlier this week. Diplomats said that the summit would also focus on the war in Gaza, which borders Egypt, as well as the EU's financial support for Cairo and energy projects. It will also focus on commitments on respect for human rights and migration co-operation. Officials told EUobserver that the summit would be crucial to “strengthening the of bilateral relationship under the EU-Egypt Strategic and Comprehensive Partnership .” In March, the EU held a similar summit with South Africa, at which investment in energy projects was also high on the agenda. Bilateral summits, particularly with African countries, are a rarity for the EU and the October summit is a reflection of how important a partner Egypt has become to Europe. It also takes place a month before an EU-African Union summit, which will be held in Angola. In March 2024, the EU agreed to provide €7.4bn in budget support and investment to Egypt in exchange for greater border control and cooperation on migration policy, making it far more lucrative that the EU’s other ‘cash for migrant control’ pacts with African states: Tunisia and Mauritania. Since then, the EU Commission has agreed a €3bn deal with Jordan and is in negotiations with a handful of West African states, including Senegal, on other migration-control pacts. Although civil society groups have reported major and multiple human rights violations of refugees fleeing the two-year civil war in Sudan at the hands of the Egyptian authorities, including arbitrary arrest and detention and cases of refugees being deported back to Sudan, the EU executive has repeatedly praised the al-Sisi government’s handling of the refugee crisis. As well as migration, Egypt is a major potential producer of green hydrogen, a priority for the EU as it seeks to diversify its energy supply and move away from Russian gas. It now has green hydrogen projects worth a combined $175bn ongoing. The EU has also continued to offer more incentives to Egypt. Last June, an EU-Egypt investment conference saw the signing of deals worth over €40bn, primarily on green hydrogen and other energy projects. EU officials have also been working on an agreement between Egypt and Europol, the EU agency which pools information and resources between the bloc’s law enforcement authorities. Egypt joined the Horizon Europe research programme as an associate member in April. And it is likely to be one of the main beneficiaries, along with Morocco, from the ‘New Pact for the Mediterranean’, which president Ursula von der Leyen's EU commission has promised to unveil in the coming months, aimed at deepening EU relations with North African and Middle East countries.
|
Benjamin Fox is a seasoned reporter and editor, previously working for fellow Brussels publication Euractiv. His reporting has also been published in the Guardian, the East African, Euractiv, Private Eye and Africa Confidential, among others. He heads up the AU-EU section at EUobserver, based in Nairobi, Kenya.
|
The EU will use a bilateral summit with Egypt in October to improve its offer to the North African state, which has emerged as a key regional ally of the bloc on migration control and energy.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Africa"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-12T14:26:19.160Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar5040c33c
|
Listen: Sébastien Lecornu – Who is France’s new PM?
|
The political storm in France continues with new players but the same problems: paralysis in parliament, financial strain, and mounting social unrest. In the midst of this turbulence, President Emmanuel Macron once again turned to a trusted ally, Sébastien Lecornu. But what do we know about France’s new Prime minister? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: The political storm in France continues with new players but the same problems: paralysis in parliament, financial strain, and mounting social unrest. In the midst of this turbulence, President Emmanuel Macron once again turned to a trusted ally, Sébastien Lecornu. But what do we know about France’s new Prime minister? At just 39, Lecornu was appointed on Wednesday prime minister, replacing a government that collapsed barely a day earlier. He has been at Macron’s side since 2017, the only minister to survive every government reshuffle. Loyal, cautious, and discreet, his career is built on proximity to power, and critics fear that that closeness could prove a liability. He was already welcomed with protests and opposition leaders described him as “Macronism’s last shot”. Socialist Party chief Olivier Faure dismissed the idea of change, saying that Lecornu and Macron had done everything together for eight years. Marine Le Pen called it the “last bullet” of a dwindling presidency. Still, Lecornu entered office with a daunting to-do list: pass a budget through a bitterly divided parliament, restore trust with trade unions and political opponents, and convince the French people that he represents something more than the president’s shadow. A career politician, Lecornu started young, as a parliamentary assistant at 19, a mayor at 28, a senator by 2020. As defence minister, he championed Macron’s push for a more muscular European security policy and secured higher military budgets. Colleagues describe him as ambitious but pragmatic, someone who “knows how to manoeuvre”. Now Lecornu’s appointment comes after Macron's gamble last summer to call early elections backfired, leaving him with no majority. France is governed ever since through fragile alliances and improvisation. In this sense, appointing Lecornu shows continuity, not change. Macron once again picked a loyalist, rather than reaching across the aisle or acknowledging the opposition’s strength. The message to voters seemed clear, that the Élysée still believes it could muddle through with the same formula, despite repeated failures. But for French citizens, the stakes are high. Inflation, pension reforms, and spending cuts have already fuelled anger in the streets. People no longer fear political instability; they are already living it. Lecornu is supposed to bridge divides but the math in parliament has not shifted at all. Without concessions on taxation or spending, his survival looks as uncertain as that of his predecessors. So what comes next? Lecornu’s first moves are cautious. He promised consultations with unions, parties, and employers, and announced his general policy statement for early October. Until then, he is biding his time and testing for common ground. But deadlines are approaching and France needs a credible budget to satisfy markets and avoid further credit downgrades. The left demands new taxes on the rich; the right wants deeper spending cuts. While any compromise risks alienating part of the fragile coalition keeping Macron’s government afloat. In truth, Lecornu looks less like a fresh start and more like a last chance. His appointment bought Macron some time, but time alone cannot fix a political system stuck in deadlock. And as analysts put it, Lecornu is the “last-chance prime minister”. If he fails, Macron might have no option left but to call yet another election and let the French decide for themselves. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
What do we know about France’s new Prime minister? Today's Long Story Short with Evi Kiorri provides a crash course into Sébastien Lecornu.
|
[
"EU Political"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-09-12T10:43:01.868Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ara4c6a1ea
|
Most MEPs vote against describing Gaza as genocide
|
The majority of MEPs in the European Parliament voted against describing Israeli actions in Gaza as a genocide. The results on Thursday (11 September) follow an amendment tabled by the Left that had also demanded EU cease all forms of assistance that enable the atrocity. But with 171 in favour, 378 against, and 34 abstentions, the amendment was outright rejected as part of a larger non-binding resolution on Gaza. The entire leading centre-right European People's Party voted against the amendment, as did most MEPs from the liberal Renew Europe. It was also opposed by most MEPs sitting with far-right political forces spanning the Patriots for Europe, Europe of Sovereign Nations and the European Conservatives and Reformists Party. A smaller handful from the Greens and socialists also voted against. While the amendment failed, the ensuing resolution called for an immediate ceasefire, an end to Israel's humanitarian blockage, and the release of Hamas-held Israeli hostages. However, earlier this month, leading scholars designated Israeli actions in Gaza as genocide. The International Association of Genocide Scholars said Israeli policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide. The term was defined in the 1948 Geneva Convention as acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” Commission vice-president Teresa Ribeira had also called it genocide, as did a classified EU foreign service study of Gaza this past June. The European Commission has itself refused to take a stand on the term . Instead, European Commission president Ursula Von der Leyen, in her state of the union speech , suggested Israel was weaponising hunger. And earlier this week, the UK government has also refused to use the term. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague last year said there is a plausible case of genocide but has yet to draw a definitive conclusion. For its part, Israel says the designation is equivalent to "blood libel" amid claims it is Hamas-led propaganda, following the terror group's October 2023 killing spree of mostly Israeli nationals. Over 60,000 Palestinians have since been killed in the enclave with many in the grip of famine and starvation.
|
Nikolaj joined EUobserver in 2012 and covers home affairs. He is originally from Denmark, but spent much of his life in France and in Belgium. He was awarded the King Baudouin Foundation grant for investigative journalism in 2010.
|
The majority of MEPs in the European Parliament voted against describing Israeli actions in Gaza as a genocide.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-11T14:51:49.770Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar9ddd036f
|
Born into war: How Ukraine's demographic crisis became a catastrophe
|
The images of the bombing of a maternity hospital in Mariupol by Russian forces in 2022, which made headlines worldwide, are hard to forget. Children are still being found in the rubble today. But Ukraine had a demographic problem even before Russia-s full-scale invasion — and the war is turning a crisis into a catastrophe. With peace talks gaining momentum , experts warn that even a swift end to the war may not be enough to reverse the long-term effects of mass displacement, falling birth rates, and the loss of a generation of young families and potential parents." "It is futile to hope for peace in the coming years. If any truce is achieved, it will not be so long that it will be possible to influence demographic processes … Ukraine faces demographic challenges that no other country has ever faced," Oleksandr Gladun, a doctor of economics at Ukraine's Institute for Demography and Social Studies told EUobserver. According to Gladun, the demographic situation of Ukraine will be influenced not only by the war and economic and social development, but also by demographic policies which he described as a "long game". "A peace settlement might bring a short-term population increase, as a significant number of war refugees could return . However, in the long run, we will probably see a resumption of population shrinkage," Sebastian Klüsener, a researcher at the Federal Institute for Population Research (BiB) in Germany, told EUobserver. "The demographic developments of the past 35 years, and their impact on the current age structure, are likely to leave a deep and lasting mark on Ukraine’s future population trends – most likely resulting in continued population decline," Klüsener added. Ukraine's population has been in decline since the early 1990s, when it peaked at around 52 million people. The Sovie Union's subsequent collapse led to a severe economic crisis, prompting many people to have fewer children and emigrate in search of a better life. Following Russia's 2014 invasion of Crimea and the war in Ukraine's Donbas region, Ukraine's population decline began to accelerate. And in the years leading up to the full-scale invasion in 2022, the Covid-19 pandemic became one of the leading causes of death in the country, triggering a sharp decline in Ukraine's life expectancy. 'The demographic developments of the past 35 years, and their impact on the current age structure, are likely to leave a deep and lasting mark on Ukraine’s future population trends – most likely resulting in continued population decline' As a result, estimates suggest that Ukraine lost some 9 million people in just 20 years (from 46.1 million people in 2013 down to 37.7 million in 2023, according to UN data) – one of the sharpest population declines in modern European history. At the beginning of 2025, it is estimated that about 31 million people are living in the country, including the territories occupied by Russia. Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022 further intensified the crisis, with high mortality rates and the fertility rate plunging to just one child per woman — the lowest in Europe and among the lowest globally, according to the UN. This is, however, common for most large-scale military conflicts, Gladun explained. The rise in mortality is attributed to soldiers dying at the front, civilians killed by missile and drone attacks, and higher deaths from worsened chronic illnesses, stress, and limited access to medical care. While the figures of casualties of troops and civilians related to the war in Ukraine are not fully public, it is estimated that the mortality rate is almost three times higher than the birth rate. In September 2024, a CIA report stated that Ukraine has the highest mortality rate and the lowest birth rate in the world, but some experts remain sceptical, while admitting that it is probably not far from reality . Meanwhile, if the decline in birth rates reflects a natural response to the ongoing war, it is also affected by the breakdown of family relationships. However, according to Gladun, the biggest impact on the population is migration. Almost 7 million people, mostly women and children, have fled the country since February 2022 and are likely to stay in a host country under the right conditions. The EU Commission's statistical office, Eurostat, estimates that 4.3 million people reside in EU countries, making up 0.95 percent of the total EU population. According to a survey carried out by the research agency Info Sapiens in Kyiv and commissioned by the Centre for Economic Strategy (CES), also in Kyiv, in November–December 2024, fewer than half (43 percent) of Ukrainians living abroad plan to return to Ukraine. Klüsener also refers to a 2023 survey that shows an increasing number of refugees who would like to stay in Germany in the long-term. While only 39 percent expressed this desire in summer 2022, the figure rose to 52 percent by summer 2023. "These numbers are likely to increase further, the longer the war lasts and the better refugees become integrated into the host society," the German researcher said. 'Everyone is afraid' Everyone is impacted by war in different ways. But those who stay in the country, specially children and women — who are key to any country's demographic collapse during a conflict — are often the most vulnerable, partly given the exposure to physical violence, psychological trauma, economic hardship, and displacement. "While researching the childbearing in unsafe conditions of war in Ukraine, we found various generative strategies: postponing the birth of a child for better times (and safe period), having a child to continue the family line, having a child after a previous postponement (due to fear of no having better chance later), having a child as a replacement for a lost child or pregnancy, refusing to give birth," said Svitlana Aksyonova, a researcher at Ukraine’s Institute for Demography and Social Studies But despite the constant shelling and the uncertainty about their future, women in Ukraine continue to bring children into the world. Tatiana (33 years' old), who gave birth to her first child in February at a perinatal centre in Chernihiv, located two hours from Kyiv near the border with Belarus, shared with EUobserver the difficulty of bringing new life into a time of war. "It's incredibly hard, especially since the father of my child is a soldier. But I don't know how long this war will last, so there was no time to delay [having this child] any longer," she said. "Everyone is afraid," said Chris (27), a mother-of-two, who gave birth to her second child in February. Delivering under fire Likewise, Vira Tselyk, a doctor who works at a perinatal centre in Chernihiv, recalls the first days of the full-scale invasion as being "terrifying". Bombs exploded close to the hospital, and outside, as temperatures plummeted to 10 degrees below zero and, inside, there was no electricity, heating, or hot water. Pregnant women, the ones who had just delivered babies and newborns were forced to hide in the hospital shelter during the initial days of the Russian occupation, which lasted until April 2022. Dozens gave birth underground under very difficult conditions, she recalls. "It was easier to deliver babies in these conditions than to explain what was happening," Tselyk told EUobserver. Like many who sought to support the Ukrainian army, her experience was turned into a book titled , which she sells to raise funds for the military. The war has also led to a rise in premature births, with doctors reporting that stress, fear, and social tensions caused by the war have taken a significant toll on pregnant women. According to Galyna Leontiivna, the medical director and coordinator of the mobile gynaecological team, the premature birth rate at a perinatal centre in Chernihiv, has seen a noticeable increase since 2022 — rising from 6.5 percent back then to 8.7 percent in 2024. Ageing population Meanwhile, projections suggest that the share of individuals aged 65 and older could increase from 17 percent in 2020 to 22 percent by 2040, while the proportion of children and working-age adults is expected to decline. This shift may pose challenges for the country's pension fund, labour market and social systems, although countries such as Canada or Luxembourg show that a large population is not needed to have a high quality of life. "A Ukraine with 15–20 million inhabitants still has the potential to prosper," said Klüsener. For Gladun, demographic policies should be aimed at reducing the rate of population decline, or at best, stabilisation.
|
"This may take up to 25–30 or more years, depending on the course of the war. In general, we need to draw a conditional line under our past and develop a socio-economic model for the functioning of a state with a population of about 30 million people," he said.
|
Ukraine had a demographic problem even before Russia's full-scale invasion — but the war is turning a crisis into a catastrophe.
|
[
"Health & Society",
"Ukraine"
] |
health-and-society
|
2025-09-11T10:30:02.307Z
|
https://euobserver.com/health-and-society/ar978eff35
|
Zero pushback from EU institutions on MEP's racist slurs
|
A far-right debate in the European Parliament, which sought to stir up xenophobia, went unchallenged by the European Commission and the Council, representing member states. The title of the debate, "After 10 years, time to end mass migration now - protect our women and children", was introduced by French far-right MEP Jean Paul Garraud. Garraud told the plenary in Strasbourg on Wednesday (10 September) that migration posed an existential threat to Europe. He also attacked civil society. "This is an existential threat for our civilisation, for our people and for our daughters," he said, blaming migrants for rapes and other crimes in Paris and Germany. The Ifo Institute for Economic Research, a Munich-based research institution, says migration to Germany does not lead to higher crime rates at the places of immigration. In a study out earlier this year, it also found that migration and refugee arrivals had no systematic influence on crime in the host country. "Foreigners are overrepresented in the crime statistics compared to their share of the population. This is due to factors independent of origin: Migrants tend to settle in metropolitan areas, where the general risk of crime is higher – also for natives," said the study. Meanwhile, Garraud's four-minute-long screed and misleading claims were immediately followed by speaking points from both the EU Council and the European Commission, neither of which challenged him. Commissioner Andreas Kubilius instead pointed out that irregular border crossings have decreased some 23 percent this year, amid a sharp drop in asylum applications. And Marie Bjerre, Denmark's minister of European Affairs, speaking on behalf of the Danish EU Council presidency, spoke of shoring up external borders and making more cash-for-migrant deals to keep people out of the EU. But for part, Ana Catarina Mendes, a socialist MEP from Portugal, said: "This debate this afternoon runs counter to the European project, to European values. The title, as we can see, is provocative." Similar comments were made by French liberal Fabienne Keller of the Renew Europe group. "This item has been placed on the agenda by the far right. It is a smoke screen, weaponising fear, manipulating statistics," she said. Feminist civil society organisations have also spoken out against the debate. End FGM EU, a Brussels-based non-profit that campaigns to eradicate female genital mutilation, described title of the parliamentary as dangerous. "Behind this rhetoric of protection ['protect our women and children'] lies a paternalistic way of thinking that denies women their autonomy and agency," it said, in a statement along with other NGOs. The European Parliament press office did not respond when asked if it also saw the title as racist.
|
Nikolaj joined EUobserver in 2012 and covers home affairs. He is originally from Denmark, but spent much of his life in France and in Belgium. He was awarded the King Baudouin Foundation grant for investigative journalism in 2010.
|
A far-right debate in the European Parliament that sought to stir up xenophobia went unchallenged by the European Commission and Council, representing member states.
|
[
"Migration"
] |
migration
|
2025-09-10T13:54:06.001Z
|
https://euobserver.com/migration/ara526c88b
|
Europe’s young citizens have a plan to repair democracy — will the EU listen?
|
Democracy is the EU’s strongest asset, the reason Europe commands trust at home and credibility abroad, yet assets degrade when they aren’t maintained. Participation is slipping, civic space is tightening, and trust is thin. A youth-led written by 60 young rapporteurs across the Union, crystallises what many already sense and adds something rarer: a workable to-do list. Its message is blunt. If Europe wants to remain a union of values and not just a single market, it must treat democracy as a first-order policy and not as a slogan appended to other priorities. Shaping a better future Young Europeans identify six areas where democratic life is won or lost: participation in governance, justice, digital literacy, equality and non-discrimination, climate transition, and education and economic opportunity. None of these is abstract. They are the points at which a first-time voter decides whether politics is worth the time; where a journalist can publish without harassment; where a Roma teenager is offered a fair start; where citizens can tell fact from manipulation, and where families shoulder the green transition without sliding into precarity. Across these fronts, formal rights often exist on paper while practice is patchy, slow or unequal; although flawed, the rapporteurs have identified room for shaping a better future. The repair plan begins in Brussels. Allocate a meaningful share of the EU’s communication budget for youth-targeted civic information and independent fact-checking, with public impact metrics rather than glossy campaigns. Make participation usable by redesigning the European Citizens’ Initiative for mobile, multilingual use, and oblige institutions to publish plain-language consultation summaries under transparency oversight. Lower the justice barrier through investment in legal aid, translation and a genuinely accessible e-Justice Portal so that rights are enforceable for ordinary people, not just those guided by a counsel. Treat digital competence as infrastructure by embedding critical digital and AI literacy in school curricula and adult learning via libraries and civil society. And democratise the climate transition: set minimum standards for inclusive consultations, create climate councils with fixed budgets, and publish a real-time Climate Dashboard that shows who benefits, who pays and where progress stalls. Member states have their own urgent housekeeping. Opening the public square should not be a culture-war gesture or a mission to polarise the audience: many states should roll back rules that chill protest and independent media, protect victims of SLAPPs, and guarantee NGO access to funding. Police without prejudice by ending discriminatory stop-and-search practices and publishing disaggregated data under independent audit. Teach democracy as a practical skill: rights, procedures, media literacy, and the mechanics of taking part at local, national and EU levels, rather than as a theoretical chapter of history. Align decarbonisation with fairness so that low-income households can afford to comply, proving that climate policy is not something done to people but with them. These are administrative choices deliverable within existing law; they succeed or fail in budgets, timetables and procurement notices more than in speeches. Democracy is not a vibe The urgency is not rhetorical. Democracy is not a “vibe”; it is a system that protects people from arbitrary power. Once degraded, democratic safeguards are expensive to rebuild, and in the meantime everything else gets harder: competitiveness, social cohesion, security. Young Europeans live these effects first: slow courts that make rights theoretical; opaque policymaking that rewards insiders when starting a business; climate costs shifted onto those with the thinnest financial cushions; online spaces where manipulation outpaces media literacy. This is not a call to invent new institutions, but to use the ones we have with intent. The commission and parliament can elevate democracy from preamble to programme; the council can ensure reforms land in national practice. Cities and regions can move first on participatory budgeting, school-based media literacy and climate consultations. Courts can speed up access with digital portals that are truly accessible, not just nominally online. Public broadcasters can adopt open formats that build trust without sacrificing editorial independence. The price of doing any of this is modest; the cost of not doing it is already visible. The blueprint exists. Widen participation. Equalise access to justice. Raise digital competence. Enforce equality. Make the green transition fair. None of this is radical; it is good administration that restores confidence because it works. Europe can normalise democratic erosion as background noise, or it can turn youth-authored recommendations into a work plan with numbers, timelines and public reporting. If the Union and its member states intend to remain both a community of values and a functioning polity, it should choose the latter, and get on with it. As we look forward, there is room for hope. The shows that Europe’s young citizens are ready to do their part. Now the EU must do its share by making democracy central to its policies. A resilient Europe is possible, but only if we take democracy seriously, together. Zuzanna Uba, Maria Katsanevaki, Agata Szafrańska-Rathee, Anna Walczak, and Elene Amiranashvil are co-authors of the op-ed. They are part of Our Rule of Law (ORoL) Foundatio n, winner of the 2024 European Charlemagne Youth Prize (Netherlands). Founded in 2021, ORoL brings together young Europeans to defend democracy and the rule of law. Through education, engagement, and advocacy, it empowers youth to shape pan-European solutions and safeguard Europe’s democratic future. Zuzanna Uba, Maria Katsanevaki, Agata Szafrańska-Rathee, Anna Walczak, and Elene Amiranashvil are co-authors of the op-ed. They are part of Our Rule of Law (ORoL) Foundatio
|
n,
|
If the Union and its member states intend to remain both a community of values and a functioning polity, it should choose the latter, and get on with it.
|
[
"Rule of Law",
"Opinion"
] |
rule-of-law
|
2025-09-10T11:52:01.790Z
|
https://euobserver.com/rule-of-law/ar483d0112
|
Listen: Von der Leyen’s promises on Israeli officials sanctions, Russia, and the EU’s economy
|
Today, Ursula von der Leyen delivered her annual State of the European Union speech in Strasbourg, where she, for the first time, proposed sanctions on Israeli officials, acknowledged the backlash over the EU-US trade deal, and underlined the importance of competitiveness for Europe. But can these promises restore trust in her leadership, or will they deepen the divisions inside the EU? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: Today, Ursula von der Leyen delivered her annual State of the European Union speech in Strasbourg, where she, for the first time, proposed sanctions on Israeli officials, acknowledged the backlash over the EU-US trade deal, and underlined the importance of competitiveness for Europe. But can these promises restore trust in her leadership, or will they deepen the divisions inside the EU? Ursula von der Leyen opened her speech with security. Just hours before her speech, more than ten Russian drones violated Polish airspace. Von der Leyen said the European Union stands in full solidarity with Poland. She confirmed that the commission is preparing the bloc’s nineteenth sanctions package against Russia. This package will target the so-called “shadow fleet” transporting Russian oil, third countries helping Moscow bypass sanctions, and it will push Europe to accelerate its complete phase-out of Russian fossil fuels. On Ukraine, von der Leyen announced a new financial tool. It’s called a “reparation loan,” and it would be backed by the profits from frozen Russian assets. Not the assets themselves, but the interest they generate. Ukraine would only repay the loan once Russia pays reparations. And von der Leyen underlined that European taxpayers should not bear the cost of rebuilding Ukraine. Then came Gaza. Von der Leyen described the humanitarian situation there as catastrophic. For the first time and in very harsh language she proposed sanctions on extremist Israeli ministers and violent settlers. She also called for a partial suspension of the EU- Israel Association Agreement, which regulates trade. And she announced that the commission itself will suspend certain payments to Israel, while continuing to fund Israeli civil society groups. Finally, she said the EU will push for the creation of an international donor group to finance Gaza’s reconstruction. Von der Leyen then shifted to the economy and competitiveness. She warned that Europe faces strong economic headwinds and growing dependencies. She announced a Single Market Roadmap to 2028, a new “Scale-Up Europe Fund” to attract private investment into critical technologies, and a “Made in Europe” clause in public procurement. She also highlighted a one-point-eight-billion-euro “Battery Booster” package, aimed at scaling up European battery production. On energy, she repeated the EU’s goal of phasing out Russian fossil fuels completely by 2027. She said Europe must expand its renewables, keep nuclear in the energy mix, and build what she called “Energy Highways” to remove eight major cross-border bottlenecks in Europe’s infrastructure. Housing was another major theme. Von der Leyen pointed out that house prices have risen more than twenty percent since 2015, while building permits have dropped by more than twenty percent in the last five years. She announced that the European Affordable Housing Plan, originally scheduled for 2026, will now be presented this year. It will revise state-aid rules, support the construction of homes and student residences, and introduce a proposal on regulating short-term rentals. Agriculture also featured in the speech. She promised to simplify the Common Agricultural Policy, protect farmers’ incomes in the next EU budget, and fund a new “Buy European” campaign to promote local products. And finally, von der Leyen repeated that access to EU funds will remain tied to respecting the rule of law and fundamental rights. Now, this speech showed the EU’s priorities in a moment of political tension. On Russia and Ukraine, the message was about strength and financial responsibility. On Gaza, there was a shift: for the first time, the commission proposed sanctions on Israeli officials. And on housing, energy, and farming, von der Leyen was responding directly to issues that affect Europeans’ daily lives, from energy bills to rent prices. What’s next? The parliament and the council will now have to debate these proposals. Agreement on another Russia sanctions package is likely. But the measures on Israel are expected to divide member states sharply. The housing plan and competitiveness agenda will face pressure from both industry and governments worried about costs. And politically, von der Leyen still has to survive the upcoming motions of censure in parliament. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
Today, Ursula von der Leyen delivered her annual State of the European Union speech in Strasbourg, where she, for the first time, proposed sanctions on Israeli officials, acknowledged the backlash over the EU-US trade deal, and underlined the importance of competitiveness for Europe.
|
[
"EU Political"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-09-10T11:48:28.802Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar7b569405
|
Why the EU’s budget must work for systems, not just sectors
|
The European Commission’s proposals for the post-2027 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the €2 trillion Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) will shape Europe’s food, climate, and rural livelihoods for the next decade and beyond. The stakes are high. Europe is already facing the reality of droughts, floods, soil degradation, and biodiversity collapse. Farmers and rural communities are on the frontline of these crises, while consumers feel the knock-on effects in food prices and supply disruptions. Yet instead of responding with a meaningful long-term strategy, the EU’s proposal risks diluting environmental safeguards and reducing coherence by rolling agriculture, cohesion, and social policy into a single ‘mega-fund’ focused on efficiency rather than enabling effective transformation. What is presented as simplification could in fact accelerate unhelpful deregulation. Cuts of up to 30 percent combined with weaker environmental conditionalities would make it harder to uphold common standards across Member States. Rather than steering Europe toward resilience, this risks fragmenting efforts into competing national priorities, where short-term economic gains come at the expense of long-term security. As long as CAP instruments, disaster finance, insurance markets, prudential policy, and data live in separate lanes, the EU keeps a big, expensive protection gap , especially on drought. The problem is structural. Agriculture is inseparable from climate, biodiversity, health, and finance. But in practice, policies and budgets treat them as if they belong to different worlds. As a result, investments meant to strengthen food security often undermine climate goals, while climate action is pursued without regard for rural livelihoods. Europe can no longer afford to operate in these silos. That is Climate KIC’s core insight from over a decade of work with farmers, innovators, and governments across Europe. In a recent policy lab we held in Ireland , ministries, agencies, researchers, and farmers came together to explore the potential of biochar – a residue from biomass used in energy production – for carbon removals. By connecting soil health, waste management, energy efficiency, job creation, and finance, the initiative identified and bridged the hidden gaps that typically block progress and reduce momentum. For those in the lab, it felt like a breakthrough. This is the power of a systemic approach: aligning innovation, finance, and governance around shared outcomes. When one of these elements is missing, transformation stalls. When they come together, they create a ripple effect. Farmers are not resistant to change: they are navigating it daily. What they want is predictability, fairness, and agency in shaping the systems that govern their work. What innovators want is stability to take risks and scale solutions. What public authorities want is confidence that investments will deliver durable outcomes. The goal of EU policy is to create the enabling framework and strategic change management such that these efforts reinforce each other. So, what should change? Here’s a roadmap for systems transformation in three steps: 1. Align agriculture, climate, biodiversity, and health under a shared vision of regenerative land use and resilient food systems. That means connecting soil health, water resilience, and food waste reduction rather than treating them as separate files. 2. Shift from compliance-based subsidies to outcome-oriented financing and integrated risk metrics and standards that reward long-lasting benefits like carbon sequestration, biodiversity restoration, and community resilience. 3. Farmers, rural communities, and public servants need the tools, skills, and mindsets to drive systemic change . Experimentation and cross-sector learning are means to that end – from biorefineries that turn farm waste into high-value products, to methane-reducing technologies tested with start-ups and farmers on the ground. Europe’s farmers, citizens, and innovators are ready. What they need is a budget and policy framework that matches their determination with long-term vision and stability. If the EU chooses coherence over fragmentation and resilience over deregulation, it will build a food system that can transform the lives of over 450 million people. If it fails to do so, we risk locking ourselves into another decade of missed opportunities – with far higher costs when the next crisis arrives. Kirsten Dunlop is CEO of Climate KIC
|
Kirsten Dunlop is CEO of
|
The EU’s post-2027 budget is a once-in-a-decade opportunity to build a climate-resilient,
sustainable food system. But only if we stop thinking in silos.
|
[] |
stakeholders
|
2025-09-10T09:48:31.432Z
|
https://euobserver.com/stakeholders/ar0ccbd6c9
|
Global fossil fuel decline hinges on China's clean energy
|
The speed at which the world cuts its use of coal, oil, and gas is now largely driven by China’s government spending on clean energy, London-based energy analysts Ember reports. "China is now the main engine of the global clean energy transition," said Dr Muyi Yang, lead author of the group’s China Energy Transition Review 2025, published on Tuesday (9 September). "Policy and investment decisions made in China over the last two decades are fundamentally changing the basis of China’s own energy system, and enabling other countries to also move swiftly from fossil to clean,” he also said. In 2024, one in four developing countries got a higher proportion of final energy from electricity than the United States because of Chinese exports. Falling technology costs are enabling developing countries to skip fossil fuels altogether and directly transition to clean power systems. Since 2018, Chinese solar exports to Namibia and Cambodia have each exceeded those countries’ entire electricity capacity as of 2023, while Brazil has imported about 90 GW of solar, a third of its total 274 GW system. "New energy is achieving in years what took old energy decades," the report says. The driving factor is simple: scale of production. According to Ember figures, Chinese companies produce 80 percent of the world’s solar panels and 60 percent of wind turbines, and also lead exports of batteries, electric vehicles, and heat pumps. Companies in these sectors are all frantically looking for places to sell their products to, often for a low price. The star of the show is solar, with module prices falling over 70 percent between 2022 and mid-2025. “These prices make a small solar PV kit far cheaper than a stand-alone diesel generator,” says the report. But it's not just raw production power and affordability. China is also the world’s top clean energy innovator, filing around 75 percent of global clean energy patents, up from 5 percent in 2000, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency database. Within China itself, fossil fuel use across buildings, transport, and industry has shrunk over the past decade. Coal use in the power sector is still growing, but barely so, with new clean power additions almost matching rising power demand. In 2024, clean energy supplied 84 percent of China’s new electricity, and Ember and other analysts suggested that 2025 could be the first year clean power additions exceeded new demand. This is seen as a tipping point after which fossil fuel use, especially coal, will start to fall. There is no mystery as to why the Chinese energy transition is topping all the charts. In 2024, China invested $625 billion (€532bn) in clean energy - 31 percent of the global total, with major expansions in storage and grids increasingly part of the investment mix. “Within China there is a realisation that the old development paradigm centred on fossil fuels has run its course, and is not fit for 21st century realities,” the report says. Between 2021 and 2024, wind and solar capacity more than doubled to 1400 gigawatts (GW), and battery storage tripled to nearly 95 GW, with 2024 additions alone outpacing those of the US and EU combined. Some of the new energy additions were wasted because the grid couldn't absorb all the new wind and solar coming online, but with grid investment rising to $85 billion (€72bn) in 2024, up from about $70 billion (€60bn) in 2019, so-called ‘curtailment’ remained at historically low levels (below 10 percent overall). This has helped China become one of the most electrified large economies in the world. Electricity’s share of final energy consumption reached 32.4 percent in 2023. "Businesses are investing decisively in clean energy, not just because of climate goals but because it is cheaper, more secure, and the foundation of future competitiveness," said Biqing Yang, an Asia analyst at Ember. What that means in practice becomes clear when looking at the economic dividends. In 2024, investment and production in clean energy contributed $1.9 trillion (€1.6tn) to the national economy, equivalent to about one-10th of China’s GDP, and the sector is growing three times faster than the Chinese economy overall. According to Ember, China’s clean energy boom means that "for governments betting their economies on coal, oil, and gas exports, the risks are mounting." "For two decades China was the principal swing state for global fossil fuel demand, driving much of the world’s growth," said Sam Butler-Sloss, Manager at Ember. "Now, as its own consumption peaks and begins to decline, and as its clean energy exports scale globally, it is turning a long era of rising global demand into the start of structural decline," he added.
|
Wester is a journalist from the Netherlands with a focus on the green economy. He joined EUobserver in September 2021. Previously he was editor-in-chief of Vice, Motherboard, a science-based website, and climate economy journalist for The Correspondent.
|
“Within China there is a realisation that the old development paradigm centred on fossil fuels has run its course, and is not fit for 21st century realities,” the London-based energy analysts Ember reports.
|
[
"Green Economy"
] |
green-economy
|
2025-09-09T16:22:31.396Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/ard1aea0df
|
Near empty MEP plenary debates on Ukraine and Gaza
|
After a long holiday break by MEPs, a debate on Ukraine and Gaza took place in a near empty European Parliament chamber and with most political group leaders absent. The discussions on Tuesday (9 September) in Strasbourg followed Russia's largest aerial assault on Ukraine over the weekend since its 2022 invasion. The attack saw some 800 drones hit Kyiv on Sunday alone, followed by direct threats against Finland from Russian security council chairperson Dmitry Medvedev. "Putin has zero interest in peace, and he will not stop the war until he's forced to," Kaja Kallas, the EU's foreign policy chief, told the near empty Strasbourg chamber. Kallas said the EU and member states had provided Ukraine with almost €169bn of financial support since the full-scale war was started in 2022 by Russia. She said Europe was the largest backer of Ukraine's own defence industry through windfall profits from Russian frozen assets, and amid appeals to pile on more pressure on the Kremlin to help end the war. Marta Kos, the EU enlargement commissioner, also spoke and made the case for Ukraine's accession to the European Union. "Ukraine's path to accession is a matter of survival, of sovereignty and of a long term security," she said. But the optics of a near-empty chamber after a long holiday break possibly sends a political signal about the importance MEPs now attach to either war. The speaker list did not include any group political leaders and most of their vice-chairs and vice-presidents were also absent, leaving lesser known MEPs to deliver views on their behalf. A subsequent debate on Gaza saw similar absences of political group leadership in the chamber despite Israel's fresh assault on Gaza City, widespread famine, and genocide designations . It is not the first time European Parliament debates have taken place in near empty chambers –– a persistent issue that has led to internal efforts to boost plenary debate attendance records. At a press conference, also on Tuesday, centre-right EPP party chief Manfred Weber said a new reality was emerging in Russia's fight against Ukraine and that calling Gaza a genocide was not helpful in stopping Israel. "We should really, in a way, as Parliament here, also open the doors and windows and have a look about what is happening outside of this plenary in the European Union," he said, noting that nearly 90,000 jobs in the car industry were lost in one year.
|
Nikolaj joined EUobserver in 2012 and covers home affairs. He is originally from Denmark, but spent much of his life in France and in Belgium. He was awarded the King Baudouin Foundation grant for investigative journalism in 2010.
|
After a long holiday break by MEPs, a debate on Ukraine and Gaza took place to a near empty European Parliament chamber and absence of most political group leaders.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-09T11:13:18.751Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar5690f62e
|
Listen: Bayrou is out. What happens now in France?
|
After just nine months in office, Prime Minister François Bayrou has been ousted in a crushing confidence vote. Only 194 MPs backed him, while 364 voted against. Bayrou, a 74-year-old veteran centrist and long-time Macron ally, called the vote a gamble himself. He said France was sinking in a “swamp of debt” and that he needed parliamentary backing for €44bn of austerity measures. That included a deeply unpopular plan to scrap two public holidays and in the end, his gamble backfired. So, what happens after handing his resignation to President Emmanuel Macron this morning? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: After just nine months in office, Prime Minister François Bayrou has been ousted in a crushing confidence vote. Only 194 MPs backed him, while 364 voted against. But what happens after handing his resignation to President Emmanuel Macron this morning? Bayrou, a 74-year-old veteran centrist and long-time Macron ally, called the vote himself a gamble. He said France was sinking in a “swamp of debt” and that he needed parliamentary backing for €44bn of austerity measures. That included a deeply unpopular plan to scrap two public holidays and in the end, his gamble backfired. This marks Macron’s third prime ministerial collapse in less than a year, and the fifth change since his second term began in 2022. It’s worth noting that Bayrou was already the most unpopular PM since 1958 not only for his austerity agenda but also for his handling of a Catholic school abuse scandal that resurfaced during his tenure. Opposition leaders from all sides tore him down. Marine Le Pen declared his resignation “the end of the agony of a phantom government.” Left-wing MPs accused Macron’s economic programme of being not just unpopular, but entirely lacking legitimacy. And even some centrists abandoned Bayrou, furious at his dismissive remarks about victims of the abuse investigation. Now, France’s political scene has been gridlocked since Macron’s ill-fated snap election in 2024, which left parliament split into three camps: left, centre, and far right. No single bloc has a majority, which means no government can govern securely. For now the far right is leading in the polls, the left is demanding its turn at power, and Macron is caught in the middle, a weakened president with a revolving door at the prime minister’s office. This political instability is happening against the backdrop of a mounting debt crisis. France owes over €3.3tn, around 114 percent of its GDP, which is the third-highest level in the eurozone, and equivalent to nearly €50,000 for every French citizen. Bayrou’s response was austerity. But austerity is a word that sends people onto the streets in France and with new protests already planned this week under the slogan “Block Everything,” it’s clear that public patience is thin. What’s next? The immediate task for Macron is to appoint yet another prime minister. That person’s top priority will be passing a 2026 budget, something Bayrou failed spectacularly to do. The trouble is, whoever Macron picks may face the same fate because in this fragmented parliament, survival depends less on policy and more on sheer political calculations. There’s also growing pressure for fresh elections. Le Pen’s National Rally would like that, though they’re not guaranteed to win a majority either. Melanchon’s left, which technically holds the largest bloc, argues Macron should appoint one of their own. While the president appears determined not to resign before 2027, although every failed government chips away at his authority. So, France now finds itself in a familiar place drifting in political uncertainty, waiting for Macron to pull yet another name from his list of candidates. But the bigger question remains: in a country so divided, is there any prime minister who can truly survive? Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
After just nine months in office, Prime Minister François Bayrou has been ousted in a crushing confidence vote. What happens after handing his resignation to President Emmanuel Macron this morning?
|
[
"EU Political"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-09-09T10:20:06.188Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/arf7d2269f
|
Why the EU can’t afford to sideline the world’s smallholder farmers
|
When Brussels and Washington announced a “Framework on an Agreement on Reciprocal, Fair and Balanced Trade,” headlines focused on geopolitics, tariffs and competitiveness. What received far less attention was the unsettling ease with which a bilateral trade deal can predetermine the content of EU legislation. Laws such as the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) were introduced to protect people and the planet, but they cannot deliver on their promise if they are watered down to appease powerful trading partners. But at the very moment when smallholder farmers need to shoulder the costs of complying with sustainability laws, other players may be manoeuvring to avoid assuming their share of the effort. When it comes to trade regulations, small-scale farmers, who produce more than half of the world’s and the European Union’s food, have not only been systematically denied a seat at the table, but they are also expected to comply with legislation crafted far from their lived realities, with little regard for the challenges they face. Smallholder farmers on the frontlines of global trade rules Across Europe and around the world, civil society organisations, smallholder farmer groups, as well as the Fair Trade Movement, have spent years campaigning to ensure that the EU’s green agenda is implemented fairly, so that it does not once again penalise actors in vulnerable positions in the supply chain. With climate change already placing enormous pressure on smallholder farmers, the urgency to align environmental ambition with social justice has never been greater. Take Ghana’s cocoa sector. The EU is the single largest market for Ghanaian cocoa, making Brussels’ regulatory decisions existential for smallholder farmers in the country. In recent conversations with the Fair Trade Advocacy Office (FTAO), a young smallholder cocoa farmer and compliance officer told us that climate change has already devastated their yields. “When we are expecting rainfall, we are seeing prolonged sunshine. This reduces the crops and increases food prices. Life is already difficult, and when new regulations come, farmers are rarely consulted on how to comply.” He wonders how policymakers can implement rules without “considering the farmer’s perspective,” ignoring whether they are workable in place. His case is far from an exception, between 2021 and 2024 cocoa production in Ghana declined by nearly 50 percent, endangering the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of farmers. Who pays the price As Europe continues to overlook farming communities, how can we expect to keep enjoying the chocolate that sweetens our lives, the coffee that fuels our mornings, or the cotton woven, too often by underpaid women working in deplorable conditions, into the clothes we wear? A woman cooperative leader echoed this concern and warned of the generational challenge the sector faces. If decent livelihoods are not secured, “young people will leave farming. We need regulations that support us, not punish us, and prices that make farming attractive for the future.” The world’s recent history tells us that when trade tensions flare, those furthest from the negotiation tables bear the greatest burden. While the EU has styled itself as a global standard-setter, that reputation now hangs in the balance. Even worse, if bilateral trade deals undermine EU sustainability laws before they even take effect, the credibility of the sustainability agenda and its human rights commitments could be badly damaged. For smallholders who have already invested in compliance, this would not only place them back at square one, but in a far more vulnerable position than when the game began. A fairer model for EU trade Those in the most vulnerable positions do not stand a chance in the current trade system. Even when the price of their crops rises, the benefits rarely trickle down, while the costs of climate change and unfair policies tend to be permanent. The EU has the power, and the obligation, to flip the script. Trade agreements must evolve from instruments of imbalance into frameworks of fair partnership. Smallholder farmers must be placed at the heart of their design, not left on the margins. Soft commitments, such as voluntary sustainability standards will not be enough. What is needed are binding measures that guarantee a level playing field: farm-gate prices should reflect the true value of farmers’ labour, and compliance costs must be shared, not dumped on those least able to absorb them. Only by ensuring meaningful participation for smallholder farmers, cooperatives, SMEs, and civil society, and by supporting compliance costs, can the EU set a global benchmark for trade that is fair, green and inclusive. Farming communities are not asking for anything more than what they deserve: recognition, fair prices and a meaningful say in the rules that govern their livelihoods. The question is whether the EU will continue to negotiate over their heads or finally give them a voice in the decisions that shape their future. Virginia Enssle is International and Institutional Relations Manager, Fair Trade Advocacy Office (FTAO) . Virginia Enssle is International and Institutional Relations Manager,
|
Fair Trade Advocacy Office (FTAO)
|
What is needed are binding measures that guarantee a level playing field: farm-gate prices should reflect the true value of farmers’ labour, and compliance costs must be shared, not dumped on those least able to absorb them.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Africa",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-08T14:18:33.965Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar99b27c2f
|
Trump's Africa migrant deals may encourage EU deportations
|
Rwanda became the latest African state to accept foreign deportees from the United States last week after confirming that it had received seven people expelled by Washington. President Paul Kagame's government confirmed in early August that it would accept up to 250 deportees from the US. Government spokesperson Yolande Makolo told journalists on 28 August that they had been "accommodated by an international organisation". Uganda, Eswatini, and South Sudan have also agreed to take US deportees - though the combined number of deportees is below 50 so far. In South Sudan, where the government of president Salva Kiir has hired Scribe Strategies, a Washington-based lobbying outfit whose principal, Joseph Szlavik, has close links with top Trump officials, there was anxiety that the US could shut its embassy in Juba. In May, the US also revoked visas for all South Sudan nationals citing the government's refusal to take back over 20 people whose asylum claims had been rejected. Szlavik, who has also secured contracts with the governments of Morocco, South Sudan, and Ivory Coast worth over $3m (€2.6m), told EUobserver that migration control would be part of his work with them all. During his election campaign last year, Trump promised to deport 1 million people a year. He has also found takers in Latin America, where Guatemala, Panama, Costa Rica, Venezuela, and El Salvador have all agreed to take individuals deported by the US. The US deals on deportees are slightly different to the EU's 'cash for migrant control' deals with Turkey, Lebanon, and, in Africa, with Egypt, Mauritania, and Tunisia in exchange for over $9bn in financial support. The EU has also been talking to Senegal about a similar arrangement following a spike in migrants crossing the Atlantic Ocean to the Spanish Canary Islands. The EU deals are about preventing would-be migrants from crossing the Mediterranean Sea or Atlantic Ocean to EU territory. For the moment, the US is not focusing on outsourcing border control, but on deportations. Also, unlike the EU, the US is not offering financial incentives. Instead, the US is using the threat of trade tariffs and, in Africa's case, threatening blanket visa bans on their nationals being able to enter the US. Visa bans would disproportionately hit wealthy and politically-connected Africans. In the case of Rwanda, meanwhile, the US is currently brokering peace talks with DR Congo and Rwanda in a bid to end the war in eastern Congo that has seen the Rwandan army and the M23 militia group, which it supports, take swathes of territory. Trump and his senior Africa advisor Massad Boulos, who is also father-in-law of Trump's daughter Tiffany, are offering US investment in exchange for minerals access to ease the peace process. Kigali concluded a €360m deal with Britain's former Conservative Party governments led by Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak only to watch a series of legal challenges delay its implementation. The scheme was then abandoned by prime minister Keir Starmer after winning last July's election. Trump's policy priorities in US-Africa relations are now very similar to the EU's, but more openly transactional. Migration control – along with securing critical minerals – has become one of the main planks of the Trump administration's Africa policy. In particular, Washington wants African states to take back their nationals whose asylum or migration applications have been rejected. Trump failures But Trump has only convinced a few African leaders so far. The leaders of Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, and Senegal left a three day July summit in Washington without agreeing to take deportees, though they briefed reporters that Trump had put the issue on the table. Nigeria, Africa's most populous country, has also refused a deal with Washington. Even so, Trump's moves are likely to encourage the EU to move ahead with their own so-called 'innovative solutions' to outsource immigration and asylum claims. In July, EU home affairs ministers heard presentations from officials at the UN's International Organisation for Migration and the refugee agency UNHCR about the potential roles they could play in running migrant and "return hubs" outside the EU. The EU is keen to have the support of the UN to avoid legal challenges. Denmark, which holds the EU Council's six-month presidency, has put the idea of creating "return hubs" in African countries and others on the agenda for EU home affairs ministers. The idea of paying Rwanda to accommodate asylum seekers while their claims were processed was minted by Boris Johnson , who agreed a €360m per year deal with Kigali to take hundreds of asylum seekers. However, the scheme was derailed by a series of legal challenges and was then scrapped in July 2024 by the incoming Labour government. Only four asylum seekers were sent to Rwanda under the scheme, all voluntarily.
|
Benjamin Fox is a seasoned reporter and editor, previously working for fellow Brussels publication Euractiv. His reporting has also been published in the Guardian, the East African, Euractiv, Private Eye and Africa Confidential, among others. He heads up the AU-EU section at EUobserver, based in Nairobi, Kenya.
|
The Trump administration has copied the EU in putting migration control at the heart of its relations with Africa. And its deals on deportations may encourage the EU to broker its own arrangements.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Africa"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-05T14:17:43.451Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar62f9d56f
|
EU washes hands of Israel 'genocide' call
|
The EU Commission has washed its hands of a senior official's remark that Israel was committing "genocide" in Gaza, leaving her open to furious Israeli accusations. "It's not for the commission to judge on this question [Gaza genocide] and definition, but really for the courts and there has been no college decision on this specific subject," a commission spokeswoman said in Brussels on Friday (5 September). The "college" is the full group of all 27 EU commissioners, including president Ursula von der Leyen. Another commission spokesman said on Friday it was "the competence of national courts as well as international courts, which have jurisdiction on the legal qualification of such an act, an act of genocide, and can do a proper establishment of facts and findings of law". "There's no [EU] commission position on this," he added. They spoke after commission vice-president Teresa Ribeira said in a speech at the Sciences Po university in Paris on Thursday: "The genocide in Gaza exposes Europe's failure to act and speak with one voice". Israel's foreign ministry spokesman, Oren Marmortsein, said on X on Friday: "Ribera has made herself a mouthpiece for Hamas propaganda ". He also accused her of "parroting the 'genocide' blood libel spread by Hamas". Palestinian militant group Hamas is designated as a "terrorist" entity by the EU, US, and Israel. "Blood libel" refers to antisemitic medieval legends that Jews sacrificed Christian babies and drank their blood. But Hamas or Israeli propaganda aside, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, an authoritative academic body founded in 1994, saw things differently. "Israel's policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide in Article II of the United Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948)," it said in a resolution on 1 September . And they were not the only ones. A classified EU foreign service study of Gaza said in June that Israel was "in violation of an ICJ provisional ruling" designed to "prevent the commission of acts within the scope of the genocide convention". The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague ruled in 2024 there were "plausible" grounds to accuse Israel of the world's most heinous crime, pending a final verdict. Meanwhile, Ribera herself is a former law professor at the University of Madrid. She is also a member of Spanish prime minister Pedro Sánchez' socialist party, with Sánchez having accused Israel of "genocide" already in June. The EU's former top diplomat, Josep Borrell, who is also a Spanish socialist, accused Israel of "genocide" in August. Irish foreign minister Simon Harris spoke of Israel's "horrific genocide that is underway in Gaza" in Copenhagen on 31 August, while Belgian foreign minister Maxime Prévot said on 1 September his country would recognise Palestinian sovereignty "to prevent any risk of genocide". Israel reacted each time by accusing them of Jew-hatred. But speaking to Israel's Haaretz newspaper this week, former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, who is also a historian, said Israel was out of touch with modernity. On one hand, Israelis had become "blazé" toward genocide accusations, because Israel's enemies had overused the term in smaller, previous conflicts, he said. 'Holocaust' and 'genocide' On the other hand, Ben-Ami added: "We, in Israel, think of genocide only in terms of the Holocaust, we draw comparisons only with the Holocaust, [and] obviously this is not the case [in Gaza]". The Nazis systematically exterminated 6 million Jews in the Holocaust during the Second World War. Israel has directly killed over 64,000 Palestinians in Gaza, while indirect deaths, from lack of food or medical care, were seen as likely much higher . But "the definition of genocide has changed over the years" since the 1940s, Ben-Ami said. "At issue isn't the method of death or the numbers - it's the intention [to destroy an ethnic group]", he said. This was why the ICJ said the murder of 8,000 Muslim boys and men in Srebrenica by Bosnian Serbs in 1995 was "genocide", for instance. And Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as cabinet ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, among others, had incriminated Israel by publicly calling for the extermination of Palestinians in the Gaza war, Ben-Ami said.
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
The EU Commission has washed its hands of a senior official's remark that Israel was committing "genocide" in Gaza, leaving her open to furious Israeli accusations.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Rule of Law"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-05T14:17:30.149Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar38584638
|
Listen: Putin warns foreign troops in Ukraine would be ‘legitimate target’
|
Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned today, Friday 5 September, that any foreign troops deployed to Ukraine before a peace agreement is signed would be treated as “legitimate targets” by Moscow’s forces. This statement comes hours after 26 of Ukraine’s allies pledged to send troops as part of a so-called “reassurance force”. But what does this “reassurance force” entail, and how does it fit with Putin’s threats? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned today, Friday, that any foreign troops deployed to Ukraine before a peace agreement is signed would be treated as “legitimate targets” by Moscow’s forces. This statement comes hours after 26 of Ukraine’s allies pledged to send troops as part of a so-called “reassurance force”. But what does this “reassurance force” entail, and how does it fit with Putin’s threats? While speaking at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok Putin also dismissed the idea of international peacekeeping forces even after a final settlement, though he said Russia would respect any treaty to end the war. The warning or threat came shortly after European leaders met in Paris to discuss long-term security guarantees for Ukraine. French President Emmanuel Macron announced that 26 of Ukraine’s allies, out of a coalition of 35 countries, had pledged to form a “reassurance force.” Which according to Macron would not be deployed on the frontline but would operate on land, at sea or in the air once a ceasefire or peace agreement is in place, with the aim of preventing renewed Russian aggression. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy welcomed the announcement, describing it as the first serious step toward securing Ukraine after the war. Macron said the plan is not about waging war against Russia but about ensuring stability and security. The United States has indicated it is willing to participate, though details remain unclear. Macron and the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer stressed that US backing is essential to make the initiative credible. Some European countries, including Germany, Spain and Italy, have not pledged troops, focusing instead on financing, arming and training Ukraine’s forces. Meanwhile, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte warned that Russia could threaten other European countries and stressed the importance of deterrence. This discussion marks a shift from Europe’s focus on supporting Ukraine during the war to preparing for the day after the war ends. Security guarantees are meant to reassure Ukraine that Western support will continue, even if the battlefield changes. The coalition also highlights divisions within Europe. While some states are willing to commit troops, others are limiting their role to financial and logistical support and the reliance on US involvement underscores how central Washington remains to European security. At the same time, Russia continues to reject any external guarantees for Ukraine and has stepped up drone and missile strikes. Ukraine’s air force reported intercepting 84 out of 112 drones launched overnight on Thursday. So what comes next? Negotiations over the reassurance force are set to continue, with details of US participation to be finalised in the coming days. Zelenskyy has called for direct talks with Putin, but Moscow has given no sign it is ready for such a meeting. European leaders have warned that if Russia delays peace talks, sanctions could be increased. At the same time, signs are emerging that Russia’s war-driven economy is beginning to slow, with officials warning of stagnation if high interest rates persist. For now, the Paris summit shows that Europe and its allies are preparing for a post-war Ukraine, although there is no peace in sight yet. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
This statement comes hours after 26 of Ukraine’s allies pledged to send troops as part of a so-called “reassurance force”. But what does this “reassurance force” entail, and how does it fit with Putin’s threats?
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-05T10:18:30.153Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar22810c10
|
Von der Leyen’s Trump deal guts EU’s anti-deforestation law
|
As if it wasn’t already in a jam over the delayed rollout of its anti-deforestation regulation, the European Union could have made things a whole lot worse in its desperation to appease Donald Trump. It had been humiliating enough for Ursula von der Leyen to hot foot it to a Scottish golf course in July and be forced to sign a deal that set tariffs on US goods from Europe at 15 percent across the board. Two weeks later came a Joint Statement which appeared to do the White House another favour ; promising the US special treatment absolving its timber and soy industries of any burdensome due diligence in the relation to EU Deforestation Regulations (EUDR). Under EUDR, from December 2025 companies will have to check that any imports of specific commodities like cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, soy and wood are not linked to any deforestation in the past five years. When it was established earlier this year. the benchmarking system made just four countries at ‘high risk’ of deforestation, 50 were ‘standard risk’ and 140 fell under the ‘low risk’ tier. Many EU countries objected to their ‘low-risk’ rating, arguing they should be deemed of ‘no risk’, even though some had a questionable history of forest degradation, meaning they would be subjected to minimal checks. It led to calls for a new ‘no risk’ or ‘negligible risk’ being passed by the European Parliament in a non-binding vote in July, since when the commission has done nothing to revise legislation. So it was a surprise to see in an official statement (from the commission) that the US ‘poses negligible risk to global deforestation’. In its joint statement it also talked about the EU working “to address the concerns of US producers and exporters regarding EUDR, with a view to avoiding undue impact on US-EU trade”. And in a Q&A released afterwards the commission reiterated this saying discussions with the US will be “valuable to ensuring that the EUDR does not result in an unnecessary barriers to transatlantic trade”. Since when did EUDR change from being conservation tool aimed at cutting global deforestation by 10 percent to being just another negotiating tool in trade agreements? If you give the US a free pass in deforestation checks because you’re frightened of Trump blowback where does that leave other countries who are no more of a deforestation risk and yet still face costly checks? America’s paper manufacturers have lobbied aggressively against the regulation, caught their president’s ear and been rewarded. But already there are warnings that if producers of cocoa, coffee and palm oil don’t receive similar special treatment this could open up the possibility of claims of discrimination under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. The whole point about EUDR was that it was universal and applied to all countries, both in and out of the EU. It was never meant to be something that individual countries could dodge. Instead, companies would have to meet traceability requirements that demand plot-level geolocation data to show their products were not the result of deforestation. Creating loopholes for powerful trading partners that effectively let their manufacturers off the hook will only incense those countries who have played by the rules and are now expected to pay for them as well. Some remain tainted by their past, even though they have taken action to reduce deforestation. According to the World Economic Forum, the two biggest palm oil producers, Indonesia and Malaysia, have seen primary forest loss falling by 64 percent and 57 percent respectively. It led to Malaysia complaining that its ‘standard risk’ rating was based on old data and Indonesian producers believe its sustainable palm oil certification (ISPO) puts it at the same risk level as American soybean. Both countries insist they should receive a ‘low risk’ rating, not the same ‘standard risk’ level as Brazil where the beef industry is responsible for decimating the Amazon rainforest. With the start of EUDR just four months away, one of the trading blocks’ flagship green policies appears mired in as much confusion and uncertainty as ever. Environmentalists will fear that the commission’s questionable treatment of the US will only play into the hands of the centre-right European People’s Party and far right which has long pushed for delay and continued watering down of its original ideals. Anthony Harwood is a former foreign editor of the Daily Mail.
|
Anthony Harwood
|
Since when did EUDR change from being conservation tool aimed at cutting global deforestation by 10 percent to being just another negotiating tool in trade agreements?
|
[
"Opinion"
] |
opinion
|
2025-09-05T08:52:51.887Z
|
https://euobserver.com/opinion/ardb369541
|
EU misled public on Israel drone-kill video
|
An Israeli firm has laid bare the EU's hollow words on ethics rules in its Horizon Europe science programme. Arms company Rafael took €442,750 of EU taxpayers' money in 2023 to help do Horizon research on "underwater security" in a project that ends next year. The Israeli defence ministry obtained a further €100,000 for the same scheme. Rafael subsequently disgraced itself by publishing an advert on X on 7 July this year, which showed one of its drones murdering an unarmed man in Gaza. And the Israeli Defence Forces have killed over 63,000 people in Gaza, in what the International Court of Justice in The Hague has called a "plausible ... genocide". An EU Commission spokesperson told EUobserver in July that Horizon's "independent ethics advisor" was scrutinising Rafael's drone "action" , with a "possibility to recover fully or partly the awarded funding". But in fact, the EU spokesperson misinformed us and our readers, since the advisor did no such thing. The ethics advisor, Katerina Hadjimatheou, who is a criminologist at the University of Essex in the UK, didn't do it because her legal mandate was limited to scrutiny of Rafael's behaviour inside the Horizon project only, excluding its outside activities in Gaza or elsewhere. This was something the commission spokesperson was likely well aware of when they wrote to EUobserver in July, seeing as they first took seven days to consult on their reply with colleagues. When confronted by EUobserver this week, the commission declined to say anything about the Hadjimatheou mandate snafu or to say who - if anyone - did have a licence to look at broader ethical compliance. It also declined to take any position on Rafael or the Israeli defence ministry's ongoing Horizon eligibility. Instead, it issued a boilerplate statement: "Ethics related checks or reviews may be initiated at any time if ethical concerns emerge. Non-compliance may lead to ... termination of the project". Meanwhile, Hadjimatheou herself has been gagged from telling press what she personally felt about Rafael or the Israeli defence ministry by an EU non-disclosure agreement. And the Horizon undersea security project's co-ordinator, a German research body called Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, refused to condemn Rafael's snuff-ad because it wanted to remain "neutral". "Fraunhofer clearly opposes all dehumanising ideologies," Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft's Sabine Trupp claimed in an email to a concerned Italian academic, dated 8 August and seen by EUobserver. "At the same time, Fraunhofer maintains neutrality toward the interests of individuals and groups in politics, business, and society," Trupp said. Trupp declined to answer EUobserver's questions. "Neutrality" has not stopped the EU from excluding Russian and Turkish firms from Horizon grants on ethical grounds in the past. Italy's Port of Ravenna, which is also taking part in the underwater security project, was the first to raise the alarm on Rafael's drone-kill ad. It tasked a group of British and Italian academics to look into the compatibility of the Israeli grants with Horizon rules, who found them to be in flagrant violation. "It is absolutely clear that the Israeli ministry of defence and Rafael are involved in war crimes ... their non-compliance requires immediate action either in the form of suspension of funding to these entities or termination of the project," said Nicola Perugini, a professor of international relations at the University of Edinburgh in the UK. A Port of Ravenna spokeswoman told EUobserver on Thursday that "at this time, the port authority does not intend to initiate any legal action," to remedy the situation, however. Grassroots activism A "growing majority" of member states want Israel to be kicked out of Horizon entirely, according to the EU's top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, speaking in Copenhagen last Saturday. But Germany and Italy are blocking the move , with Germany saying Horizon is a "civilian" programme unrelated to the Gaza war. The EU countries' inertia has prompted grassroots protests and activism in Europe, with dockworkers at Port of Genoa in Italy threatening to block all cargo to Israel last week, for instance. The EU institutions' inaction has also caused dissent among their own staff. "Everyone, including me, has a responsibility to decide who they are willing to work with, given their own moral values," said a Horizon Europe contact, who was considering whether to resign.
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
The EU Commission said its ethics advisor was studying an Israeli firm's science grant eligibility in view of a drone-kill ad, while knowing the advisor had no mandate to do so.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Rule of Law"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-04T17:02:07.199Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar3905e1da
|
US loggers and Latin America try to defang EU forestry law
|
The EU’s landmark anti-deforestation law could be a victim of the bloc’s new trade deals with the United States and the South American Mercosur bloc, with the EU Commission under concerted pressure to water it down further. As part of the agreement between the EU and US president Donald Trump in July to resolve the threat of 30 percent tariffs on European exports, officials are now working on a way to “address the concerns of US producers and exporters regarding the EU Deforestation Regulation,” with the aim of “avoiding undue impact on US–EU trade.” The EU law is “coming apart at the seams” and “if the EU keeps stepping backwards, they’ll eventually get to where they need to be and quit tilting at windmills,” said the American Loggers Council (ALC) in a statement on Tuesday (2 September). The law was originally designed to require sellers of products such as beef, coffee, chocolate, palm oil, and wood to demonstrate that their goods were traceable to land that has not been deforested after 31 December 2020. A list of 194 countries’ designations was published by the European Commission in May, with 50 listed as ‘standard risk’ and 140 as ‘low risk’. The compliance burden for each country depends on the risk designation, but only Belarus, North Korea, Myanmar, and Russia — all of them countries facing EU sanctions for other reasons — were listed as high risk. And though the US has been classified as ‘low risk’ by the EU executive, US trade officials are lobbying for a new ‘negligible risk’ category that would exempt their companies from the due diligence requirements altogether. Meanwhile, the Mercosur agreement, which the EU Commission formally passed for ratification on Wednesday, includes a “rebalancing mechanism” that could allow its five members to challenge EU measures, such as the anti-deforestation regulation or carbon border tax, that could negatively impact Mercosur's trade interests. Laura Restrepo Alameda, Advocacy Coordinator at Climate Action Network Latin America , an NGO, warned on Wednesday that the deforestation law was “among the files most at risk.” Global Forest Watch reported record global forest loss in 2024 - nearly seven million hectares of tropical primary forest were lost last year, close to double the figure for 2023. Brazil accounted for over 40 percent of the total, part of this due to its cattle ranching and soybean industries. However, Brazil was given the ‘standard risk’ designation by the EU executive in May. Companies sourcing from low-risk countries must prove their products are deforestation-free but are not required to assess or actively manage deforestation risks. The commission was already under pressure to water down a law which was originally intended to enter into force in January 2025, but was delayed by one year by the EU institutions last November . A report for the commission has estimated that another one year delay would result in around 230,000 hectares of deforestation across the world. In the European Parliament, in May, right-wing and liberal MEPs called for the introduction of a new ‘insignificant risk’ category in the benchmarking system. Similar to a ‘no risk’ proposal drawn up by EU lawmakers last year, but which was rejected by EU governments, it would allow producers in countries with minimal deforestation, or net forest gain, to avoid some checks on their products, such as submitting the coordinates of their plots. Such a system would be similar to the ‘negligible risk’ category which the US is requesting.
|
Benjamin Fox is a seasoned reporter and editor, previously working for fellow Brussels publication Euractiv. His reporting has also been published in the Guardian, the East African, Euractiv, Private Eye and Africa Confidential, among others. He heads up the AU-EU section at EUobserver, based in Nairobi, Kenya.
|
The EU’s landmark anti-deforestation law could be a victim of the bloc’s new trade deals with the United States and the South American Mercosur bloc, with the EU Commission under concerted pressure to water it down further.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-04T17:02:00.242Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar9274fcc2
|
Listen: Lisbon’s funicular tragedy brings back ignored workers’ safety warnings
|
On Wednesday evening, Lisbon’s historic Glória funicular derailed on its route between Restauradores Square and the Bairro Alto climb in the city centre. The yellow-and-white tram came off the tracks, crashed into a building and toppled over. The result was catastrophic: at least 17 people were killed, and 18 were injured, including a child. Five are in critical condition. But what led to the horrific accident and why are workers’ unions not convinced by the official explanation? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: On Wednesday evening, Lisbon’s historic Glória funicular derailed on its route between Restauradores Square and the Bairro Alto climb in the city centre. The yellow-and-white tram came off the tracks, crashed into a building and toppled over. The result was catastrophic: at least 15 people were killed, and 18 were injured, including a child. Five are in critical condition. But what led to the horrific accident and why are workers’ unions not convinced by the official explanation? Witnesses described the tram as out of control before it hit the building with “brutal force” they said the brakes weren’t working. While the other estimated reason seems to be a problem with the connecting cable system. Emergency crews worked for more than two hours to remove passengers from the wreckage. And the authorities confirmed that many of the victims had foreign surnames, meaning tourists were among the dead. Portugal’s president Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, Prime Minister Luís Montenegro and Lisbon’s mayor Carlos Moedas all expressed condolences. Today, Thursday was declared a day of national mourning. Leaders across Europe including Ursula von der Leyen, Pedro Sánchez and Antonio Costa, also offered sympathy. The Glória funicular has operated since 1885 and is one of Lisbon’s most popular attractions. It carries around three million passengers a year. Each of its two cars can hold about 40 people at a time and are linked by a steel cable system. Carris, Lisbon’s public transport company, insists maintenance protocols had been followed with monthly, weekly and even daily checks. But unions say safety warnings were ignored, blaming years of budget cuts and under-investment in Lisbon’s ageing transport network. Now, Lisbon’s funiculars are classified as national monuments and play a key role in the city’s identity, tourism and transport. But this accident highlights the strain placed on old infrastructure as Portugal experiences record numbers of visitors. It also raises questions about safety standards. Despite the workers’ claims that warnings went unheard, officials insist inspections were carried out regularly. And the accident has of course entered the political debate as Lisbon votes in local elections on October 12th, with Mayor Moedas, who is running for re-election, now facing tough questions about safety and investment in the city’s transport. So the crash is expected to dominate the electoral campaign. So what’s next on this? The next few hours are critical for the injured for sure. Public prosecutors have launched a formal investigation into the cause of the derailment. Police and safety inspectors are examining the wreckage and the track. Lisbon’s city council has suspended operations of the other funicular and trams in the city until further checks are completed. For now, the priority is identifying the victims, supporting their families and restoring public confidence. But the broader issue of investing in safe transport remains unresolved and the upcoming elections will focus less on tourism development and more on the debate about accountability and public safety. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
On Wednesday evening, Lisbon’s historic Glória funicular derailed, killing at least 17. But what led to the horrific accident and why are workers’ unions not convinced by the official explanation?
|
[
"Health & Society",
"Labour"
] |
health-and-society
|
2025-09-04T10:23:06.359Z
|
https://euobserver.com/health-and-society/ar5a7756f0
|
EU's top diplomat blames US for lack of influence on Israel
|
Unconditional US support for Israel, as well as internal EU divisions, were harming efforts to curb Israeli aggression in Gaza, Europe's top diplomat has said. "We are really trying to do what we can, but if America is supporting everything that the Israeli government is doing, then the leverage they have is there and the leverage we have is in another place, unfortunately," the EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said in Brussels on Wednesday (3 September). Speaking at a conference hosted by the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), a think-tank, she fought back against critics of EU inertia on Gaza. "When it comes to Israel ... I've been very pushy," she said. Kallas cited in her favour that she'd ordered a review of the EU-Israel association agreement, drafted sanctions options against Israel, and engineered an EU Commission proposal to freeze Israel's participation in Horizon Europe, a science-grant programme. The review found Israel was violating the EU-Israel pact's human rights clause - with over 63,000 dead in Gaza, induced famine, and reports of Israeli snipers mutilating Palestinian children by shooting them in the testicles as they queued for aid. But none of the sanctions went ahead , due to Czech, German, Hungarian, and Italian opposition. "It's a very difficult question, because we are not united on this," Kallas said. Some of the EU's fiercest critics on Israel come from the so called Global South countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. But Kallas called out South-East Asian states for their own inaction, recalling her recent meeting with the ASEAN club in Kuala Lumpur in July. "They asked me this and I said: 'OK, put your money where your mouth is' ... I refuse to accept that Europe is inactive, it's not true, Europe is the most active on this file from all the actors in the world," she said on Wednesday. The EU had paid €500m in humanitarian aid to Palestine and €1.6bn in backing for the Palestinian Authority in the past two years, while all 10 ASEAN countries put together had paid just €40m, she said. "We're the ones pushing all the time, and, yes, I know it's not enough, I agree, that's why I have this frustration," she added, in the event's Q&A session. Earlier in her EUISS speech, she had also said: "The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is a fundamental test of Europe's resolve to fight internationally for our values. And we are struggling". "We have not been able to use our geopolitical power to change the course in Gaza because we do not have unity", she said. Kallas spoke the same day as Chinese president Xi Jinpig hosted Russian president Vladimir Putin and over 20 other leaders of mostly authoritarian states in Beijing. Xi, Putin, and Fico And EU disunity was also on show in China due to the Kremlin-friendly Slovak prime minister, Robert Fico's, decision to attend. The EU is currently working on a 19th round of Russia sanctions. But Fico told Putin on Tuesday: "We are extremely interested in standardisation of relations between the Slovak Republic and the Russian Federation". Speaking to press after the Beijing summit on Wednesday, Putin ridiculed EU sanctions, but said his friendly ties with US president Donald Trump meant there was "light at the end of the tunnel" for a peace deal on the Ukraine war. But Putin's talks with Trump have been seen in Europe as an attempt to buy time to avoid extra US sanctions, while continuing to attack Ukraine. He showed more of the same tactics on Wednesday by keeping up airstrikes on Ukrainian civilians, while making an unrealistic offer to meet Ukrainian president Volodomyr Zelenskyy - but only if Zelenskyy kowtowed to him by holding the meeting in Moscow. Trump vs. reality And for her part, Kallas also issued a reality check to Trump on Putin. Some international commentators have said Trump's overtures to Moscow were an attempt to divide Putin and Xi to stop the emergence of a Sino-Russian axis on the geopolitical stage. But looking at the Beijing summit, Kallas said: "If the US thinks it's able to divide Russia from China: Not happening, not happening. This is definitely not going to happen". "China provides Russia with 80 percent of their dual-use imports ... They are all used for military purposes. This allows the killing to continue in Ukraine," she also said in her speech. And speaking at a meeting with Zelenskyy in Copenhagen on Wednesday, Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen said Putin was a menace for the EU as well as Ukraine. "We have said from the beginning of this war that you are not only fighting your own war, you are fighting for the entire future of Europe. And therefore we have to continue [our support]," she said.
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
Unconditional US support for Israel, as well as internal EU divisions, were harming efforts to curb Israeli aggression in Gaza, Europe's top diplomat has said.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-03T18:10:26.065Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar5226488b
|
Listen: Fico, Putin and the EU: an ‘independent’ foreign policy?
|
Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico is once again in the spotlight for his closeness to Moscow. Yesterday, Tuesday, he met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Beijing where the Russian leader praised him for pursuing what he called an independent foreign policy. But what does this so-called “independence” really mean for Slovakia, for Ukraine, and for the European Union? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico is once again in the spotlight for his closeness to Moscow. Yesterday, Tuesday, he met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Beijing where the Russian leader praised him for pursuing what he called an independent foreign policy. But what does this so-called “independence” really mean for Slovakia, for Ukraine, and for the European Union? So this praise from Putin in practice means opposing EU sanctions on Russia, questioning Kyiv’s government, and even resuming visa issuance for Russian citizens, something Brussels has advised member states against since the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Fico also said Slovakia is extremely interested in restoring ties with Russia, while Putin encouraged him to consider cutting off Ukraine’s access to electricity and gas as retaliation for attacks on Russian energy infrastructure. It’s worth remembering here that Moscow has been striking Ukraine’s own energy grid for years, plunging millions into blackouts. The meeting in China wasn’t just symbolic. It came ahead of Fico’s scheduled talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky this Friday. There, Fico plans to deliver what he dramatically called messages and conclusions from his hour-long meeting with Putin. He’s already made it clear he’ll raise complaints about Ukrainian strikes on the Druzhba oil pipeline, a Soviet-era lifeline that still delivers Russian crude to Slovakia and Hungary. This marks the third time that Fico has met Putin, even as he suspended Slovak military aid to Ukraine and vowed to block Kyiv’s NATO membership. Now, Fico was the only EU leader attending the World War II commemorations in China, and this was his third meeting with Putin in less than a year. His position puts him at odds with the EU’s approach to Russia’s war in Ukraine and adds weight to Hungary’s similar stance under Viktor Orbán. Domestically, tens of thousands of Slovaks have protested against Fico’s policies towards Russia. Internationally, his support risks weakening the EU’s united front on sanctions, energy security, and military assistance for Kyiv. What’s next? Well as I said on Friday, Fico meets Zelensky. What he’ll deliver are not peace proposals, but Putin’s talking points, repackaged as his own conclusions. He’s also courting China, Vietnam, and Serbia, signalling a deliberate tilt away from Brussels and towards Moscow and Beijing. For the EU, this raises uncomfortable questions. How do you discipline a member state that insists on pursuing policies so clearly at odds with the Union’s collective stance? And how much longer can the EU afford to rely on unanimity in its foreign policy decisions, when one or two governments can hold the line hostage? One thing is certain: Robert Fico has chosen his role on Europe’s stage. Not as a bridge-builder between East and West, but as the Kremlin’s man inside the Union. So how long he can play on both courts depends on the EU’s decisiveness and his voters back home. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
Influential. Investigative. Independent. EUobserver is a online non-profit news outlet reporting on the European Union.
|
[
"EU Political"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-09-03T11:46:42.414Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar3caf7b5c
|
Beyond the trees: Unlocking the bioeconomy for Europe’s climate future
|
As the world order reshapes in real time, maintaining a clear focus on climate action can be challenging. The EU’s ambition to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 is increasingly tested by other high-priority issues such as territorial security, trade barriers, competitiveness, and social welfare. Staying on track toward emission-reduction goals will require extraordinary efforts and dynamic policymaking that seeks win-win solutions between climate objectives and other priorities. For this reason, the solutions offered by the bioeconomy must be scaled up and integrated with mechanisms aimed at reducing emissions. This, in turn, requires significant revisions to the current regulations governing carbon removals and storage in the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector. The EU Emission Trading System (ETS) has so far been a successful political instrument for curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Since the launch in 2005, emissions in sectors included in ETS are down almost 50 percent - progress is on track for meeting the ambitious EU climate goals. By contrast, progress is lagging for emissions covered under the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR). The ESR sectors (notably transport, buildings, agriculture and small industry) are to be addressed at member state level and often face domestic political resistance. An expansion of the ETS approach into the ESR sectors (ETS2) will embrace most emissions in EU and aims to speed up action toward the overall 90 percent reduction target from 1990 to 2040 . Pathways to reduction Setting the framework for ETS and ETS2 is one thing. However, rapidly reducing the emission cap over a relatively short period risks derailing the system if the transition to lower emissions becomes economically disruptive or politically contentious. With the majority of EU emissions covered by the cap-and-trade mechanism, it will be increasingly important to identify synergies with other political priorities. The future of ETS and ETS2 must therefore be considered in a broader context, as these mechanisms co-exist with sustainable development goals beyond climate. Creating pathways that reduce emissions without undermining security, economic stability, or social welfare will be crucial. There are only four pathways to achieving lower emissions within the ETS. Two of these are undesirable: leakage and degrowth. Leakage occurs when the cost of emissions drives production to relocate outside the EU, resulting in economic losses for Europeans and little to no positive – sometimes even negative – impact on the global climate. Degrowth refers to an absolute reduction in economic activity and consumption due to emission costs, which undermines other societal goals as outlined above. Both leakage and degrowth will inevitably, and with good reason, face strong political opposition. Two pathways - efficiency gains and substitution - offer opportunities and should be supported by policy. Efficiency gains within existing value chains is always a driving force for industrial production and a major factor behind both economic growth and emission reductions in recent decades. The potential for continued emissions reduction is still massive, though an increased focus on the consumer level may be necessary to realize these. Substitution, finally, refers to processes where low-emission solutions replace legacy high-emission technologies. Obviously, substitution is well underway in many areas. Electricity instead of fossil fuels for road transport is one example, wind and solar power instead of coal-fired energy plants another. We need, however, a stronger focus on substitution to meet the combined challenges of climate, competitiveness, security and welfare. In this context it is obvious that the bioeconomy - especially the forest-based bioeconomy - is undervalued in climate policy, despite the huge potential for substitution offered by wood-based products. Wood-based value chains Current estimates show that 400mn tons of emissions are already avoided annually in the EU thanks to wood-based value chains, and that substitution can increase considerably with expansions and innovations in packaging, advanced biofuels and construction. A new ISO standard provides tools for calculating these benefits. With EU emissions standing at more than 3,000mn tons annually, it is clear that contributions from wood-based products in meeting climate goals is very significant. These contributions should have a high profile in EU’s climate package. It gets even better. Wood is a domestic and renewable strategic resource for Europe, delivering jobs, rural development as well as 7 percent of EUs economic output . The economic values created from wood also ensure that Europe’s forests are managed sustainably, including for substantial carbon sequestration. Clearly, this is a sector that stands up to the multiple challenges facing the EU. Unfortunately, however, the EU climate law de facto makes removals in the LULUCF sector (mainly in European forests) a compensation for emissions in other sectors. This effectively limits the role of forests to carbon storage and ignores the major role that wood-based products have for emission reduction in other sectors. In addition, the climate law is blind to necessary synergies between climate goals and other priorities. As a result, policy initiatives are now focusing on incentives to increase carbon storage to meet the politically constructed LULUCF targets, often aiming at reduced wood harvest. This is counterproductive, not only for the climate goals, but also for other needs in society. In conclusion, the LULUCF regulation and its role in the EU climate package needs a major revision. Implementing the ETS mechanisms in harmony with other political priorities requires that obstacles for substitution of fossil-based materials and energy are removed and domestic renewable resources promoted. The current focus on carbon storage in forests is counterproductive and ignores the crucial role that wood-based products play at the other end of the value chain. In other words: We need to come out of the forest if we are serious about climate solutions. Ulf Larsson is President and CEO of Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget , SCA - Europe’s largest private forest owner. Ulf Larsson is President and CEO of
|
Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget
|
It is obvious that the bioeconomy – especially the forest-based bioeconomy - is undervalued in climate policy, despite the huge potential for substitution offered by wood-based products.
|
[
"Green Economy"
] |
green-economy
|
2025-09-03T07:57:39.629Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/arfd206819
|
How the EU could make AI an engine of workplace democracy
|
Adoption is high, disruption is low. What if the real problem with artificial intelligence in organisations isn’t the technology, but how it’s introduced? A new report published by MIT’s NANDA initiative, “ ”, finds that 95 percent of AI “pilots” show no measurable gains in productivity. Not only because the models misfire, but because they’re dropped in from above, never grafted onto the living fabric of work and everyday processes. One explanation for these zero returns is obvious to anyone who’s actually done the job: providers, consultants and programmers don’t know work methods as well as the people doing the work. Work, in practice, runs on exceptions, tacit know-how, micro-decisions, and operational compromises; things no top-down solution can fully capture. When AI arrives as a “turnkey” system, it often stiffens workflows, piles on bureaucracy , and stalls in pilot purgatory. The frenzy pushing many managers to move fast risks backfiring, bubble or no bubble. Participation is key There is another path, documented by comparative research: build participation in from the start and through rollout. A new ILO working paper edited by Virginia Doellgast and colleagues presents cases from around the world where social dialogue and collective bargaining shifted AI from replacing to complementing work, from control to empowerment, from disruption to embedding innovations within safeguards and reskilling pathways. Where representative bodies exist, where consultation is real, and where employers face limits on “exit” strategies (automation/outsourcing), AI delivers more, with fewer conflicts and higher-quality results. This point is crucial – obvious to anyone who has wrestled with organisational complexity – yet too often ignored. Shadow adoption There is more. Workers across a wide range of clerical and cognitive jobs are quietly folding generative AI into their daily routines . Early signs suggest this “shadow adoption” is creating time dividends and pockets of autonomy, making the workday feel better. But liberation is hardly guaranteed. Too often, the gains don’t translate into agency or job quality; they’re absorbed by the system as a mandate to do more, but without more control, flexibility or reward. From a legal standpoint, the debate has focused almost exclusively on privacy as the antidote to excesses of automation. But the heart of “ algorithmic management ” (a set of systems and practices to automate managerial functions) isn’t (just) data processing. It’s the expansion – and the obfuscation – of employer power over hiring, shift allocation, pace and intensity of work, surveillance, evaluations, bonuses and sanctions, up to and including dismissals. Reduce it all to GDPR consent and disclosure, and the command structure stays intact. Many of the harms associated with algorithmic systems, such as opacity, intensification of control, or discriminatory outcomes, do not necessarily stem from privacy infringements nor only violate the right to respect for workers’ private lives. To properly address the risks stemming from automated decision-making systems, privacy must be situated within the wider context of workplaces , where managerial authority pervades the worker’s entire personhood. As we contend, what’s needed are rules that rebalance power : functional transparency (how and for what AI is used), decisions that can be audited, a right to challenge outcomes, and the co-design of systems with the people who actually do the work. This approach reflects the foundational principle that power must be both authorised and constrained to remain legitimate. Algorithmic management Against this backdrop, the European Parliament will debate a report on algorithmic management. It’s a meaningful step: it recognises that algorithmic tools now organize, monitor, and evaluate work. But to meet the moment, policymakers have to accept that privacy alone won’t do. The centre of gravity must shift from mere “information and consultation” (which leaves the last word to the employer) to collective bargaining over algorithmic systems—because what’s at stake are basics: hours, pay, staffing, progression, health and safety, job security. In practice, that means: no unilateral adoption of tools that affect schedules, wages, or duties; negotiated, transparent impact assessments of how work is organised; collective access to algorithms (decision logic, metrics, data inputs) and pilot tests for new systems; the right to halt or retool systems that generate discrimination, intensify work, or create health risks; guaranteed, funded reskilling when automation changes roles. This doesn’t “hold back innovation.” It steers it toward high-quality productivity and social legitimacy—as the ILO cases show . The European Union now faces a choice: keep rolling out showcase projects that inflate slide decks, campaigns, and balance sheets but fail on the ground, or make AI an engine of workplace democracy . The second path doesn’t require miracles; it requires time for shared design, institutions of participation (works councils, health and safety reps, joint committees on data and algorithms), and contracts that set purposes, limits and responsibilities. That’s how you avoid joining the 95 percent of failed pilots—and deliver on AI’s real promise: to strengthen work, not replace it; to improve quality, not erode rights. If innovation is truly meant to serve society , involving workers and affected people is what makes the technology intelligent. The EU has the chance – now – to write that into law. The rest of us should insist on it. Antonio Aloisi is an associate professor at IE University Law School in Madrid. Co-author of “Your Boss Is an Algorithm. Artificial Intelligence, Platform Work and Labour”. Valerio De Stefano is a Professor of Law and Canada Research Chair in Innovation, Law, and Society at Osgoode Hall School, York University, Toronto. Antonio Aloisi is an associate professor at IE University Law School in Madrid. Co-author of “Your Boss Is an Algorithm. Artificial Intelligence, Platform Work and Labour”.
|
Valerio De Stefano
|
The European Union faces a choice: keep rolling out showcase AI projects that inflate slide decks, campaigns, and balance sheets but fail on the ground, or make AI an engine of workplace democracy by giving workers a voice.
|
[
"Digital",
"Labour",
"Opinion"
] |
digital
|
2025-09-03T07:46:10.227Z
|
https://euobserver.com/digital/arc0f6f6b1
|
Belgium to probe Russia links of former EU commissioner
|
Belgium is to investigate former EU commissioner Didier Reynders' alleged links with a blacklisted Kremlin oligarch, on top of his ongoing money-laundering case. The Brussels prosecutor's office confirmed to EUobserver on Tuesday (2 September) that it was "re-examining" Reynders' links to Moscow, following an initial report about the move in Belgian publications Humo and Apache on Monday. The Russia probe concerns Reynders' relations with EU and US-blacklisted oligarch Oleg Deripaska, who is a close associate of Russian president Vladimir Putin. Reynders used to be a member of Deripaska's Belgian non-profit organisation, the now defunct Association Bruno Lussato et Marina Fédier, based in the Uccle district in Brussels, and Reynders' former cultural advisor, Constantin Chariot, was its director. Belgian authorities had earlier investigated the association, which bought and sold art, in 2014 on allegations it was a money-laundering front, but mysteriously froze the probe in 2016. Reynders' alleged corruption hit the headlines last December , when the Belgian federal prosecutor raided his home in an investigation into his imputed use of Belgium's ING bank to launder illicit cash - causing red faces at the EU Commission, where the 67-year-old had been the commissioner for justice from 2019 to 2024. But Reynders was also Belgium's foreign and defence minister between 2011 and 2018, giving him access to the highest levels of classified EU and Nato documents - meaning that any dodgy Russia ties might have jeopardised Western security. Reacting to the Deripaska-probe news, his Belgian law firm, Lex-litis, told this website: "My client has no comment. I draw your attention to the fact that defamation may be subject to criminal prosecution." But the Brussels prosecutor, Julien Moinil, is not the only well-informed Belgian to take a new interest in the Reynders affair. Walter De Smedt, a Belgian magistrate who is a former member of Comité R, Belgium's intelligence oversight body, also raised red flags in an op-ed in Belgian newspaper De Morgen on 28 August . De Smedt said that Reynders had inserted his former cabinet colleague, called Hugues Brulin, into Belgium's VSSE intelligence service, in order to quash a VSSE officer's reports into Reynders' alleged Russia ties and wider abuses. "Brulin was tasked with neutralising the reports," De Smedt wrote. The VSSE declined to comment, while Brulin no longer works there and couldn't be reached. Deripaska aside, several of the allegedly "neutralised" VSSE reports, which date back some 10 years ago and which were seen by EUobserver, said Reynders also had untoward links with a Belgian noble, Ernest de Laminne de Bex. De Bex used to run a club called the Cercle International Diplomatique et Consulaire (CIDIC), which Reynders frequented and which organised soirées and field trips for Belgian and EU diplomats and other VIPs. Reynders, in his then capacity as Belgian foreign minister, also granted de Bex his "baron" title in 2014. But de Bex was a suspected Russian agent and CIDIC was a front for introducing EU personalities to Russian and Chinese spies, the "secret" VSSE reports claimed. De Bex denied the allegations. "This is pure slanderous fabrication," he told EUobserver. "I have had only a few contacts with Mr. Reynders and have no connections with either Russia or China. I am a citizen of impeccable morality," he added. Meanwhile, the new Belgian investigation into Reynders and Russia might also do well to ask broader questions about Reynders' brother, Jean-Pierre Reynders, who is an architect. Jean-Pierre Reynders renovated the Russian embassy in Uccle in 2004, meaning he must have obtained high-level Russian security clearance, prompting the VSSE to open a file on him at the time, according to an internal VSSE log seen by EUobserver. (The VSSE declined to comment on this too.) And his architects' firm, Assar, helped to build the new Nato HQ in Brussels, which opened in 2017, posing another potential security risk. Jean-Pierre Reynders didn't reply to EUobserver's questions. But in any case, for one former VSSE officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, the multiplying Belgian investigations into the former EU commissioner and Belgian minister might come to nothing, as did previous ones, without media pressure. "Even if his [Didier Reynders'] influence and might is waning, he still has connections, but if the press pushes hard, the police and prosecutors will feel stronger," the contact said. The EU Commission and Nato didn't reply to questions.
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
Belgium is to investigate former EU commissioner Didier Reynders' alleged links with a blacklisted Kremlin oligarch, on top of his ongoing money-laundering case.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"EU Political"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-02T15:41:38.438Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arf2043938
|
Listen: Belgium to recognise Palestine at the UN and sanction Israel
|
Belgium’s Foreign Minister, Maxime Prévot, announced overnight that the country will recognise the state of Palestine during the upcoming UN General Assembly session in New York. But the move comes with conditions. Recognition will only be formalised once Hamas releases all remaining hostages taken on the 7th of October 2023, and once the group no longer has a role in governing Palestine. What other sanctions were decided and what is the reaction so far? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: Belgium’s Foreign Minister, Maxime Prévot, announced overnight that the country will recognise the state of Palestine during the upcoming UN General Assembly session in New York. But the move comes with conditions. Recognition will only be formalised once Hamas releases all remaining hostages taken on the 7th of October 2023, and once the group no longer has a role in governing Palestine. What other sanctions were decided and what is the reaction so far? Alongside this, Belgium will introduce twelve sanctions against Israel. These include: – a ban on imports from Israeli settlements considered illegal under international law, – a review of Belgian public procurement contracts with Israeli companies, – restrictions on consular services for Belgians living in those settlements, – potential judicial prosecutions, – bans on overflights and transit, – and declaring two far-right Israeli ministers, several violent settlers, and Hamas leaders persona non grata in Belgium. The ministers were not named, but they are widely understood to be Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who have already been sanctioned by the UK and the Netherlands for inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. Prévot underlined that the measures target the Israeli government and Hamas, not Israeli citizens or Jewish communities. He also announced Belgium will push at EU level for stronger measures, including suspending the EU-Israel association agreement, research cooperation, and technical programmes. Internationally, Belgium’s move follows similar announcements from France, Australia, Canada and the UK, all of which plan to recognise Palestine at the UN. Slovenia’s president, Nataša Pirc Musar, also criticised the EU this week for failing to act on Gaza, calling Israel’s campaign a genocide. Meanwhile, Israel’s government strongly rejects these accusations and argues that recognition of Palestine rewards Hamas and fuels antisemitism. Now for the EU this move highlights deep divisions: some members, including France and Spain, support recognition, while others, especially Germany, continue to oppose sanctions or recognition without negotiations. Belgium’s sanctions are notable because they go further than most other EU states have taken individually. By targeting settlement products, government contracts, and political figures, Belgium is aligning its domestic policies more closely with international rulings such as the 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, which found Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories illegal. At the same time, the conditions attached to recognition, particularly the requirement that Hamas releases all hostages and exits the political stage, mean this recognition is not immediate, but dependent on future developments. So, what’s next? The UN General Assembly opens on the 9th of September and runs until the 23rd. Belgium will join the “New York Declaration,” a joint initiative with France and Saudi Arabia backing a two-state solution. Whether other EU members will join remains uncertain, with divisions inside the bloc still unresolved. Any suspension of cooperation with Israel requires a qualified majority among member states and so far, Germany and others have blocked it. Israel is expected to respond strongly. The US has criticised similar moves from other allies, while Israel is reportedly considering annexing parts of the West Bank if more countries proceed with recognition. Belgium has also pledged financial and political support for reconstruction in Palestine, as well as measures to combat antisemitism domestically. And the recognition, if and when formalised, would mark Belgium’s most significant step on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in decades. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs
|
Evi Kiorri
|
Belgium’s Foreign Minister, Maxime Prévot, announced overnight that the country will recognise the state of Palestine during the upcoming UN General Assembly session in New York.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-02T10:42:32.516Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar5e40f5fe
|
Safeguarding collective memory, while jointly shouldering the responsibilities of the times
|
The year 2025 marks the 80th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War, as well as the 80th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. Looking back, the Second World War, waged by fascist and militarist forces, brought unprecedented catastrophe upon humanity. China and Europe, as the main theaters of war in the East and West respectively, made immense sacrifices and contributions to the ultimate triumph over fascism, the defense of human dignity, and the reconstruction of world peace. Those years of unyielding defiance and common struggle against formidable enemies remain deeply etched in the shared memory of China and Europe. We will never forget the indomitable spirit that China and Europe demonstrated in the World Anti-Fascist War. China was among the earliest countries to rise against fascism, and it bore the longest and heaviest burdens on the Eastern battlefield. From 1931 to 1945, the Chinese nation, with unbreakable resolve and heroic resistance, fought to the end, paying the price of over 35 million military and civilian casualties to defeat Japanese militarism. In doing so, China greatly bolstered the resolve and fighting spirit of the global anti-fascist coalition. In Europe, Winston Churchill’s rallying cry of “we shall fight on, we shall never surrender” echoed across the British Isles, while Charles de Gaulle resolutely led the French Resistance with indomitable spirit, joining Allied forces in shattering the illusion of a “blitzkrieg” victory and the hegemonic ambitions of Nazi aggressors. We will never forget the profound wartime friendship forged between China and Europe. On the battlefield, the Chinese military and people defeated over 1.5mn Japanese troops and pinned down over a million of Japan’s main forces. The Chinese Expeditionary Force fought side by side with Allied troops in Burma, effectively halting Japan’s northern and southern advances and preventing the Axis powers from ever achieving true strategic coordination—thus providing powerful support to the Allied campaigns in Europe and the Pacific. Among civilians, the French doctor Jean-Augustin Bussière risked his life to deliver vital medicines by bicycle to Chinese resistance bases; German businessman John Rabe saved more than 200,000 Chinese civilians during the Nanjing Massacre; Chinese fishermen rescued 384 British POWs from the sunken Lisbon Maru; and Qian Xiuling, the “Chinese Schindler,” rescued 110 Belgian fighters from Nazi firing squads. These heroic deeds are vivid testaments to the deep bonds forged between the Chinese and European peoples in times of blood and fire, life and death. We will never forget the great historical process of jointly shaping the post-war international order. Building on the victory of the war, China, together with European countries and other major members of the anti-fascist alliance, jointly founded the United Nations, with China being the first to sign the UN Charter. The international system with the UN at its core is the embodiment of the victory of World War II and the cornerstone of the post-war order. Guardians of our shared memory Thanks to the joint efforts of China and Europe, the UN has withstood the tests of 80 years of global vicissitudes, playing an irreplaceable role in safeguarding peace and stability and advancing the progress of humankind. To remember history is to open the way to the future. Today’s world remains far from tranquil. As two major forces, two big markets, and two great civilisations, China and Europe should work together to provide greater stability and certainty to a world fraught with turbulence, and to contribute more wisdom and strength to the advancement of human civilisation. We need to be guardians of our shared memory. It is important to uphold a correct view of the Second World War, jointly resist historical nihilism and revisionism, and resolutely oppose any attempts to distort history by tampering with records or whitewashing aggression. This will enable future generations to properly understand and always remember history, and lay a solid foundation for lasting peace and development. We need to be defenders of multilateralism. Confronted with major choices between war and peace, competition and cooperation, and closure and openness, multilateralism, solidarity and cooperation are the right answers. Together, we should safeguard the international order underpinned by international law and the international system with the UN at its core, reform and improve global governance, join hands to tackle global challenges such as climate change, and hold high the torch of multilateralism to illuminate humanity’s path ahead. We need to be doers of openness and cooperation. Both China and Europe are promoters and beneficiaries of economic globalisation and an open world economy. We should oppose unilateralism and protectionism in all forms, jointly uphold the multilateral trading system centered on WTO rules, and work for universally beneficial and inclusive economic globalisation. It is important to expand the convergence of interests, and see to it that the fruits of development are more equitably distributed among peoples around the world. We need to be promoters of mutual learning among civilisations. No civilisation in the world is superior to others; every civilisation is special and unique to its own region. Together, we should work together to ensure exchanges transcend estrangement, mutual learning transcends clashes, inclusiveness transcends a sense of superiority. In doing so, we will contribute wisdom and strength to deeper mutual understanding and affinity among peoples of all countries, harmonious coexistence among different civilisations, and the building of a world of beauty shared by all.
|
H.E. Ambassador Cai Run, Head of the Mission of China to the European Union
|
As two major forces, two big markets, and two great civilisations, China and Europe should work together to provide greater stability and certainty to a world fraught with turbulence, and to contribute more wisdom and strength to the advancement of human civilisation.
|
[] |
stakeholders
|
2025-09-01T14:11:58.164Z
|
https://euobserver.com/stakeholders/ar8eb049f4
|
Russia jams GPS signal of flight carrying EU commission president, say authorities
|
A chartered flight carrying the president of the European Commission to Bulgaria from Poland had its GPS signal jammed. "We can indeed confirm that there was GPS jamming, but the plane landed safely in Bulgaria," a European Commission spokesperson told reporters in Brussels on Monday (1 September). Authorities in Bulgaria suspect Russia is behind the attack , which had also likely affected other flights in and around the Plovdiv International Airport. The Financial Times reported her pilot was forced to land the plane manually using analogue maps. "There was no change of route because of this," said the commission spokesperson. The European Commission says Europe is the most affected region in the world when it comes to GPS jamming and spoofing. Some 13 member states had in June demanded an EU response against interference of Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS). In a letter sent to the European Commission, they demanded a unified response to hybrid threats posed by hostile regime like Russia. "Disruptions to GNSS signals have a direct impact on strategic sectors such as transport, energy, and telecommunications," they said. For its part, the commission on Monday said they are preparing "an action plan" to tackle the abuse. "The plan can include more concrete actions, something that have more teeth to really concretely address this. But for the moment, this is what what we are doing," said the commission spokesperson. The EU has in the past slapped sanctions on companies and individuals behind GPS jamming and spoofing.
|
Nikolaj joined EUobserver in 2012 and covers home affairs. He is originally from Denmark, but spent much of his life in France and in Belgium. He was awarded the King Baudouin Foundation grant for investigative journalism in 2010.
|
A chartered flight carrying the president of the European Commission to Bulgaria from Poland had its GPS signal jammed.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-01T12:26:40.384Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/areee44e3a
|
Listen: Von der Leyen’s 'precise plans' for Ukraine’s security
|
European capitals are preparing “pretty precise plans” for a multinational troop deployment to Ukraine, said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to the Financial Times. The plan will be on the table again this week in Paris, at the invitation of French President Emmanuel Macron, with leaders including Germany’s Friedrich Merz, the UK’s Keir Starmer, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and of course von der Leyen herself. But what exactly do these plans mean for Europe, for Ukraine, and for the future of the war? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: European capitals are preparing “pretty precise plans” for a multinational troop deployment to Ukraine, said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to the Financial Times. The plan will be on the table again this week in Paris, at the invitation of French President Emmanuel Macron, with leaders including Germany’s Friedrich Merz, the UK’s Keir Starmer, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and of course von der Leyen herself. But what exactly do these plans mean for Europe, for Ukraine, and for the future of the war? The idea is that European-led troops would form part of post-conflict security guarantees for Ukraine, with full backing from US capabilities. We’re talking about potentially tens of thousands of personnel, supported by American command systems, intelligence, and surveillance. The arrangement was discussed last month in Washington at a meeting between US President Donald Trump, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and European leaders. The plan will be on the table again this week in Paris, at the invitation of French President Emmanuel Macron, with leaders including Germany’s Friedrich Merz, the UK’s Keir Starmer, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and of course von der Leyen herself. Von der Leyen stressed that security guarantees are “paramount,” and confirmed that Trump had given repeated assurances of American involvement. She also underlined that each national government would ultimately decide whether to deploy troops, since this remains a sovereign decision. Meanwhile, Ukraine has been clear: any peace deal must include concrete guarantees, including troops on the ground. Kyiv insists that its army will need long-term support, including salaries, training, and modern equipment. The EU has already committed to maintain funding streams after the war, and is encouraging member states to use its €150 billion loans-for-arms fund to invest in Ukrainian defence capacity. Now, these plans would mark the first time that European troops are formally stationed in Ukraine as part of an international security framework. Until now, Europe has supported Ukraine with weapons, training, and financial aid, but not with a structured military presence. It also means the EU is preparing for Ukraine’s security not only during the war, but in the years that follow. According to von der Leyen, the Commission is looking at “sustainable financing” for the Ukrainian armed forces as part of its role in providing guarantees. At the same time, Russia continues its strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure. Drone attacks over the weekend left nearly 60,000 households without electricity in Odesa and Chernihiv regions. Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy has promised retaliation, saying new deep strikes inside Russia have already been planned. So what’s next on this? European leaders meet in Paris on Thursday to advance the roadmap and define commitments. Kyiv is expected to push for clarity and timelines on when troops and funds might actually be deployed. Russia is also expected to respond politically. The Kremlin has already accused European powers of obstructing US-led peace efforts, while insisting that it will continue its military operations until Kyiv shows what it calls “reciprocity.” In the meantime, Ukraine’s allies face a balancing act: preparing credible guarantees for Kyiv, while keeping their own publics on board with the financial and military commitments that will follow any peace deal. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs
|
Evi Kiorri
|
European capitals are preparing “pretty precise plans” for a multinational troop deployment to Ukraine, but what exactly do these plans mean for Europe, for Ukraine, and for the future of the war?
|
[
"EU & the World",
"EU Political"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-01T10:27:53.136Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arb6bdc1f7
|
Still no EU action on Israel, despite Gaza famine
|
Israel will not face any EU sanctions despite creating famine in Gaza, massacring over 63,000 people, and announcing a new West Bank settlement that would end the two-state solution. That was the message from an informal EU foreign ministers' meeting in Copenhagen on Saturday (30 August). There was a "growing majority" for Israel sanctions, EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas said after the talks, but "it's clear member states disagree on how to pressure the Israeli government to change course," she added. Two of Israel's main EU allies - Germany and the Czech Republic - said they were against any kind of sanctions. Kallas had earlier proposed suspending Israel's participation in Horizon Europe, a science programme, in what she herself called "a lenient step" on Saturday. But German foreign minister Johann Wadepuhl said "we're not convinced of this proposal", seeing as Horizon was a programme in the "civil sphere", unrelated to Israel's military actions. Czech foreign minister Jan Lipavský parroted Israel by denigrating the factuality of UN reports on Gaza starvation, saying: " Kaja Kallas was very successful … with opening humanitarian corridors" in her pre-summer talks with Israel. The Austrian and Italian foreign ministers said the only action they'd support was blacklisting some extremist settlers in the West Bank. Latvian foreign minister Baiba Braze also said Israel's actions were covered by its "legitimate right to self-defence" against Palestinian militant group Hamas. The foreign ministers of Estonia and Lithuania spoke only of Russia in Saturday's press briefings, indicating apathy on Gaza suffering. Most Israel sanctions options - such as blacklisting settlers, banning settler imports, or imposing an arms embargo - required EU consensus, meaning the Czechs and Israel's other top EU ally, Hungary, would veto them. Some options - such as freezing Horizon or Israel's EU free-trade perks - could be done by a qualified majority vote in the EU Council, but there is no majority without Germany and Italy on board. For his part, Danish foreign minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, whose country did back sanctions, said the EU could also impose crippling trade tariffs on Israeli settler imports by a majority vote, bypassing Czech or Hungarian vetoes on a trade ban. But without German or Italian backing there would be no majority for tariffs either and settler imports to the EU were only worth about €200m a year anyway, compared to the €47bn a year in wider EU-Israel trade. The last time EU foreign ministers met was on 15 July. Since then, the UN said Israel had caused "famine" in Gaza, the Gaza death toll has passed 63,000 people, Israel launched a ground assault on Gaza City, and announced it would build a new colony, called E1 , that would cut the occupied West Bank in two, ending once and for all the UN and EU-backed two-state solution to the 77-year-old Arab-Israeli conflict. The push for anti-Israel sanctions has been led by Belgium, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Nordic countries, Slovenia, and Spain. But all they could do on Saturday was vent frustration and make tear-jerking remarks. Broken hearts The Israeli-created famine was "simply unacceptable" said French foreign minister Jean-Noël Barrot. Sweden's Maria Malmer Stenegard said: "What we see now [in Gaza] is absolutely devastating and it breaks my heart". Spanish foreign minister José Manuel Albares spoke of civilians starving to death "due to an induced famine by Israel". Ireland's Simon Harris accused Israel of "genocidal activity". The next EU foreign ministers' meeting is on 20 October, but Harris voiced doubt that further Israeli war crimes in the meantime would change EU inertia. "If the EU didn't take collective action against Israel by now, when will it ever - what more will it take? Children are starving. In fact, we now have reports of children who cannot even cry because they don't have the strength", he said. The EU ministers also discussed new sanctions on Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, but Norway's foreign minister, Barth Eide, who attended the Copenhagen meeting, said: "If we want to have any credibility in our critique of Russia ... we also have to stand up against the massive atrocities committed by Israel".
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
Israel will not face any EU sanctions despite creating famine in Gaza, massacring 63,000 people, and declaring the end of the two-state solution.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Rule of Law"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-30T14:58:30.161Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar41d2b07a
|
Listen: Italy’s digital misogyny website finally taken down
|
An explicit content website in Italy called Phica, a misspelt slang for female genitalia, was finally shut down on Thursday after it was circulating photos of women without their consent. Among those targeted were some of Italy’s most high-profile figures like Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, opposition leader Elly Schlein, European Parliament member Alessandra Moretti and others. The images were often lifted from TV appearances or social media, then altered, sexualised, and accompanied by vulgar captions. But why are sites like this still operating with impunity? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: An explicit content website in Italy called Phica, a misspelt slang for female genitalia, was finally shut down on Thursday after it was circulating photos of women without their consent. Among those targeted were some of Italy’s most high-profile figures like Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, opposition leader Elly Schlein, European Parliament member Alessandra Moretti and others. The images were often lifted from TV appearances or social media, then altered, sexualised, and accompanied by vulgar captions. But why are sites like this still operating with impunity? So, this site wasn’t new, it has been around since 2005, and at its peak counted hundreds of thousands of users. What’s new is that politicians began speaking up. Alessandra Moretti filed a police complaint after finding herself featured on the site, saying her photos had been stolen and manipulated for years. She called it part of a wider problem, which is sites like these operating “with impunity.” And she’s not the only one. Several women, from local councillors to national MPs, stepped forward. Their public pressure, alongside an online petition with over 150,000 signatures, finally pushed the platform’s administrators to close it down, blaming, rather vaguely, “toxic behaviour” and a “wrong use of the platform.” This isn’t an isolated case. Just weeks earlier, a Facebook group called “Mia Moglie” (My Wife) with 32.000 male followers that uploaded and exchanged intimate photos of women, was also shut down. Now, Italy (like many other countries) is struggling with a persistent problem of gender-based violence. The country records high levels of femicide and campaigners argue it’s rooted in deeply patriarchal structures. And the digital sphere has simply given misogyny a new platform making it easier to spread, harder to regulate, and, until now, often ignored by authorities. It took female politicians and influencers going public for the problem to be treated as serious. Meanwhile, ordinary women whose photos were stolen for years had been filing complaints that went nowhere. So, what can we expect on this? Italy has recently taken steps to address gender-based violence. A draft law approved in March would, for the first time, define femicide in criminal law and punish it with life imprisonment. The Senate has also passed tougher measures against stalking, sexual violence and so-called “revenge porn.” But critics warn: legislation is only the tip of the iceberg. Punishing crimes after the fact does not change the economic, educational and cultural conditions that allow misogyny to flourish. They argue that more preventative measures would more likely save women's lives. The Phica scandal is now being called Italy’s “#MeToo moment”, a turning point where silence gives way to outrage, and outrage hopefully to reform. But the uncomfortable truth is that women in Italy (and in many other countries) whether they are prime ministers, actresses, or anonymous citizens are still not safe from being turned into digital objects for public consumption. Until society treats this not as a glitch in the system or as a lone example but as the system itself, there will be more websites humiliating women and men, more petitions, and more scandals. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
An explicit content website in Italy called Phica, a misspelt slang for female genitalia, was finally shut down on Thursday after it was circulating photos of women without their consent. Why are sites like this still operating with impunity?
|
[
"Health & Society"
] |
health-and-society
|
2025-08-29T10:12:15.769Z
|
https://euobserver.com/health-and-society/ar55b9b28d
|
Europe’s social welfare crisis is driven by an unlikely culprit: our pension funds
|
When Friedrich Merz recently declared that Germany can no longer afford its welfare state, he was diagnosing a crisis that extends far beyond German borders. Across Europe and in many advanced economies, ageing populations and rising welfare costs have governments scrambling for solutions. But this crisis is a product of the very 'solutions' we've been pursuing for decades. Governments have been retreating from defined benefit public pension provision, citing unsustainable costs, and citizens have been systematically pushed toward private alternatives in defined contribution pension funds. Between 2021 and 2022 alone, there was a 115 percent increase in new members joining defined contribution plans with most of the growth coming from France (610 percent) and Sweden (90 percent); the Netherlands is scheduled to transition into a full defined contribution system in 2028. In this landscape, housing has emerged as the cornerstone of retirement planning, whether through direct homeownership or stocks in real estate companies. The logic seems sound: property can provide shelter and income, protecting against inflation while generating rental returns. Although the number includes both commercial and residential properties, real estate allocations in pension funds typically range from 5 to 15 percent of assets under management. But this privatisation of responsibility has created a vicious cycle that undermines its own premises. Property investment does indeed promise rental income, but the collective pursuit of housing as a retirement vehicle drives up prices across the board. House prices have increased 37 percent in the EU since 2010, and rental prices up 16 percent, with some of the largest increases seen in Estonia, Hungary, and Czechia. ‘Medium’ rental price increases include Austria at 41.18 percent, and the Netherlands at 22.94 percent. The result is that the very strategy meant to secure wellbeing in old age systematically erodes the purchasing power of both current wages and pension payments. Pension funds in slumlords Major pension funds and institutional investors, such as Blackrock which invest on behalf of pension plans, endowments and foundations but are not pension funds themselves, now hold stakes in housing companies, despite their role in making housing unaffordable. The Norwegian Sovereign Wealth fund, Blackrock, and the Dutch pension fund APG respectively hold 14.48 percent, 8.4 percent and 3.74 percent of Vonovia , the largest private landlord in Germany, with 490,000 apartments and a reputation for being a corporate slumlord. This extends beyond Germany. Sweden has over 120,000 rental housing units under institutional investment, while the number sits in the 40,000 range in Czechia and the Netherlands, and the 20,000 range in Finland, Denmark and Austria. Yet despite all these investments, affordable housing shortages uniformly persist across these markets. From housing to infrastructure Beyond housing, Swedish funds AP3 and AP4 have acquired Hemsö and Rikshem, which own and develop social infrastructure real estate, such as schools, medical facilities and elderly care homes in Sweden, Finland and Germany. Investment funds are advertising thematic investing opportunities in ageing and healthy living. In this picture, elderly care homes may seem an anomaly, but this is precisely what concerns people as they age. Care homes have been privatised for cost-efficiency and have proven to be an attractive investment for private equity, particularly in the UK and German markets due to their ageing demographics. Usually classed as alternative assets, investments in European care homes have more than doubled from €2.1bn in 2016 to €5bn in 2021. Out-of-pocket costs for a place in a care home in Germany are over €3,000 per month against an average pension payment of €1,600. Yet even with these astronomical costs, securing a place in a care home is difficult, with an average wait time of over 1.5 years . The concern of how to care for the elderly remains significant. The burden of elderly care often ends up falling on the children of those who need care, who may be in or about to enter retirement themselves, leaving retirees doubly vulnerable. Aiming to reduce expenditures, governments have embraced this flawed logic on an institutional scale. Over the past decade, governments and pension funds have expanded infrastructure investments , ranging from energy, to water, to transportation, as reliable return generators simply because people simply have no alternatives. The financial sector has embraced this trend. APG plans to increase its infrastructure investments to 10 percent by 2030, and the German Investment Ordinance (AnlV) introduced a separate 5 percent infrastructure investment quota to encourage more private investment. Controversies, such as the Canada Pension Fund's investment in the privatisation of water and sanitation services in Brazil under the Bolsonaro government, have already occurred. Purchasing power, not payment amounts The pension debates have largely focused on the sum in pension payments. But ultimately, it is purchasing power that matters. Instead of treating housing, energy, and care as investment vehicles, they need to be secured as public infrastructure and services through public investment. This approach shields essential services from profit motives while providing the price stability that makes elderly wellbeing genuinely affordable, reducing pressure on pension funds. The private sector is taking over key areas for social welfare because governments think it is too expensive. Yet what is not paid by public funding, is paid by individual citizens. The American healthcare system is case in point. And this eats into people’s savings and, in turn, their financial resilience both as workers and as future pensioners. The viability of the current pension system is highly dependent on the home ownership rate, as housing is one of the biggest expenses in old age if not secured. In Germany, which has one of the lowest homeownership rate in Europe, rental assistance is a major welfare expense and will continue to eat into budgets unless the government intervenes decisively. It is also worth remembering that barriers towards home ownership have increased exponentially across the OECD, at least partially because retirees depend on high valuation for economic security. At a time when far-right movements across Europe exploit economic anxiety and social division, abandoning the principle of public provision is both economically shortsighted and politically dangerous. The cost of public infrastructure pales in comparison to the social fractures that result from treating basic human needs as cost-centers. The solution to Europe's welfare crisis isn't more creative financing, but regulations and removing essential services away from markets.
|
Vienne Chan is an associate researcher at Konzeptwerk Neue Ökonomie. She specialises in retirement politics and just transition. She is writing here in a personal capacity.
|
From housing to infrastructure to healthcare, the steady return of essential services has proven irresistible for pension funds looking for a stable return – breaking the welfare state along the way.
|
[
"Health & Society"
] |
health-and-society
|
2025-08-29T07:32:06.729Z
|
https://euobserver.com/health-and-society/ar0e805eb5
|
Listen: Denmark and Greenland apologise for forced contraception of Indigenous women
|
Denmark’s prime minister Mette Frederiksen and Jens-Frederik Nielsen, the prime minister of Greenland apologised officially this Wednesday for the roles of their countries in the historic mistreatment of Greenlandic Indigenous girls and women, including forced contraception under the so-called “Spiral Case.” But can an apology alone deliver justice? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: Denmark’s prime minister Mette Frederiksen and Jens-Frederik Nielsen, the prime minister of Greenland apologised officially this Wednesday for the roles of their countries in the historic mistreatment of Greenlandic Indigenous girls and women, including forced contraception under the so-called “Spiral Case.” But can an apology alone deliver justice? From the 1960s until the 1990s, Danish doctors inserted intrauterine devices, or IUDs, into thousands of Greenlandic women and girls, often without their consent. Some were as young as twelve. Many only discovered what had been done to them years later, often because of severe health complications. And for some, the damage was permanent: infertility, pain and trauma that lasted a lifetime. The programme was no secret in government circles, records show that between the 1960s and mid-70s, roughly 4,500 women and girls, almost half of Greenland’s fertile female population, were subjected to the procedure. The official explanation provided by the government was to control Greenland’s birth rate at a time when its Indigenous Inuit population was growing rapidly. Denmark colonised Greenland over three centuries ago, and the island, though semi-autonomous since 1979, remains part of the Danish realm. For many Greenlanders, this campaign is more than just a medical scandal; it’s a reminder of colonial domination and systematic discrimination. So yesterday, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen admitted: “We cannot change what has happened. But we can take responsibility. Therefore, on behalf of Denmark, I would like to say sorry.” All this while an independent investigation into the case, launched in 2022, is expected to conclude soon. Greenland’s own government also issued an apology for cases that happened after 1991, when the territory took over its health system. But Greenland’s leader was quick to add that apologies are not enough, calling for reparations and compensation for the women affected. Over 140 of them have already launched lawsuits against the Danish state. Now, this case highlights how recent and far-reaching the impacts of colonial policies remain in Europe. The women affected are still alive today, and many continue to suffer physical and psychological consequences. It also raises questions about trust in medical institutions, consent in healthcare, and the responsibility of European states towards their overseas territories and Indigenous populations. So, what’s next? The investigation Denmark launched in 2022 is due to publish its findings soon, as I mentioned. And that report will be crucial in deciding whether the government accepts responsibility beyond words with reparations, or at the very least financial compensation for the women affected. Meanwhile, the lawsuit filed by over 140 Inuit women is ongoing, demanding around €40,000 each. If successful, it could set a precedent for how Europe addresses the darker parts of its colonial past. And maybe that’s the bigger story here. Colonialism is not as distant as many Europeans would like to think. Its scars are fresh, its victims are alive, and the demand for justice is not going away with carefully crafted statements from politicians. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
Can an apology alone deliver justice?
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-28T10:38:21.941Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arccb4340c
|
US spies stoked separatism in Greenland, Denmark says
|
Denmark has accused US agents of trying to foment separatism in Greenland, reigniting fears over the territory's future. Danish officials briefed Danish national broadcaster DR on Wednesday (27 August) that three US citizens linked to the administration had covertly visited the island to recruit backers for a split from Denmark and annexation by the US. The Danish foreign minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, summoned the top US diplomat in Copenhagen, chargé d'affaires Mark Stroh, to issue a formal complaint. "If anyone thinks they can influence it by creating a 'fifth column' or that type of activity, then it is contrary to the way states cooperate ... It's important for us to speak out very clearly against the United States," Rasmussen told press. Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen said: "Any interference in internal affairs in the kingdom of Denmark, and Greenlandic democracy, is unacceptable". "The Americans do not clearly deny that the situation is as DR presents today. And that is, of course, serious," she added. Danish intelligence agency PET also said Nuuk was "the target of influence campaigns of various kinds". "PET expects that such campaigns have the purpose of creating a split in the relationship between Denmark and Greenland", it added. Greenland, which has a population of just 57,000, is an autonomous Danish territory, with vast mineral resources and a strategic location due to changing Arctic trade routes, which US president Donald Trump has said he wants to annex, using force if necessary. Tensions peaked when US vice-president JD Vance visited a US military base in Greenland in March and denigrated Danish rule in his speech. And ordinary Greenlanders declined to meet him or his wife at the time on their walkabout for TV cameras, in a sign of ill will. "This [alleged US espionage operation] means the whole misery over Greenland isn't over", former Danish foreign minister Martin Lidegaard told broadcaster TV2 on Wednesday. For its part, the US state department said the three US citizens in the DR report weren't on official business. "The US government does not control or direct the actions of private citizens," it told DR. "The Danes need to calm down," a White House official also told Reuters. Greenland held elections in March, in which a pro-business and Danish-friendly party, the Democrats, beat the US-friendly Naleraq opposition party. But Greenland's foreign minister, Vivian Motzfeldt, downplayed the DR subversion story. "There is nothing new in what I have been presented with, beyond what we already know," she told Greenland's Sermitsiaq newspaper. Pele Broberg, the head of Naleraq, said: "Should we never talk to anybody but Denmark? We don't get what the big issue is right now". "The Danish, French, and German governments are trying to influence the Greenlandic government every single day … It's just business as usual," he added. And Frederiksen, also on Wednesday, for the first time in history, apologised for Denmark's forced sterilisation of Inuit women between 1966 and 1991 - a leading cause of separatist feeling among Greenland's indigenous people. Aaja Chemnitz, an MP from Greenland's Inuit Ataqatigiit opposition party, said: "We have seen before that they [the US] have been trying to influence the people of Greenland, but of course also Greenlandic politicians. This is just a continuation".
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
Denmark has accused US agents of trying to foment separatism in Greenland, reigniting fears over the territory's future.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Rule of Law",
"Nordics"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-28T07:02:43.856Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar4837d973
|
France, Germany, Britain to reimpose Iran sanctions after talks falter
|
France, Germany and the UK are preparing to reimpose sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme on Thursday (28 August), after weeks of diplomacy failed to deliver results. The three countries, known as the E3, had met with Iranian officials on Tuesday in a final attempt to revive stalled nuclear talks. At a previous meeting in Istanbul in July, their foreign ministers had signalled a willingness to extend a UN sanctions deadline if Tehran resumed cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and restarted indirect talks with Washington before the end of August. IAEA director-general Rafael Grossi told reporters on Wednesday that inspectors had arrived at Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant, but that he was unsure whether Tehran would permit inspections of its enrichment facilities. Facilities were said to have been damaged by Israeli and US bombing attacks in June, but this has not been independently confirmed. If Grossi’s team is allowed, they would be able to assess damage within 30 days, he also said. E3 leaders have threatened to trigger a "snapback mechanism" under the 2015 nuclear deal which would reimpose UN sanctions but offered to delay the process for as much as six months if Iran resumes full UN inspections. According to the IAEA, Iran has enough near weapons-grade enrichment material for six nuclear weapons, which Tehran has consistently denied seeking. And on Tuesday, Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araqchi told lawmakers that no decision had been made on how to resume full cooperation with the watchdog and disputed the European’s right to reimpose sanctions, the parliament news agency ICANA reported. No direct talks between Washington and Tehran are taking place. Iranian officials have said they are willing to negotiate indirectly with the Trump administration. But the bombing campaign derailed talks with Iranian leadership, and Iranian negotiators now say they will only return to diplomacy if they get assurances there won’t be another attack. Negotiations on Tuesday didn’t deliver tangible results, but western diplomats told reporters ahead of Thursday’s meeting they still hoped Tehran would provide commitments that could convince them to defer action. The UN process takes 30 days before sanctions on Iran’s banking, oil and defence sectors are reimposed.
|
Wester is a journalist from the Netherlands with a focus on the green economy. He joined EUobserver in September 2021. Previously he was editor-in-chief of Vice, Motherboard, a science-based website, and climate economy journalist for The Correspondent.
|
France, Germany and the UK are set to reimpose UN sanctions on Iran on Thursday after nuclear talks faltered.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-28T06:55:57.234Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar28f73993
|
The bare minimum response is not enough for Gaza
|
Gaza is starving. Gaza is dying. Bombed, maimed, displaced, traumatised and bereaved, people teeter on the brink of survival in a man-made hell. Weak from hunger and nursing unimaginable horrors of their own, humanitarian workers try desperately to stem the tide of human misery. People in Gaza need life-saving supplies and safety. But all they get are the echo of promises. At each new milestone, each new horror, we intone the same refrains. We’re still calling for the protection of humanitarian workers when at least 520 have been killed, including nearly 360 of our own UNRWA colleagues. Still calling for a ceasefire, humanitarian access including lifting the siege and the unconditional release of hostages and those arbitrarily detained. Still calling for the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure when nearly all schools and hospitals have been damaged or destroyed. Still advocating for representatives of the UN, international community and media to enter. Still entreating access for food supplies. But words do not feed hungry children. Action is a moral imperative, and international law must be respected. Gaza is no exception. Foreseeable and avoidable The consequences of inaction are devastating. Gaza City's descent into famine could have been prevented. The trickle of supplies that have entered are a drop in the ocean of massive humanitarian needs. Meanwhile thousands of tons of critical lifesaving aid languish outside Gaza. UNRWA alone has in its warehouses in Jordan and Egypt supplies to fill 6,000 trucks, but the Agency has been denied access to Gaza since 2 March 2025. They include food, food supplements for children, medicines, medical supplies, tents, blankets and hygiene kits. The few humanitarian agencies that are still allowed to bring in some supplies must navigate Israel’s system of control. Its effects are every bit as deadly as the relentless airstrikes. An array of multi-layered approvals is required at all stages – for operations, for items, for vehicles, for drivers. What may be allowed one day can be denied the next. What may be approved by one body, may be rejected by another. When and if trucks finally make it through, there’s looting and lawlessness, desperation and despair. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) has proved an abject failure, a deadly dehumanising demonstration of how not to provide aid. How can have we come to a point where people are killed in their droves while attempting to get food? Airdrops are at best an emergency stop-gap last resort, albeit dangerous, expensive unpredictable and inefficient. Deploying them to circumvent bureaucratic obstructions merely entrenches the blockade, while doing little to prevent aid from falling into the wrong hands. More than just food Humanitarian aid is much more than parcels of dried food. Conditions for life require a panoply of supplies and services that can’t simply be packaged into boxes. People need clean water, doctors to provide health consultations, nurses to administer vaccines, counsellors to deliver psychosocial support. Emergency shelters are run by teams, engineers repair water networks and maintain electricity generators. Real people collect the garbage and distribute shelter supplies. There must be no work arounds. Aid must be principled and reach people wherever they are at all times. What’s being tested in Gaza is the law of the strongest. The most vulnerable – the elderly, weak, those with disabilities – don’t stand a chance in the frantic and degrading scrums. In an ever-shrinking operational space for the UN and humanitarian NGOs, the relief community in Gaza continues to do its utmost to provide aid, despite ongoing escalation and further displacement. UNRWA forms the backbone of this aid effort. It’s estimated every person in Gaza has benefited from some form of the Agency’s assistance over the course of the war. And yet calls from Israel and the US for its closure prevail. Just as severe spinal injuries can result in paralysis, further erosion of UNRWA would immobilise Gaza’s humanitarian system just as undermining UNRWA’s work has clearly contributed to the descent into famine. What is happening in Gaza, what has been to happen, is beyond unthinkable. This man-made crisis cannot be resolved by humanitarians or additional trucks alone; it requires political will, moral courage - and genuine accountability to change course. It must not be optional for Europe’s partners and allies to uphold universal values, including human rights and respect for international law. Yet in the past months, there have not been any tangible improvements on the ground. The time for statements has long passed. The time for action is long overdue.
|
Marta Lorenzo is director of the UNRWA Representative Office for Europe.
|
Humanitarian aid is much more than parcels of dried food. Conditions for life require a panoply of supplies and services that can’t simply be packaged into boxes
|
[
"Opinion"
] |
opinion
|
2025-08-28T05:35:26.579Z
|
https://euobserver.com/opinion/ar401b23bd
|
Gaza-bound aid flotilla set to sail from Spain
|
Activists are launching a new flotilla in an effort provide Gaza with much needed aid and supplies. The announcement on Wednesday (27 August) by the Global Solidarity Flotilla says its aim is to break Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip by delivering food supplies by boat. Alexis Deswaef and vice-chair of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) said the boat will embark from Barcelona on 31 August. "This international action is the citizen response to the inaction of our governments in the face of this genocide," he said in a statement. Similar efforts over the summer by the Freedom Flotilla Coalition saw Gaza-bound boats in June and July. The June departure of the British-flagged Madleen involved climate activist Greta Thunberg, who was later arrested and deported by the Israelis. Thunberg accused Israel of illegally kidnapping her and other activists on the boat, while it was in international waters. The July departure was also intercepted by the Israelis in international waters. The latest effort follows a damning report by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), which stated that close to a quarter of Palestinians in Gaza are experiencing famine. It means more than 500,000 people starving, which is expected to rise to more than 640,000 within six weeks. Israel has since refuted the findings and is demanding the IPC retract its report amid claims it is Hamas-led propaganda. The IPC spans some 21 aid groups, UN agencies and organisations funded by the Canada, the European Union, Germany and the UK. It was initially set up in 2004 for use in Somalia. Aid agencies had also earlier this month accused Israel of weaponising aid as food distribution sites under the US and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) come under deadly fire. Some 859 Palestinians have been killed around GHF sites since it began operating, they said.
|
Nikolaj joined EUobserver in 2012 and covers home affairs. He is originally from Denmark, but spent much of his life in France and in Belgium. He was awarded the King Baudouin Foundation grant for investigative journalism in 2010.
|
Activists are launching a new flotilla in an effort provide Gaza with much needed aid and supplies.
|
[
"Migration"
] |
migration
|
2025-08-28T05:28:06.141Z
|
https://euobserver.com/migration/ar03b097b8
|
Listen: What’s happening with Macron’s government, confidence vote or collapse?
|
France is staring down at yet another political crisis. Prime Minister François Bayrou has announced a confidence vote for the 8th of September, a move that could very well bring down his government. Bayrou is pushing through an austerity plan worth 44 billion euros to cut France’s soaring deficit, currently at 5.8% of GDP, nearly double the EU’s target. His proposals include scrapping two public holidays and freezing spending. But, why the gamble and what can happen after September 8th? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: France is staring down at yet another political crisis. Prime Minister François Bayrou has announced a confidence vote for the 8th of September, a move that could very well bring down his government. But, why the gamble and what can happen after September 8th? So, the reason for the confidence vote is the fact that François Bayrou is pushing through an austerity plan worth 44 billion euros to cut France’s soaring deficit, currently at 5.8% of GDP, nearly double the EU’s target. His proposals include scrapping two public holidays and freezing spending. Unsurprisingly, that hasn’t gone down well with either the opposition or the French public. The reaction has been swift: from the far-left France Unbowed to Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally, opposition parties are lining up to vote him out. In parliament, they actually have the numbers to succeed and they are not only attacking Bayrou but also Macron himself. Some are even demanding the president’s resignation. So, if Bayrou loses, he and his cabinet will have to resign, leaving President Emmanuel Macron to appoint yet another prime minister, the third in just a year. Financial markets have already taken note. The French CAC 40 dropped around 2% this week, and French bond yields are climbing. At 114% of GDP, France’s debt is ringing alarm bells well beyond Paris. Now it’s true that political turmoil in France doesn’t stay in France. We’re talking about the EU’s second-largest economy, and one of the countries that should be setting the tone for stability in Europe. Instead, France is again on the brink of yet another government collapse. And this constant carousel of prime ministers makes serious reforms nearly impossible. France needs to meet EU deficit rules, calm markets, and keep public trust. But austerity measures, like cutting holidays and freezing spending, land hardest on citizens, the very people already squeezed by inflation and stagnant wages. And when voters are repeatedly told to “tighten their belts” while the political class changes faces every few months, resentment grows and it feeds into the hands of populists like Marie Le Pen, who is already positioning herself for the 2027 presidential race. So, what happens after 8 September? If Bayrou falls, Macron has a few options, but all of them are messy. He can try to appoint yet another centrist prime minister, which looks a lot like repeating the same mistake and hoping for different results. He could turn to the left or right to form some kind of coalition, but that would come with major concessions he doesn’t want to make. Or he could dissolve the parliament and call for fresh elections, which is exactly what landed France in this deadlock last year. In the meantime, trade unions are calling for a nationwide shutdown on the 10th of September, just two days after the awaited confidence vote. So, if you are in France expect mass protests against austerity and social unrest on top of the ongoing political paralysis. For Macron, the clock is ticking. His presidency runs until 2027, but he’s already struggling to govern with a hostile parliament, an emboldened far right, with markets and Brussels losing patience. France is not yet in full-blown crisis, but if this confidence vote goes the way most analysts expect, the collapse of the existing government, then the crisis may be very close. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
France is staring down at yet another political crisis. Prime Minister François Bayrou has announced a confidence vote for the 8th of September, a move that could very well bring down his government.
|
[
"EU Political"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-08-27T11:05:42.954Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ara2ccd1f9
|
Israel could face massive EU sanctions, despite veto
|
Israel could still face an avalanche of EU sanctions despite its veto-holding allies in the Council, former diplomats have said. "No substantive measures have been taken by the EU to pressure Israel to end its brutal war ... if the EU fails to take an effective stand, only member states individually or in ‘groups of like-minded countries’ will act," said 209 former EU and member state ambassadors and senior officials in an open letter on Tuesday (25 August). They listed the national-level actions as: halting arms exports, denying transit flights for Israel arms suppliers, stopping Israeli bank transactions and data storage for firms that help Israel’s war effort, blacklisting Israeli extremists, and banning trade with Israeli settlers. The signatories included 110 former ambassadors, 25 former director general, Alain Le Roy (former secretary general of the European External Action Service) and Carlo Trojan (former secretary general of the European Commission). EU sanctions on Israel have so far been vetoed by its principal allies in the Council - the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Germany. But if the other 24 EU countries, or even just the 18 who called for sanctions back in June, were to implement them at national level, Israel would still feel pressure, the letter said. Individual countries in the Schengen travel area (which includes 25 EU states, as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland) can ban visitors "Schengen-wide if a Schengen Information System alert is issued", they said. Individual Israelis could also be required to "sign a declaration that they have not engaged with acts of violence, or in support of same, in the occupied Palestinian territory", before being allowed to enter. Individual states could also prosecute"Israeli and Palestinian war criminals if they enter their territory," such as Israeli soldiers liked to specific cases of abuse. The Israeli prime minister is already wanted on war crimes charges by the International Criminal Court in 125 countries worldwide. The letter comes ahead of an informal EU foreign ministers' meeting in Denmark on Friday, which will discuss the war in Gaza. The last time ministers met, on 15 July, they agreed a deal with Israel to let in food. But in the past six weeks, the UN has declared "famine" and 200 people starved to death. Israel has continued indiscriminate killing, including of five more journalists this week, pushing the death toll near 63,000. It has also begun forcing Palestinians "into concentration areas in the south, in preparation for possible large-scale deportations to third countries with the risk of fomenting a migration crisis," the former EU ambassadors' letter said. The initiative marks a low point in Israel's popularity in the West. Norway's Norges Bank Investment Management also announced on Monday it was divesting from five Israeli banks (First International Bank of Israel, FIBI Holdings, Bank Leumi Le Israel, Mizrahi Tefahot Bank, and Bank Hapoalim), as well as US firm Caterpillar, which made bulldozers for destroying Palestinians' homes. Ireland is passing a bill on banning trade with settler entities. The Netherlands and Slovenia have blacklisted two Israeli extremist ministers, who called for ethnic cleansing of Gaza and West Bank. France is also preparing to follow Ireland, Spain, and Slovenia in recognising Palestinian sovereignty on 1967 borders. Even Germany has banned new arms sales to Israel and the last opinion survey in Germany in July by pollster Forsa saw 74 percent of Germans call for tougher action. Meanwhile, Israel's apologists have hit back with blanket accusations of antisemitism . Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called the UN report on famine in Gaza a "blood libel", for instance, referring to medieval beliefs that Jews ritually murdered Christian babies and drink their blood. And he has accused French president Emmanuel Macron of stoking Jew hatred by criticising his actions. But for his part, Macron hit back in an open letter, also on Tuesday. "I solemnly appeal to you to end the desperate race of a murderous and illegal permanent war in Gaza, causing indignity for your country and placing your people in a deadlock," Macron said. He called Netanyahu's rhetoric "unacceptable and … an offence to France". "The fight against antisemitism must not be weaponised," Macron said.
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
Israel could still face an avalanche of EU sanctions despite its veto-holding allies in the Council, former diplomats have said.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-27T08:12:40.492Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/areb348ade
|
US explored energy deals with Russia during Ukraine peace talks
|
US and Russian officials quietly discussed potential energy deals earlier this month, while holding talks aimed at ending the war in Ukraine Possible arrangements were presented as incentives for Moscow to consider peace terms and for Washington to ease sanctions, according to anonymous sources cited by Reuters on Tuesday evening (26 August). The talks touched on whether ExxonMobil could return to the Sakhalin-1 oil and gas project on an Island east of Russia, after having exited in 2022 when its €4bn stake was seized by the Kremlin. Officials also examined the prospect of Russia buying US equipment for liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects that remain under Western sanctions, including Arctic LNG 2. Other ideas floated included US purchases of Russian-built nuclear icebreakers, as well as future investment deals that could be announced as part of peace initiatives. Some of these options were raised during a White House meeting with president Donald Trump and at the Alaska summit held on 15 August. The discussions came as Trump threatened new sanctions on Moscow, which have not materialised, and further tariffs on India over its purchases of Russian oil, which took effect on Wednesday. Washington has in parallel been seeking ways to steer Russia away from Chinese suppliers by encouraging the use of US technology, particularly for Arctic LNG projects. The EU has consistently opposed any revival of Russian gas flows to Europe and set a 2027 deadline to phase out remaining imports. Earlier US proposals to channel Russian gas through Europe were blocked by Brussels. The latest round of discussions therefore focused largely on bilateral arrangements between Washington and Moscow, bypassing the EU. That same day, Putin signed a decree opening the door for foreign investors, including ExxonMobil, to reclaim shares in Sakhalin-1 if they back efforts to lift western sanctions. Since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Russia has been shut out of most foreign investment in its energy sector, with sanctions curbing exports of both oil and LNG. Efforts to reconnect with Western companies now seem tied to broader political bargaining over the war and its possible end. India tariffs take effect The energy discussions with Russia came negotiations with India, Russia's most important energy customer, failed. On Wednesday, Trump's decision to double tariffs on Indian goods to as much as 50 percent entered into force after five rounds of negotiations between the two governments failed. It hits sectors ranging from textiles and footwear to chemicals and jewellery. Indian officials say exporters will be given financial support and encouraged to diversify towards China, Latin America and the Middle East, but trade groups warn that more than half of India's merchandise exports to the US could be affected. The tariff escalation risks straining ties between Washington and New Delhi, however on Tuesday both governments issued identical statements expressing "eagerness to continue enhancing the breadth and depth of the bilateral relationship."
|
Wester is a journalist from the Netherlands with a focus on the green economy. He joined EUobserver in September 2021. Previously he was editor-in-chief of Vice, Motherboard, a science-based website, and climate economy journalist for The Correspondent.
|
US and Russia discussed energy deals during Ukraine peace talks, while Trump’s new tariffs on India over Russian oil triggered on Wednesday
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-27T06:01:42.862Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar7956ddba
|
The Brussels Bubble is a conveyor belt of potential, crushed into uniformity
|
Brussels is a city of ambition. Every year, thousands of young people arrive with big dreams and the hope of helping shape Europe. Job ads promise engagement, impact, and innovation. But what the majority of us fresh arrivals found instead was a grind of back-to-back meetings, endless forms, and reports no one will read. The excitement that drew us here is often nowhere to be found or buried under a mountain of admin and coordination. Even the lucky among us can’t help noticing it. Watching peers struggle with short-term contracts, dead-end internships, endless bureaucracy, and financial precarity, it’s impossible not to mourn what is quietly being lost: the energy, the ideas, the ambition that brought us here in the first place. The same ideas that helped build the space we hope to be in. There’s a kind of kinship in this exhaustion. Most of us came here not only with ambition, but also with passions: the musician, writer, painter who no longer have time to play and had to conform to the uniformity of the bubble. We are a generation of dreamers, slowly watching those dreams wither under the weight of survival. Recent data underlines the stakes. A Generation Europe survey of youth workers found that 30 percent report their jobs harm their wellbeing and one in five describe their mental health as “bad or very bad.” At the same time, a report in The Brussels Times noted that among Belgians in their twenties, long-term sick leave due to depression or burnout jumped by 21.6 percent in just one year. These figures paint a picture of a city where young professionals are exhausted by precarity, overwork, and the constant pressure to keep up. Politics needs creativity It’s not just about passion projects. Creativity matters for politics itself. The EU prides itself on innovation, yet its capital quietly starves imagination and creativity. Policy circles reward procedure over substance and visibility over value. Too often, communication happens in an echo chamber: we speak to each other, using the same jargon, the same acronyms and hearing the same ideas repeated. There is little space for new voices, not even mentioning that the bubble is overwhelmingly white and male. The danger isn’t just that young people abandon their passions, it’s that policymaking itself becomes unimaginative, reproducing the same stale ideas on autopilot framed as revolutionary. I’m aware I’m one of the lucky ones. Whilst my job gives me room to think and create, many of my peers do not have this space, and it’s their lost energy and ideas that make the Brussels bubble so quietly destructive, almost like a conveyor belt of potential crushed into uniformity. Some will say this is just how work is. That Gen Z or millennials (or zillenials) like me are spoiled, unwilling to do the hard work. But that misses the point. We already work hard, unbelievably hard, and often for too little. We juggle short-term contracts, freelance side hustles, and endless admin just to keep going. We are called lazy by the same people who shoot down every idea that doesn’t align with theirs, without even listening. Losing ideas Lazy? We can barely afford our groceries. Buying olive oil can deplete our weekly budget. Most of us share flats well into our thirties. Some of us calculate whether a train ticket or a flight home is worth the dent in our finances. How can we unwind when the world is expected of us, yet we’re not even given a fair share of it? And we’re not imagining this pressure: the European Economic and Social Committee recently found that nearly 45% of employed adults across the EU face risks to their mental wellbeing at work, with work overload and time pressure the leading culprits. The irony is sharp. Brussels markets itself as the home of visionary policy, yet it breeds a culture where vision is impossible. The EU says it wants to win the global race on innovation, but the very people tasked with thinking about that innovation are too drained, too precarious, too unheard to imagine alternatives. And this has consequences beyond individual wellbeing. Democracy depends on imagination: the ability to picture a future that looks different from the present. If the people closest to Europe’s decision-making are too exhausted, unheard, or dismissed to imagine anything else, Europe risks stagnating. This doesn’t mean every civil servant should publish a novel or every lobbyist should have a side-hustle as a painter. But it does mean the Brussels bubble needs to take seriously the way they structure work. A culture that squeezes out creativity doesn’t just lose art but it also loses ideas. And ideas are the one thing Brussels cannot afford to keep losing. When I talk with friends here, there’s a quiet mourning for the versions of ourselves we’ve had to leave behind. We came here with dreams of building Europe. But somewhere between the contracts, the admin, and the exhaustion, Europe may be killing our own dreams. Teresa Bandeira de Carvalho is a political communications professional based in Brussels. She writes cultural commentary, essays and personal reflections on her Substack, Definitely not Teresa . This op-ed was written in a personal capacity. Teresa Bandeira de Carvalho is a political communications professional based in Brussels. She writes cultural commentary, essays and personal reflections on her Substack,
|
Definitely not Teresa
|
Brussels markets itself as the home of visionary policy, yet it breeds a culture where vision is impossible. The EU says it wants to win the global race on innovation, but the very people tasked with thinking about that innovation are too drained, too precarious, too unheard to imagine alternatives.
|
[
"Opinion"
] |
opinion
|
2025-08-27T05:33:08.465Z
|
https://euobserver.com/opinion/ar36bba305
|
Listen: Why Israel’s Gaza hospital strike could constitute multiple war crimes
|
On Monday morning, Israeli forces launched not one, but two strikes on Nasser hospital in Khan Younis, southern Gaza. The first hit just after 10am. Then, around ten minutes later, as journalists and medics rushed to the scene, a second strike hit the same spot. At least twenty people were killed. Among them: five journalists and four health workers. The journalists were working for outlets including Reuters, the Associated Press, Al Jazeera, Middle East Eye and others. But, how is Israel justifying this latest attack, one that, on many fronts, may amount to a war crime? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: On Monday morning, Israeli forces launched not one, but two strikes on Nasser hospital in Khan Younis, southern Gaza. The first hit just after 10am. Then, around ten minutes later, as journalists and medics rushed to the scene, a second strike hit the same spot. But, how is Israel justifying this latest attack, one that, on many fronts, may amount to a war crime? Welcome to Long Story Short, Europod’s daily podcast that breaks down what matters most, in just five minutes. I’m Evi Kiorri, here to make Europe’s latest, long story… short. At least twenty people were killed. Among them: five journalists and four health workers. The journalists were working for outlets including Reuters, the Associated Press, Al Jazeera, Middle East Eye and others. One of them, Reuters cameraman Husam al-Masri, had been operating a live feed used by newsrooms around the world at the moment he was killed. Footage and eyewitness accounts confirm what is often referred to as a “double tap” strike, which means that the first blast causes casualties, and the second deliberately targets those who come to help. The World Health Organization has verified that the hospital’s emergency department, surgical ward and staircases were damaged. Its director described the situation as “horrific,” stressing that Gaza’s already crippled health system cannot withstand repeated attacks on hospitals. Israel called the incident a “tragic mishap” and said an investigation is under way. But this explanation sits uneasily alongside what we already know: more than 190 journalists have been killed during this war, nearly all of them Palestinians. The World Health Organization says Gaza’s healthcare system is being systematically crippled, and the UN has condemned repeated attacks on hospitals and medical workers. Now the International humanitarian law is crystal clear: hospitals are not targets. Journalists are not targets. Rescue workers are not targets. Yet in this case, all three were hit at once and with a double hit, which makes the Israeli allegations of a “tragic mishap” very difficult to believe. And in this case each violation on its own would raise accusations of a war crime. Taken together, they suggest something much darker, systematic targeting of the very people trying to save lives and bear witness. Because local journalists in Gaza are the only eyes and ears inside and play a crucial role documenting all that is happening on the ground. Israel does not allow international media into Gaza. Foreign outlets rely on these local reporters to provide footage, images, and testimony. Silencing them goes beyond violating the international humanitarian law, it means controlling the narrative and shutting down the outside world. Is there anything we can expect on this? So far, the reaction has been strong on words, weak on action as per usual. UN Secretary General António Guterres called the strike “horrific.” Britain’s foreign secretary David Lammy said he was “horrified” and demanded a ceasefire. France and Germany expressed shock. And the Committee to Protect Journalists said Israel’s deliberate targeting of reporters amounts to murder. But will there be accountability? Israel has promised an internal investigation, though critics point out that such inquiries rarely lead to justice. Media organisations are calling this a watershed moment but that depends on whether governments act on their outrage, or whether this too fades into the background of a war where civilian deaths have become routine headlines. At the same time, inside Israel, protests are growing. Families of hostages accuse Prime Minister Netanyahu of prolonging the war for political survival and pressure is mounting from both inside and outside the country. But for now, the war continues, and the death toll keeps rising. But that’s all for today on Long Story Short, a podcast by Europod in partnership with the Sphera Network. You can also find us on the EUobserver website, go check it out. Thanks for listening. I’m Evi Kiorri, and I’ll be back tomorrow at 12:30 with more insights in just five minutes. See you then! Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs
|
Evi Kiorri
|
On Monday morning, Israeli forces launched not one, but two strikes on Nasser hospital in Khan Younis. Among the casualties: five journalists and four health workers. How is Israel justifying this latest attack, one that, on many fronts, may amount to a war crime?
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-26T10:47:44.402Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/aref4e4da8
|
Trump threatens tariffs over EU digital rules
|
US president Donald Trump has threatened to slap tariffs on any country that imposes digital taxes or regulatory limits on US tech companies. In a post on his Truth Social platform late on Monday (25 August), Trump railed against “Digital Taxes, Legislation, Rules, or Regulations,” and warned he could impose more tariffs and tighten controls on US technology exports. “As the President of the United States, I will stand up to Countries that attack our incredible American Tech Companies. Digital Taxes, Digital Services Legislation, and Digital Markets Regulations are all designed to harm, or discriminate against, American Technology,” Trump wrote. He didn’t specifically mention European digital rules, but the EU has several regulations that affect US platforms, including the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA), which have inflamed US officials in the past. The DMA is designed to stop big online platforms such as Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon, and TikTok from abusing their market power, while the DSA sets strict rules for how platforms handle harmful content and disinformation for users above 45 million. In a diplomatic cable sent on 4 August, US secretary of state Marco Rubio ordered US diplomats to launch a lobbying campaign against the DSA. In May, he threatened visa bans for people who "censor" speech by Americans, including on social media. And on Monday, newswire Reuters reported that the US was considering visa restrictions on individual EU officials responsible for implementing the DSA, but this could not be independently verified by EUobserver. Last week, Brussels and Washington published a joint statement on their upcoming trade deal in which the EU Commission expressly said that it had made "very clear to the US that changes to our digital regulations were not on the table." But the EU has made significant concessions to US demands to close the deal. In several opinion pieces published over the weekend, EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen defended the agreement, saying it “prevented a trade war” that “would have been celebrated only in Moscow and Beijing.” Trump’s renewed attack on digital rules, even without mentioning the EU specifically, could bring more US pressure on EU officials to water down EU digital legislation to secure the trade deal.
|
Wester is a journalist from the Netherlands with a focus on the green economy. He joined EUobserver in September 2021. Previously he was editor-in-chief of Vice, Motherboard, a science-based website, and climate economy journalist for The Correspondent.
|
Trump has threatened new tariffs over “digital rules,” a move that could increase US pressure on Brussels to weaken EU tech legislation in trade negotiations
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-26T07:01:10.870Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arf11a6e21
|
Jewish leaders rally round controversial EU antisemitism official
|
Jewish groups from across Europe have voiced support for a controversial EU official dealing with antisemitism. "To attack her for defending Jewish dignity and security is, in effect, to challenge the European Union's own credibility in combating antisemitism," 76 Jewish groups wrote in a letter to the EU Commission on Monday (25 August). The official in question, Katherina von Schnurbein, had been "steadfast in addressing" the "tsunami of Israel-related antisemitism" seen in Europe since the Gaza war began in 2023, they said. Signatories included Jewish NGOs from most EU states, as well as Russia, Switzerland, and the Western Balkans. Von Schnurbein, who has been the EU's antisemitism coordinator for 10 years, caused controversy in July in a leaked diplomatic cable from Tel Aviv. She briefed EU ambassadors that UN reports of starvation in Gaza were " rumours about Jews " and that EU officials who baked cakes in Brussels to raise money for Gaza aid caused "ambient antisemitism". Some 26 liberal, left-leaning, and Green MEPs called for her to resign on grounds she had overstepped her mandate by meddling in EU foreign policy and unduly "smeared" Gaza-sympathetic EU staff. A further 29 Jewish and Israeli organisations backed the call for her resignation in August, on grounds von Schnurbein had weaponised antisemitism to shield Israel from its critics. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his spokesmen have also widely accused Israel's critics of Jew-hatred. And Israel depicts any show of empathy toward Palestinian civilians as being pro-Hamas, the antisemitic militant group that rules Gaza. Meanwhile, Israeli fire killed 20 people at the Nasser hospital in Gaza on Monday, including five local journalists who had worked for Reuters, the Associated Press, and Al Jazeera. Israel has killed over 63,000 people in Gaza and caused famine by blocking food aid. It has killed five civilians for every one Hamas fighter, according to a leaked Israeli Defence Forces database, seen by the Guardian, +972 Magazine, and Local Call. The rate of 83 percent civilian casualties made Israel one of the most prolific killers of civilians in modern history, alongside the Rwanda genocide in 1994 and the Bosnia war in the mid-1990s. But speaking to EUobserver in an interview, rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, who heads the Conference of European Rabbis, said social media trends were more to blame for the spike in antisemitic incidents than the Gaza war. "The amount of antisemitic content you have today on X is unbelievable," he said.
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
Jewish groups from across Europe have voiced support for a controversial EU official dealing with antisemitism.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-26T06:59:24.907Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/are7eac724
|
The Mediterranean: where the EU’s duty to rescue ends
|
On 2 August 2025, the Ocean Viking, a ship chartered by SOS Méditerranée, carried out a rescue mission off the Libyan coast. Thirty-seven people climb on board. All are from Sudan, fleeing a new surge of violence, with its population falling victim to a severe food crisis. The ship is assigned the harbour of Ravenna as a landing point, 1,600 km away from the rescue location. It’s a five-day trip, one way. Following the disembarkment, the Ocean Viking immediately turns back to the coasts of Libya and Tunisia to resume its watch in the search and rescue zones (SAR) of the two countries. These SAR zones exceed the territorial waters of the coastal States, and break up the Mediterranean into a mosaic of rescue areas assigned to the nations lining the basin. The zones are areas defined by maritime law as zones of legal responsibility for the coastal States, regarding patrolling, activation and coordination of rescue missions. Libya and Tunisia have proven especially deficient in this assignment, if not directly responsible for violent and illegal interventions against individuals attempting the crossing. Only just returned to its watch area, and in the middle of the night, the Ocean Viking manages the rescue of 7 people who are immediately taken to safety on board. In the following hours, the verdict of the Italian authorities comes in: without further delay, the ship must disembark the survivors in the harbour of Ortona, this time located 1,400 km away, just across from Rome on the far side of Italy. This repetitive scenario is the result of the Piantedosi decree, issued by Italy at the beginning of 2023. The law mandates that following each rescue operation, rescue vessels must immediately request a port assignment and disembark the rescued individuals immediately – even if further rescues could be done in the meantime. Before its enactment, the rescue ships of INGOs could carry out successive missions, taking on passengers within the limits of the boat’s capacity. The lack of reaction from the European Commission and Parliament to the announcement of this decree by member state Italy is disgraceful. The text has been the cause of continuous restrictions and a rejection of the duty to rescue, mandated by international safety conventions. During the eight to ten days needed for a round-trip to a location dictated by no technical, medical or safety-related argument, the rescue apparatus, already famously insufficient in its means, is stripped of one of its major actors among the rare ships habilitated to respond in heavy weather. Rescue teams are forced to make huge and unnecessary journeys. Would it also be acceptable to systematically impose on first responders in the Alps to deliver car wreck victims to hospitals in Paris? This strategy, shamelessly condoned by the EU, demonstrates with total impunity its goal of exhausting humanitarian actors in the Mediterranean. It leads to the burnout of the highly qualified staff alternating on board the Ocean Viking during six-week rotations, of which precious time is chipped off by the deliberate remoteness of the landing points. These professionals are committed to saving lives, not endlessly wandering at sea. They are first-responders. Sea rescuers and medical staff have no interest in the origin and motivations behind the journey of the shipwreck victims; they respond to the needs of people in mortal danger. Rescue operations are extremely tricky, with risk factors adding up: instability and poor condition of the boats used in the gamble of the crossing; number of occupants, often sailing without a safety-vest, and therefore any movement of panic on board having catastrophic effects; weather conditions and frequent blasts of wind the Mediterranean is infamous for; undernourishment and exhaustion of the survivors, as well as frequent burn injuries sustained under the combined effect of fuel spills, salt water and sunlight exposure. In these conditions, sea rescue cannot be improvised. Moreover, financial waste tightens the chokehold due to additional spending on fuel needed to cover the unnecessary distances. In 2024, this became an extra charge of €500,000 for SOS Méditerranée. Italian authorities create further obstacles in some harbours, blocking the usual supply chain to the ship and preventing its access to necessities such as fuel, water or food, adding to the already mentioned logistical blocks. Finally, Italian authorities ordered for the first time the immobilisation of one of the planes chartered (by the INGO SeaWatch) for the surveillance and scouting at sea of distressed ships , causing a wave of unanimous outrage from rescue INGOs. This all amounts to massive waste, which fatally translates into deaths and loss that could have been prevented. These methods must come to an end. The EU must negotiate with Italy the possibility of successive rescue missions guided by the reality of the situations faced at sea, in coordination with the harbour authorities, and with the financial support of the EU. On 24 August, the Ocean Viking came under sustained fire from a Libyan coastguard patrol boat. Several projectiles hit the vessel. Fortunately, none of the survivors on board or the crew were injured. But this unacceptable act reflects the European Union's complicity with Libya in allowing human rights violations against migrants and refugees transiting through the country. This armed violence directly targeting a rescue vessel is a further step in the strategy to weaken the aid and testimony of humanitarian organisations providing assistance to shipwrecked people. The potential consequences of this incident are major for the deployment of all humanitarian rescue NGOs in the Mediterranean. That's why it's vital that the EU takes concrete actions: 1) A full and independent investigation into this attack and accountability for those responsible. 2) An immediate end to all European collaboration with the Libyan coastguard's political representatives, who were behind the attack and whose incompetence is well known. 3) An end to the criminalisation of search and rescue operations at sea, which fosters a hostile climate towards rescue NGOs and makes it possible to commit criminal acts against survivors and humanitarian teams. What we witness today in the Mediterranean is a moral failure of the humanitarian principles the EU flaunts at international conventions, conveniently ignoring mention of the situation at its own borders. This seems to be where humanitarian concern evaporates. is the motto of rescuers. This fundamental notion could greatly benefit the EU if it were to take it to heart and practise it. Pierre Micheletti, physician, administrator of , member of the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights (CNCDH). Fred Kleinberg, painter. Sébastien Guisset, director.
|
Pierre Micheletti, physician, administrator of
|
Rescue ships in the Mediterranean are forced into needless detours by Italy’s Piantedosi decree, stripping the sea of lifelines while Brussels stays silent. When even the Ocean Viking comes under fire, Europe’s complicity is laid bare.
|
[
"Opinion"
] |
migration
|
2025-08-26T05:39:30.270Z
|
https://euobserver.com/migration/ard48ab1fa
|
Listen: Von der Leyen or Draghi: Europe’s power and future under question
|
Over the weekend, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stepped in to defend the EU- US tariff deal, after sharp criticism from Mario Draghi, economist, former ECB chief and former Italian prime minister who, just last year, was asked by von der Leyen to compile a report with ideas to ramp up the EU's economic growth. So, is the tariff deal a smart compromise, or proof of Europe’s weakening influence? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: So, a lot happened this summer! During our break we saw Trump and Putin meet. Then, European leaders travelled to Washington to meet with the US president, who proudly hailed the new trade deal between the EU and the US. But precisely on that the grass doesn’t look as green as painted. Over the weekend, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stepped in to defend that tariff deal, after sharp criticism from Mario Draghi, the former ECB chief and former Italian prime minister who, just last year, was asked by von der Leyen to compile a report with ideas to ramp up the EU's economic growth. So, is the tariff deal a smart compromise, or proof of Europe’s weakening influence? Welcome to Long Story Short, Europod’s daily podcast that breaks down what matters most, in just five minutes. I’m Evi Kiorri, here to make Europe’s latest, long story… short. Fast forward to this weekend and in an op-ed published across several European newspapers, VDL defended the EU-US tariff deal, calling it a “conscious decision” that helped avoid a trade war. According to von der Leyen, if the two biggest democratic economies had failed to reach an agreement, the only ones celebrating would have been Moscow and Beijing. Von der Leyen called the deal “good, if not perfect,” noting that tariffs are just taxes that raise costs and cut competitiveness. She also pointed to the EU’s wider trade push, with new deals sealed with Mexico, Mercosur, Switzerland, and the UK, talks concluded with Indonesia, and negotiations with India expected to finish this year. She also called for a strong and independent Europe, urging completion of the single market and improvements in competitiveness and sustainability. Mario Draghi, however, took a very different line at the Rimini Meeting in Italy. He warned that Europe’s belief in its economic size as a source of geopolitical power has “evaporated.” In his words, 2024 will be remembered as the year this illusion disappeared. He pointed to several examples: Europe had to accept tariffs from the United States, its largest trading partner. It was pressured by the same ally to increase military spending, something it may have needed to do anyway, but it happened in ways that don’t necessarily serve Europe’s interests. Draghi argued that despite being one of Ukraine’s main supporters, the EU has played only a marginal role in peace efforts and in Gaza, Europe was just “an observer”. He highlighted deep inefficiencies within the EU itself. According to the IMF, if internal barriers in the single market were reduced to US levels, EU labour productivity could be 7 percent higher after seven years. Yet those barriers persist, which leads to slower tenders, higher costs, and greater reliance on suppliers from outside the EU. Now, Von der Leyen and Draghi are offering two very different pictures of Europe’s place in the world. For von der Leyen, the tariff deal shows pragmatism: imperfect compromises that keep trade flowing and avoid conflict. For Draghi, it is proof that Europe is being sidelined by allies, undermined by rivals, and held back by its own internal barriers. And for us Europeans, these aren’t abstract arguments. They affect competitiveness, the price of goods, defence spending, and Europe’s ability to act as a global player rather than a spectator. So, looking ahead, the EU faces two tracks. On one side, von der Leyen’s focus: completing the single market, signing more trade agreements abroad, and calling for independence and competitiveness. On the other side, Draghi’s more radical vision: tearing down internal barriers, pooling resources through common debt, and building the industrial and technological capacity to keep pace with the United States and China. Both acknowledge that the EU’s old assumption, that economic size alone equals geopolitical power, no longer holds. The challenge now is whether Europe can adapt fast enough to a world where tariffs, security, and technology define global power. But that’s all for today on Long Story Short, a podcast by Europod in partnership with the Sphera Network. You can also find us on the EUobserver website, go check it out. Thanks for listening. I’m Evi Kiorri, and I’ll be back tomorrow at 12:30 with more insights in just five minutes. See you then! Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs
|
Evi Kiorri
|
Is the tariff deal a smart compromise, or proof of Europe’s weakening influence?
|
[
"EU Political"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-08-25T10:36:29.247Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/arf8b9994b
|
US attacks France over 'antisemitic' Palestine recognition
|
The US has joined Israel in accusing France of stoking antisemitism, as it prepares to recognise Palestinian statehood. The US ambassador to France, Charles Kushner, let rip against French president Emmanuel Macron in a letter in the Wall Street Journal newspaper on Sunday (24 August). "Public statements haranguing Israel and gestures toward recognition of a Palestinian state embolden extremists, fuel violence, and endanger Jewish life in France," he said. Kushner urged Macron to "abandon steps that give legitimacy to Hamas," the militant group that rules Gaza. And he painted a frightening picture of life for Jews in France and the wider EU. "Pro-Hamas extremists and radical activists have waged a campaign of intimidation and violence across Europe. In France, not a day passes without Jews assaulted in the street, synagogues or schools defaced, or Jewish-owned businesses vandalised," Kushner wrote. "Most French citizens believe another Holocaust could happen in Europe," he said. "In today's world, anti-Zionism is antisemitism – plain and simple," he added, equating protests against the Israeli state and Jew hatred . Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu wrote the same in a letter to Macron on 19 August, saying: "Your call for a Palestinian state pour fuels on this antisemitism fire". Antisemitic incidents tripled in France since the Gaza war began in 2023 to reach 1,570 in 2024, according to the Conseil Représentatif des Institutions Juives de France, a Jewish NGO. Incidents more than doubled in France and Germany, the Anti Defamation League, a US-based Jewish group, has also reported. But the French foreign ministry said Kushner's remarks were "unacceptable" and summoned him to hear a formal complaint at its HQ, the Quai d'Orsay, in Paris on Monday. It acknowledged the "reality" of the rise in antisemitism, but said: "French authorities [were] totally mobilised [against it], because these actions are intolerable". Macron's office also told Netanyahu last week: "Analysis suggesting that France's decision to recognise the state of Palestine in September is behind the rise in antisemitic violence in France is erroneous, abject". France is planning to recognise Palestine at the UN general assembly in New York on 9 September, along with Australia, Canada, and the UK, in reaction to Israel's killing of over 63,000 people in Gaza and its West Bank annexation threats. Palestine currently has "Permanent Observer State" status at the UN, so it can take part in meetings, and has been recognised by 147 out of 193 UN countries. It can't become a full member due to a US veto, but French and UK recognition would still be a landmark in the history of Palestine's struggle for independence. Famine 'blood libel' Meanwhile, the UN's Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IFSPC) confirmed in an authoritative report last Friday that there was now "famine" in Gaza City, despite an EU-Israel deal in August to let in food. "Starvation is present and is rapidly spreading", it warned. But Netanyahu dismissed the IFSPC findings as a "modern-day blood libel", while his forces pressed ahead with conquering Gaza City in the teeth of EU appeals. The Israeli leader is wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has said there were "plausible" grounds to call his Gaza actions "genocide". But the US and Israel have likewise denigrated the ICC and ICJ on antisemitism grounds. EU foreign ministers will meet informally in Copenhagen on Friday to discuss potential Israel sanctions, such as exclusion from EU science grants or free-trade perks. In a sign of high tension in Europe, Dutch foreign minister Caspar Veldkamp resigned on Saturday in protest at government inaction on Gaza. But unless Germany or Italy split from their old Israeli ally, there will be no majority in the EU Council for business as usual to pause.
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
The US has joined Israel in accusing France of stoking antisemitism, as it prepares to recognise Palestinian statehood.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-25T07:04:25.548Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar224b0dd4
|
Moscow says no to US and EU plan for boots on ground in Ukraine
|
Russia has said no to US and EU plans for peacekeepers in Ukraine, while ramping up air strikes and anti-Western rhetoric. "I very much hope that those who are developing such plans [for a peacekeeping force] are just grandstanding, but I hope they understand that this would be absolutely unacceptable for Russia," foreign minister Sergei Lavrov told a press conference in Moscow on Thursday (21 August). He also said European ideas on Ukraine security guarantees "follow the logic of isolating Russia, uniting the Western world with Ukraine ... to inflict a strategic defeat on us". "This cannot but evoke a feeling of full and categorical rejection," he said. The US and Europe's 'coalition of the willing' — Finland, France, Germany, Italy, and the UK — were holding talks in Washington this week at the level of chiefs of defence on the peacekeeping plan. The US is reportedly offering air power, air defence systems, command and control systems, and military intelligence capabilities, such as spy satellites, while the Europeans are ready to put boots on the ground. And the number of Western soldiers would need to be at least 10,000, said the head of Germany's armed forces trade union, colonel André Wüstner. "It won't be enough to have a handful of generals and smaller military units man a command post in Ukraine … it must be made clear to Putin — and backed by international forces — that we are totally serious," he told Reuters on Thursday. The Washington military talks come after US president Donald Trump held back-to-back summits with Russian president Vladimir Putin and with EU and Ukrainian leaders in the past seven days. The idea was for Putin to next meet Ukrainian president Volodomyr Zelenskyy , before a trilateral summit with Trump, and a quadrilateral one with European leaders to seal a ceasefire accord. But Russian officials briefed Reuters on Thursday that Putin was sticking to unpalatable terms. Putin wanted Ukraine to cede all of its Donetsk and Luhansk regions, including the 12 percent of them not yet occupied by Russia, in return for freezing the contact line in the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, the Russians said. He also wanted legal guarantees Ukraine would stay out of Nato, remain neutral, and never host any Western forces, they said. And he wanted Western sanctions relief. Budapest, Geneva, and Vienna have been discussed as possible venues for a Putin-Zelenskyy meeting. But for his part, Lavrov indicated that Putin saw it as beneath himself to sit down with his Ukrainian counterpart. He spoke of Kyiv's "neo-Nazi, Russophobic, and aggressive regime". And Lavrov said "the question of the legitimacy of the person [Zelenskyy] signing them [any peace accords] on behalf of Ukraine" was yet to be "resolved", since Putin continued to claim that Zelenskyy had no democratic mandate. US factory in Ukraine hit Lavrov spoke the same day Russia struck Ukraine with 574 drones and 40 missiles, killing one person in Lviv, near the Polish border. Air strikes also hit a US-owned home appliances factory, in what Zelenskyy said was aimed at demotivating Trump's intervention. "The Russians knew exactly where they lobbed the missiles. We believe this was a deliberate attack against American property and investments in Ukraine," he said. "Current signals from Russia are, to be honest, indecent. They're trying to avoid the necessity to meet. They don't want to end this war," he also said. The EU foreign service chief, Kaja Kallas , told BBC radio on Friday morning: "Putin is just laughing, not stopping the killing but increasing the killing". Putin's offer to give a ceasefire in return for conquered land in Ukraine was a "trap", she said. "We are forgetting that Russia has not made one single concession," Kallas added.
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
Russia has said no to US and EU plans for peacekeepers in Ukraine, while ramping up air strikes and anti-Western rhetoric.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-22T07:26:46.663Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arc1b31ebf
|
The far-right tells a story people buy — so why don't progressives?
|
We are all tired of hearing the same tune: “the far-right is winning.” Yet, it keeps happening. Far-right parties are topping polls across Europe’s biggest democracies while already sitting in cabinets and even leading governments in several EU countries and beyond. And while their electoral gains are worrying enough, it’s their ideas that are spreading even faster by shaping trends on Instagram and TikTok , echoing through the misogynist corners of the podcast manosphere, and being supercharged by emotionally-driven algorithms. It is a cultural wave shaped by a dangerous but simple story that resonates with those who feel left behind, offering a sense of order in the chaos, identity in the absence of belonging, and someone to blame when answers run out. In the vacuum left by worn-out centrists and a fragmented left, that kind of simplicity is easy to understand and it becomes the only thing that feels concrete. However, while that narrative pulls people in, progressive voices often struggle to speak with the same confidence or coherence. Without a grounded vision, progressive politics risks becoming the politics of resistance alone — resisting Donald Trump, resisting Marine Le Pen, resisting Viktor Orbán, resisting Georgia Meloni — failing to build a parallel project that speaks to people’s needs, especially to working-class voters who don’t see these actors as existential threats but as responses to their own frustrations. The instinct to sound the alarm is morally correct, and an essential part of the political debate, yet, when it becomes the default and only strategy, it rarely builds momentum or trust and only reinforces the sense that most politicians are defending a status quo that can’t deliver anymore. Yelling 'fascist' doesn't work You don’t defeat this threat by just yelling “fascist!” and calling it a strategy. You defeat it by understanding how it works, why it thrives, and what makes people believe in it. Authoritarians didn’t rise out of nowhere, they grew out of real economic insecurity and inequality, institutional decay and social fragmentation, all brewed by the failures of liberal catch-all parties. When pro-democracy forces focus only on the symptoms (the strongman, the xenophobia) and ignore these root causes, they have already lost the plot. Failing to grasp these dynamics also leads to a distorted sense of electability and a retreat into whatever feels familiar. This is why, even as the far-right gains ground with bold and simple stories, much of the political establishment still treats moderation as the only path to victory. Too often, liberal elites and cautious centrists confuse electoral management with real leadership. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez and Mamdani I was reminded of this recently at a Democracy Drinks event in Brussels, where I asked Anthony L. Gardner, former US ambassador to the EU, for his take on the momentum behind Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who continue to draw huge crowds with their during Trump’s second term. He dismissed it, saying the Democrats’ best shot was still a moderate candidate, a white, cisgender man. That moment revealed how deeply the logic of caution still runs, the belief that the safest path forward is the one voters have already walked, even if it leads nowhere, and that clinging to the past is not just naive but an admission that you have nothing new to offer. Don’t get me wrong, most people aren’t asking for a revolution. They’re asking for stability, and that won’t come from caution when the foundations are already crumbling. People want to know their rent will be paid, their job won’t disappear, their children won’t grow up worse off than they did. A survey of 33,000 people across 28 countries found severe levels of distrust in government and business, with a majority seeing them as serving the narrow interests of the wealthy while ordinary people struggle. What they’re desperate for is political clarity rooted in material reality, and a radical politics willing to confront the inequality built into the system. New York City mayor candidate, Zohran Mamdani, for example, understands this well. He built a campaign around rent-freeze policies, fare-free public transit, basic goods access and the rising cost of living as part of a coherent political narrative grounded in everyday struggles. The delivery matched the message: sharp language, a clear visual identity, and a digital strategy that met people where they are. German Left MP, Heidi Reichinnek, channels a similar clarity. She is unafraid to challenge economic orthodoxy, confronts far-right narratives head-on, and speaks directly to class struggle with language that refuses to apologise for being systemic in its ambition. And, yes, design, branding, and a sense of how to ride a TikTok trend all matter — and if you’re not already applying these tools, you need to rethink your communication team’s role or take a step back and study Political Campaigns 101 — but these tools only resonate when they serve the policy and are grounded in something real. This is the kind of narrative and politics that doesn’t just manage decline but aims to transform the conditions that feed the far right’s rise. And that’s the real lesson: there is no going back to how things were. The current social contract and the old consensus are broken, clinging to it is not strategy, it’s surrender. Progressives should not be here to restore what failed, but to replace it. This does not mean mirroring the far-right’s populism, it means reclaiming the tools they’ve used so effectively — clarity, boldness, narrative power — but without the hate, the lies, or the authoritarian fantasies. A politics that speaks to people’s fears without exploiting them, that nurtures hopes without inflating them, and that transforms rhetoric into a vehicle for trust and mobilisation rather than manipulation. To defeat a politics of fear, we need a politics of meaning. Emanuel Ferreira is a political communications strategist based in Brussels and the communication and campaigns manager at the European Movement International . He writes here in a personal capacity. Emanuel Ferreira is a political communications strategist based in Brussels and the communication and campaigns manager at the European Movement International
|
. He writes here in a personal capacity.
|
Even as the far-right gains ground with bold and simple stories, much of the political establishment still treats moderation as the only path to victory. Too often, liberal elites and cautious centrists confuse electoral management with real leadership.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-08-22T06:35:02.748Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/areeb10983
|
Freelance journalists in Europe: the costs of independence
|
Sara* is 43-years old and works as a freelancer in Italy. Like many of her colleagues, she regularly participates in European funding opportunities for journalism, such as JournalismFund Europe or Investigative Journalism for EU . For freelancers in Italy, getting properly paid for investigative work — leaving aside all the legal risks — is virtually impossible. "The real problem is that in order to be able to sell an article, you often have to neglect important topics and uncomfortable investigations because Italian newspapers don’t want them or are afraid of them, and you have to make pitches sexy for the daily news cycle... It’s this, above all, that impacts so much of our lives as freelancers as well as the Italian media landscape,” Sara said. According to Eurostat data , in 2023, 868,700 people were employed in Europe as authors, journalists and linguists (all are included in the same statistical category): Germany leads with 237,600 people, followed by France with 92,800, then Spain (74,200), Italy (72,300) and Poland (69,600). Italy, France and Spain provide an interesting starting point for a comparative reflection on the issues. There are also three countries for which the journalists involved in the Pulse project were able to collect testimonies and data. In France, according to data from the Commission de la Carte d’Identité des Journalistes Professionnels (CCIJP, which issues press credentials each year), there were 34,444 professional journalists in 2023. The number corresponds to the number of press credentials issued and/or renewed. In Italy, according to National Order of Journalists data , as of January 2024 there were 94,086 journalists registered with the organisation (of whom 26,086 are so-called “professionals”, i.e. those who exercise their profession continuously, and 68,000 are “publicists”, i.e. those who exercise their profession non-continuously). 'Let’s be clear: there are just under 100,000 members of the Order of Journalists, but there aren’t 100,000 jobs for journalists in Italy' In Spain, on the other hand, there is no such official list. According to Eurostat data (which includes other professions), the sector employed 74,200 people in 2023, in a country with about 49 million inhabitants. France has about 68 million inhabitants, Italy about 58 million. Italy has three times more journalists than France. “Let’s be clear: there are just under 100,000 members of the Order of Journalists, but there aren’t 100,000 jobs for journalists in Italy,” says Alessandra Costante of the National Federation of the Italian Press (FNSI, the country’s largest journalist union, with 16,000 members in 2023). Given supply and demand, Costante said that “this dynamic is impoverishing the sector”. In Italy and Spain, €50 for an article Not only is journalism in Italy getting poorer and older, but it is also more precarious. Precarity is the biggest muzzle on the freedom and independence of the media and on Article 21 of the constitution,” says Alessandra Costante. Journalism in Italy is suffering. It is suffering from stress, it is suffering from precarity, and — as a consequence — it is suffering from a lack of quality. The most comprehensive survey to date on the subject, with 558 participants, was published in IRPIMedia in 2023 by Alice Facchini . “The factors that are identified as having the greatest impact on psychological wellbeing are first and foremost instability and precarity, followed by inadequate pay, always being connected and on call, and a frenetic pace,” Facchini says. In Italy, six out of ten journalists earn less than €35,000 a year, writes La Via Libera. “Almost half of freelance journalists — who are often precarious collaborators or on VAT numbers — earn less than €5,000 a year, and 80 percent earn no more than €20,000”. Alessandra Costante explains that the order once set minimum fees for self-employed professionals, but these were removed in 2007 after a request from the Competition and Market Authority. In 2014, a new agreement between FNSI and FIEG (Italian Federation of Newspaper Publishers) introduced minimum guarantees for freelance journalists, including pay, protections, and rights for those with ongoing collaboration contracts. In fact, the pay rates in Italy are those decided by each media outlet. In Spain, the situation seems no better than in Italy, and the rates for freelancers appear to be similar. Some national newspapers pay between €35 and €40 per article, as this discussion on X indicates. Esperanza* is 36 and has been working as a journalist for 11 years. “I haven’t found a Spanish media outlet that pays more than €100 per piece of reportage” she says, “no matter how much time you spend on it. Most pay between €50 and €70. For example, in 2016 I followed the refugee route in the Balkans , and a big media outlet paid me €70 for the report”. According to figures from the Spanish Labour Statistics Office, the average salary of a journalist in Spain is €22,000 per year. An additional problem is that many journalists fall into the category of “ ”, i.e. freelancers with VAT numbers who are used to fill positions that would otherwise be permanent. This allows many newspapers to hire without hiring. According to the Public Employment Service (SEPE), between September 2022 and 2023, there was a six to 14 percent increase in false freelancers compared to 2022. In , a specialised newspaper, Cristina Puerta wrote in 2022 that in Spain there are more than 73,500 people registered as freelancers. Puerta cites a Madrid Press Association (APM) report, according to which 69 percent of self-employed journalists adopt this status out of necessity, not choice. “Job insecurity is the major characteristic of media workers in Spain. Since the economic crisis of 2008, journalists, camera operators, photographers and technical staff working for news services have lost between 25 percent and 30 percent of their purchasing power," said Ana Martínez of the Spanish trade union CCOO. "Salaries have not increased at the same rate as inflation”. France, a case apart? In France, the , which analyses developments in the profession, publishes a report on the income of journalists based on data from the CCIJP, the body that issues press credentials. The data only includes cardholders. In 2023, about 70 percent of journalists in France worked on a permanent contract with a gross median salary of €3,650; 23 percent worked as freelancers ( ) earning €1,951 gross, and 2.2 percent worked on a fixed-term contract for €2,958 gross. Remuneration for French freelancers is regulated at €60 per page (i.e. 1,500 characters). But each media outlet then applies its own rates independently. France's regulated “pige” system provides some structure, but rates are still modest. A European situation? A survey published by the World Association of News Publishers in April 2025 shows that 60 percent of the journalists interviewed have experienced burnout, while 62 percent are forced to supplement their income with other types of work to make ends meet. The survey is based on about 400 interviews across 33 EU countries and in 13 languages, conducted by Taktak Media / DisplayEurope . “If the news industry continues its transition to a freelance-dominated model, we will need to invest much more in protecting these workers,” comments Jeff Israely, director of Taktak. “The rise of freelance journalism in Europe is a structural shift in the media industry, as shrinking newsroom budgets have forced outlets to rely more on independent journalists”. Francesca Barca is a journalist, editor and translator at
|
Voxeurop
|
Journalism is facing a structural crisis with far-reaching effects on those working in the industry. In this climate, how are freelance reporters faring in France, Italy, and Spain? The short answer: not well.
|
[
"Health & Society"
] |
health-and-society
|
2025-08-22T05:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/health-and-society/ar683644e4
|
Israel to build strategic West Bank colony despite EU appeal
|
Israel has defied EU appeals by approving a major new colony in the West Bank and attacking Gaza City. The "E1" settlement, of some 3,400 new homes, was formally approved by the defence ministry on Wednesday (20 August). It is to be built in a strategic area designed to block Palestinian statehood by cutting the West Bank in two and separating it from East Jerusalem. "With E1, we are delivering finally on what has been promised for years. The Palestinian state is being erased from the table, not with slogans but with action," Israeli finance minister Bezalel Smotrich said on Wednesday. "Every housing unit is another nail in the coffin of this dangerous idea," he added, while repeating calls for annexation of the West Bank. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: "We will do everything to ... prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state". The E1 decision coincided with the start of Israel's assault on Gaza City. The EU had previously appealed to Netanyahu against both moves, but has not yet spoken out on Wednesday's developments. A German government spokesman said on Wednesday E1 was illegal and "hinders a negotiated two-state solution". French president Emmanuel Macron said: "The military offensive in Gaza that Israel is preparing can only lead to disaster for both peoples and risks plunging the entire region into a cycle of permanent war". Meanwhile, Israel has also reneged on an EU deal to let in food to Gaza, with starvation now adding to the daily death toll. But Europe as a bloc has been unable to agree any sanctions due to vetoes by staunch Israeli allies, such as the Czech Republic, Germany, and Hungary. And this has left individual countries or NGOs to take action instead. France has led the way by preparing to recognise Palestinian statehood at the UN in September, prompting Netanyahu to write an open letter this week accusing Macron of stoking antisemitism. But Marcon fired back on Tuesday, saying Netanyahu's comments were "erroneous, abject, and will not go unanswered. The Italian Soccer Coaches' Association on Wednesday also called for Israel to be expelled from the World Cup, ahead of Israel-Italy qualifiers in the next two months.
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
Israel has defied EU appeals by approving a major new colony in the West Bank and attacking Gaza City.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-21T06:27:04.916Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arc1b4eeda
|
How AI is already hurting European consumers in retail finance
|
In recent months, AI has dominated headlines, with Donald Trump’s AI plan , the phased rollout of the EU’s AI Act , and a fresh wave of corporate lobbying to stall new rules . Competitiveness, growth, red tape, risk, innovation, productivity. Buzzwords swirled around Brussels in a bid to define the future of AI regulation. When August arrived, the political noise faded into the summer recess, but AI is continuing to shape real-world decisions, and the consequences are already here. AI isn't just about potential growth, innovation or future risk. In retail finance, AI risks have become a reality. The sector is among the most active adopters of AI in the EU, these systems are already deciding who gets a loan, how much people pay for insurance, and whether they have access to a bank account. And while the AI Act will close some gaps in the rules, many will remain, leaving everyday banking, insurance and investment decisions in the hands of opaque models with too little oversight. Account closures Across Europe, consumers are being cut off from basic banking, not because of fraud or wrongdoing, but because algorithms flag them as risky. Many of these closures are triggered by semi-automated anti-money laundering tools that rely on incomplete or inaccurate data . Once flagged, customers often face account freezes with no explanation and no clear way to appeal. These closures are not trivial. Customers report being abruptly cut off, unable to receive salaries, pay rent, or access public services. Credit scoring Credit scoring tells a similar story. AI systems often assess creditworthiness using large volumes of personal and behavioural data, from spending habits to digital activity, but the logic behind these assessments is opaque , and the outcomes can be deeply unfair. A borrower might be denied a loan not because they can’t repay it, but because the AI blackbox flags their digital footprint as “risky.” And these systems are prone to produce false positives that hit vulnerable consumers hardest, such as migrants and people with low incomes. AI-driven profiling practices also shape decisions in insurance, where 50 percent of non-life insurers in the EU already use AI . The current rulebook is inadequate. Layered sectoral laws predate the widespread use of AI and fail to capture the harm caused by opaque decision-making. The EU’s flagship AI Act is meant to do what sectoral laws cannot — apply rules tailored to the specific risks and challenges posed by AI. It rightly classifies financial service use cases like credit scoring and life insurance pricing as “high-risk”, triggering requirements for risk management, transparency, human oversight and data governance. But even here, critical gaps remain. Bank account access, home and motor insurance, and retail investment advice fall outside the high-risk list, despite their role in everyday life. As AI adoption accelerates across the financial sector, more consumers will be exposed to opaque systems that make consequential decisions without explanation or recourse. And in its current form, the AI Act leaves this reality unaddressed. The risks of AI are not speculative. It’s not a question of whether AI causes harm, it already does. The real question is whether the promise of 'competitiveness' will serve as justification for an incomplete rulebook, or whether the EU will designate financial services uses as high-risk under the AI Act and plug the gaps. Consumers are already falling through. Peter Norwood is senior research and advocacy officer at Finance Watch , where he leads work on retail finance, consumer protection and financial inclusion. He previously worked at the UK Financial Conduct Authority and the European Commission. Max Kretschmer is press officer at Finance Watch . Peter Norwood is senior research and advocacy officer at Finance Watch , where he leads work on retail finance, consumer protection and financial inclusion. He previously worked at the UK Financial Conduct Authority and the European Commission. Max Kretschmer is press officer at
|
Finance Watch
|
In retail finance, AI risks have become a reality. The sector is among the most active adopters of AI in the EU, these systems are already deciding who gets a loan, how much people pay for insurance, and whether they have access to a bank account.
|
[
"Digital",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
digital
|
2025-08-21T06:13:38.945Z
|
https://euobserver.com/digital/ar630bb3bc
|
Demographic shifts are unsettling Europe's labour politics
|
The winds of change sweeping across Europe's labour markets carry both promise and peril reshaping the foundations of work, welfare, and social cohesion in ways not seen for generations. Ageing populations, rapid automation, and the divisive politics of migration are colliding with such intensity that they threaten to upend not only economies but also the political consensus that has held postwar Europe together. The continent stands at a pivotal moment. Significant decisions to be taken in the coming years will shape whether it will emerge more unified and resilient or more fractured and unstable. Demographic decline has shifted from a distant concern to an immediate crisis. Fertility rates across the continent remain well below replacement levels, while medical advances continue to extend life expectancy. In southern and eastern Europe, this trend is compounded by the outward migration of young, educated workers in search of better opportunities elsewhere. The result is a shrinking working-age population expected to support a swelling cohort of retirees placing immense pressure on already stretched healthcare systems and pension funds. Governments have responded by raising retirement ages and reforming pension schemes, often sparking fierce opposition. Mass protests in France and unrest in Italy over such reforms reveal not only financial concerns but a deeper unease about fairness, dignity, and the future of the social contract. These burning issues are not merely about numbers but about the values underpinning the European social model. Meanwhile, technological change continues to reshape the labour landscape. Artificial intelligence, robotics, and digital platforms are displacing traditional jobs, many of which formed the backbone of Europe's middle class. Although new jobs are being created in high-tech and knowledge sectors, they often demand skills and education that many displaced workers lack, which has indeed left a growing share of the workforce trapped in precarious, low-wage employment with little opportunity for upward mobility. Adding to these challenges is the growing divide between innovation-driven urban centres and rural or post-industrial regions facing economic stagnation. Deindustrialisation and rightwing populism These geographic inequalities amplify political resentment and erode trust in both national governments and European institutions. Economic shifts have bred resentment, especially in regions hit hardest by deindustrialisation, which has hastened the rise of populist parties that vow to defend national industries, oppose globalisation, and restore local control. Their appeal is not purely emotional but stems from real fears among workers who feel abandoned by economic policy and neglected by political elites. Migration adds another layer of complexity to the labour market. Young, skilled migrants offer a solution to labour shortages and ageing populations. Countries such as Germany and the Netherlands have embraced targeted migration to support sectors like healthcare, agriculture, construction, and information technology. These strategies are essential to sustain basic services and economic productivity. However, political narratives often contradict economic realities. In Hungary and Poland, governments maintain nationalist, anti-immigration positions while offering cash incentives to encourage higher birth rates, efforts that have shown limited effectiveness. As a matter of fact, migrants are critical to the economy but remain politically excluded, often denied rights and protections. In fact, they are accepted as workers but excluded from the national story, indispensable in practice, yet invisible in discourse. The European Union’s ideal of unity through free movement falters in the face of national self-interest, wage anxiety, and cultural resistance This contradiction reveals a deeper dilemma: while economies depend on migrant labour and cross-border mobility, political rhetoric increasingly rejects it. Seasonal workers from eastern Europe harvest food, care for the elderly, and support hospitals, yet many work under exploitative conditions without legal protection or social integration. The European Union’s ideal of unity through free movement falters in the face of national self-interest, wage anxiety, and cultural resistance. Europe's collective response has been fragmented. Labour policy remains largely a national responsibility resulting in a patchwork of strategies. Some governments promote open labour markets and flexible migration systems, while others pursue restrictive policies driven by nostalgia and fear. The EU, caught between its ambitions for unity and the limits of national sovereignty, has struggled to offer clear leadership. And yet, amid the strain lies an uncommon opportunity: an ageing Europe need not be a declining one if leaders are willing to act decisively, for, the solutions are well known: large-scale training programmes to prepare workers for the digital economy, inclusive migration policies that balance economic need with social cohesion, pension reforms that share the burden across generations, and labour models that combine flexibility with dignity and protection. What has been lacking is not knowledge, but the courage to move beyond short-term political gains. Rebuilding trust will require leaders to reaffirm a sense of shared destiny- across generations, between newcomers and natives, and between manual workers and digital innovators. Without bold and visionary leadership, Europe risks paying a high price: economic stagnation, growing social divisions, and the gradual unravelling of the EU from within. The choices ahead are difficult, but the cost of delay will be far greater. Binu Daniel is professor of finance at Berlin's CBS University of Applied Science . Binu Daniel is professor of finance at Berlin's
|
CBS University of Applied Science
|
Although new jobs are being created in high-tech and knowledge sectors, they often demand skills and education that many displaced workers lack, which has indeed left a growing share of the workforce trapped in precarious, low-wage employment with little opportunity for upward mobility.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-08-20T06:27:50.675Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ardb48c2d7
|
Trump and EU leaders envisage more Putin summits
|
US and EU leaders have discussed future summits with Russian president Vladimir Putin and Ukraine security guarantees, amid a show of close Western ties. US president Donald Trump said on Monday (18 August) in Washington he would set up a bilateral summit between Ukrainian president Volodomyr Zelenskyy and Putin as a next step, followed by a trilateral one with all of them together. French president Emmanuel Macron said EU leaders should also meet Putin, as European states would be providing peacekeeping forces if there was a deal to stop Russia's invasion. "As a follow up, we would need a quadrilateral meeting [US-Ukraine-Russia-EU], because when we speak about security guarantees, we speak about the security of the whole European continent," Macron said. German chancellor Friedrich Merz said the diplomatic sequencing could start with a Putin-Zelenskyy meeting in the next two weeks. "We do not know whether the Russian president has the courage to come to such a summit or not. That is why we must work to persuade him," Merz said. They spoke to press amid six hours of talks on Monday in the White House involving the US, British, French, German, Finnish, and Italian leaders, as well as the heads of the EU Commission and Nato. Trump even declined to rule out US boots on the ground in Ukraine as a future security guarantee when asked by a reporter. Europe would provide the "first line of defence" Trump said, but added "we'll be involved". "During the meeting we discussed security guarantees for Ukraine, which guarantees would be provided by the various European countries, with a coordination with the United States of America," he also said on social media. Zelenskyy said: "Security guarantees will probably be 'unpacked' by our partners ... all of this will somehow be formalised on paper within the next week to 10 days". The European forces were to come from a 'coalition of the willing', which included Britain, France, and Sweden, but Merz said: "It is absolutely clear that the whole of Europe should participate [in some way]". Nato secretary general Mark Rutte also told the Fox broadcaster: "What we are discussing here is not Nato membership. What we are discussing here is Article V-type security guarantees for Ukraine". Article V is the Nato treaty's mutual defence clause. All 27 EU leaders will also discuss Monday's talks with Trump at a snap online summit on Tuesday called by EU Council chairman António Costa. Trump had earlier dismayed the EU by dropping his sanctions ultimatum for a Russia ceasefire when he met with Putin in Alaska last week. "I wish they could stop, I'd like them to stop [fighting], but strategically that could be a disadvantage for one side or the other," Trump said on Monday, as he envisaged the various summits to go ahead while Russian aggression continued on the ground. He shook Putin's hand last week, breaking Russia's Western isolation. But Trump love-bombed the EU and Ukrainian leaders even more in Washington on Monday. Trump and US vice president JD Vance had infamously berated Zelenskyy at an Oval Office meeting in February for wearing combat fatigues instead of a suit. Zelenskyy wore a black suit this time, prompting Trump to say: "You’re all dressed up ... I love it". Trump said of Macron: "I liked him from Day One and that's unusual". He said to Merz "where did you get that tan? I want to get that tan" and he told Finnish president Alexander Stubb: "You look better than I have ever seen you look".
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
US and EU leaders have discussed future summits with Putin and Ukraine security guarantees, amid a show of close Western ties.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-19T07:12:49.987Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar7429da8d
|
European Jews join call for EU 'antisemitism tsar' to go
|
The demand for the replacement of the EU coordinator on combating antisemitism after her pro-Israel claims in an official diplomatic meeting is now coming from Jewish and Israeli organisations as well. Last week, 29 Jewish and Israeli organisations from across Europe sent an open letter to EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, calling for the immediate replacement of Katharina von Schnurbein. In the joint open letter these Jewish and Israeli organisations from different EU member states stated that they do not support the "extreme-right government of Israel" and are "committed to human rights and democratic principles, anti-racism and respect for international law". These organisations also wrote that they reject the idea that the fight against antisemitism means "shielding Israel from any form of pressure or criticism" and an "automatic and total advancement of the positions of the current Israeli government." But for a few other Jewish organisations in Europe who stood up to save von Schnurbein’s mandate , the fight against antisemitism today is exactly this: shielding Israel from any criticism and demands for accountability for its crimes. The European Jewish Community Center (EJCC) rejected the accusation of a pro-Israel bias of the coordinator, stating that "if defending children who are targeted for being Jewish constitutes a bias, then we must all share in that bias". But MEPs called for the resignation of von Schnurbein not because she was defending children who are targeted for being Jewish but for defending Israel from a possible suspension of certain parts of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, or in its entirety, or further restrictive measures against the regime and its officials. The Conference of European Rabbis (CER) also issued a statement of support in von Schnurbein, also warning that "a vicious, pernicious, fact-distorting and morally abhorrent anti-Israel rhetoric is now emanating from within the EU". The "anti-Israel rhetoric" this organisation refers to is probably the claim that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza. This claim was already a "plausible" risk in January 2024 as was affirmed by the International Court of Justice in its preliminary legal assessment of the case against Israel. Almost two years later, the genocide in Gaza seems to be very common knowledge. And opposing this genocide is not antisemitism. Also defending von Schnurbein, the European Jewish Congress (EJC) stated that it rejects "any attempt to discredit her or weaken the fight against antisemitism in Europe", mixing between her personal mandate as coordinator and the fight against anti-Jewish racism in Europe. According to the European Jewish Congress, the calls for her resignation "cause great harm to European Jewish communities". Actually, von Schnurbein’s removal from office will actually do us Jews a lot of good. The next commission’s coordinator on combating antisemitism should differentiate between European Jews and the state of Israel rather than a total confusion between the two. The next coordinator should clarify to the European citizens how to distinguish between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel. The current coordinator is obviously unable to draw that line herself. Von Schnurbein is actually diffusing antisemitism Her flagrant remarks to EU ambassadors in Tel-Aviv, denying Israel’s well-evidenced forced starvation of Palestinians in Gazans as “rumours about Jews” reveals von Schnurbein’s own antisemitism. When von Schnurbein describes bake sale for Gaza at the premises of the EU institutions as a form of "ambient antisemitism" even though these activities do not target Jews at all she is actually expressing an antisemitic idea — that anything Israel is doing is somehow the responsibility of Jews as Jews, of Jews as a group. This is a clear illustration of antisemitism, even according to von Schnurbein’s own definition. Ironically enough, von Schnurbein just expressed her own racism towards Jews according to her own pro-Israeli biased definition of what it is. In fact, holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel is one of the 11 illustrative examples of the working definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) , the same non-binding working definition that von Schnurbein is pushing so hard doing her mandate as the EU antisemitism chief. But does fighting antisemitism necessarily means standing with Israel, whatever happens? It might be the German position, for somehow understandable historical reasons. But this cannot be the official position of the European Commission. The European Commission must clarify that the EU policy on combating antisemitism does not mean shielding Israel against criticism. The removal of the current EU coordinator von Schnurbein from her office is a necessary step in this policy shift. Now this is also a demand coming from the Jewish community itself as well as from Israeli citizens who oppose their extreme-right government and its policies. These Jewish and Israeli groups reject the political manipulation of the fight against antisemitism to silence criticism against Israel. The EU should listen to these emerging Jewish and Israeli voices in Europe and replace the EU coordinator on combating antisemitism without delay. Dr. Yoav Shemer-Kunz is co-founder of European Jews for Palestine (EJP) , and a political scientist, affiliated at the faculty at the University of Syracuse – Strasbourg Center. Dr. Yoav Shemer-Kunz is co-founder of
|
European Jews for Palestine (EJP)
|
Some 29 Jewish and Israeli organisations from across Europe have written to EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, calling for the immediate replacement of Katharina von Schnurbein, rejecting the idea that the fight against antisemitism means "shielding Israel from any form of pressure or criticism".
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-19T06:14:00.588Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar980add78
|
A month on, Kallas' meaningless Gaza 'deal' has failed
|
Over a month has passed since the EU's foreign affairs chief, Kaja Kallas, announced a humanitarian agreement with Israel to significantly increase aid entry to starving Palestinians in Gaza. Presented as a great diplomatic breakthrough in response to pressure from the review of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, this so-called “deal” has proven to be little more than a symbolic gesture and a way for Israel to buy more time, when there is no time left. During the past month, there has been no visible improvement on the ground. On the contrary, Israel has failed to meet even the minimal commitments outlined in the deal, while the humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to deteriorate by the hour. Palestinians are starving to death under an Israeli-imposed siege and famine, and are targeted and killed as they seek aid at the deadly and humiliating Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) distribution sites. While EU member states continue to “assess the situation”, aid convoys remain blocked right outside Gaza’s borders, medical supplies become increasingly scarce, and food insecurity is reaching life-threatening levels. Israel continues to starve, kill and forcibly displace civilians, pushing them into conditions unfit for human survival. Journalists continue to be deliberately targeted and killed by Israeli forces, including Al Jazeera correspondents Anas al-Sharif and Mohammed Qreiqeh. According to WHO , there has been a sharp increase in starvation-related deaths among Palestinian children. As of 13 August, out of 235 deaths from starvation, 106 were children , while health facilities have treated more than 20,000 children for acute malnutrition since April. The risk of famine now affects almost the entire population in Gaza, and over 500,000 Palestinian in Gaza are enduring famine-like conditions. According to data collected by the EU delegation and UN and ICRC “at least 1,373 Palestinians have been killed while seeking food,” and “the numbers [of trucks] are still below” what had been agreed. This man-made humanitarian crisis is the direct result of Israel's restrictions on humanitarian aid, indiscriminate bombardments of civilian areas, and systematic breaches of international law. Many international experts, including UN special rapporteurs , Palestinian and International NGOs, and most recently Israeli human rights organisations have determined that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. In January 2024, the International Court of Justice determined that Israel is carrying out “plausible genocide” in Gaza in breach of the Genocide Convention. Too little, too late The European Commission itself has acknowledged that Israel has violated Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement in its recent proposal to partially suspend Israel’s participation in the Horizon Europe Programme. The proposal , presented on 29 July, would suspend the participation of Israeli entities in activities funded under the Accelerator of the European Innovation Council (EIC). While the proposal marks the first concrete EU step in response to Israel’s conduct, it remains little and comes late. It does not address the core issue, Israel's systematic violations of international law, and perpetration of its settler colonial apartheid regime and illegal occupation, which third parties have a positive obligation to actively oppose. Yet, some member states made clear their intention to block the decision in the council during the vote of 13 August. Meanwhile, a growing number of countries (including the UK, France, Finland, Portugal, Malta, Ireland, Slovenia and Spain) have called for broader recognition of Palestinian statehood. However, this recognition remains largely symbolic and has not been matched by concrete actions. The gravity of the genocide demands full sanctions and countermeasures, an arms and energy embargo on Israel and full accountability. Heads of EU states continue to meet with prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and allow overflights through their territory, despite an international warrant for his arrest by the International Criminal Court. While states such as Slovenia and the Netherlands have banned Israeli ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, and France, Spain and the UK have suspended arms exports or halted specific transfers. Although these steps are welcome, they represent the bare minimum and much more must urgently be done. Individual sanctions and asset freezes should be issued against all members of Israel’s security cabinet, and military leaders, as architects of the genocide. Despite a slow but progressive shift, these measures remain far from sufficient. The Israeli army continues to be largely supplied by European countries. Germany’s announcement this month of suspending arms exports and the Netherlands’ suspension of three naval export licenses that could be used in Gaza are long-overdue decisions that can pave the way for a full EU-wide arms embargo. However, it is too little too late, and Germany’s suspension does not go far enough. Full arms exports under existing licences continue to be shipped from Germany despite the death toll in Gaza surpassing 60,000 Palestinians killed. Member states must end all existing and future arms export licenses and stop rendering assistance to the genocide in Palestine. Continuing to supply with Israel despite the extensive evidence of genocide, turns them into partners with the Israeli government in carrying out this genocide. In the same vein, the EU must urgently move beyond assessment and take concrete action based on its own finding that Israel is in breach of its human rights obligations under Article 2 of the Association Agreement, as well as Israel’s failure to respect the terms of the 10 July Agreement. These measures shall lead to effective accountability for violations committed all across the occupied Palestinian territory. The EU has both the tools and the growing political consensus to take meaningful action and end the ongoing genocide. The vote on the proposal and additional actions reveal whether the EU can meet this challenge and end its complicity in the most heinous genocide of our time, as we watch the brutal killing and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people. Raji Sourani is director of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights . Issam Younis is general director of the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights . Shawan Jabarin is general director of Al-Haq . Hamdi Shaqqura is executive committee member of EuroMed Rights . Raji Sourani is director of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights . Issam Younis is general director of the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights . Shawan Jabarin is general director of Al-Haq . Hamdi Shaqqura is executive committee member of
|
EuroMed Rights
|
During the past month, there has been no visible improvement on the ground. Presented as a great diplomatic breakthrough EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas' so-called “deal” has proven to be little more than a symbolic gesture and a way for Israel to buy more time, when there is no time left.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-18T06:32:28.483Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar7d6cf225
|
Who isn't invited to the Putin-Trump summit in Anchorage today?
|
It would be easy to dismiss the exclusion of not just president Vlodomyr Zelensky but also EU leaders from Friday's (15 August) summit in Alaska with Vladimir Putin as simply part of Donald Trump’s relying on personalised deal-making rather than formal negotiations that might restrict his room for creative maneuver. And indeed, we have no idea what will happen in Alaska, since one aspect of Trumpian ‘creative geopolitics’ is also its total unpredictability. Earlier this week, Trump was already changing his description of the summit as simply a “feel-out meeting” to “see what he [Putin] has in mind” regarding a potential deal to stop the war. Commentators in US newspapers desperately tried to make sense of the shifting narrative — "maybe this is strategic ambiguity" commented the Washington Post (though the general assessment was that ‘no one understands what’s going on’.) But besides Trump’s unique ‘geopolitical style’, there are much deeper issues at play here: . The history of classical geopolitics provides ample examples, and it is this historical vision that Trump shares fully with Putin. In such an understanding of the world, there is simply no place for minor players, but neither for an ‘unidentified international object’ such as the EU. What is more, from such a perspective, the right to speak has nothing to do with the EU’s actual capacities: whether in terms of a single diplomatic voice, or even common defence capabilities. In this understanding, the EU, , will never be able to act as a geopolitical player that counts — no matter the boost in military spending. This geopolitical prejudice was already firmly rooted with the Obama and Biden administrations, as much as both pressed the EU to take a stronger role in foreign policy, at least in its immediate neighbourhoods. But we have witnessed a quantum leap with the Trump administration. So where does that leave the EU? Since the announcement of the Anchorage get-together, a flurry of EU consultations took place. In the communique issued by the ‘coalition of the willing’ and subsequently in the joint statement by all EU leaders, there is a direct appeal to the principles of territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders, and the affirmation of the right of Ukrainians themselves to determine any just peace, along with the insistence that any discussions cannot take place without president Zelensky. Is appealing to international norms and their respect the only thing that the EU can do in this moment, along with "expressing hope" — as EU leaders have done following the call with Trump on Wednesday — that there is a general unity of intent? Hope stranded in Alaska? Such hope risks crashing on the Alaskan shores, and it is important that EU leaders — and even more so, European publics — realise that the role assigned to them is not one of equal interlocutors. As often, the bluntest dismissal came from US vice-president JD Vance in his interview on Fox News the day after the statement by the EU ‘coalition of the willing’: "We're done with the funding of the Ukraine war business […] if the Europeans want to step up and actually buy the weapons from American producers, we’re OK with that, but we’re not going to fund it ourselves anymore” It is a framing that appears to hand over geopolitical agency to the EU as at least a ‘regional power’ that should take care of their neighbourhood by virtue of their geography: “What we said to Europeans is simply, first of all, this is in your neck of the woods, this is in your back door, you guys have got to step up and take a bigger role in this thing, and if you care so much about this conflict you should be willing to play a more direct and a more substantial way in funding this war yourself.” But Vance’s seeming ‘hand-over’ is in no way a confirmation of the EU’s geopolitical role. — Americans are sick of paying for Europeans’ problems and Europe needs to step up. It is a critique that has been Vance’s battle-cry all through the electoral campaign in 2024, and in all his public appearances since, from the Munich Security Forum in February 2025 to the Nato Summit in June 2025. Economic power is certainly the EU’s greatest clout. And certainly, the EU and member state leaders can do more, much much more, to support Ukraine both financially and militarily. They can also do much much more to ensure the EU’s own security and defence. But they need to do so under the conditions of their own choosing – not by the geopolitical terms set by others. And the EU’s geopolitical role in the negotiations is not simply a factor of geographical proximity, another geopolitical determinism to be refuted. The EU has the right — indeed, the duty — to claim full geopolitical voice in this moment in order to honour the founding principles that make us who we claim to be. Dr Luiza Bialasiewicz is professor of Political and Economic Geography at the Department of Economics at the Ca' Foscari University of Venice. Her work focuses on EU foreign policy and on the role of Europe in the wider world. Her most recent research has examined the intersection of EU border management and EU geopolitics, looking specifically at the role of third states in the 'out-sourcing' of border controls in the Mediterranean.
|
Dr Luiza Bialasiewicz
|
The exclusion of EU leaders from the Anchorage summit speaks to a wider form of ‘geopolitical prejudice’ that marks who has the right to speak — and act — in international affairs.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-15T06:33:25.294Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar4f216da7
|
Retirement with dignity? The debate on active ageing in Europe
|
With an ageing population and increased life expectancy, Europe faces a very concrete challenge: how to fund its pension systems. Earlier this year in Brussels, pensioners took to the streets to demand better job security and to oppose the raising of the retirement age. In Europe, some are advocating lowering the retirement age as a way to improve workers' quality of life and to encourage generational turnover in the workforce. Others argue that this would jeopardise the sustainability of pension systems, which are already weakened by an ageing population and increased life-expectancy. A third option, of combining work and pensions , is widely practised in countries such as Sweden, Estonia and Denmark, where more than 30 percent of new retirees remain active in the workforce, either part-time or with flexible hours. According to a survey by Spain's national statistics agency, in that country a total of 184,900 people aged 50 to 74 continued working in the six months after receiving their first pension payment. This represented 4.9 percent of retirees, below the European average (13 percent). In France and Italy too, the figure is below five percent. This disparity highlights the influence of national policies on employment among older people and on financial security in old age, both of which are key factors in the sustainability of the pension system. In recent years, in places such as France and Germany, efforts to strike this difficult balance have met with protests and fraught political debate. Is poverty avoidable? “In Spain, more than 37 percent of pensioners — around 3.3 million people — receive less than €750 per month”, according to the Spanish Union of Retired and Pensioners of the trade union UGT (UJP-UGT). UGT explains that those who continue working for personal reasons are in the minority and that the rest do so out of economic necessity, and because they work in sectors such as retail, cleaning, or caregiving. In such cases, undeclared or irregular earnings become commonplace. “A decent retirement and access to a contributory pension should be a right, without this implying that people cannot continue working if they wish to do so and meet the legal requirements”, says the UJP-UGT. According to the national statistics agency, in Spain 18.8 percent of those who continue to work do so for purely economic reasons, as they need to supplement their income. Meanwhile, 48.7 percent do it for other reasons too, such as their partner still being in work. In the view of civil-society groups, there's often no incentive for older people to stay, given how hard it is for them to adjust their jobs to their changed capacities. These groups think the goal of the pension system should be to make sure such people have a decent quality of life, no matter what method is used. A study by the Foundation for Applied Economic Studies (Fedea) found that adding restrictions to retirement can affect people’s health, increasing the risk of dying before the age of 70. The motivations for continuing to work after retirement vary significantly between European countries. While in Spain many people who remain active do so by personal choice, either for career reasons or simply to keep busy, in other countries economic necessity is the clear priority. According to Eurostat data , in Cyprus, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Latvia, more than 50 percent of retirees who continue working do so for strictly economic reasons. These differences reflect not only the different realities of the given pension system, but also the structural inequalities that divide Europe in terms of living standards and social protection. In Greece, too, many retirees continue to work to supplement insufficient pensions , although much of this activity appears to be undeclared. In 2023, the government attempted to curb the practice by eliminating the 30 percent reduction in pensions for those who declared their employment. Retirees who work without declaring their employment will now be penalised with a fine equivalent to one full year of pension. However, declaring employment remains unattractive: salaried workers see an additional 10 percent deducted from their income, and the self-employed face contributions of up to 50 percent, all of which encourages them to remain in the informal economy. “Delaying retirement (by choice) should not only be seen as a positive step in terms of reducing public spending, but should go hand in hand with improving working conditions for workers”, argues Inmaculada Ruiz, president of the Democratic Union of Pensioners and Retired People (UDP), in Spain. She argues that demoting people over a certain age to lower positions is “wasting” senior talent. The associations agree that this type of partial or flexible retirement could promote and “ensure participatory ageing”, especially in a society where value is measured by productivity. They point out that work is an important way of participating in society. Indeed, many people feel marginalised when they retire from a social environment that has been their routine for years. How the Czech Republic does it In other countries, such as the Czech Republic, the reality is quite different. In 2024, around 195,000 retired people were still working in Czech Republic, according to the country's labour ministry. Half of them were over 67. And more than 80 percent were formally employed, with the rest working on a contract basis or as freelancers. At the end of that year, a reform of the system was imposed, which received criticism for its lack of “structural” vision. The newspaper Denik Referendum cites its measures to delay the retirement age, to cut pension rises, but also to eliminate social-security payments for pensioners who continue to work — an incentive not implemented until 2025. Formerly, all workers in Czech Republic, including pensioners , had to contribute 6.5 percent of their gross income to pension insurance. In exchange, pensioners who continued to work received a small increase in their pension: a 0.4 percent increase in the calculation base for every 360 days worked, which was maintained for life, even after they stopped working. With the reform, working pensioners are no longer required to pay the 6.5 percent contribution, which means they have more money left over each month. For example, a pensioner with a gross income of CZK 20,000 – about €700 – can keep an additional CZK 1,300 per month – about €45. The labour ministry estimates that this exemption will cost the public coffers around CZK 4bn a year – approximately €139m. However, the government believes that the incentive will encourage more pensioners to continue working, allowing the state to recoup some of the loss through increased tax revenues, for example, in income tax or VAT on higher consumption. 'It depends on your abilities' Many believe that an active retirement should at least be an option, especially given increasing life expectancy. Spain is the EU country with the highest life expectancy: 84 years, somewhat above the European average of 81.5 years, according to the most recent Eurostat data. Yet, says the UJP-UGT, “recruitment processes rarely include profiles over the age of 55. Many CVs are discarded because of age, even before the candidates’ experience is reviewed.“ UJP-UGT points out that older people are not included in skills retraining programmes because they are considered too ”close to retirement“, thus cementing their exclusion from the world of work. Yet the UDP president believes that such schemes must always remain an option, lest the lack of alternatives make retirement “more a forced destination than a free choice”. The real question, in the view of the UDP, “is how we guarantee the right to a dignified retirement for those who want it, and meaningful and dignified employment for those who can and want to remain active“. The union advocates a ”transformative social agenda that recognises the value of people at all stages of life”. This, they argue, would address a wide range of challenges, such as structural poverty, gender inequality, informal employment, and ageism. Ana Somavilla (El Confidencial), Kim Son Hoang (Der Standard, Austria), Julie Šafová (Deník Referendum, Czechia), Lena Kyriakidi (EFSYN, Greece),
|
Silvia Martelli
|
Faced with ageing demographics, Europe is debating whether to raise the age of pension eligibility or to encourage “active” retirement. The goal is to balance social rights with the viability of pension systems.
|
[
"Health & Society"
] |
health-and-society
|
2025-08-15T05:17:32.759Z
|
https://euobserver.com/health-and-society/ar6508efac
|
Trump and EU leaders pressure Putin ahead of Alaska summit
|
EU and US leaders have pledged to protect Ukraine and threatened harsher sanctions ahead of Friday's (15 August) high-stakes summit in Anchorage between US president Donald Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin. The leaders of Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Ukraine agreed with Trump in a video summit on Wednesday that Ukraine would not be forced to cede territory, the US would take part in any future Western peacekeeping efforts in Ukraine, and there would be harsher Western sanctions if Putin rejected a ceasefire. "Things were very clear and expressed as such by president Trump, that territorial questions on Ukraine can only be ... negotiated by the president of Ukraine," said French president Emmanuel Macron. "A country who has lost so many of its children to defend its territory cannot decide lightly to cede any of its territory," he added. German chancellor Friedrich Merz, who hosted the transatlantic call, said legal recognition of four Russian-annexed Ukrainian regions — Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia — was "out of the question". Zelenskyy told media: "We will not withdraw from Donbas [the Donetsk and Luhansk area], we cannot do that". Britain and France had formerly said they'd provide soldiers for a peacekeeping force in an informal 'coalition of the willing'. And they welcomed Trump's indications on Wednesday that the force would have US support. "We, the coalition, are stepping up, showing what we can do with credible military plans, alongside that with the backing of the US," said UK prime minister Kier Starmer. EU Council president António Costa, who also took part in the call, said there was new "availability from the US together with Europe to strengthen the security conditions once we achieve a fair and lasting peace in Ukraine". Merz said the EU and US would impose harsher sanctions on Russia if Putin didn't agree to a ceasefire. "If there is no movement on the Russian side in Alaska, then the United States and we Europeans should ... increase the pressure. President Trump knows this position. He shares it very extensively," Merz said. Trump himself said there'd be "very severe consequences" for Putin if he didn't play ball. "We had a very good call ... President Zelenskyy was on the call. I would rate it a 10, very friendly," Trump added, in a stark contrast to his infamous brawl with Zelenskyy in the Oval Office in February. The EU likewise celebrated the call as a high point in Western solidarity, following a turbulent six months of Trump's second term in office. "We have had a very good call," said EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen. "Today Europe, the US, and Nato have strengthened the common ground for Ukraine," she added. The readouts were short on detail — for instance, on whether Ukraine would cede ground de facto but not de jure, or what role the US would play in any peacekeeping force. The US previously ruled out boots on the ground, but Western allies would need US air power, surveillance capabilities, and intelligence sharing even more than its infantry or tanks. Fate of 1.3m Ukrainians For his part, Estonian foreign minister Margus Tsahkna pointed out in an opinion piece in the Financial Times newspaper on Thursday that the question of territory was also a question of people's futures. There were 1.3m Ukrainians still free in Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia who would suffer Russian oppression if their lands were handed over even on a de facto basis, he said. "Once Russia gains control, the cost of reversing it may be measured in decades of human suffering," he said. Estonia was annexed by Russia from 1940 to 1991. Meanwhile, Putin stuck to his maximalist position on the eve of the Alaska meeting. Putin's constitution Russian foreign ministry spokesperson Alexei Fadeev said on Wednesday that Russia's goals in Ukraine had not changed since last year. "The territorial integrity of Russia is bound in our country's constitution ... So the goals of the Russian delegation at the talks in Alaska are dictated exclusively by national interests," Fadeev said. Putin inscribed his annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia in the Russian constitution in 2022, making it hard for him to row back. He also annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, but Crimea wasn't mentioned on Wednesday. Russia's other goals were: to keep Ukraine out of Nato, to disarm its military, and for Nato forces to pull back to Cold War-era lines in Europe.
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
EU and US leaders have pledged to protect Ukraine and threatened harsher sanctions ahead of Friday's high-stakes US-Russia summit in Anchorage.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-14T07:17:09.029Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ardeccebab
|
Israeli registration law used to block aid while Gaza starves, say over 100 charities
|
More than 100 international aid organisations are demanding Israel allow in crucial aid to Gaza, following its restrictive new registration laws for NGOs. The new restrictions, imposed in March, require charities to submit details of private donors, complete Palestinian staff lists and other sensitive information about personnel for so-called “security” vetting to Israeli authorities. "NGOs have no guarantees that handing over such information would not put staff at further risk, or be used to advance the government of Israel's stated military and political aims," they said, in a statement issued on Thursday (14 August). The statement further says that the new registration system is being used to block aid and deny food and medicine in the midst of the worst-case scenario of famine. American Near East Refugee Aid says they have over $7m [€5.98m] worth of supplies ready to enter Gaza, including 744 tonnes of rice, enough for six million meals. The NGO says it is blocked several kilometres away in Ashdod. Care, another aid organisation, says they have not been able to deliver any of their $1.5m worth of pre-positioned supplies into Gaza since March. Oxfam says they have some $2.5m in aid blocked. The charities accuse Israeli authorities of weaponising starvation as food distribution sites under the US and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) come under deadly fire. Some 859 Palestinians have been killed around GHF sites since it began operating, say the charities. For its part, the European Commission on Wednesday again demanded Israel allow in humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip. A spokesperson told reporters in Brussels on Wednesday that there is an urgent need to ensure that international NGOs that are facing administrative obstacles are let in. Similar warnings have been made over the past few weeks and days by foreign ministers from Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, the United Kingdom and the EU. United Nations Office for the Coordination Of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) says the new registration law risks forcing the departure of all international staff by 9 September.
|
Nikolaj joined EUobserver in 2012 and covers home affairs. He is originally from Denmark, but spent much of his life in France and in Belgium. He was awarded the King Baudouin Foundation grant for investigative journalism in 2010.
|
More than 100 international aid organisations are demanding Israel allow in crucial aid to Gaza, following new restrictive registration laws for NGOs.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-14T06:00:18.142Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arcd8402dc
|
Five EUobserver investigations from 2025 so far you shouldn't miss
|
Behind the scenes, new defence deals, border technologies, and climate projects are quietly redrawing the lines of European policy and accountability. Over the past few months, EUobserver reporters and collaborators have been working hard to delve beyond official narratives and provide a deeper understanding of the complexities shaping Europe’s future. Here’s a reminder of some of the investigations you may have missed — and why they still matter. 26 June 2025 A Boeing 747 cargo jet making regular flights from Liège to Tel Aviv raised alarm bells among arms-control experts until EUobserver revealed its surprising contents: fish. Yet behind the odd detail lies a bigger concern. Belgian authorities appear to have little control over what’s flying out of their territory, revealing worrying loopholes in EU aviation and customs oversight. Read the full story 13 May 2025 EU leaders have touted Namibia’s Hyphen project as a model for climate cooperation with the Global South. But as EUobserver reveals, the project — planned in a sensitive coastal region — risks undermining local biodiversity and failing to benefit Namibian communities. As Europe doubles down on hydrogen, this story explores the cost of hydrogen projects being deployed abroad. Read the full story 15 March 2025 The EU is on the verge of rewriting its rules on genetically modified organisms, this time with a biotech twist. But many questions remain over the consequences of fast-tracking so-called "new genomic techniques" (NGTs) onto European fields with lower oversight. This investigation unpacks what’s really behind the push: biotech lobbying, patent battles, and a deep divide between industrial agriculture and organic farmers. Read the full story 7 March 2025 With exclusive sources and intelligence leaks, EUobserver profiles 20 alleged Russian spies embedded in its Belgian embassy. This exposé names names and details how Europe’s democratic systems are being quietly infiltrated. Read the full story 31 January 2025 A British private intelligence firm secretly surveilled a Kazakh refugee and lawyer in the heart of Brussels, as revealed by court documents in Belgium. This investigation details how the firm trailed its target through public spaces, such as Place du Châtelain, using covert methods later condemned as “creepy” and unlawful. Read the full story This research by our partners Investigative Europe exposes how, despite EU bans on funding non-EU defence firms, a Greek firm 90-percent owned by Israeli state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries has quietly secured millions from the European Defence Fund. Read the full story This republication of an investigation by Salomon reveals how border control in Greece has evolved into a digital frontier: biometric gates, thermal cameras, drones, and facial recognition all backed by EU funds. Read the full story EUobserver will continue publishing original investigations throughout the year. Sign up to our newsletter to stay informed — and support independent journalism that holds power to account. Tip? Feedback? Reach out directly to our journalists or contact us at . For secure communication, please follow the instructions here
|
.
|
Here’s a reminder of some of the investigations you may have missed so far this year — and why they still matter.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Investigations"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-14T05:25:29.352Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar4829ba7e
|
China retaliates against Lithuanian banks following EU-Russia sanctions
|
China announced retaliatory sanctions against two Lithuanian banks on Wednesday (13 August), marking an escalation in tensions following the European Union's inclusion of Chinese financial institutions in its latest Russia sanctions package. In a statement signed by the Chinese minister of commerce , Wang Wentao, the ministry announced sanctions against Lithuanian AB Mano Bankas and UAB Urbo Bankas with immediate effect. The countermeasures prohibit all Chinese organisations and individuals from conducting transactions, cooperation, or other business activities with the sanctioned Lithuanian institutions. The Chinese action follows the EU's 18th round of sanctions against Russia , announced on 18 July, which added two Chinese financial institutions — Heihe Rural Commercial Bank and Heilongjiang Suifenhe Rural Commercial Bank — to its sanctions list. It was the first time Chinese businessess were directly included, and on Wednesday Beijing characterised the European measures as a "serious violation of international law and basic norms governing international relations" that damaged the “legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises.” Minister of commerce Wang authorised the sanctions under China's Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law, with approval from the State Anti-Foreign Sanctions Coordination Mechanism. The decision represents Beijing's continued push to protect Chinese businesses from what it views as unlawful foreign sanctions. The targeting of Lithuanian banks specifically appears strategic, given Lithuania's vocal criticism of China's policies and its support for Taiwan. Lithuania's relations with China started to sour in 2021 after both countries opened unofficial representative offices in each other's capitals. Lithuania announced the establishment of a " Taiwanese Representative Office " in 2021, prompting a fierce diplomatic and economic backlash from China. Since then, Beijing has pressured Lithuania in various ways, with diplomatic ties reduced to the chargé d'affaires level and both countries' embassies remaining closed. Following Lithuania's autumn 2024 elections, the new government in Vilnius had made reestablishing and normalising relations with China a foreign policy priority. But Wednesday’s sanctions will further strain the relationship.
|
Wester is a journalist from the Netherlands with a focus on the green economy. He joined EUobserver in September 2021. Previously he was editor-in-chief of Vice, Motherboard, a science-based website, and climate economy journalist for The Correspondent.
|
Beijing imposes counter-sanctions on two financial institutions, over the EU’s inclusion of Chinese financial bodies in the latest Russia sanctions package.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-13T07:07:36.690Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar69e9897d
|
Over 1,200 die trying to reach Europe in 2025, new UN figures say
|
Over 1,200 people have died so far this year in their attempts to reach Europe, according to latest UN figures. Published on Tuesday (12 August) by the UN refugee agency (UNHCR), the 1,236 deaths or people gone missing mostly in the central Mediterranean reflects a persistent trend despite EU cash-for-migrant deals aimed at curtailing boat departures. The death count for the whole of last year was over 3,500, although the true figure is likely to be higher given the plausible scenario of people drowning without any trace. Both Italy and Greece continue to register arrival spikes when compared to previous periods. In June, arrivals to Italy were 45 percent higher when compared to the same month last year. The UNHCR says the vast majority of Italy's 7,100 arrivals in June came from Libya , with many originating from countries like Bangladesh, Egypt and Eritrea. Such arrivals have spooked EU states, which often resort to restrictions and punitive measures against asylum seekers as well as internal border controls. Germany has announced it is extending internal border checks to its entire land border to beyond September — triggering tensions with neighbouring Poland. Italy, for the first time ever, has grounded a reconnaissance plane used by German migrant rescue charity Sea-Watch. "This marks a new escalation in the Italian government’s fight against civilian human rights observation in the Mediterranean," said the NGO on X. Meanwhile, Greece also saw a 46-percent increase in June when compared to last year, with Athens now resorting to slapping three-month asylum bans on arrivals from Libya that were landing on the island of Crete. And although government figures suggest landings on the island have since dropped, the three-month asylum ban is likely to be further extended. Last week, Greek migration minister Thanos Plevris told public broadcaster ERT that the government would not rule out extending the ban if needed. Rejected asylum seekers in Greece will also be forced to wear ankle bracelets ahead of their final deportation.
|
Nikolaj joined EUobserver in 2012 and covers home affairs. He is originally from Denmark, but spent much of his life in France and in Belgium. He was awarded the King Baudouin Foundation grant for investigative journalism in 2010.
|
Over 1,200 people have died so far this year in their attempts to reach Europe, according to latest UN figures.
|
[
"Migration"
] |
migration
|
2025-08-13T06:40:46.847Z
|
https://euobserver.com/migration/ar2b6052f4
|
Out of the castle: Europe needs to rethink China
|
Europe’s ancient castles stand as majestic monuments to a divided past. Their towering walls, built to keep 'us' safe from 'them', reveal more than medieval engineering prowess — they embody a defensive worldview that once dominated global politics. Today, as Europe navigates its relationship with China, it faces a critical choice: will it retreat behind new walls of suspicion, or forge a path of strategic engagement? Seen in this context, the EU institutions’ recent high-level engagement with China is critically important. Strategic imperative In an era of raging trade wars, China represents the EU’s most consequential strategic opportunity. Together, they account for over one-third of the global economy and a quarter of world trade. Should they unite to uphold multilateral rules, no single actor could unilaterally dismantle them. These rules are existential for smaller economies. The multilateral trading system conceived after WWII once allowed them to benefit from the bargaining powers of bigger economies and get the same tariff treatment. Now, it is “every man for himself.” Presidents and trade ministers have to walk into a Washington room and arm-wrestle economic behemoths alone. Global leadership is urgently needed. In the recent China-EU summit , Chinese president Xi Jinping referred to China and Europe as the “big guys” — and he was making an excellent point. There is hardly a better partner than China as the EU reclaims its mantle as the champion of free trade. Tangible benefits Beyond trade, smaller nations are also looking to the two “big guys” to set and defend fair rules for emerging challenges. While artificial intelligence risks leaving entire regions behind, Europe’s humanistic tradition and China’s people-centric values position them uniquely to ensure AI serves humanity rather than endangering it. The same holds true for green transition. The case for partnership isn’t just strategic — it’s practical. Few markets rival China’s breadth of opportunity: Italian leather goods grace Shanghai boutiques; Spanish ham stars in Beijing gourmet stores; Greek olive oil fuels China’s health-conscious middle class. From Thyssenkrupp elevators in aging neighbourhoods to Siemens machinery in smart factories, European quality is woven into Chinese daily life. The way forward With the depth of economic links between China and Europe, challenges inevitably arise. Healthy relationships are not defined by the absence of problems, but by the ability to resolve them constructively. The business forum that took place as part of the China-EU summit was a useful step in this direction. It allowed Chinese and European CEOs to voice their concerns, which were directly addressed by Chinese premier Li Qiang and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen. An unhelpful reaction would be to exaggerate stories about “abuse of subsidies,” “overcapacity,” or “trade diversion.” They are not supported by facts or basic economics: in a globalised market, consumers choose winners — and they demand quality, not just low prices. Companies won’t produce what they can’t sell, and consumers won’t buy what they don’t need. When Nokia dominated 86 percent of China’s mobile market, no one in China cried “overcapacity” or “de-risking” — they celebrated excellence. The EU leadership has wisely chosen not to barricade itself in any mental or geopolitical castle, but rather to build bridges on its own terms. After all, while castles may offer the illusion of security, true strength comes from engagement. A wise leader knows that a home need not be a fortress to be secure.
|
Wen Ying is a Beijing-based international affairs commentator, with articles published in The European Sting and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
|
As Europe navigates its relationship with China, it faces a critical choice: will it retreat behind new walls of suspicion, or forge a path of strategic engagement?
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-13T06:36:01.376Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar2bef067d
|
As a Syrian refugee in Belgium, I see the EU's erosion of its own values
|
As someone who arrived in Europe as a refugee years ago and later found a new home within the European Union, I have spent the past decade not only living under the protection of its laws and institutions but studying them with deep interest and hope. I learned the European treaties, the ideas behind the Union’s formation, and how a continent once divided by war managed to bind itself together through law, shared values, and a desire for peace. As a Belgian citizen with Syrian roots and part of this European society, I find myself increasingly troubled. As an EU citizen, as someone who believed in the ideals of integration, human rights, open borders, and solidarity. I find myself asking: where are these values heading? What is left of the European promise in an age of growing populism and global power shifts? The EU was founded on the promise of “never again.” Treaties like Schengen and Lisbon were more than legal documents — they were commitments to dignity, equality, and freedom. They formed the backbone of a continent that replaced suspicion with cooperation. Yet today, these principles are quietly eroding. Internal border controls, once temporary exceptions, have become normalised . Countries like France, Germany, Austria, and Slovenia routinely extend these measures under vague justifications of “security” or “migration pressure.” Worse still is the silence. Temporary exceptions become permanent habits. Humanitarian obligations are sacrificed for political convenience. The very core of European integration — free movement — is being chipped away, border by border. Fortress Europe and the politics of fear The EU appears to be gradually emphasising a more security-oriented approach to managing its external borders. A considerable portion of funding is now allocated toward migration management, often involving enhanced security protocols and limited public disclosure. Southern and eastern states have been turned into gatekeepers, tasked with stopping migrants before they reach the heart of Europe. This is not just a technical adjustment. It is a political choice. Migration has become a tool in domestic debates — a lightning rod for deeper anxieties about identity, cohesion, and economic uncertainty. In Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Belgium, and beyond, populist parties have made immigration the centrepiece of their narratives. Not because migration numbers are overwhelming, but because fear is politically profitable. The true challenge is not the presence of migrants — it is the EU’s declining ability to respond with unity, legality, and humanity. The populist tide vs question of belonging Rightwing populism has reshaped the EU from within. Politicians once considered fringe now shape policy or dominate public discourse. They undermine the rule of law, attack judicial independence, and present EU values as elite impositions rather than shared aspirations. This climate has redefined what it means to belong. A restrictive, exclusionary view of European identity is gaining traction — one that marginalizes those who look, speak, or think differently. This shift risks alienating many individuals who have made substantial contributions to European societies through work, education, and civic engagement. In such a climate, European citizenship risks becoming conditional. If belonging hinges on birthplace or ethnicity rather than shared democratic values, the Union’s moral foundation begins to crumble. Europe stands at a defining crossroads. One path leads to division and fear-driven policies; the other, to renewal through legal certainty, shared responsibility, and respect for human dignity. This choice comes amid a shifting global order, with rising authoritarian powers and an increasingly unpredictable United States. The EU needs to decide: remain a fragmented economic bloc, or emerge as a principled global force? The outcome will shape both its international role and its unity at home. As someone who had and still can build new life in the EU, who is grateful for the second chance I was given in this continent after fleeing away from Syria in 2015, I believe in the EU — not as a perfect institution, but as a bold experiment in peace and cooperation. But belief must be paired with vigilance. The values we celebrate are only as strong as our willingness to defend them when they are most under threat. Migration, diversity, and inclusion are not burdens. They are assets. Migrants and their descendants contribute daily — in hospitals, schools, businesses, and beyond. Diversity strengthens Europe’s resilience, culture, and economy. Inclusion is not only a moral imperative, but a strategic one in an aging, competitive world. Today, I ask: are we still committed to that promise? Or are we drifting toward a Europe defined more by its borders than its values? Alaa Jbour is a Syrian refugee who took Belgian citizenship, and now works as at the EU Commission’s Scientific Advice Mechanism. He arrived in Belgium in 2015, during the peak of migration from Syria to the EU, with a bachelor of English literature from Damascus university. After completing Dutch language studies at the University of Antwerp, he pursued a master’s degree in communication sciences.
|
Alaa Jbour
|
As someone built a new life in the EU, who is grateful for the second chance I was given in this continent after fleeing away from Syria in 2015, I believe in the EU — not as a perfect institution, but as a bold experiment in peace and cooperation. But belief must be paired with vigilance.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Migration",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-13T06:35:18.164Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar58c8d83d
|
EU foreign policy chief condemns Israel military campaign as bombing intensifies
|
The EU's foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has condemned Israel's military campaign as reports of bombings in Gaza intensify. "If a military solution was possible, the war would already be over," said Kallas on Monday (11 August) on X. Kallas said the war in Gaza is growing more dangerous by the hour and demanded an immediate ceasefire and release of remaining hostages. But the social media post also came amid reports from Reuters that Israel has only intensified bombings throughout Gaza City on Monday, following the killing of six journalists at the Al Shifa Hospital compound. The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) have since admitted to killing the journalists, which included a prominent Al-Jazeera reporter Anas al-Sharif amid Israeli claims he was a Hamas terrorist commander. Al-Sharif had previously worked for a Hamas media team in Gaza before the terrorist group launched an attack on Israel in October 2023. But Jodie Ginsberg, who heads the New York-based Committee for the Protection of Journalists, told the BBC that Israel has not produced any evidence he was an active member of Hamas. Since the war began, more than 200 Palestinian journalists have been reported killed in total, according to Philippe Lazzarini who heads the UN agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA). The bombings are part of larger operation by Israel's prime minister Netanyahu to widen the offensive beyond Gaza City and into areas where most of the enclave's population of two million have sought shelter. Israel says the expansion into enclaves in densely populated zones not yet under its control aims to force Hamas into total capitulation. Some 75 percent of Gaza is already under Israel's military grip, sparking fears that the plans would likely lead to further deaths and starvation. The war has seen Israel increasingly isolated , with Australia becoming the latest country to recognise a Palestinian state. "Australia will recognise the state of Palestine. Australia will recognise the right of the Palestinian people to a state of their own," said Australia's prime minister Anthony Albanese on Monday.
|
Nikolaj joined EUobserver in 2012 and covers home affairs. He is originally from Denmark, but spent much of his life in France and in Belgium. He was awarded the King Baudouin Foundation grant for investigative journalism in 2010.
|
The EU's foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has condemned Israel's military campaign as reports of bombings in Gaza intensify.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-12T07:04:14.284Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar3a80b511
|
Germany's 'Staatsräson' - undermining Schengen, elevating Israel
|
Permanent border controls are illegal under Schengen rules , which govern much of Europe. As a workaround, participating countries can apply for an “exception” by justifying a need to impose temporary ones. Though these “exceptions” are supposed to be a 'last resort', the European Commission has normalised granting them. Still, since they are time-limited, both the commission and member states can claim the exceptions fall within the law. Thus, Schengen is preserved in principle even as it is hollowed out in practice — one temporary exception at a time, and renewable to confront supposed threats that, conveniently, rarely have a specified end. Germany is one of 10 Schengen zone countries with so-called temporary border controls in place. Given its size, the number of borders it shares, and its location in Europe — not to mention its history with checkpoints and expulsion — the EU’s largest member does more damage than others to one of the bloc’s most fundamental norms. German officialdom, however, has shown itself not only unbothered by, but openly celebrating its drip-drip dismantling of rule of law. Of late, it can’t even muster the decency to pretend it’s not. In a recent Instagram post , the Christian Democratic Union, which governs the country with the Social Democrats in tow, celebrated Germany’s “introduction of border controls” (emphasis added) as a means of enforcing “law and order.” The blatant admission fazed no one. Neither the German interior ministry, controlled by the CDU’s Bavarian counterpart, the CSU, nor the EU Commission responded to a request for comment. A CDU reply arrived by way of doublespeak generator, with a party spokesperson explaining that Germany’s border controls couldn’t be permanent because officials have said they aren’t. Guess the CDU social media team didn’t get the message. The obfuscations are not only annoying politics as usual; they are dangerous. If Schengen is the law, then implementing “permanent” controls does not enforce “law and order,” as the CDU claims; it undermines them. Without technically breaking the law , these quasi-legal antics make the law increasingly optional, and its application arbitrary. The exception — even if officially “temporary” — starts to look more like the norm. A red flag from German history States of exception, who gets to decide what they are and when they apply, should raise a big red flag. Carl Schmitt, the German jurist who belonged to the NSDAP, is most infamously connected with the concept, which was instrumental in giving the Nazis the jurisprudential legitimacy to pervert Weimar Germany’s constitutional order. In this sense, the Nazis rarely broke the law. They went around it, suspended it, or redefined what “legal” meant. That’s why some Nazis argued, in subsequent war crimes trials, that they may have been morally culpable of atrocities but not legally accountable. International law was the answer to that cynical logic, but it’s still up to states to enforce it. Yet thanks to the politics of permacrisis, which the EU seems trapped in, an ongoing threat can justify almost any deviation from the legal norm. As Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben has argued, liberal democracies have been ruled by exception — that is, structures outside the law — for a long time . Schengen is just one prominent example. Suspending deficit rules explicitly for national military spending is another. Germany and Israel But the biggest state of exception is Israel — and Europe’s near pathological denial of the egregious crimes committed against Palestine long before, and with exponential ferocity and intent since 7 October. Germany, whose performative memory culture makes it unfit to credibly weigh in on the issue, leads the way on this exception. The Germans call this exception by their own neologism: . Elsewhere, it’s known better as or the national interest. By definition , Staatsräson is incompatible with constitutional law or democratic norms. Germany’s own Federal Agency for Civic Education describes it as an “absolutist or authoritarian principle” that “justifies the use of all means, regardless of morality or law” to preserve state power. If Germany's Staatsräson is the protection of Israel , as it is and , then Germany can only subjugate itself to Israeli state prerogatives. Paradoxically, it also forces Israel into Germany’s service — a different kind of “dirty work,” absolving it of crimes that Israel is in no position to forgive. Such a dynamic carries more than a whiff of colonial subjectification and antisemitic implications. Since former chancellor Angela Merkel popularised the term , in an address before Israel’s parliament in 2008, Staatsräson has helped normalise increasingly violent expressions of state power in both countries. It gave rise to the Bundestag’s 2019 resolution condemning the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, which as a nonbinding expression of the legislature has become another kind of exception. Despite its lack of legal significance, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency leaned on it to classify BDS and other activist groups, including Jewish ones, as “extremist threats.” Thanks to Staatsräson, German state and federal authorities have been able to squeeze legally protected artistic and cultural expression, shut down events, issue travel bans, deport EU citizens, ratchet up police brutality, and implement Israel loyalty oaths as a precondition for German citizenship. Even when officials ultimately back off , or get rebuked by domestic courts or European oversight , the damage — to lives, livelihoods, and the democratic system as a whole — is already done. It also trickles up and out, rippling across EU institutions. The German conservative at the top of the commission is cut from the same cloth; it’s no accident that the bloc’s first anti-antisemitism coordinator is, too. Germany is a leading obstacle to EU action against Israel, putting it in much the same category as Hungary when it comes to confronting Russia. German officialdom defends its Staatsräson as a recognition of its “historical responsibility.” Yet employing one state of exception in response to the crimes that emerged from another is more likely to replicate those authoritarian effects than compensate for them. William Noah Glucroft is an American/German journalist who covered Germany from Berlin for Deutsche Welle, among others, for 15 years before moving to Brussels in 2024.
|
William Noah Glucroft
|
German officialdom has shown itself not only unbothered by, but openly celebrating its drip-drip dismantling of rule of law. Of late, it can’t even muster the decency to pretend it’s not.
|
[
"Migration",
"EU Political",
"Opinion"
] |
migration
|
2025-08-12T06:46:10.126Z
|
https://euobserver.com/migration/arcd641ad6
|
Trump delays China tariffs as BRICS leaders strengthen ties
|
US president Donald Trump has granted a last-minute 90-day delay to a planned hike in import duties on Chinese goods, pushing the deadline to 10 November and narrowly avoiding an immediate escalation in the tariff standoff. The extension was confirmed late Monday (11 August), just hours before the deadline was due to expire on Tuesday. On his Truth Social platform, Trump said he had “instructed my team” to hold fire on higher duties, claiming Beijing had taken “significant steps” towards “remedying non-reciprocal trade arrangements.” The US has imposed steep tariffs on dozens of countries in recent months, with the EU, Japan and others striking deals to avoid the highest rates. Beijing resisted such terms, triggering duties of up to 145 percent on Chinese exports to the US and 125 percent on American goods in retaliation. Those levels were cut back in May to 30 percent for Chinese goods and 10 percent for US exports after a partial thaw, including US promises to lift curbs on chip-making technology and ethane sales, and Chinese pledges to ease access to rare earth minerals for American firms. If the Tuesday deadline had lapsed, US tariffs on Chinese imports would have reverted to their April levels. Key sticking points remain, including US complaints over weak intellectual property enforcement and heavy state subsidies for Chinese industry. Trump is also pushing China to "quadruple" its US soy bean imports which have collapsed due to the trade tariffs. The 90-day pause gives negotiators time to revisit those issues and raises the prospect of a meeting between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping later this year. BRICS bloc The decision also comes amid worsening trade tensions with other partners, including key US allies such as India, which was hit with a 50-percent levy over its continued purchases of Russian oil. And hours before Monday’s China extension, Washington slapped a 50-percent tariff on Brazilian exports. The country’s president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva spoke by phone with Xi on Tuesday in a coordinated show of unity, with both leaders vowing to resist “unilateralism and protectionism” and to deepen economic cooperation through the BRICS bloc. In recent days, Lula has also had meetings with India’s Narendra Modi and Russia’s Vladimir Putin to coordinate positions in response to Trump’s tariffs. COP30, the UN climate summit Brazil will host in November, is becoming a key stage for BRICS leaders to deepen cooperation and push back against the US-led Western system. Xi confirmed China will send a “senior delegation” to the summit to advance cooperation in health, energy, the digital economy and satellite technology.
|
Wester is a journalist from the Netherlands with a focus on the green economy. He joined EUobserver in September 2021. Previously he was editor-in-chief of Vice, Motherboard, a science-based website, and climate economy journalist for The Correspondent.
|
US president Trump has granted a last-minute 90-day delay to a planned hike in import duties on Chinese goods — as BRICS leaders continue to deepen ties ahead of the UN climate summit in November.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Green Economy"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-12T06:45:47.584Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/are27f2ce9
|
War of words - the EU clampdown on plant-based 'bacon, ribs and chicken'
|
The European Commission proposed banning 29 terms - like "bacon", "ribs" and "chicken" — for use in plant-based products on 16 July. This move comes despite clear European Court of Justice rulings allowing the use of traditional meat terms for clearly labelled plant-based alternatives. Last October, the ECJ ruled that member states cannot ban the use of traditional meat-related terms, such as “steak” or “sausage”. Unless they introduce legal names for specific food categories, they cannot prevent manufacturers of plant-based foods from using descriptive names borrowed from the world of meat. And so, as set out in the proposed regulation, the commission stepped in to save European and . But consumers are not confused by plant-based labels. According to the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC), up to 80 percent of consumers believe that terms such as 'burger' or 'milk' should be permitted for clearly labelled plant-based products. By adding new wording to Annex VII of Regulation 1308/2013 , the commission has defined as and reserved 29 terms for animal-based products only. Objectives of introducing a ban on vegan ribs is to , but also to “ ”. If the goal is transparency and consumer protection, clearer labelling on the health effects of meat — especially processed meat, which the WHO has classified as a Group 1 carcinogen alongside tobacco for 10 years now - would be more relevant than banning vegan steak. It’s difficult to believe this proposal is purely about consumer protection. More plausibly, it reflects pressure from influential agricultural lobbies like Copa-Cogeca, which represents large meat enterprises more than small-scale farmers. The latter were interviewed by Lighthouse Reports in their 2023 investigation . In the same investigation, Copa-Cogeca's own secretary-general, Pekka Pesonen, admitted to Politico without shame that preserving small-scale farming is not realistic. Throwing mud at vegans The ban proposal is a direct attack on the plant-based industry and on any attempt at meaningful food system transformation. And it’s been put into place thanks to meat and diary lobbyists, again, to waste time, drain energy, and distract people from working towards the desperately needed plant-based transition. This forces already underfunded vegan organisations to divert limited resources away from meaningful advocacy. This proposal is one of the many ways we are recently observing to delay, derail, and exhaust the very movement trying to bring about long-overdue change in European food systems and green transition in general. The meat and dairy lobbies have done this before and they just succeeded again. And the commission, despite being fully aware of the environmental, social, and public health cost of industrial animal farming, continues to sit at the table with them and allow it to dictate terms. Those working to transform the food system must ask themselves: is a polite, apologetic advocacy strategy enough? Perhaps it is time to be bolder. Rather than demanding cage-free farming or shorter transport times for animals, it may be worth demanding an end to factory farming or cutting subsidies for harmful animal farming and monoculture. It seems that playing by the rules of the powerful agricultural lobby has achieved nothing. Meat lobbyists can no longer be considered legitimate stakeholders in sustainability policy — they must be held accountable for obstructing progress on climate and health. Organisations advocating for food system transformation in Brussels are increasingly on the defensive, forced to counter attacks and accusations that they are working “against farmers”, which is simply untrue. But perhaps it’s time they stop defending and start fighting back. The truth is that we are clearly losing the battle for food-system transformation, not because our arguments are weak, but because our opposition is powerful, rich and coordinated. If we do not challenge this political imbalance directly — including questioning the commission’s cosy relationships with industry — we will keep losing ground while the world burns. Bon appétit? The only thing being preserved in the regulation is the systemic exploitation of animals, something we will be ashamed of in a few decades. And it’s destroying the environment and biodiversity, and posing threats to public health. At a time when at least 10 percent of Europeans face food poverty , resources should be spent building sustainable, affordable food systems — not policing plant-based labels and slowing down the people and organisations who are actually trying to fix the food system. Barbara Wolk is a policy and advocacy advisor at the Green REV Institute . Barbara Wolk is a policy and advocacy advisor at the
|
Green REV Institute
|
The EU Commission has proposed banning 29 terms — like "bacon", "ribs" and "chicken" — for use in plant-based products. The proposal is a direct attack on the plant-based industry and on any attempt at meaningful food system transformation. And it’s been put into place thanks to meat and diary lobbyists.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Green Economy",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-08-11T06:45:39.562Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar4f16df25
|
EU demands Israel amend restrictive new law on NGOs
|
A group of foreign ministers along with the EU's foreign policy chief have demanded Israel not crack down on international NGOs working on Palestinian issues. A joint-statement issued over the weekend warned against Israel 's recent registration system of international humanitarian organisations. The critics say it would force NGO staff to leave Israel by next month — widening the gap of critical aid needed in Gaza and elsewhere in occupied Palestinian territories. "Their exclusion would be an egregious signal," said the statement, signed by ministers from Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, the United Kingdom and the EU. The United Nations Office for the Coordination Of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) last week also sounded the alarm. It said Israel is requiring NGOs share sensitive personal information about their Palestinian employees or face termination of their humanitarian operations in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. "Unless urgent action is taken, humanitarian organisations warn that most international NGO partners could be de-registered by 9 September or sooner — forcing them to withdraw all international staff," it said. The requirement is one of a series of newly-imposed restrictions on international NGOs, which also include possible repercussions for publicly criticising the policies and practices of the Israeli government. "Already, NGOs that are not registered under the new system are prohibited from sending any supplies to Gaza," it said. Dozens of aid organisations in May also spoke out against the new rules. A statement issued at the time by the Norwegian Refugee Council says the rules aim to assert control over independent humanitarian operations and further cement Israeli control and de facto annexation of the occupied Palestinian territory. While NGOs already registered in Israel may face de-registration, new applicants can risk rejection if any of their staff had expressed support for accountability of Israel's international law violations. A spokesperson from the European Commission has yet to respond, as of publication, on how the new law could impact NGOs it helps finance in the area.
|
Nikolaj joined EUobserver in 2012 and covers home affairs. He is originally from Denmark, but spent much of his life in France and in Belgium. He was awarded the King Baudouin Foundation grant for investigative journalism in 2010.
|
A group of foreign ministers plus the EU's foreign policy chief demand Israel amend a law that restricts international NGOs working on Palestinian issues.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-11T05:59:42.517Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arec8f9d1b
|
Listen: southern Europe’s locals face the high cost of mass tourism
|
Summer 2025 is setting new tourism records, but also new tensions. In the sunny south of Europe, local patience is wearing thin. As prices rise and crowds grow, the question is: can southern Europe remain a paradise for tourists without becoming unlivable for its own people? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs
|
Evi Kiorri
|
In this episode, summer 2025 breaks tourism records in southern Europe, but rising costs and crowds spark local tensions over the future of their communities.
|
[
"Health & Society"
] |
health-and-society
|
2025-08-08T10:23:17.901Z
|
https://euobserver.com/health-and-society/are2656761
|
Listen: debunking the myth behind the crisis of masculinity
|
Women’s hatred towards men makes the men uncomfortable, but men’s hatred towards women kills women. Last July, a masculinist attack was averted in France. Earlier this year, the Netflix series “Adolescence” showed the world how the narrative of toxic masculinity had swept its way into young men’s heads. All these men pretend to defend their oh so precious masculinity. But is it really endangered and why does this narrative resurface every time women gain rights? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs
|
Evi Kiorri
|
This episode examines how the so-called crisis of masculinity emerges during periods of progress in gender equality and women’s rights, often framing men as victims.
|
[
"Health & Society"
] |
health-and-society
|
2025-08-08T06:53:25.569Z
|
https://euobserver.com/health-and-society/ar65ebf872
|
How to launder trees for Russia, under the EU's deforestation directive
|
The European Union’s landmark Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) was supposed to mark the end of the bloc’s complicity in global deforestation. Instead, it risks being gutted from within. A growing number of member states, led by Austria and Luxembourg, are pushing to introduce a “no-risk” category into the EUDR — an exemption that would in practice harm both the EU’s deforestation agenda and its sanctions on Russian and Belarusian timber. The proposed exemption would exclude goods from “no-risk” countries from due diligence and geolocation checks. In doing so, it would open a gaping loophole that allows deforestation-linked and sanctions-busting wood and other commodities to flow into the EU unchallenged. It would reward bad actors, punish responsible businesses and undermine our support for Ukraine. How it works An example: Earthsight investigations revealed earlier this year that more than €1.5bn worth of Russian and Belarusian birch plywood entered the EU after sanctions were imposed in 2022. That’s roughly 20 container-loads of illicit birch ply arriving in the EU every single day. In just the past six months, we found a further €273m worth imported via China, Kazakhstan, Turkey, and Georgia. These products are rebranded and relabelled in the laundering routes, and often accompanied by fraudulently issued certificates of origin claiming they were manufactured in those third countries. During our undercover work, launderers regularly offered Earthsight the use of fake harvest location information to accompany these shipments too. Exporters are openly naming countries like Bulgaria, Italy and Romania as key entry points. In several instances, sales representatives from Russian timber firms, including firms linked to oligarchs sanctioned by the EU, explain exactly how to circumvent EU law using third countries. The deception isn’t subtle. It’s industrial-scale fraud. While EU politicians are talking about the advantages of a “no-risk” exemption for European producers, the various resolutions and letters proposing this category make it clear it could apply to any country that has low deforestation rates and laws protecting its own forests. This means that China — a well-documented hub for illegal timber from all over the world, not just Russia — and potentially other laundering hubs with low deforestation rates such as Kazakhstan, could be given a free pass. Even if EU lawmakers could somehow navigate the diplomatic fallout (and likely WTO non-compliance) of an exemption that only applied to EU countries, exempting any area from geolocation creates opportunities for that area to be used for laundering — and we would simply see new and more creative ways of importing illegal timber. What’s really happening is that lobbying from the timber and agribusiness sectors is now being dressed up as simplification Eight of the 10 EU member states that have imported the most conflict timber are now backing the “no-risk” plan. These include Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Croatia — countries that, in some cases, have explicitly acknowledged the problem of illegal Russian wood entering their markets. The EUDR — like its predecessor, the European Union Timber Regulation (EUTR) — is an important tool for keeping Russian timber out of Europe. So when politicians like Austrian MEP Alexander Bernhuber insist that all we need is stronger sanctions enforcement, that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the system. Laundering loophole Sanctions on timber only apply to goods made in Russia or Belarus, not those processed elsewhere — a loophole currently exploited by launderers. The EUTR bans all Russian and Belarusian wood, wherever it is processed, allowing EUTR authorities to use the law to crack down on Russian wood even if it was processed in a third country. While EUTR enforcement has been notoriously weak, the EUDR has learned from those mistakes and offers authorities better tools that — if the law remains intact — will make it easier to debunk the fake harvest claims that launderers routinely proffer. Supporters of the “no risk” exemption argue that it will reduce red tape and help small farmers and foresters. But the regulation already includes tailored support for smaller operators, digital tools to ease reporting, and a phased implementation schedule. What’s really happening is that lobbying from the timber and agribusiness sectors is now being dressed up as simplification. Giving in to these demands would weaken the EU’s sanctions regime, allowing not just Russian and Belarusian firms — some with links to Kremlin oligarchs — but a wide range of unscrupulous actors to continue profiting from opaque timber flows. It would signal that enforcement is optional. Responsible businesses that have invested in tracing or changing their supply chains over the last few years would be undercut by competitors exploiting weak oversight. Let’s be clear: this is not about red tape. It’s about whether Europe has the will to confront illegal practices in the supply chains of the products we consume. It’s a response to years of evidence showing that illegal and unsustainable commodities routinely slip through the cracks, wrecking the climate, violating human rights, and undercutting responsible businesses. Anyone serious about enforcing sanctions, fighting deforestation and illegal logging or defending fair competition should reject the “no-risk” proposal outright. Anything less would be a gift to timber launderers and a blow to Europe’s credibility as a rule-maker. Tara Ganesh is the team leader for timber, sanctions and northern forests at Earthsight . Tara Ganesh is the team leader for timber, sanctions and northern forests at
|
Earthsight
|
A growing number of member states, led by Austria and Luxembourg, are pushing to introduce a “no-risk” category into the EUDR — an exemption that would in practice harm both the EU’s deforestation agenda and its sanctions on Russian and Belarusian timber.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"EU Political",
"Green Economy",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-08T06:38:15.277Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arcb33839c
|
Mapping the housing crisis in the Balkans - a plight decades in the making
|
For the past seven years, Dejana Stosic, a 26-year-old, has been renting in Serbia’s capital after relocating from a small town in the south of the country. Stostic recently found a job with a higher salary as a coordinator at a private company in Belgrade, but the cost of living remains high, and she has no plans to leave her current house share. “It takes me one-and-a-half hours to get to work, but I cannot afford to move closer to the office, which is situated in one of Belgrade’s pricier neighbourhoods,” she says. “For a few years now, I have been spending more than half of my salary on bills and rent.” A few years ago, the Ministry of Space, a Belgrade-based NGO specialising in urban development, created an open-source map that collects rental and sale listings in the Belgrade market and compares them to average and median salaries. Stosic’s experience is widely shared — in most parts of Belgrade, the map currently shows red, indicating that housing is far from affordable. Stosic says she has been dreaming of buying her own apartment for some time. Recently, the Serbian government launched a loan scheme for people aged 20 to 35 who are purchasing their first property. While the down payment is only one percent, to qualify, a citizen initially needed to have a long-term contract, while the unemployed needed a guarantor. After many expressed their dissatisfaction, the Serbian government changed the law in May, allowing people on temporary contracts to also apply under the same conditions as the unemployed, who need a guarantor. The change means Stosic now qualifies for the scheme, overcoming the obstacle that her lack of a long-term contract once posed. Currently, renting a one-bedroom flat in central Belgrade can cost anywhere between €600 and €1,200, according to Numbeo — an extensive open-source database offering insights into the cost of living worldwide. In the outskirts of the Serbian capital, prices range from €300 to €650 for a one-bedroom flat. These figures do not include monthly utility costs. Eurostat defines affordable housing as housing costs that account for no more than 40 percent of a household’s disposable income. According to Marko Aksentijevic from the Ministry of Space, this includes the cost of rent or mortgage and monthly bills. The average salary in December 2024 was €837, according to the statistical office of Serbia. However, many workers earn less. A more accurate reflection of typical income is the median salary — the midpoint in salary distribution — a stat that illustrates average earnings and highlights income inequality. In December 2024, Serbia’s median salary was €677.60 . “This means that a family of three, with two median incomes in Belgrade, can pay up to €400 for rent and bills without it being a financial burden,” says Aksentijevic. However, the flats currently advertised at that price or lower in Serbia’s capital are “mostly studios,” he adds. “They have to choose between squeezing into a small space or paying more than they can afford. The situation is alarming.” Aksentijevic explains that most people working in the civil sector, education, and service industries, where salaries are often below average, cannot afford to live near their workplaces. The Covid-19 pandemic, followed by the war in Ukraine, has significantly increased the cost of living and intensified Europe’s ongoing housing crisis. “Rental prices in Belgrade soared in 2022, increasing by up to 50 percent in less than a year. The surge was largely driven by the arrival of thousands of Russian citizens fleeing their country after Russia invaded Ukraine more than three years ago,” City Expert, one of Serbia’s largest real estate agencies, told K2.0. Following that abrupt spike, prices gradually declined over the next two years: they fell by approximately 20 percent in 2023 and a further 10 percent in 2024. With both house prices and rents on the rise, housing has become an increasing financial burden across the Western Balkans, a region that has seen some of the sharpest price hikes in Europe over the past five years. In cities like Belgrade, Tirana, and Pristina, the combined cost of rent and utilities is approaching, or even exceeding, average monthly salaries. The growing gap between supply and demand continues to push real estate and rental prices higher, making housing increasingly unaffordable, particularly for young people and those in vulnerable socio-economic groups. Kosovo citizens move to unaffordable urban areas Last year marked a milestone in Kosovo’s urban development. For the first time, just over half of the population lives in urban areas, compared to 38 percent in 2011, according to UN data, the United Nations programme for human settlements and sustainable urban development. “This represents a major shift toward urban living and reflects broader socio-economic changes taking place across the country,” Besnike Koçani, a spatial and urban planning advisor from UN-Habitat. The 1998-1999 war in Kosovo had a significant impact on housing availability. According to Kocani, 40 percent of houses were destroyed or severely damaged. In response, much of the rural population moved to cities in search of shelter. “As a result, the housing landscape experienced a significant rise in informal construction, particularly during the early 2000s. This occurred mainly due to weak institutional oversight and insufficient spatial planning,” adds Koçani. Kosovo’s urban areas became denser, dominated by multi-residential buildings that were often developed without consideration for infrastructure capacity or urban planning regulations. This has led to uncontrolled urban sprawl , growing pressure on public services, and deepening development disparities between municipalities. Some areas, especially Pristina, have experienced another construction boom in recent years . This rise in vacancy rates is closely tied to Kosovo’s large diaspora, with hundreds of thousands of citizens living and working abroad, particularly in western Europe. Many members of the diaspora invest in real estate in their hometowns as a future retirement plan, a form of financial security, or to contribute to their family’s legacy. However, these properties often remain unoccupied for most of the year, as their owners return only during holidays or summer visits. While this type of investment boosts construction activity, it also distorts the housing market by reducing the supply of available housing, contributing to inflated property values. In Pristina, renting a one-bedroom apartment costs between €225 for properties on the outskirts and over €300 for those in the city centre, according to Numbeo. Real estate listings on the websites of rental agencies such as Re/Max Kosova and Infinity Property show that one-bedroom flats advertised for under €300 euros are nearly non-existent. A three-bedroom apartment typically rents for over €300 outside the city centre and more than €600 in central areas. A person earning an average salary in Kosovo would need to work for two full months, without spending anything else, just to afford one square meter of property There is no official data on how much real estate prices in Kosovo have increased in recent years. “My estimate is that the increase over the past years was between 20 and 30 percent,” said Driton Tafallari, housing and urban development expert. Having analysed trends in average salaries and property prices, Tafallari explains that a person earning an average salary in Kosovo would need to work for two full months, without spending anything else, just to afford one square metre of property. “That is almost double the time that an EU citizen has to work to afford buying one square metre,” Tallafari added. Even without official data, it is evident that real estate prices in Kosovo have sharply increased. In 2014, a 64 square metre apartment on “Rruga B” was purchased for €720 per square metre. Today, the average price in the same neighbourhood exceeds €1,300 per square metre. While housing availability in Kosovo has improved, affordability remains a major concern, and it is not the only one. Koçani notes that infrastructure deficits are widespread in both formal and informal settlements, including problems with water supply, sewage, energy, and transportation. Among countries in the region, Kosovo reports the lowest average salary, with earnings significantly below regional standards. The most recent official data , from December 2024, shows an average net salary of €552. Albania ranks between Belgrade and Pristina in income levels, with average monthly earnings about 30 percent lower than in Serbia and 37 percent higher than in Kosovo. Living with parents, by necessity, not choice Albania is facing a similar housing crisis, with soaring rents and stagnant wages making independent living increasingly out of reach for many young people. Despite ongoing construction and rapid urban development , affordability remains a key barrier, especially in the capital. For Emre Berisha, a 25-year-old taxi driver from Tirana, that means living with his parents in their family home, just like 70 percent of young Albanians. While driving past Tirana’s colorful facades, he shares his grim perspective. “I do not see how I will ever afford to move out — my salary would need to almost double for me to be able to afford it,” says Berisha. Renting a one-bedroom apartment in Tirana can cost between €500 and €900 a month, while renting a similar unit outside the central parts of the capital ranges from €350 to €500. These prices, which do not include monthly utility bills, already far exceed the 40 percent threshold of monthly income used to define affordable housing. 'In theory, the only way out of living with my parents is getting married and securing a bank loan,' says Berisha Tirana, Pristina, and Belgrade are the economic centres of their respective countries, attracting large numbers of young people who move there to study and pursue job opportunities. Unlike Berisha, many of them do not have family housing in these urban hubs and are forced to rent. “Not owning an apartment combined with high prices makes it very difficult for them to live,” said Teuta Nunaj-Kortoçi, an economist from Albania. “In theory, the only way out of living with my parents is getting married and securing a bank loan,” said Berisha, referring to the burden a bank loan places on an individual, a burden that is more easily shared between two people. Beyond conventional bank loans, Berisha also has limited chances of benefiting from Albania’s soft loan scheme for young married couples. Launched in 2018 and revised in 2020, the scheme has continued to focus exclusively on supporting couples, but it has faced widespread criticism for being inefficient and inadequate in scope. In 2025, the City of Tirana supported around 1,200 couples in accessing social housing. To qualify, families must prove they do not own a home or that their current housing falls below minimum standards. Demand for the scheme far exceeds its capacity. Between 2018 and 2022, only 2,652 out of 7,645 applications were approved — less than half, according to official data. In Belgrade, Stoisic has a similar experience. “Buying property still seems like a mission impossible – maybe if I get married and have children, I could secure a loan for couples,” Stoisic says. In Serbia, the parliament recently adopted amendments to the law on subsidised loan schemes for citizens aged between 20 and 35. Irrespective of employment status, first-property buyers can apply for up to €100,000 of state-subsidised loans. The minimum deposit is only one percent, and the mortgage repayment can take up to 40 years. After the law was adopted, there were several thousand applicants. As such, the scheme was criticized by some economic experts as unsustainable. There are two other types of housing loans available for couples struggling to buy property, both aimed at underdeveloped towns and villages. In 2021, the ministry of rural welfare launched a small grant scheme offering €10,000 to families wishing to purchase houses in rural areas. The opportunity is open to people under 45, including married or cohabiting couples, single parents, and young farmers. Applicants must be current renters, have a degree in medicine, pharmacy, agriculture, veterinary medicine, or work in crafts, jobs that are compatible with living in the countryside. In Kosovo, there are currently no housing schemes specifically for young people. However, in December 2024, the Kosovo Assembly passed the Draft Law on Social and Affordable Housing . The law lays the groundwork for an eight-year national housing strategy and proposes the creation of a Housing Agency to oversee and centralise implementation. It introduces affordable housing initiatives, including subsidies for apartment purchases targeting young people among 17 identified groups. The law also extends social housing benefits to those unable to afford market-priced housing, capping rent at 30 percent of a family’s income. Young people have been newly included as a target category, though the law does not yet outline concrete measures for them. Can social housing provide a solution? In western Europe, social housing is intended not only for low-income families but also for citizens earning a living wage — as a way to help them enter the property market — the situation is quite different in Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania. Despite a growing number of people struggling with housing affordability, the limited social housing available in these countries is reserved almost exclusively for the most vulnerable groups. Even then, long waiting lists remain. In Albania, social housing, both public and private, accounts for only 0.1 percent of the total residential stock, according to a 2014 report by the UN Economic Commission for Europe. In Serbia, the state owns just 0.5 percent of the real estate market, offering these units for rent or sale at subsidized prices. As in Albania and Serbia, social housing in Kosovo is intended to support economically and socially vulnerable citizens In Kosovo, social housing is regulated by municipalities and has not yet been developed into a centralised national program . Since 2003 and up until 2024, most municipalities have built or allocated separate buildings specifically for social housing. According to data from the Ministry of Environment, Spatial Planning and Infrastructure (MESPI), 20 municipalities currently operate social housing programs, all based on the same model — standalone buildings where only beneficiaries of the social housing scheme reside. The shortage of municipal and social housing is not only a challenge in the Western Balkans but also a growing concern across the European Union. Only eight percent of the available housing stock in the European Union is classified as social housing, according to data from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). While no country in the Western Balkans has recorded housing-related protests in recent years, citizens in several EU countries have taken to the streets, demanding government action to address the housing crisis.
|
Jovana Matthews
|
In cities like Belgrade, Tirana, and Pristina, the combined cost of rent and utilities is approaching, or even exceeding, average monthly salaries. The growing gap between supply and demand continues to push real estate and rental prices higher — making housing increasingly unaffordable.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Health & Society"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-08T06:36:04.028Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar63fecd5b
|
Georgia sparks outcry for jailing journalist for two years
|
On Wednesday (6 August), a Georgian court sentenced journalist Mzia Amaglobeli to two years in prison for allegedly assaulting a police officer — drawing strong criticism from the EU and press freedom organisations. The EU condemned the verdict and called on Georgian authorities to release Amaglobeli , expressing concern over the “instrumentalisation of the justice system as a tool of repression against independent voices”. “The actions of the authorities targeting and silencing independent media undermine the very foundation of democracy, contradict Georgia's international obligations and run counter to the European aspirations of the Georgian population,” the EU's external action service press team said in a statement. Amaglobeli, co-founder and director of the media outlets Batumelebi and Netgazeti, was arrested in January for allegedly assaulting a police officer during a government crackdown on democratic protests in Batumi, southwestern Georgia — charges that press freedom groups have called "disproportionate." She was held in custody for months as a pre-trial measure, with reports pointing to her deteriorating health . Amaglobeli is the first female journalist to be jailed in Georgia since the country's independence in 1991. And she is also considered the first female journalist in Georgia to be seen as a prisoner of conscience. "The sentencing of Mzia Amaglobeli is a direct attack on the profession of journalism,” said Anthony Bellanger, general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ). “Mzia's case serves as a crucial reminder that freedom of expression cannot exist if it is restricted by conditions of fear and intimidation,” he added. Georgia’s ruling party, Georgian Dream, has been in power since 2012, leading to significant democratic backsliding, which worsened following the disputed October 2024 parliamentary elections. The official results sparked widespread fraud allegations and mass protests nationwide. Notably, the introduction of the Russian-style Foreign Agents Registration Act in 2024 was widely criticised as a tool to suppress critical journalism by restricting foreign funding and labelling independent media as foreign agents. The EU warned back in May that such law was “a serious setback" for the country’s democracy. Journalists have reported entry denials to the country, unjustified fines for covering pro-European protests, arbitrary detentions, and physical attacks, triggering widespread concern from human rights groups and calls to protect press freedom in Georgia. Georgia's EU accession process was halted de facto in mid-2024 due to serious democratic backsliding. In the 2025 Reporters Without Borders (RSF) World Press Freedom Index , Georgia is ranked 114 out of 180 countries, representing a drop of 11 places from the previous year.
|
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.
|
A Georgian court has sentenced journalist Mzia Amaglobeli to two years in prison for allegedly assaulting a police officer, drawing strong condemnation from the EU and press freedom organisations. She is the first female journalist to be jailed in Georgia since the country's independence in 1991.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-07T06:48:27.457Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar0765c8a8
|
Listen: The AI race and its environmental cost
|
Artificial intelligence models like ChatGPT and DeepSeek require immense computing power to train and operate. That demand has sparked a global construction boom of data centres, the physical backbone of AI. But as billions are poured into ever-larger facilities, is the world ready for the environmental and energy costs of this new digital infrastructure? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs
|
Evi Kiorri
|
In this episode, Evi Kiorri takes a deep dive into the environmental impact of cutting-edge AI technologies like ChatGPT and DeepSeek.
|
[
"Digital",
"Green Economy"
] |
digital
|
2025-08-07T06:40:18.637Z
|
https://euobserver.com/digital/ar01bd9522
|
Brussels goes all-in on competitiveness with sweeping deregulation push
|
Europe is currently rolling back a wide range of its most ambitious agricultural, climate, and digital laws. The EU Competitiveness Compass , published in January, set out a roadmap for simplification. The goal, according to the commission, is to “nurture Europe’s innate strengths, harness its resources and remove the barriers at European and national level.” “Europe must be the place where tomorrow’s technologies, services, and clean products are invented, manufactured and marketed, as we stay the course to climate neutrality,” the document reads. Since then, the EU has presented six so-called ‘Omnibus’ simplification packages filled with revisions to reduce the number of rules for businesses and sectors. Omnibus I – Reporting simplification The first Omnibus package targets four interlinked EU Green Deal laws (which all have long and cumbersome names): the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), the EU’s green taxonomy regulation, and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). proposed after the 2013 Rana Plaza disaster , was meant to make big companies accountable for human and environmental harm in their global supply chains. It finally passed in 2024 after a decade of wrangling but hasn’t yet entered into force. Still, it's first in line for rollback : the EU Commission, European Parliament and member states all want to narrow its scope to only the largest firms (1,000, 3,000 or even 5,000 employees, respectively), scrap the obligation to adopt climate transition plans, and remove civil liability clauses that would set clear legal standards for corporate accountability across the EU. Civil rights groups and the EU Ombudsman have challenged the need to delay and narrow sustainability rules without adequate transparency or consultation. And legal challenges are still looming. Top economists have also pushed back. “This proposal betrays the EU’s commitment to human rights and sustainability and would do little to prevent human rights and environmental harm in supply chains,” said Hélène de Rengervé from Human Rights Watch. , which only recently entered into force, requires companies with over 250 employees to report on social and environmental impacts. Co-legislators now want to reduce the scope along the same lines as CSDDD. — its rulebook for what counts as a sustainable activity — is also being simplified. Under a July proposal, companies wouldn’t have to report taxonomy alignment for activities that make up less than 10 percent of their business. Financial institutions could opt out altogether, provided they don’t make any green claims. The commission says this will cut reporting by 64 percent for companies and 89 percent for financial institutions. a tariff on carbon-intensive imports including iron and steel, aluminium, cement, electricity, hydrogen and fertilisers, was also reduced. Full reporting will now only apply to shipments over 50 tonnes — a change that cuts scope of the law by 90 percent. The commission claims that 99 percent of emissions will still be covered. Omnibus II – Investment simplification The second Omnibus package is meant to streamline EU investment tools, including InvestEU, EFSI, and other legacy instruments. These have long been criticised for overlap and administrative complexity. "Simplification of existing legislation is indispensable for boosting EU competitiveness," said Polish Europe minister Adam Szłapka, whose country held the EU rotating presidency at the time, backing the move. The changes are meant to make it easier for SMEs and regional authorities to access these funds, with simpler reporting, in the hopes of boosting green investment and competitiveness. Whether this will lead to higher uptake or looser controls is still unclear. Omnibus III – Agricultural policy simplification The third Omnibus targets the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Among the proposed changes are a lowering of grassland protection, discretion for member states to set water and peatland protections (rather than at the current EU level), and small farmers can be exempt from key environmental rules (the GAEC standards) altogether. The commission also proposed a faster crisis payment mechanism and more flexibility for member states to opt out of EU-wide green conditionality. The commission estimates this will save up to €1.58bn, while environmental groups, including WWF, warn this package strips away hard-fought essential climate and nature safeguards that align farming with EU climate and biodiversity goals. Omnibus IV – Single market and green simplification The fourth package, presented in May, focuses on the single market. It promises €400m in annual savings through lighter rules for nearly 38,000 “small mid-caps,” simplified product legislation, digitalised compliance procedures, and faster trade defence for SMEs. It also includes: a two-year delay to due diligence rules under the Batteries Regulation, relaxed reporting rules for GDPR and a proposal to ease the F-gas Regulation. , or fluorinated greenhouse gases, are extremely potent climate pollutants. Although little known, the IPCC estimates that they have contributed approximately 12 percent of global warming since 1750. Refrigerators, heat pumps and air conditioners are some of the biggest sources of emissions. The current law requires registration by around 38,000 firms. The commission now wants to scrap that obligation for 10,000 companies in 2026, which trade in products that have low emissions of these gases. According to the commission, earlier rules turned out to be "disproportionate", and while the new reduced scope won’t undermine climate goals. No assessment of climate impact has been made, however. The EU’s iconic data protection law is also being simplified. In May, the commission proposed lifting record-keeping duties for firms with fewer than 750 employees, as long as their data processing isn’t high-risk. The European Data Protection Board gave cautious support but warned of weakening safeguards. Civil society groups argue this assumes that small means no risk and call instead for better enforcement of existing rules. Omnibus V - Defence readiness The 'Defence Omnibus' proposal — which still needs approval from member states and parliament — is meant to slash red tape, clear the way for €800bn in new military spending over the next four years, and integrate Europe’s fragmented arms market. One is a fast-track permitting regime for defence projects, with deadlines capped at 60 days. If national authorities fail to respond within that timeframe, the permit will be automatically granted. Arms export licences for intra-EU transfers will be processed within three days, down from “the current six to seven weeks,” he added. Another key element is a change to EU merger control policy. For the first time, “defence readiness” will be treated as a positive factor in merger reviews, giving a green light in principle to consolidations that contribute to a more effective European defence industry. The commission hopes this shift could encourage more cross-border tie-ups between national champions such as Airbus, Thales (France) and Leonardo (Italy), which are in talks to combine satellite operations. The initiative also includes measures to improve access to finance by easing eligibility for EU investment tools and clarifying that weapons, except for prohibited munitions like landmines, are allowed under the EU’s environmental, social and governance (ESG) rules. Omnibus VI – Chemicals simplification In July, the commission launched its fifth simplification package, this time targeting the chemicals sector. Framed as an industrial strategy, the plan promises €360m in savings through simpler labelling and regulatory procedures for hazardous substances, cosmetics, and fertilisers. 'The commission’s proposal lacks a solid evidence base, sidesteps public consultation, and ignores its own Better Regulation Guidelines. That’s not simplification – that’s maladministration' But Green groups warn the plan weakens long-standing consumer protections, such as the right to know about hazardous chemicals in products they buy. Meanwhile, the commission says a broader PFAS ban is in preparation, though exemptions for strategic sectors are already planned. "The commission’s proposal lacks a solid evidence base, sidesteps public consultation, and ignores its own Better Regulation Guidelines. That’s not simplification – that’s maladministration," said ClientEarth legal expert Julian Schenten. The chemical manufacturing sector is the fourth-largest industry in the EU, comprising 30,000 companies and directly employing 1.2 million people. It is estimated that about eight percent of deaths in Europe can be attributed to hazardous chemicals. Other simplification efforts After multiple delays, the EU's powerful Christian Democrats (European People's Party) have given Viktor Orbán's hard-right Patriots group control of the climate targets 2040 in parliament. Socialists, Liberals and Greens had called for the urgent procedure to avoid this scenario. But the EPP rejected this call as well, thereby accepting outspoken climate change deniers taking a leadership role in the negotiation of the file. The expectation is that they will use this role to try and delay agreement until after the UN climate summit taking place in Belèn in November. "Flexibility cannot become a backdoor for deregulation. Any changes to the 2040 target fixed must be made conditional on respecting scientific rigour and ensuring social equity," said Italian socialist MEP Antonio Decaro earlier this month, after the commission unveiled its proposal. Adopted in 2023, the EUDR bans imports of soy, palm oil, and beef from recently deforested land. But implementation has stalled. The commission classified only four countries as “high-risk” — none of them major exporters like Brazil or Indonesia. Since then, 11 member states have pushed to weaken the law further. The EU Parliament recently backed a non-binding resolution calling on the commission to scrap the current classification system and introduce two new categories: “negligible” and “insignificant”. Meanwhile, 18 agriculture ministers have asked for a formal delay to the regulation, which is due to enter into force in 2026. "As global forest loss surges to record highs , the EU's political will to tackle it is failing," said Nicole Polsterer from NGO Fern . The EU’s anti-greenwashing law is also in limbo. The Green Claims Directive, which would ban vague or unverifiable terms like “climate neutral” or “eco-friendly,” would require companies to back up any green claim with scientific evidence and independent verification. But business groups have pushed back, arguing the rules are overly burdensome and risk stifling innovation. In early June, the commission briefly appeared to shelve the proposal entirely. But this was later walked back after it triggered political chaos in Brussels. EU commission spokespersons later denied the withdrawal, but delays have continued and the directive remains stuck in trilogue. Its final fate is uncertain. With less than a month before key provisions of the AI Act take effect, pressure is building to delay its implementation. Tech firms like Google, Meta and Mistral, backed by several member states, say the lack of guidance and missing technical standards make compliance impossible. At the centre of the problem is the AI Code of Practice, which was due in May but won’t arrive before the end of the year. Harmonised standards may not land until 2026. The commission insists the timeline remains unchanged: rules for general-purpose AI models apply from August 2025, with enforcement starting in 2026. A Polish-led initiative in the Council is now pushing for SME exemptions and timeline flexibility. For now, though, companies are being told: prepare as planned.
|
Wester is a journalist from the Netherlands with a focus on the green economy. He joined EUobserver in September 2021. Previously he was editor-in-chief of Vice, Motherboard, a science-based website, and climate economy journalist for The Correspondent.
|
From reporting and defence to chemicals and AI, Europe’s simplification packages are reshaping the regulatory landscape.
|
[
"Green Economy"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-06T07:03:01.049Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ardf3e61a9
|
When the state turns on its own: Georgia’s civil society under siege
|
In recent months, the Georgian Dream party has sparked growing international alarm over its accelerating democratic backsliding, characterised by violent suppression of peaceful protests, the imprisonment of political opponents, and the steady dismantling of civil society and independent media. The arrest of journalists like Mzia Amaghlobeli and the subsequent deterioration of her health while in detention are not isolated events but part of a broader repression campaign by the ruling party against civil society, civic activists and independent media. The Foreign Agents Registration Act adopted in May tightened government control by forcing NGOs, media, and individuals receiving foreign funds to register as “organisations serving foreign interests,” enabling broad powers to silence dissent and restrict civic space. These troubling developments underscore a deliberate, systematic dismantling of democratic institutions, a trend clearly captured in the 2025 Eastern Partnership Index . While Georgia’s overall Index score remains unaltered as in the 2023 edition of the report, it masks severe democratic regression. Declines are pronounced in key areas: democratic rights, state accountability, independent media, judicial independence, and the fight against corruption. While minor progress has been recorded in market economy and energy-related policies, these improvements are marginal and overshadowed by the government’s systematic assault on democratic values. Despite Georgia’s EU candidate status, its democratic indicators are far from those of its EU-aspiring neighbours, Moldova and Ukraine, undermining Georgia’s future within the European family and Georgians’ European aspirations. Upcoming elections As Georgia approaches the local elections scheduled for 4 October 2025, the highlights serious concerns about the country’s democratic foundations. The ruling Georgian Dream party has significantly weakened electoral management bodies by repealing qualified majority voting in all election commissions. This move has effectively sidelined the opposition’s role in overseeing elections, granting the ruling party full control over selecting Central Election Commission members and chairs. Additionally, the index includes a case study exposing the misuse of electronic voting technologies during the 2024 parliamentary elections. Along with the more recent arrests of opposition figures , these developments cast a shadow over the fairness, transparency, and credibility of the upcoming local elections. The deterioration of civil liberties has been met with growing civic resistance. Despite violent crackdowns, arrests, and mounting intimidation, Georgians continue to take to the streets in defence of democracy and human rights. Civil society organisations remain active in monitoring abuses, challenging repressive laws, and advocating for accountability. Journalists, lawyers, students, and activists have played a critical role in documenting violations and mobilising public support, even in the face of harassment and smear campaigns. Georgia’s changing trajectory is not just a domestic concern; it is a European crisis. The opportunity for meaningful intervention is rapidly narrowing. The European Union and its member states must show clear and strategic unity with Georgia’s civil society, which stands as the country’s last line of defence against authoritarianism. This requires increasing targeted sanctions on those responsible for repression, support for independent media and civil society organisations, and actively engaging with pro-democracy and pro-European forces on the ground. Simultaneously, pressure must be exerted on the Georgian government to repeal repressive legislation, free political prisoners, and amend laws to guarantee that upcoming elections adhere to fundamental democratic norms. The moment to act is now, before the window for democratic renewal shuts down completely. Yana Brovdiy works at the Eastern Partnership Index and is advocacy manager at the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum . Yana Brovdiy works at the Eastern Partnership Index and is advocacy manager at the
|
Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum
|
Amid escalating state repression, Georgia finds itself at a pivotal turning point. The findings of the Eastern Partnership Index 2025 make one thing clear: under the ruling Georgian Dream party, Georgia is dangerously drifting away from the democratic values and European integration.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Rule of Law",
"EU Political",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-06T06:46:21.178Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar6b87bc94
|
Listen: the battle to regulate toxic TFAs
|
You’ve heard of PFAS, these forever chemicals found on your non-stick pan, in your dishwasher detergent, in your jacket and generally everywhere in your everyday lives. Now meet the trifluoroacetic acid or TFA, probably very dangerous to public health but not regulated or measured in the EU. Now, you might wonder, if our food supplies are contaminated, why isn’t the EU taking action to stop it? Well the EU can’t stop it because it didn’t monitor it. Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs
|
Evi Kiorri
|
In this episode, Evi Kiorri uncovers the hidden threat of TFA — an unregulated, potentially harmful chemical spreading across the EU without monitoring or control.
|
[
"Green Economy"
] |
green-economy
|
2025-08-05T16:10:02.377Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/ar0b17039f
|
Trump’s ultimatum on Ukraine nears endgame
|
US special envoy Steve Witkoff is set to visit Moscow on Wednesday (6 August), according to Russian and US sources cited by Russian news agency TASS — just a few days before US president Donald Trump's deadline for Moscow to end the war. Last week, Trump threatened Russia with sanctions unless the Kremlin agreed to a ceasefire by Friday, de facto shortening the original 50-day deadline previously given to Moscow. During a meeting with UK prime minister Keir Starmer in Scotland, the American president told reporters that he was “disappointed” with Russian president Vladimir Putin, as no progress was being made. "President Trump’s deadline for a ceasefire is approaching. Finland supports all efforts towards an immediate ceasefire. Longterm negotiations must lead to a lasting and just peace,” Finland's president Alexander Stubb said on Monday after he held a phone call with Trump. For his part, Andriy Yermak, a top aide to Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelensky, called out what he described as another "delay" for any meaningful talks on a ceasefire, pushing instead for a "meeting of leaders" between Zelensky and Putin. And the Kremlin has so far responded cautiously, with spokesperson Dmitry Peskov describing Witkoff’s potential visit as “important, substantial and helpful”. Peskov also said everyone should be cautious over "nuclear rhetoric" after the recent spat between Trump and former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev involving the potential use of nuclear weapons. Last week, Trump ordered two nuclear submarines to "be positioned in the appropriate regions" in response to what he called “highly provocative” remarks by Medvedev. Meanwhile, on the battlefield, Ukraine remains under pressure. Zelensky said on Monday that mercenaries from China, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and African countries are actively fighting alongside Russian forces, and he vowed a response as he visited the frontline in the northeastern Kharkiv region. Ukraine has previously accused Russia of recruiting Chinese mercenaries, while hundreds of North Korean soldiers have also been reportedly killed fighting in Russia's war in Ukraine. In a show of support, the Netherlands said it would become the first country to use Nato’s new clearinghouse mechanism to provide Ukraine with American weapons. "As the first Nato ally, the Netherlands will deliver a €500m package of US weapon systems (including Patriot parts and missiles)," Dutch defence minister Ruben Brekelmans wrote on X. Patriot systems are crucial for Ukraine's air defence, protecting cities and infrastructure by intercepting Russian missiles and drones. Nato chief (and former Dutch PM) Mark Rutte welcomed the announcement, saying he expected other countries to follow suit. "This is about getting Ukraine the equipment it urgently needs now to defend itself against Russian aggression," said Rutte. Zelensky also showed gratitude for the Dutch decision. "Ukraine, and thus the whole of Europe, will be better protected from Russian terror," Zelenskiy said on X. "I am sincerely grateful to the Netherlands for their substantial contribution to strengthening Ukraine's air shield," he added. As Trump’s 8 August deadline looms large, the US insists the sanctions package is ready and will hit hard, potentially targeting Russian oil exports.
|
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.
|
Donald Trump's ceasefire deadline approaches as US envoy Steve Witkoff is expected to visit Moscow — while Ukraine warns of foreign mercenaries and Nato boosts arms support.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-05T06:58:52.179Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ard389792b
|
Corporate lobbyists will weaponise European Parliament's plan for 'impact assessments'
|
Could the European Parliament be the first legislative body on the planet prepared to pause proceedings to allow for a jury to scrutinise their ideas, using a corporate-friendly methodology? On 15 July 2025 the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) in the parliament voted in favour of introducing “impact assessments” of all “substantial amendments” by MEPs to legislative proposals. Impact assessments have been used by the commission for many years, but until now the European Parliament has been hesitant to introduce them. But this has changed now the EU has enthroned ‘competitiveness’ — ie deregulation and corporate profits — above all other considerations, and with a rightwing majority in the parliament. In that context, such a new procedure could quickly be weaponised by corporate lobby groups. Impact assessments have been a cherished lobbying tool for corporate lobby groups ever since the tobacco industry — with the help of oil and gas companies — succeeded in making them mandatory for all legislative acts in the EU’s Amsterdam Treaty. Since then, the commission has too often made assessments that are crude cost-benefit analysis. Scrutinise impacts, ignore benefits While businesses are eager to broadcast — and often exaggerate — the potential impacts of new rules on their profits, it is far more complicated to assess the multi-layered and multi-faceted benefits — including non-monetary ones — to the wider wellbeing of society, or the environment. For corporate lobby groups, campaigning to make impact assessments narrowly focused is standard. The Farm to Fork strategy — which set out to make agriculture more sustainable — saw lobby groups for various industries and big farmers flood the commission with calls for a specific type of impact assessment. They called for a single-minded focus on “realistic”, “practical”, “market-oriented” goals. All too often such calls have been part of campaigns which ultimately defeated crucial EU initiatives, the Farm to Fork strategy included. The prospect of MEPs’ “substantial amendments” being investigated through impact assessments, is thus a major win for corporate lobby groups. And they are at work to secure a major win by trying to influence the assessments’ methodology, as with BusinessEurope that currently have their eyes on how further strengthen impact assessments emphasis on ‘competitiveness’ . Having bodies for workers in multinational companies for information and consultation, for instance, should be considered a “deterrence of foreign investment” and a factor that weakens the “competitive position of European companies.” Once in place, the lobby groups will work hard to influence every impact assessment that touches their interests, before it sees the light of day. As when the commission began work on an impact assessment on revision of REACH, the chemicals regulation, and was lobbied hard behind the scenes by the main chemicals lobby group, CEFIC. Marking your own homework If they see a need, they will do their own impact assessments too. These help them set the terms of the media narrative, as with the chemicals example above, which focused on scaremongering over potential lost jobs and profits. This is the general tendency, to ignore a regulation’s potential benefits to society, health, and the environment, or wider related costs of inaction, for example overburdened healthcare systems, climate disasters, or cleaning up toxic products. Lobby groups that wanted to see the Farm to Fork strategy gone produced no less than five such impact assessments. They will then go on to urge MEPs to call for more ‘evidence’, or a more “comprehensive assessment”. Willing MEPs could help undermine a proposal, or slow down things in order to help weaken it. After all, ‘paralysis-by-analysis’ happened with both the pesticide reduction law withdrawn in early 2024, and before that the revision of the Carcinogens Directive. Willing MEPs could help undermine a proposal, or slow down things in order to help weaken it If the European Parliament — for whatever reason — decides not to do an assessment on one of its amendments, or if the assessment is considered sub-standard, industry could still use a decision from the European Court of Justice to have the vote annulled. There is precedent: in 2018 the European Court of Justice ruled in favour of BASF to annul a 2013 ban of fipronil, a chemical used in pesticides that is highly harmful to bee populations. Given the previous weaponisation of impact assessments by industry, it’s naïve to imagine this won’t be a tendency going forward. Demanding impact assessments of “substantial amendments” will be an invite to all the merchants of doubt to cast bad light on any measure that threatens their profits. MEPs must ask themselves if it is really worth locking themselves to this path for years to come. Given the litany of major legislation in the public interest being derailed by such tactics, why turbo-charge this powerful tool in the hands of industry lobbyists? Doing so risks further eroding democratic decision-making and damaging the European Parliament’s reputation. Kenneth Haar is a researcher and campaigner with Corporate Europe Observatory , the NGO monitoring Brussels corporate lobbying. Kenneth Haar is a researcher and campaigner with
|
Corporate Europe Observatory
|
Impact assessments have been used by the EU Commission for many years, but until now the European Parliament has been hesitant to introduce them. But this has changed now the EU has enthroned ‘competitiveness’ — ie deregulation and corporate profits — above all other considerations, plus a rightwing majority in the parliament, warns Corporate Europe Observatory.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-08-05T06:45:57.370Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar5706ed3f
|
Borrell speaks out on the EU's 'double standards' on Gaza, and US tariff failure
|
In an interview with EUobserver in Madrid, former EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell (78) reflects on Europe’s weak geopolitical weight, its divided and questionable response to the war in Gaza, strained transatlantic ties, and the uncertain future of the EU amid Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine. The veteran Catalan socialist served in various positions during his tenure in domestic Spanish politics, before stepping down in 1999 as leader of the opposition. He later shifted to European politics, serving as an MEP from 2004 to 2009, including two years as president of the European Parliament. He returned to national politics as Spain’s foreign minister from 2018 to 2019. His five‑year tenure as the EU's top diplomat (2019-2024) was marked by a string of global crises, overseeing the bloc’s diplomatic response to the Covid-19 pandemic, rising tensions in the Middle East, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and the 7 October Hamas attacks. He had a reputation in Brussels for speaking his mind or calling on EU delegations to report faster and more proactively. But his record was not without controversy. Borrell faced criticism in 2021 for a visit to Moscow and a press conference with Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov that many viewed as diplomatically damaging. He speaks about this moment and about what he sees as the EU’s missed opportunities and future geopolitical challenges. From a political standpoint, the result is very bad . It gives the impression of weakness and submission to Trump’s demands. And it shows Europe can hardly be considered a strategically autonomous actor. The European Commission is selling it as the "least bad option.” But I think it’s the result of a poor strategy — more a surrender than a negotiation. It follows the old strategy of bullies. The US threatened 30 percent tariffs, then offered 15 percent, and we’re expected to be grateful. Germany and Italy, for example, got tariff reductions on cars. That matters to them. France is in a different position, and eastern countries another. But if the big three accept it, resistance is futile. We pursued a “smile and good manners” approach, hoping to melt Trump’s heart and got a balanced deal. But it didn’t work. Under Biden, we followed the US lead, especially on China . But Biden wasn’t hostile. Biden clearly accepted the commission president as his preferred counterpart. With Trump, even securing a meeting was hard. The meeting [between Ursula von der Leyen and Donald Trump] barely lasted an hour. That suggests it was already cooked, a sort of take-it-or-leave-it deal. But the [tariffs] agreement is based on additional elements that are completely impossible to fulfil. These were concessions to Trump, which he will later use against us, claiming we didn’t fulfil them —because we can’t fulfil them. For example, buying $750bn worth of gas over three years. That’s simply not feasible. The EU doesn’t buy gas, companies do. Same with weapons. And we say we want our own defence industry while promising to buy everything from the US. That’s a contradiction. The same as saying we have a green strategy while tripling gas purchases. Trump only cares about Trump. If conceding to Russia benefits him, he’ll do it. If not, he won’t. He’s unpredictable. But he has already pushed narratives blaming Zelensky for the war and criticising Biden for aiding Ukraine. The big question is what he’ll do once the $60bn aid package runs out. The big question for European society is: if the US stopped supporting Ukraine, could we or would we, which is not the same, continue supporting them in a way that makes up for the loss of American aid? No, the war won’t end soon, for one very simple reason: because Putin is in no hurry. He has the human resources to sacrifice as many as needed. Ukraine doesn’t. It has a shortage of military manpower. Russia still has resources, and it has China behind it, which supplies them with equipment — not weapons, but materials that can be converted into weapons. On top of that, they can bring in North Korean soldiers. They can also buy military equipment from North Korea, so Russia can prolong this for years. But Russia hasn’t won this war, because Zelensky is still in Kyiv. It hasn’t lost either, because it hasn’t been pushed out of the occupied territories. And Ukraine is in the reverse situation—it hasn’t won, because Russia is still there, but it hasn’t lost either. And that stalemate will depend heavily on both sides’ ability to endure—and especially on our willingness to help. The big question for European society is: if the US stopped supporting Ukraine, could we or would we, which is not the same, continue supporting them in a way that makes up for the loss of American aid? At the time, I felt it was the moment to confront Russia directly over the trial of Navalny. I knew it was risky. Lavrov wasn't going to welcome me with a smile , but despite that, I believed I had to go because it was the right time and place to show support for Navalny and criticism of Russia. Had I known beforehand, I probably wouldn’t have gone. But it was also a chance to deliver a clear message in Moscow. Navalny is now dead, and his resistance movement is exhausted, and that too is a factor enabling Putin to continue the war. Internally, there’s no opposition. Lavrov also tried to corner me by comparing Navalny to Junqueras [a Catalan separatist]. I didn’t respond because I wasn’t there to debate Catalan separatism. And then the expulsion of European diplomats. During lunch in Moscow, I saw on Twitter that European diplomats had been expelled. Lavrov admitted it shouldn’t have been made public while I was still there. I couldn’t react to something I didn’t know about. Sanctions are approved unanimously by EU countries. That’s how it is. We’re not going to change that, because it would require changing the treaties. That’s not going to happen. But it is not only sanctions. Since I left, there’s been no new military aid to Ukraine from the EU . The €6.6bn from the European Peace Facility are blocked because of Hungary. This was the end of this instrument. Everything will have to be bilateral now. And if Hungary refuses to renew sanctions, they can’t be renewed. We’re stuck. Hungary blocked many of our proposals. Sanctions against violent settlers were very limited, maybe 20 people, despite clear evidence. We sanctioned thousands in Russia for less. Many member states simply don’t want to impose sanctions on Israel. That’s the reality. The deaths in Bucha were counted in dozens. In Gaza, they’re counted in tens of thousands. There are horrors greater than others — and Gaza is one of them Yes. What Netanyahu has done in Gaza surpasses many war crimes we've condemned. Tens of thousands have died. If Putin had done this, we’d have sanctioned him more severely. The deaths in Bucha were counted in dozens. In Gaza, they’re counted in tens of thousands. There are horrors greater than others — and Gaza is one of them. No. We never had military weight. We used to have institutional weight, based on international law and the respect of human rights. That’s now gone. I don’t think any Arab leader is going to waste a single minute listening to a European argument based on respect for international law or humanitarian law. They would ask: “Who are you to lecture me?” I’ve never officially been declared persona non grata, but yes in practice. I tried to visit Israel twice, but I was told no. Once, via Jordan, before the flight, the permit was revoked. And yes, I’ve been called antisemitic. But anyone who criticises the Israeli government gets that label. Arabs are Semites too. More accurately, they should say “anti-Jewish”. But being anti-Jewish is one thing and criticising what the Israeli government is doing is another entirely. It’s such a baseless accusation that it’s not even worth addressing. Some justify inaction given the historical responsibility of Europe in the Holocaust. But the Palestinians didn’t kill the Jews If that’s all they can come up with, it’s a joke, a bad joke . And EU member states have not even been able to approve it. Research funding isn’t Israel’s core interests. We need stronger measures. For instance, suspending the trade association agreement. But nothing can happen unless the commission proposes it — and then member states approve it. The commission can block action by not putting items on the agenda. And the commission hasn’t. I also believe that Israeli society should pay a significant price for what the settlers are doing in the West Bank. I know that not all Israelis do this, but they allow it to happen. When the Oslo Accords were signed, there were approximately 100,000 settlers in the West Bank, and now there are over 700,000. According to international law, that’s illegal. For far less than this, we’ve removed visas for citizens of other countries. If she doesn’t put something on the agenda, it won’t be discussed. In five years that I was at the college of commissioners, voting wasn’t common. Everything came pre-decided. Some commissioners might want a real debate on Gaza, but it’s not happening. At some point, yes. A third of the bombs falling on Gaza are made in Europe. And there's a growing sense that inaction is starting to make us responsible for what’s happening. If Europe can’t act because some won’t allow it to, some are beginning to say: listen, someone has to be held accountable. But I don’t think it will stand in court. Anyway, people don’t care about procedural excuses. The feeling that exists today around the world, that Europe is not acting in the face of a clear case of massive human rights violations, is already coming at a cost. Some justify inaction given the historical responsibility of Europe in the Holocaust. But the Palestinians didn’t kill the Jews. I’ve said that to my German colleagues. That guilt shouldn't justify allowing Palestinian civilians to be killed today. It’s important, but it’s symbolic. Recognition indeed strengthens the Palestinian position under international law. But then what? Many countries already recognise it , especially from the East. Western states must follow. France could trigger a domino effect. It’s harder today than during the Oslo Accords. The Israeli movement sees this war as necessary. And a big part of the Israeli society thinks that the only solution is for Palestinians to leave or be exterminated. But we must keep pushing, through law, diplomacy, and international institutions. It’s the only solution we have.
|
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.
|
In an interview with EUobserver in Madrid, former EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell reflects on the EU-US tariff deal ("it didn't work"), the Ukraine war ("it won't end soon"), his Moscow showdown with Sergei Lavrov, and admits the EU has "double standards" on Gaza.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-04T06:40:15.420Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar0e1ba256
|
What the debate about subsidising EU media misses
|
In recent weeks, the debate over public funding for journalism has risen from the ashes once again, this time within the EU public affairs bubble. While at times the tone of the reporting drifted towards clickbait territory , the noise it made had at least one merit: putting the issue back on the table, right when it matters most. Just a few days later, the European Commission released the first draft of the next Multiannual Financial Framework, the common budget for the period 2028-2034, which (at least in its current draft), offers some unexpected, yet fragile, hope for journalism. And with that, it calls for a reminder of what the debate should be about. There is one claim that deserves the largest share of attention, amongst all the claims advanced in recent Euractiv articles. The claim, in short, is that giving public money to journalist organisations is considered taboo in most EU countries, as it would distort the market and undermine media credibility. Therefore, the EU should refrain from supporting the media. It’s an idea that deserves closer attention, not just because parts of it don’t hold up, but because it opens the door to a broader conversation about the role of public funding for journalism in Europe today. A good place to begin is by acknowledging that the relationship between journalism and the state is both fragile and complex. To quote Helle Sjøvaag , one of the most respected scholars on media funding, “Get too close to the state, and fourth estate legitimacy is compromised. Get too close to the market, and professional legitimacy is compromised”. When is a 'taboo' not a taboo? Let’s take the ‘get too close to the state’ part, with the premise that this discussion is not about public service media, but about public support to commercial news organisations. And here’s the key point: such support is not a taboo. Collectively, EU member states, according to an independent report published by the European Commission in 2024, spent €1.32bn in support for private news media in 2022, the year this report refers to. In front of this number, one could still support a minimal state doctrine arguing that phenomena of media capture of the Hungarian type - with state advertising weaponised to fully control media – happen to varying degrees also in states where democratic institutions are stronger. But you could also take the opposite perspective. The Danish example/exception Take Denmark, where a solid welfare model applied to media subsidies has generated a sophisticated infrastructure which ensure trasparency of ownership funding mechanisms, while preserving the independence of media regulators. A recently published study has analysed the first 10 years of the Danish public innovation support and found that such support has served the function it was designed to serve: 31 new, still active, news organisations were created, adding pluralism of voices and diversity to the Danish media landscape, something the market alone would likely not have achieved. And here we come to the “get too close to the market” part. Over the past two decades, one of the most transformative market dynamics for journalism has been the platformisation of news media systems. As news organizations adapted to the logic of social media, they were drawn into a metrics-driven race: prioritising algorithm-friendly content, chasing clicks, and competing for ad revenue in a game largely dictated by platforms. The results have been clear. Newsrooms have trimmed costs, often at the expense of the most expensive yet democratically-essential forms of journalism, namely investigative and public affairs reporting. After traditional business models have collapsed, digital subscriptions remain dominated by dynamics, and the online ad market has grown more brutal, especially as platforms have turned their backs on publishers. In response, many media markets have retreated into defensive consolidation. And while this might offer some economic resilience, it carries a clear risk: the erosion of media pluralism and diversity. Both state and market forces have the power to either undermine or sustain journalism’s democratic function, it all depends on the context. How much state intervention in the media is desirable is ultimately a normative question. However, there is ample evidence to reject the blanket claim that subsidies inevitably undermine media legitimacy. The conversation we should be having On the contrary, in today’s context, marked by growing market consolidation, public intervention is not only justified but necessary to safeguard media pluralism and diversity. And this is precisely where the focus should be. While public funding can be a powerful corrective to market failures, a growing body of academic research confirms a persistent and troubling pattern: most subsidy schemes across Europe, including those aimed at innovation, disproportionately benefit incumbent players, typically legacy media rooted in the print era. These schemes are often path-dependent: they do little to support emerging journalistic actors. This is the conversation we should be having. Public institutions must be held accountable, not only to increase the transparency of their subsidy mechanisms, but to ensure they are genuinely inclusive, technology-neutral and supportive of media pluralism. There is an important role to play for the European Union. First, the European Commission, when faced with governance shortcomings at the member state level, can and should pressure governments to adopt best practices already in place. There is no need to reinvent the wheel: models like the Danish innovation subsidy system, approved by the commission itself in 2013, offer proven frameworks for transparent, effective support. Second, with the upcoming budget, the EU has the opportunity to shape funding instruments that not only help sustain new media initiatives but also help them grow and gain a foothold in the market. It takes a fervid imagination to expect the market to do this alone. It’s time for public institutions to lead, and get it right. Giordano Zambelli is a PhD researcher at the Studies in Media, Innovation and Technology research group (imec SMIT) at Vrije Universiteit Brussels (VUB), in the domains of news media innovation, journalism funding and media policy. Giordano Zambelli is a PhD researcher at the
|
Studies in Media, Innovation and Technology research group (imec SMIT)
|
In today’s context, marked by growing market consolidation, public intervention is not only justified but necessary to safeguard media pluralism and diversity.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-08-04T06:05:59.467Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/arf6e13c93
|
EU's Horizon-suspension sanction for Israel 'a bad joke', says Borrell
|
Suspending Israel's access to the bloc’s Horizon research programme is a “bad joke” in the face of the atrocities unfolding in Gaza, former EU top diplomat Josep Borrell told EUobserver during an interview in Madrid. “If this is the only response the European Commission is capable of in the face of what Israel is doing, it’s a joke. A bad joke. And EU member states have not even been able to approve it,” he said. “Is that really all they can think to do, considering what’s happening?,” Borrell asked. The proposal , presented by the European Commission earlier this week, will cover the access of small businesses in Israel to the European Innovation Council accelerator, a €10.1bn programme. Hungary, Austria, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic have rejected the suspension so far. However, if the situation on the ground does not improve, EU member states are expected to approve the first sanctions against Israel in the coming weeks. But, according to Borrell, this does not hit Israel’s core interests. “There are many more significant things that could be done,” he said, arguing that the commission should propose the suspension of the trade agreement with Israel, which could see Israel lose €1bn per year in EU trade perks. “I believe Israeli society should have to pay a significant price for what settlers are doing in the West Bank,” he said. “I know not all Israelis are responsible, but they allow it to happen.” “Someone should be held accountable for that. For far less than this, we’ve removed visas for citizens of other countries. We sanctioned thousands in Russia for less,” he said. “Many member states simply don’t want to impose sanctions on Israel. That’s the reality,” he also said. When the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, there were approximately 110,000 settlers in the West Bank. But this figure has grown to over 700,000 – which the UN has argued for years “constitute a serious obstruction to efforts aimed at achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” “According to international law, that’s illegal,” Borrell said, describing it as a “bloody and violent occupation” that is costing deaths and thousands of Palestinians being displaced. In an unprecedented move in 2024, the EU agreed to impose sanctions against a handful Israeli settlers. Israeli settlement expansion had long been vocally criticised by the EU but rarely backed by any sanctions. During his mandate, the Spanish diplomat also floated a bold proposal: suspending political ties with Israel altogether. But EU member states swiftly rejected the idea. “They said no, no, no — no way,” Borrell told EUobserver. Borrell also convened in 2022 a meeting under the Association Council framework, following a 10-year pause amid strained relations over the EU’s condemnation of Israeli settlement expansion. “But the council not meeting didn’t mean the agreement wasn’t in force — it was still in force. We maintained a trade relationship, despite all,” he said. 'Frankly, if all they can come up with is suspending Israel from the Horizon program, it’s sarcasm' Kallas deal a 'cynical understanding' Borrell also described last month's “understanding” between the EU and Israel to ensure access to humanitarian aid as “cynical” and an “excuse” to avoid imposing sanctions on Israel. The deal included the access of 160 daily trucks for food and non-food aid entering Gaza, the opening of crossing points Zikim, Netzarim, and Kisufim, the reopening of the Jordanian and Egyptian aid routes, enabling the distribution of food supplies throughout the Strip, and the distribution of 200,000 litres of fuel per day. Many of these commitments have not yet been fulfilled by Israel. “We were about to sanction Israel, but now that we see they’ve said they’re going to behave, well, we’re not in such a hurry anymore, right? That’s kind of the underlying attitude,” Borrell said. “This was an excuse given to EU member states to reject any sanctions against Israel,” he added. “But frankly, if all they can come up with is suspending Israel from the Horizon program, it’s sarcasm,” Borrell continued. Israel has killed over 60,000 people in Gaza, including about 18,000 children. By 21 July, over 1,000 Palestinians have been killed while trying to access food from the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), while child malnutrition rates have nearly quadrupled. The Gaza Strip is on the brink of famine, according to UN agencies. Palestinian group Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October 2023, killing about 1,200 civilians and taking some 250 hostages.
|
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.
|
Suspending Israel's access to the bloc’s Horizon research programme is a “bad joke” in the face of the atrocities unfolding in Gaza, the EU's former chief diplomat Josep Borrell told EUobserver during an interview in Madrid.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-01T06:48:49.306Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arbc4fc129
|
Three reasons why EU has strategic interest in fair election in Moldova this September
|
On 28 September, parliamentary elections will be held in Moldova. While this may seem like a minor event on the EU’s periphery, its implications for Europe’s security and political cohesion are far-reaching. Moldova, sandwiched between Romania and Ukraine, signed an association agreement with the EU in 2014, symbolising a commitment to reform and integration and the ruling Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) has vigorously pursued European integration since it came to office in 2021. However, the PAS government led by president Maia Sandu is projected to lose significant ground in the upcoming parliamentary elections. This decline stems from domestic dissatisfaction with the party’s attitude and policies as well as ongoing interference by Russia. This interference aims to undermine trust in Moldova’s institutions through corruption narratives and hybrid threats and increase electoral support for pro-Russian political parties. The likely outcome is that PAS will be forced into a coalition with one of the pro-Russian opposition parties, groups that advocate distancing Moldova from Europe and often exhibit autocratic tendencies. Such a coalition would almost certainly shift Moldova’s trajectory away from European alignment. This potential shift threatens the European Union’s interests on three key fronts: digital security, regional stability, and political cohesion. 1. Testing ground for hybrid warfare Moldova has become a laboratory for Russian hybrid warfare tactics, including cyberattacks and large-scale disinformation campaigns. This was evident in previous election cycles, where attempts at manipulation and foreign influence were widely documented. We can expect similar, if not more, interference in the upcoming elections. Should a pro-Russian party gain power, efforts to counter such threats are likely to weaken, or worse, be co-opted. A government with little incentive for transparency will likely tolerate or may even facilitate Russian influence operations. As a result the focus of these destabilising tactics are likely to migrate westward, EU member states will increasingly become the target and we will see a rise in cyber intrusions, disinformation targeting democratic institutions, and interference in national elections. 2. Strategic buffering and support for Ukraine Moldova plays a vital role in supporting Ukraine, both morally and practically, serving as a critical humanitarian and logistical corridor. Even though it is Europe’s poorest country, it has hosted over 1.5 million refugees and absorbed over 100,000 for long-term stays. It also helped reroute grain shipments through its Danube ports, alleviating pressure on Ukraine’s blocked Black Sea routes. Should Moldova pivot toward Moscow, Ukraine’s support structure will be weakened, undermining the EU’s eastern resilience. More importantly, an ambivalent Moldova will erode the eastern buffer between the EU and hostile actors, increasing the risk of military provocations near EU borders. This not only raises the stakes for Nato but also increases the likelihood that EU member states, especially those with Nato commitments, will be drawn into more direct responses. 3. Erosion of democratic norms and EU cohesion Moldova’s democratic trajectory is also a symbolic battleground for the values underpinning the European project: democratic governance, rule of law, and respect for human rights. A shift toward autocratic governance in Moldova would contribute to the broader erosion of these values in the EU’s neighbourhood. This will further weaken the EU’s credibility as a global advocate for democracy and human rights and will complicate enlargement policy. The EU’s failure to prevent democratic erosion in candidate countries like Georgia and Serbia has already dampened public enthusiasm for enlargement . A similar trajectory in Moldova would not only complicate accession talks but could also bolster eurosceptic narratives in western Europe, where support for further expansion is increasingly fragile. Moreover, such a shift will send a damaging message that democratic principles are negotiable, even in states that aspire to EU membership. This narrative emboldens not only autocratic regimes abroad but also anti-democratic actors within EU borders. This will increasingly threaten internal cohesion. Despite its internal challenges, the Moldovan population remains broadly supportive of European integration. The upcoming elections are a decisive moment, not only for Moldova’s future but for the EU’s ability to safeguard its values and interests at a time of global democratic backsliding. The EU must therefore continue to provide as much political and financial support as it can to fight Russian interference and ensure free and fair elections in Moldova. Not just through election-monitoring and support for civil society watchdogs but also through its fights against disinformation and cybersecurity support. A democratic, European-oriented Moldova is a stabilizing force on the Union’s eastern flank that helps safeguard our digital space, supports our geopolitical resilience, and defends the normative foundations of the European project. Amy Eaglestone is doctoral researcher at the University of Birmingham and lecturer at Leiden University . She previously worked in democracy development, including for the UN, and her research focuses on democratisation in Moldova and Georgia, inclusive governance and the impact of international developments on democracy. Amy Eaglestone is doctoral researcher at the University of Birmingham and
|
lecturer at Leiden University
|
On 28 September, parliamentary elections will be held in Moldova. While this may seem like a minor event on the EU’s periphery, its implications for Europe’s security and political cohesion are far-reaching.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-01T06:35:12.957Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arccb7b7a5
|
Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine: the ultimate reality check for international law
|
In spring 2022, three Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine employees — Dmytro Shabanov, Maksym Petrov and Vadym Golda — were forcibly detained by Russian-controlled forces in the occupied regions of Luhansk and Donetsk. Before that, on 24 February, the day Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the OSCE had abruptly ended its mission, precisely when eyes on the ground were needed most. The organization stated that it had evacuated its staff from Ukraine, but in fact national staff were left behind. Ukrainian nationals Shabanov and Petrov had worked in the occupied territory of the Luhansk Oblast since the early days after the Russias took control in 2014 — one as a security assistant, the other as a translator. Both held official OSCE certificates and immunity documents, identifying them as representatives of an international observation mission. In September 2022, Petrov and Shabanov were sentenced to 13 years in prison for “treason” and “working for US intelligence” by a court in Luhansk. In July 2024, Vadym Golda received a 14-year sentence in Donetsk. All of these sentences were handed down by illegitimate courts in so-called separatist republics. By early 2025, their cases had been brought into line with Russian criminal law following the Kremlin's proclamation of the annexation of four partially-occupied Ukrainian regions a few years earlier. The three men were deported to remote, high-security penal colonies deep inside Russia with harsh conditions and extreme isolation. In these colonies, people disappear — legally, physically and psychologically. There are reports that Petrov's health is deteriorating rapidly, but his family has little chance of delivering medicine from Luhansk to the Russian Urals. This year 2025 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act , a formative moment in the history of the OSCE. In 2025 Finland chairs this organisation that, throughout the years, has known moments of great impact — but also of irrelevance. On the positive side, it is today one of the few institutions still engaged in human rights monitoring in Central Asia. But in 2025, the continued imprisonment of Ukrainian OSCE staff also reveals something strikingly profound about the state of international law: international institutions meant to safeguard it are not even able to protect their own staff. 'Concern'? The OSCE and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights have issued formal statements of "concern" about the detentions. Concern? That's clearly not enough. Ukrainian human rights defenders and journalists have spent over a decade documenting Russia's political violence. Initially, their work echoed the moral legacy of the Helsinki Accords , pressing authoritarian regimes to acknowledge human dignity. But meanwhile, they increasingly believe there is only one way to protect people in occupied territories: liberation by force. After Russian troops were pushed out of Bucha, Kherson and Izyum, the persecutions of the local population stopped. Many Ukrainians have come to a painful conclusion: international law cannot stop atrocities. It cannot save lives. For years now, institutions like the OSCE have seemed hollow . Some commentators are even tempted to consider abandoning them altogether. The of action — statements, declarations, resolutions — creates a dangerous illusion that something is being done when nothing actually happens. For us Ukrainians, who live in an aggravated reality, everything around us automatically undergoes a reality check, particularly our values and ideals. But we also need to consider another recent shift in political reality. Before, the fight against hypocrisy used to belong to idealists. There was a time when autocrats pretended to follow international rules. Today, they about breaking them. Instead of hiding their wrongdoings, they commit so many that it's hard not to be overwhelmed, learning about the scale of atrocities, resulting in a feeling of powerlessness. In the context of Russian war crimes in Ukraine, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, for the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children, about which he openly bragged on Russian television. With Donald Trump's rhetoric, the international discourse has slipped even further, as when he is "not ruling out overtaking Greenland". The US president and Israeli officials are openly discussing the deportation of Palestinians, who are currently being starved to death in Gaza. Such discourse is no longer fringe conspiracies — they are mainstream conversations. So perhaps the better question isn’t whether institutions are hypocritical, but whether hypocrisy might still be preferable to normalising blatant disregard for law. At least hypocrisy pretends that something matters. Last year, I had a chance to present documentaries from The Reckoning Project — an initiative of Ukrainian and international journalists, lawyers and analysts to record human rights violations — to university students in Mexico. Usually, during my lectures and public speeches, I provide the official number of the alleged war crimes registered by Ukraine's Prosecutor General's Office . At that time, the number was 130,000, while today it has reached 167,000. But right before my presentation, I learned that over 111,000 people are officially missing in Mexico. So, what would these Ukrainian numbers mean for the audience in Mexico? A Mexican colleague helped me with the answer: "We musn't normalise it. In Ukraine, despite your country being under attack every day, you document the violations. There's no war in Mexico, and yet many have stopped even filing cases." The normalisation of atrocity The principal challenge we face today is not a competing ideology, but rather a pervasive cynicism. The normalisation of atrocity. Authoritarian regimes actively propagate the notion that nothing truly matters — that individuals are powerless and that collective action is futile. In doing so, they seek to delegitimize international institutions, portraying the global security architecture as inherently flawed. In some respects, they are not entirely wrong. But should we accept that? The unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine has laid bare the limitations of international law and demonstrated the insufficiency of security assurances grounded solely in multilateral treaties. They have to be backed up by power. Confidence in these mechanisms has significantly diminished, and most probably, in the future, states will increasingly turn to more concrete and regionally anchored security arrangements instead. Yet, despite these imperfections, investing in the dismantling of existing institutions is not helpful. The disbandment of USAID shows how easily institutions can be destroyed. Building new ones will be much harder. In an interview, Mykhailo Vershynyn, a former Ukrainian prisoner of war and Mariupol's patrol police chief, who spent 123 days in Russian captivity and was brutally tortured, said: "I’d be a happy man if the Geneva Conventions were implemented at least 10 percent." A statement both damning and clarifying – not because it exposes the failure of the rules, but because it reminds us what their absence would mean. So, instead of giving up on order altogether, we should do what is necessary to return to a rules-based international system again. We must accept that today even the best actions are not driven by utopian visions, but by the need to stop something worse from happening. That's not enough for the long run. Fighting something may sustain us in the short term. But to survive the marathon, we must fight something. The war has made Ukrainians practical. When the task seems too big and overwhelming, instead of walking away or being paralysed, we start with what is small and achievable. Thus, before we debate a new world order or reforming the institutions, can we begin with something concrete? Can, for instance, the OSCE bring back its employees from the Siberian prisons? This may be the ultimate reality check. While working as a translator for the OSCE SMM in the Luhansk region, Petrov was also studying international law. After everything that has happened to him, he would probably be the one to give us the most honest answer to whether what he was taught is still something valuable. Nataliya Gumenyuk is a Ukrainian journalist, co-founder and CEO of the Public Interest Journalism Lab , and a co-founder of the independent media Hromadske . Nataliya Gumenyuk is a Ukrainian journalist, co-founder and CEO of the Public Interest Journalism Lab , and a co-founder of the independent media
|
Hromadske
|
In 2025, the continued imprisonment of Ukrainian OSCE staff also reveals something strikingly profound about the state of international law: international institutions meant to safeguard it are not even able to protect their own staff.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-08-01T05:11:43.204Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar47085dc2
|
Listen: Ukraine backtracks on anti-corruption bill after public outcry
|
In Kyiv, Ukraine’s parliament is set to vote today on a new law that would restore and fix last week's vote on the independence of two key anti-corruption bodies, NABU, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and SAPO the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. But can this last minute fix patch up the broken trust in Zelenskyy’s leadership? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here: In Kyiv, Ukraine’s parliament is set to vote today on a new law that would restore and fix last week's vote on the independence of two key anti-corruption bodies, NABU, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and SAPO the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. But can this last minute fix patch up the broken trust in Zelenskyy’s leadership? So just last week, the same parliament, backed by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's ruling party, passed legislation that severely cut the powers of both institutions. And the move, of course, triggered the largest public protests since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. Thousands marched in Kyiv and other cities demanding the reversal of the law and accusing the president’s office of shielding powerful allies from investigation. Zelenskyy, apparently caught off guard by the backlash and the criticism from his western allies, swiftly changed course. He pledged to submit a new bill, which, if passed today, would restore the two bodies’ independence. But the damage, some fear, may already has been done. According to the head of SAPO, Oleksandr Klymenko, last week’s manoeuvre felt like an assault on these bodies, rushed, deliberate, and alarming. He said NABU and SAPO had been investigating 31 sitting Members of the Parliament, and described the law as “revenge” for taking on sensitive cases. Two NABU officers were even arrested in the fallout. Zelenskyy has claimed the changes were meant to improve coordination and to weed out suspected Russian infiltration, but for many Ukrainians, that explanation hasn’t held water. And some European diplomats have described the attempt as a “serious step back. Because, since Russia invaded, Ukraine has received tens of billions of euros in aid from Western allies. EU accession is on the table, and the EU has made it clear: joining the bloc means cleaning up corruption. So when Zelenskyy’s government pushed through a law that gave his hand-picked prosecutor general the power to take over or redirect anti-corruption cases, alarm bells went off in Brussels, Berlin, Paris, and Washington. European commissioner for enlargement Marta Kos called it “a serious step back.” And some warned that funding could be cut if Ukraine undermined its own reforms. Let’s not forget: war is expensive. Ukraine cannot afford to lose international support, financial or political. And with growing fatigue in the West, any sign that Ukraine is slipping on democratic standards could shift the tone. In fact, according to a recent Ukrainian poll, over two-thirds of Ukrainians supported the protests, not because they want political instability, but because they want to ensure that the wartime sacrifices are not used as a smokescreen for rolling back reform. So, what now? If parliament approves the new bill, it will restore NABU and SAPO’s independence, at least on paper. It would also introduce new safeguards, including regular lie detector tests for anti-corruption officials. A move that’s equal parts dramatic and… perhaps a little theatrical. And not everyone is convinced. Many of the same MPs under investigation will be voting. And while Zelenskyy's government appears ready to walk back the legislation, trust has already taken a hit. The bigger picture is that Ukraine is walking a tightrope. The country’s democratic credibility is under scrutiny not only by its own citizens, but by its European allies. As the war drags on and the EU accession process inches forward, Kyiv will need to prove that anti-corruption isn’t just a talking point. It’s a red line. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs
|
Evi Kiorri
|
In this episode, Evi Kiorri explores Ukraine’s parliamentary vote to reverse a controversial law that undermined key anti-corruption bodies, as president Zelenskyy rushes to rebuild public trust and reassure international allies under mounting EU pressure and widespread protests.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-31T11:10:55.716Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar2a78776b
|
Europe’s mortality map: which diseases are most lethal in each country?
|
Every year, more than five million people die in European Union countries. The leading cause is cardiovascular disease, which accounts for 32 percent of these deaths. This is followed by cancer, with 22 percent, according to the latest Eurostat data for 2022. That year, Covid-19 still had a significant impact on European mortality, accounting for the leading cause in six percent of cases and up to one-in-ten in Greece and Slovenia. Nevertheless, figures vary widely from country to country. Spain has one of the lowest heart disease death rates in Europe, accounting for 26 percent of all deaths. Only France has a lower rate, at 21 percent. In contrast, these figures are much higher in Bulgaria (61 percent), Romania (56 percent) and Lithuania (52 percent). “Europe is divided into three risk zones, with eastern European countries and some northern European countries being high risk,” explains Dr Luis Rodríguez Padial, president of the Spanish Society of Cardiology (SEC). The probability of having a cardiovascular problem is higher in these areas than in low-risk areas, located in the Mediterranean region. The cardiologist attributes these differences to the risk factors associated with this type of disease. “People smoke more, have higher cholesterol and there are probably also genetic factors ,” he explains, although he says that the importance of the latter is less well-known. According to Eurostat, Bulgaria leads several negative health indicators in the EU, with the heaviest smoking habits (29 percent compared to the EU average of 19 percent). The country also has high alcohol consumption and nearly 30 percent of the population does not engage in any physical activity, according to the Bulgarian media outlet Mediapool. Despite national programmes to improve these factors, prevention and early detection remain persistent weaknesses. In an interview with News.ro , Dr Ștefan Busnatu, a cardiologist in Romania, points to a worrying situation, confirming that his country is “unfortunately” in an area where “there is a very high risk of disease”. In his opinion, there is not enough infrastructure to manage ischaemic heart disease, which limits treatment. For him, the emphasis on prevention, education and cardiac rehabilitation is crucial, as a second acute ischaemic event can be fatal . “It is evident that more people die of heart disease in Russia or in eastern European countries than in Spain, Italy or Greece and the Mediterranean area. This is probably due to the famous Mediterranean diet,” says Rodríguez. He refers to an article published in March in the medical journal New England , whose main finding is that the presence of the five classic risk factors (high blood pressure, high cholesterol, abnormal weight, diabetes and smoking) account for 50 percent of global cases of cardiovascular disease. At the same time, the absence of these factors after the age of 50 is associated with a decade longer life expectancy than those who do have them. The president of the Lithuanian Heart Association, cardiologist Sigita Glaveckaitė, spoke on television about the incidence of these diseases in her country. Beyond the “high” prevalence of risk factors, the doctor referred to other problems such as beliefs or myths that discourage people from taking the appropriate medication, poor health education , low participation in prevention programmes and lack of state funding. In her experience, the healthcare system has an approach inherited from the Soviet system, where professionals are paid by the hour rather than by procedure, which reduces efficiency and interest in the work. “When I ask patients (patients under 60 after a heart attack), they almost always smoke, are obese , do not treat their high blood pressure or do not take cholesterol medication,” says cardiologist Josef Kautzner from the Czech Republic. “We know that approximately 80 percent of cardiovascular diseases can be prevented by minimising seemingly simple but essential risk factors,” insists Glaveckaitė. Along the same lines, the latest report on health in Europe by the OECD and the European Commission explains the differences between countries by the variability in the prevalence of risk factors. But it also points to the quality of healthcare. “For example, 30-day mortality after a heart attack (which reflects aspects such as how quickly patients are transported to hospital and how effective their medical treatment was) was over 14 percent in Latvia, Slovakia, Lithuania and Estonia in 2021, compared to seven percent or less in Sweden, Denmark and Spain,” the report states. For their part, men have 43 percent higher mortality rates from circulatory diseases than women in the EU, according to OECD data, and this gender gap has widened slightly over the last decade. This difference is due to the higher prevalence of key risk factors among them. The data confirms that the incidence of these diseases directly affects life expectancy in countries. As shown in the graph above, life expectancy is shorter in places where the percentage of deaths from cardiovascular disease is higher. Poland has one of the widest gaps in life expectancy between men and women. “Women in Poland currently live about two years less than the average woman in the European Union. For men, the difference is four years. This is something that has affected Poland since socio-demographic changes began to be tracked,” explains Dr Bogdan Wojtyniak of the National Institute of Public Health. Cancer mortality and educational attainment Malignant cancers are the second leading cause of death in Europe, although in some countries they are the leading cause. In fact, the most recent data for Spain, published by the INE for 2024 , place tumours as the leading cause of death (26.6 percent), followed by diseases of the circulatory system (26.1 percent). The OECD report also highlights differences within countries themselves: “Large disparities in cancer mortality (over 30 percent) have been found between regions in Romania, Poland, France, Spain and Germany.” In addition to risk and hereditary factors, a study on educational inequalities in cancer mortality between 2015 and 2019 revealed that, in 14 EU countries and Norway, men with lower educational attainment had a cancer mortality rate 84 percent higher, on average, than men with higher educational attainment. "The gap between women with different levels of education was narrower, but still considerable at 37 percent,” the OECD states. According to the organisation, in several countries, cancer survival rates are lower among people in poorer socioeconomic groups. These inequalities reflect differences in the prevalence of risk factors, participation in screening programmes and access to timely and high-quality healthcare. Research published in The Lancet Public Health also analysed differences in years of life lost early deaths in 32 European countries. The results indicated that disparities were strongly associated with socioeconomic factors, access to health services and public policies. Thus, countries with lower investment in public health and greater economic inequality showed higher rates of premature mortality. More traffic accidents In addition to natural factors, external causes of mortality also reflect differences between countries. Traffic accidents have a higher impact on mortality in southern Greece , some regions of Portugal, Romania and Turkey. In 2024, Greece reached a record 665 deaths from traffic accidents. The organisation SOS Traffic Crimes criticises the lack of progress in the government’s goal of halving deaths by 2030. They claim that in recent years, not only has the number of accidents not fallen but, since 2021, there have been more deaths from traffic accidents. George Kouvidis, founder of the SOS Traffic Crimes, mentions the complex case of the Morea motorway, where, despite supposedly being a safer road, accidents increased by more than 100 percent after its completion in 2016. He attributes this to the fact that drivers, with more powerful cars , entered the provincial networks at high speeds and without the necessary caution on roads with different infrastructure. On the islands, the increase is explained by tourism and alcohol consumption . However, Kouvidis points out that European accident statistics often exclude countries with worse rates (such as Albania, Serbia and Kosovo), distorting the continent’s figures. He also considers it “unacceptable” that these death figures do not include those who die more than 30 days after an accident. Suicide rates in European countries range from around two to 20 per 100,000 inhabitants. The countries with the highest suicide rates are Slovenia, Lithuania, Hungary, Belgium and Estonia. A study published in 2016 in BioMed Central analysed the differences between these rates in Europe and concluded that, among other factors, cold weather correlates with a higher suicide rate. “It seems that in Europe, suicidality follows a climate or temperature gradient that, curiously, does not run from south to north, but from south to northeast,” the article states. Despite this, the Association of Professionals in Suicide Prevention and Postvention (Papageno) points out that there are generally “multiple causes when we talk about suicide”. Homicides are not a common cause of death on the continent, but in 2022 the rates were highest in Latvia, Lithuania and Luxembourg, while Spain is just below the European average, with 0.62 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants. Translated by Albie Mills (Voxeurop ) Marta Ley Justė Ancevičiūtė (Delfi. Lithuania) Krasen Nikolov (Mediapool. Bulgaria) Kostas Zafeiropoulos (Efsyn. Greece) Katarzyna Staszak (Gazeta Wyborcza. Poland) Petr Jedlička (Denik Referendum. Czech Republic) Sebastian Pricop (Hotnews. Romania)
|
Marta Ley
|
The leading causes of death in European countries vary widely. For instance, eastern European countries have twice the Spanish death rates from heart disease.
|
[
"Health & Society"
] |
health-and-society
|
2025-07-31T06:42:59.387Z
|
https://euobserver.com/health-and-society/ar73b1eec7
|
18 EU states seek €127bn defence funding, in a move welcomed by Ukraine
|
A group of 18 EU countries have officially expressed interest in loans from the European ‘SAFE’ instrument to boost their defence capabilities, in a move that has been welcomed by Ukraine. The €150bn Security Action for Europe (SAFE), launched in May, is a fund offering low-interest loans to EU member states, Ukraine, and non-EU countries with a security agreement, such as the UK, to jointly purchase military equipment. Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia and Finland have called for loans amounting to €127bn, the European Commission said on Wednesday (30 July). The commission is preparing for more requests, reportedly including Denmark. Requests can be submitted by member states until 30 November. Ukraine, whose defence industry has grown considerably since 2022 and is expected to benefit from more Western investment under the initiative, welcomed the move. “Ukraine welcomes this important milestone and stands ready to actively contribute to joint efforts under SAFE as an integral part of Europe’s modern security and defence architecture ,” said Ukraine’s defence minister Denys Shmyhal. Andrii Sybiha, Ukraine’s foreign affairs minister, was even clearer, arguing that his country expects EU countries to use SAFE funds to invest in Ukraine's defence, which he said is “a cost-effective investment in Europe's long-term peace and security”. “SAFE is a symbol of our collective commitment to strengthen our defence readiness,” said EU defence commissioner Andrius Kubilius. Poland has asked for more money than any other country. Polish defence minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz said on Tuesday that Warsaw has identified defence projects worth around €45bn. “Obtaining these funds is a tangible investment in the security and development of our defence industry,” he said. But the final distribution of funds will depend on how many applications there are and how the commission decides to distribute the funds. The European Parliament has threatened a lawsuit, arguing that MEPs have been sidelined by the EU Commission on its plans for €150bn in loans to boost EU defence production, based the regulation on article 122. The article allows the commission and the council, representing member states, to leave the European Parliament in the dark.
|
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.
|
A group of 18 EU member states have officially expressed interest in loans from the European ‘SAFE’ instrument to boost their defence capabilities, in a move that has been welcomed by Ukraine.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-31T06:37:22.930Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar586325d7
|
Iceland's confusing upcoming referendum on relations with EU
|
We got a new government in Iceland last Christmas which among other things aims to organise a referendum on our relations with the EU in 2027 at the latest. The vote will, however, not be about whether Iceland should join the bloc but merely whether a new accession process should be launched to see what Brussels has to offer. The last time this happened, it was referred to in the debate in Iceland as a 'doorbell prank' (the game where children ring a doorbell and run away before someone opens the door.) The previous attempt was in 2009 after the international financial crisis had hit Iceland the year before with the collapse of the country’s three largest banks. Proponents of EU membership saw the ensuing public despair as an opportunity to finally get Iceland into the bloc despite far from ideal circumstances. Not the least a split coalition government towards the question of EU membership which repeatedly got in the way of the process. This was a major reason why it ran aground and was in fact doomed from the start. The EU on regular basis aired its concerns over the fact that the two government parties, the Social Democratic Alliance and the Left Green Movement, did not agree on whether Iceland should join the bloc or not. While the Social Democrats were in favour of membership the Left Greens were not. This meant for example that when the process required the consent of the government, some individual ministers only did so with all sorts of provisos which in turn created all sorts of problems for the process and its prospect of success. Three-way compromise We are facing similar situation now where the three current coalition parties have reached a compromise to hold the before-mentioned referendum but with no agreement to reapply for EU membership should the referendum deliver a positive response from the voters. While the Social Democratic Alliance and the Liberal Reform Party are in favour of EU membership the People’s Party is opposed. Meanwhile, all the three opposition parties, the Independence Party, the Center Party and the Progress Party, reject the idea as well. This simply means that there is a majority in the Icelandic parliament against joining the EU. The People’s Party only agreed to the referendum to be able to form a government with the other two coalition parties (in a similar fashion to the Left Greens in 2009.) Furthermore, the Social Democratic Alliance and the Liberal Reform Party did not emphasis EU membership in the run-up to the general elections last November. On the contrary the Social Democrats said the issue was off the agenda and the Liberals avoided mentioning it. Meanwhile, some opinion polls have again started to show more people opposed to membership of the EU than in favour. Support for joining the EU increased temporarily after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but before that every single opinion poll published in Iceland for 13 consecutive years had more people opposed to EU membership. When put on the political agenda, opposition to joining the EU has had a strong tendency in Iceland to increase — which is of course a big headache for those in favour. Opinion polling confusion While recent polls have shown a large majority in favour of holding the referendum, much fewer people support launching fresh accession talks. This means that many people obviously just want the vote to be able to say no. Probably in the hope of finally killing the idea off. Even the then leader of the European Movement Iceland conceded to the fact that this could as a result go either way. In other words, a large majority in favour of the referendum can only partly be considered as support for fresh accession talks. Consequently, we have seen supporters of EU membership in Iceland openly debate in the media and on social media whether putting the issue on the agenda is a good idea due to the far from ideal circumstances, whether this will in the long run only harm the pro-EU cause like it did the last time which only led to increased opposition to joining the bloc. The current situation is even worse. Last time, the government at least agreed to apply for membership. As mentioned earlier, the current coalition is in no agreement on that. Foreign minister Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir said recently that she believed there was currently enough public support in Iceland to reopen accession talks with the EU. The last poll by Gallup , published in early April, had 43 percent in favour of EU membership and 39 percent opposed. The gap has been narrowing. Meanwhile, the last two polls by the pollster Maskína have had more people against membership than in favour. The newer one, and also the most recent one, was produced for Gunnarsdóttir’s own foreign ministry . For some reason, she failed to mention that. Hjörtur J. Guðmundsson is a historian and MA in International Relations with focus on European studies living in Reykjavík, Iceland.
|
Hjörtur J. Guðmundsson
|
Iceland's new government aims to organise a referendum on our relations with the EU — in 2027 at the latest.
The vote will, however, not be about whether Iceland should join the bloc but merely whether a new accession process should be launched to see what Brussels has to offer.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-31T06:27:30.346Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arb98d86ad
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.