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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PETI: Our agenda is set by you
|
As the agenda is set by EU citizens it’s difficult to predict what the main priorities of the European Parliament's petitions committee (PETI) will be, said its new chairman, Poland’s Bogdan Rzońca (ECR). “In 2019, no one expected that the term starting then would be primarily marked by the Covid pandemic and Russia's aggression against Ukraine. The committee received a large number of petitions related to health security, vaccinations, certificates, the refugee situation, and high energy prices. Therefore, we must always be prepared for events beyond our control.” During its last mandate, PETI oversaw almost 7,000 petitions – which can be started by any EU citizen without a mandatory minimum of signatures – and “played a major role in addressing citizens' concerns over the impact of national emergency measures on citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms” during the Covid pandemic, according to its activity report on the previous mandate. “The PETI committee is the first point of contact, where citizens can raise their concerns and issues regarding what they believe is not working properly. This gives the committee on petitions the ability to have a significant impact on law-making,” Rzońca said. He gives the example of PETI’s work in the area of people with disabilities and the adoption of a European Disability Card. “By the end of the last term, we successfully finalised work on a directive on this topic, with input from our committee being taken into account.” The PETI committee can initiate plenary discussions in the European Parliament, send fact-finding missions to areas of concern, send questions to the European Commission – even asking for legal action against member states – and liaise with the European Ombudsman , whose hearing falls under the committee’s responsibility. Rzonca believes that, similar to previous terms, topics related to rule of law and environmental issues “will stir a lot of emotions”, and that his role with the committee will be to “temper these emotions, works towards compromises and ensure efficient processing of petitions,” to minimise the delay between a petition and its response. Hailing from the Law and Order (PiS) party in Poland, the 63-year-old Rzonca stresses that “direct contact and the opportunity to take part in the work of the European Parliament influences the image of the entire institution among citizens.” Alluding to gains by the far- and radical right in both the parliament elections earlier this year and various European national and regional elections, Rzonca said that image is important because “the EU institutions are not always perceived positively by its residents.” The latest Eurobarometer survey shows that nearly six out of ten EU citizens are satisfied with the way democracy works in the EU and that more or less the same percentage is optimistic about the future of the EU.
|
Alejandro Tauber is Publisher of EUobserver. He is Ecuadorian, German, and American, but lives in Amsterdam. His background is in tech and science reporting, and was previously editor at VICE's Motherboard and publisher of TNW.
|
In its own words, the petitions committee functions as a sort of “ongoing reality check” on the way EU legislation, and the Brussels’ institutions, are responding to citizens’ concerns.
|
[
"Who's who in the EU Parliament committees?",
"EU Political"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-01-06T06:03:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar8afe50ad
|
AFCO: Seeking more oversight on EU Commission lawmaking
|
MEPs need to formalise a new modus vivendi with the European Commission to ensure the European Parliament plays its full legal role in shaping EU policy and to reform the way MEPs' seats are allocated to member states, according to the new chair of the constitutional affairs committee (AFCO). The German European People’s Party MEP Sven Simon said the main point on his agenda for the next five years was "reform of the framework agreement on inter-institutional relations between parliament ... the current one dates back to 2010". "Developments since then make a revision necessary. This includes strengthening parliament’s right of inquiry, enhancing parliament’s right of initiative, and scrutinising the commission’s use of Article 122 TFEU as a legal basis," he added. Under the EU treaty, the commission has the sole right to propose new legislation, which parliament amends before it is adopted. Simon didn't question this, but said MEPs needed more power to initiate changes to or revocations of existing laws. "At present, parliament is limited to writing letters to the commission and hoping for a recast procedure in the coming years. A swift and targeted revision of specific articles is not feasible under the current provisions," he said. He also pledged to advocate for greater powers for parliament's special committees of enquiry under Article 226 of the EU treaty. And to push for more scrutiny of how the commission has used Article 122 to make laws bypassing MEPs in emergency situations — such as during the Covid-19 pandemic. "The lack of sufficient parliamentary involvement and the reduced transparency of this procedure highlights the need for greater democratic accountability," Simon said. AFCO would also target reform of the rules governing political parties and foundations in Europe, even if a deeper overhaul of the EU whole EU treaty "seems unlikely in the foreseeable future". One of the most hotly-debated and badly-needed changes related to how many seats each EU country should get in the European Parliament, he added. "While the treaties establish the principle of degressive proportionality - allocating relatively more seats to smaller countries compared to larger ones - there is currently no clear mathematical formula for this distribution process," Simon said. "Given that some countries will gain additional seats due to changing demographics while others may lose some, redefining the apportionment process is likely to spark significant debate," he predicted. The incoherence of the present rules could become an even greater problem as the EU prepares to take in new members from the Western Balkans , as well as Moldova and Ukraine , in the medium to long term. But closer to home, some nationalist political parties in Hungary and Poland have shown in the past five years that the issues of rule of law in general and the primacy of EU law over national legislation need more attention. "The various political groups have competing visions for the future of the European Union", Simon said. "The true beauty of democracy lies in the competition of diverse ideas", he added. And Simon planned to hold "a conference on the rule of law and supremacy of EU law," to see how to tackle the diverging views. "In Europe, we face challenges that are interpreted differently by various legal schools across the continent. I believe it is necessary to increase transnational debate about it," 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.
|
As well as pushing for more powers for lawmakers to initiate changes to existing laws, the committee will look at the thorny issue of how many MEPs each member state gets.
|
[
"Who's who in the EU Parliament committees?",
"EU Political"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-01-03T06:13:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar1f060436
|
LIBE: Migration will dominate, as EU states implement new asylum rules
|
A Spanish MEP is once again chairing the European Parliament's powerful civil liberties committee (LIBE). But whereas its predecessor hailed from the Spanish Socialists & Democrats camp, its new chair is firmly rooted in the leading centre-right European People's Party. Before taking the LIBE helm, Javier Zarzalejos presided over the Spanish think-tank FAES, a non-profit liberal-conservative organisation. Now as LIBE chair, the 64-year-old is overseeing the issues that swung the European Parliament's political make-up further to the right. Asylum and migration are probably the most politically toxic issues under the committee's remit. The Schengen passport-free area, a bigger and more powerful EU police agency, criminal abuse of Artificial Intelligence, and data retention, will also figure on its agenda. The committee's ability to cross-examine senior government officials and launch inquiries into politically sensitive topics has helped propel its status. The ever-present debate over asylum and migration will remain a key point for the committee, following stunning far-right election results in Austria, France, Germany and the Netherlands. It has also turned Fabrice Leggeri, the disgraced former executive director of the EU's border agency, Frontex, into a French far-right MEP. Leggeri is now a member of LIBE — the very same committee that relentlessly grilled him during his time heading up Frontex. Earlier this year, the EU finally managed to secure a legislative deal on reforming internal asylum and migration rules. For Zarzalejos and his committee, its two-year implementation deadline and wider scrutiny will be crucial. "A clear priority will be ensuring that our migration and asylum in Europe works as it should," he said of the committee. The new rules promise to bridge the ever-elusive balancing act between responsibility and solidarity among member states. Alongside the rule of law, Zarzalejos also labels asylum and migration as among the most likely contentious issues his committee will be tackling over the next few years. Tricky questions on how to increase the return rates of failed asylum seekers will also be important. "Finding workable solutions in this field, which are fully in line with fundamental rights, will be a challenge for the committee," he said. Closely intertwined is the safeguarding of the Schengen area, a passport-free zone composed of 26 European countries. "It is no secret that the Schengen space has faced significant threats in the past years due to migratory pressure, or criminal and terrorist attacks in Europe," he said. "We have recently agreed a revision to the Schengen rulebook (the Schengen Borders Code) and we must focus on its effective implementation," he added. But he also says legal migration is needed to support Europe's economy given the demographics of an increasingly ageing population — a position staunchly rejected by Leggeri and his political camp. Migration and asylum aside, LIBE will also be delving into organised crime, an enhanced EU security framework, and a bigger EU police agency, Europol. Criminal use of AI and end-to-end encrypted communication also continues to pose a problem for law enforcement. "There is a need to find appropriate solutions which counterbalance the security concerns and needs of law enforcement on the one hand, with the fundamental rights and privacy concerns on the other," said Zarzalejos. As for what he aspires to become the committee’s single biggest achievement over the next five years? Zarzalejos remained elusive. "I do hope for a Union that is able to deliver on the issues that are relevant for citizens," he 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.
|
The civil liberties committee's ability to cross-examine senior government officials and launch inquiries into politically sensitive topics have helped propel its status. But it also now has the ex-head of Frontex, turned far-right MEP, among its members.
|
[
"Who's who in the EU Parliament committees?",
"EU Political"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-01-03T06:12:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/arda1c6c9a
|
Babies dying of cold in Gaza, UN reports
|
At least five babies in Gaza have died from crippling cold since Christmas Eve, according to the UN's latest humanitarian update . Published on 31 December, the United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) says the babies reportedly died of hypothermia as Israel continues its air, land and sea bombardments. The deaths were reported at tents in central and southern Gaza between 24 and 29 December. The youngest was three days old. The UN's agency for children (UNICEF) says it is likely more will perish, in what they describe as preventable deaths given the heavy rains and cold weather. Although temperatures are set to increase with lows around 12 Celsius on Friday, according to the Weather Channel, tens of thousands of Gazas are still living in dilapidated tents along the coast and exposed to wind and rain. "Amid the ongoing war, severe storms are causing widespread flooding, leaving thousands in urgent need of safety and humanitarian aid," said the UN relief agency in Gaza. UNICEF had also in November said approximately 7,700 newborns in Gaza lack access to lifesaving care. At least 14,000 children in Gaza are said to have been killed so far, following the attack by the Gaza-based militant group that killed 1,200 Israelis on 7 October, 2023. The Palestinian Authority's ministry of health says the number of children killed is closer to 18,000. And its Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics says the population of Gaza has fallen by 6 percent since the start of the war in October with approximately 45,500 Palestinians killed and 11,000 missing. It means the population in Gaza has declined by 160,000 to around 2.1 million. Of those remaining, some 47 percent are below the age of 18, says the office. For its part, Israel has described the figures as "fabricated, inflated, and manipulated in order to vilify Israel”. Israel also on Wednesday said its military conducted more than 1,400 airstrikes on targets in Gaza in December alone.
|
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.
|
At least five babies in Gaza have died from crippling cold since Christmas Eve, according to the UN's latest humanitarian update.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-01-02T07:51:14.447Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ard9d898d5
|
JURI: A committee with a toothless bite
|
At the beginning of each new mandate, the European Parliament's legal affairs committee is tasked to scrutinise possible conflicts of interests of the 26 European Commissioner-designates. For Ilhan Kyuchyuk, the Bulgarian Renew MEP chairing the committee, known as JURI, the probe represents a top priority in the weeks to come. "We will work devotedly on it," said the 39-year-old, who studied law and political science. But there are limitations. The committee has no investigative powers. It will only review declarations submitted by the candidates themselves, in an ‘honour’ system. And any possible conflicts must also fall within their respective commissioner portfolios. Once submitted, the committee will attempt to make its assessment within 48 hours. Should it suspect any wrongdoing, the committee can ask the commissioner-designate follow-up questions behind closed doors. Kyuchyuk has been an MEP for over a decade, working on foreign affairs. He also had a keen interest in Turkey. Yet his experience with the JURI committee is also limited. It is currently composed of around 25 members. He was a JURI substitute committee member for around four years up until 2024. He became a full member in July 2024 for three days, before being designated its chair. The tasks ahead are serious. The committee will look into everything from intellectual property rights and company law to parliamentary immunities , better law-making and institutional scrutiny. It will also have a role in matters related to judicial independence and the protection of the rule of law in member states, especially in view of administrative law. "The committee’s task is to guarantee that EU legislation not only addresses contemporary challenges but also remains aligned with the values and legal framework that underpin the Union," he said. Kyuchyuk said the committee will face several challenges over the next five years. Among them are new rules on European cross-border associations, which he says aim to improve the legal framework for civil society. "The proposal on AI liability is one of our priorities too, as it aims to complement the framework regulating artificial intelligence in an innovation-friendly manner," he said. And issues surrounding copyright will also be tackled, he said. The direction of the committee is also being steered, in part, by European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen's political guidelines. The guidelines include ideas of a so-called 28th regime, which aims to allow companies to benefit from a simpler, harmonised set of rules. It means the European Commission plans to propose a new EU-wide legal status to help innovative companies grow. "That would have a strong effect on European competitiveness. We would also be adamant on keeping up, from a regulatory point of view, with the evolution of AI and digitalisation, " said Kyuchyuk. As for possible biggest achievements for the committee over the next five years? Kyuchyuk cites setting aside political differences in order to secure rule of law and better law-making. "My hope as chair of the legal affairs committee would be that as professionals with legal background, together with the colleagues, members of the committee we can put aside our differences and focus on the matter at hand," he concluded.
|
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 legal affairs committee not only looks at everything from intellectual property rights and company law, to parliamentary immunities, better law-making and institutional scrutiny, it examines judicial independence and rule of law — and scrutinises the next EU commissioners.
|
[
"Who's who in the EU Parliament committees?",
"EU Political"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-01-02T06:15:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar8ef822b6
|
CULT: An often ‘overlooked’ role
|
“At a time when freedom of science, the media and the arts can no longer be taken for granted, it will be up to our committee to stand up for this,” the 39-year-old neophyte MEP Nela Riehl tells EUobserver. Riehl ran as second candidate on Volt’s pan-European list (they sit in the European Parliament with the Greens/EFA), despite not being active in politics until the year before the 9 June European Parliament elections. She was also the only black candidate on any German ballot list – and she is the only black committee chair. The committee on culture and education (CULT) is mainly responsible for cultural aspects of the EU, education, youth, sports and leisure and media policy. Under the previous mandate, it doubled the budget of the international student exchange programme Erasmus+ and was pivotal in developing the European Media Freedom Act , which protects news publishers' legal status in society. “The area of education in particular offers the opportunity to strengthen the resilience of the population,” Riehl said. The young MEP has her work cut out for her – the latest PISA survey educational performance showed a dramatic drop among students in the 22 EU member states included, with the “decline in mathematics performance .. three times greater than any previous consecutive change.” And 24 member states are experiencing a persistent shortage of teachers, an issue the directorate-general for internal policies recently recommended to CULT to “develop a comprehensive plan to tackle the issue.” It also suggested focusing on increasing the democratic participation of young people, including the most vulnerable groups, including “through increased use of digital platforms.” Improving youth housing availability and affordability is raised as another potential policy area, with a quarter of young Europeans living in overcrowded housing, or with their parents. When it comes to culture and media, the directorate-general also provided recommendations – and concerns – for the upcoming legislative term for CULT. The overview and future perspectives report for the cultural and media sectors requested by CULT and published in July 2024 states that the EU’s strategic agenda for 2024-2029 “largely overlooks the role” that the cultural and creative sectors can play in “realising its priorities.” It points to several “weights of the past”, or obstacles, that stand in the way of “cross-sectoral collaborations and arts-driven transformation processes”, including the lack of long-term funding, precarious economic conditions of people in the creative sector and technological developments that affect the way they do and disseminate their work. The report therefore recommends that CULT takes a role in creating a more comprehensive and holistic approach to support the creative and cultural sectors – mainly by helping to coordinate actions between different EU institutions and with other committees. Riehl seems to grasp the importance, stating that “culture, education , media and sport are areas that directly affect citizens. I hope that in five years they will say that there has been progress here.”
|
Alejandro Tauber is Publisher of EUobserver. He is Ecuadorian, German, and American, but lives in Amsterdam. His background is in tech and science reporting, and was previously editor at VICE's Motherboard and publisher of TNW.
|
As a teacher herself – teaching a high school class until the week before she was elected to the European Parliament – culture and education chairwoman and Volt MEP Nela Riehl emphasises equal access to education as the pillar to protect freedoms.
|
[
"Who's who in the EU Parliament committees?",
"EU Political"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-01-02T06:14:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/arc0f1dba3
|
AGRI: Battleground for revision of agriculture policies in wake of farmers' protests
|
In the wake of this year’s farmers’ protests, both in Brussels and across Europe, agriculture has rocketed high up the political agenda — prompting concern over how the 27-nation bloc's future legislative plans will cope with the EU’s commitment to tackling the contribution of agriculture and diet to climate change. “As we've seen in recent months with the presence of tractors in Brussels, Strasbourg, and also in my home city of Prague, all is not well in the agricultural sector, and we need to address this,” the chair of the European Parliament’s agriculture committee Veronika Vrecionová told EUobserver. Following the farmers’ protests , the revision of certain provisions of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), adopted at the end of the 2019-2024 legislative term, prompted outrage from environmental organisations and even an investigation by the EU Ombudsman. But the Czech MEP, a member of the rightwing European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), said that EU agricultural policies need to be “carefully reviewed and, if necessary, redesigned or revised” to make sure farmers can make a living from farming. Namely, Vrecionová said that the multi-billion-euro farming spending programme will likely be one of the main focuses of her committee workload over the next five years. The aim? “A CAP free from unnecessary bureaucracy and fit for purpose,” she said. “I believe that all the political groups that care about the agricultural sector and food security will be supportive and constructive in the process of its revision,” the 59-year-old MEP said, expecting some pushback among the different political parties. These clashes, she explained, will primarily centre around the dilemma between the push for greater economic self-sufficiency in the agricultural sector, and its ongoing reliance on subsidies. But committee discussions are also likely to touch on elements such as EU enlargement and the financing of environmental and social protections. “This is particularly necessary to ensure that, in future, other countries such as Ukraine, can join the European Union and that both the EU and the acceding countries can benefit from the common market,” she said. In addition, Vrecionová also expected that the EU will be able to finalise negotiations over the regulation of new genomic techniques (NGT) — a controversial file put forward by the commission last year that has still not found common ground among EU member states. Vrecionová, who was one of the lead negotiators on this file during the previous legislative term, has argued that plant breeding is the most important economic and environmental investment in agriculture. “The more tools put to use in plant breeding, the better we will be able to address societal challenges such as the need to reduce the amount of inputs for agricultural production, while at the same time tackling the growing challenge posed by pests. All this is necessary to ensure stable and higher yields,” she said. Meanwhile, environmental and anti-lobbyist campaigners have slammed the European Commission proposal as an attempt to deregulate GMO techniques , putting consumers' rights and the rights of the non-GM sector at risk. NGTs are crops made by new techniques like CRISPR-Cas. But political pressure to change current rules for GMOs has been mounting since 2018 — when the European Court of Justice ruled that new techniques like CRISPR-Cas still fall under the current framework dealing with genetic-engineering products.
|
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.
|
With growing calls for changes to EU farming policies, the multi-billion-euro Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) will become one of the main issues the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee will address over the next five years.
|
[
"Who's who in the EU Parliament committees?",
"EU Political"
] |
whos-who-in-the-eu-parliament-committees
|
2025-01-02T06:11:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/whos-who-in-the-eu-parliament-committees/ar7698360f
|
PECH: Beyond EU fish wars, finding an eco-financial balance
|
The European fishing industry has come under enormous pressure in recent years, facing unprecedented challenges, mainly related to climate change and biodiversity-loss – but also industrial and high-impact fishing practices that are putting additional pressure on already fragile ecosystems. On top of that, Brexit, the Covid pandemic, and, most recently, Russia's war in Ukraine have also created market uncertainty, shortages of raw materials and a sharp rise in fuel and fish-feed prices, negatively affecting fisheries and aquaculture communities. As the EU continues to be one of the world's largest markets for fish and aquaculture products, reforming the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing will be key priorities for the new EU parliament’s fisheries committee. “The primary sector, including agriculture and fisheries, demand our help to solve the problems caused by excessive demands without time, without resources, and with a scenario of war conflicts and rising costs,” the chair of the fisheries committee, Spanish centre-right MEP Carmen Crespo Díaz said at the September plenary parliament session in Strasbourg. Each year, the European Commission and EU member states negotiate total allowable fish catches, a critical part of the EU's role in the EU seafood industry — a sector that supports 3.6 million jobs and generates nearly €624bn in turnover. However, campaigners complain that many of these quotas remain above the sustainable limits recommended by scientific experts, increasing the risk of over-exploiting fish stocks in EU sea waters and fueling long-standing tensions between the fishing industry and environmental advocates. Talks of EU fishing quotas trigger strong emotions among policymakers from coastal regions with important fishing communities, such as Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Greece, Ireland and Baltic Sea countries. Arguing that her committee would defend the Mediterranean and Atlantic fishing sector, Crespo Diaz has defended the need for so-called ‘mirror clauses’ in third-countries agreements, ensuring a level playing field for European fishermen. The new MEP, who comes from a port town in southern Almeria and did not respond to repeated requests for comments from EUobserver, recently called on the commission to recognise the effort made by the Mediterranean fishing fleet to improve the levels of sustainability for the distribution of fishing days and quotas . She also urged more socio-economic impact assessments when considering further cuts on certain quotas. Various technical reports from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization already point to a recovery of certain stocks and species in the Mediterranean, she argued. “This is why we must advocate in this committee for considering the reports indicating stock recovery in the Mediterranean to reduce the drastic demands placed [on the region],” Crespo Díaz told MEPs in her committee. “We are aware that it is important to ensure the fisheries resources and the good state of the marine ecosystem, but the truth is that in recent years, it has been causing an imbalance by giving too much priority to the environmental issue to the detriment of the necessary maintenance of companies and ensuring the welfare of society, ” she concluded. EU member states have committed to restoring 20 percent of their lands and waters by 2030, including restoring 30 percent of habitats in poor condition by 2030.
|
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.
|
The EU has supported sustainability in fisheries, facing challenges like climate change and market uncertainties from Brexit, Covid, and the Ukraine war. But the fisheries committee chairwoman argues that the recent focus on environmental protection has come at the expense of business support and societal well-being.
|
[
"Who's who in the EU Parliament committees?",
"EU Political"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-01-02T06:11:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar67b890b3
|
Is EU commissioner for animals a new dawn?
|
As the year draws to a close, I want to take a moment to reflect with you on the highlights of the past 12 months. These are not easy times. We live in a world that is increasingly polarised, in which populist narratives thrive. Building a better future for animals, biodiversity, and, ultimately, human beings, may sometimes appear like an impossibly slow feat. Yet, if the past taught us anything it is that achieving systemic change requires perseverance as well as a cohesive movement, and every step in the right direction counts. We owe it to ourselves and the animals to celebrate our achievements, and I am certainly grateful for what we made happen. Ahead of the European elections, our campaign Vote for Animals rallied over 1,000 pledges from candidates across Europe. Of these candidates, 102 were elected, which spells hope for strong support in the European Parliament to stop unnecessary animal suffering, ban the cruellest trades in animal products, and help protect Europe’s precious wild animals. The broad political support of our Our Vote for Animals shows how important animal welfare is for EU citizens. Today, more than 90 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) signed up for the EP Intergroup for the Welfare and Conservation of Animals, which has been in place since 1983 and has just been re-established under the inspiring leadership of MEP Niels Fuglsang. We are thrilled to have so many motivated MEPs ready and willing to help us build a better Europe for animals because there is much work ahead. Changing our food system is more urgent than ever considering the current scale of the farmed animal welfare crisis. In effect, the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture, in which we proactively participated, unanimously concluded that animal welfare legislation must be revised by 2026, emphasising the urgent need for a phase-out of cage systems. We look forward to working with other stakeholders of the recently launched European Board on Agriculture and Food to transform these recommendations into reality. In this new political term, and for the first time, animal welfare was officially included in an EU Commissioner’s title. This is a historic milestone and the result of years of dedicated advocacy. The new c ommissioner for health and animal welfare should work closely with the commissioners responsible for agriculture, fisheries, trade and environment, among others, to ensure ambitious animal welfare standards in all relevant EU legislation. Speaking of legislation, work has started on the legislative proposal for a revision of the Regulation on the transport of live animals. There is no time to waste to improve this legislation because live transport causes unimaginable suffering. Animals continue to die at Europe’s borders and there is no solution in sight. While the current proposal is not sufficiently ambitious, we are ready for the challenge and will strive to ensure the best possible improvements. The other legislative proposal in the pipeline is for improving the welfare of dogs and cats and their traceability. It marks a major step forward compared to the current situation but we are convinced that even stronger safeguards must be put in place for all pets, including by introducing an EU-wide Positive List - which would define species permitted to be kept as pets, dependent on their unique welfare needs. While - for now - we lost the battle on maintaining maximum protection for wolves in the EU , we were proud to be among many NGOs who stood together against political pressure to downgrade their safeguarding. This chapter is not over. We will continue to work tirelessly to champion the peaceful coexistence between human activities and wild animals and a science-based conservation approach. There is hope on the horizon in many other fields that are close to our hearts and we must concentrate on these successes. For instance, we contributed to a pivotal EU roundtable that advanced the dialogue on the structure of the European Commission’s roadmap to phase out animal testing for chemical safety assessments, promoting a future of safer, more ethical, and innovative science. Next year will be the year of the truth for the new commissioner for health and animal welfare. We expect him to follow through on the commitment to revise animal welfare legislation and to live up to the expectations of the millions of citizens who want to see animals much better protected in the European Union.
|
I am grateful for being part of a phenomenal movement of animal advocacy professionals; for our 102 member organisations in 26 European countries and internationally, who make our work possible; and grateful to our generous donors, who allow us to expand our areas of influence.
|
Changing our food system is more urgent than ever considering the current scale of the farmed animal welfare crisis.
|
[
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
health-and-society
|
2024-12-30T08:14:03.365Z
|
https://euobserver.com/health-and-society/ar11ccf1ae
|
SANT: Health subcommittee goes geopolitical
|
The subcommittee on public health (SANT) will seek to enshrine EU "pharmaceutical sovereignty" in law, while helping Europeans tackle heart disease and mental health in a digital era. The Covid pandemic and fraying Western relations with China and Russia had shown the EU needed to produce more of its own vital medicines and ingredients. And SANT’s first job will be to push through legislation establishing a Critical Medicines List and to start work on a Critical Medicine Act, in what subcommittee chair Adam Jaruba called “the largest reform of the EU medicines market in over 20 years”. “International challenges along with our excessive exposure and dependencies of supply chains, force us to take urgent action to de-risk and increase our pharmaceutical sovereignty,” he said in a speech. But geopolitics aside, Sant aims to help roll out new EU plans to combat cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and neurodegenerative disease, on the model of a recent 'Beat Cancer Plan' . Jaruba, a 49-year-old Polish conservative MEP from Busko-Zdró, a small spa town in southern Poland, also called for a Mental Health Action Plan, saying this should "focus on the situation of young people in the digital era, the impact of content and the disruption of neurotransmitters by addictive algorithms that monetise attention". But he also hoped SANT would help to better regulate the use of AI in medicine, improve health workers' rights, and access to medical care for rural regions. "The use of AI algorithms in the health sector may require separate sectoral regulation, a ‘ [overriding special law] to the framework Artificial Intelligence Act," he said. The 30-strong subcommittee has traditionally seen differences in approach between leftwing and rightwing MEPs. The left side has placed more emphasis on preventive medicine, including proactive action on the environment, while the right focused on promoting scientific research and investment in remedial medicine. Opinion was also split among those who wanted to upgrade SANT to a fully-fledged committee, which would do more legislative work, and those who wanted it to remain a more research-focused part of the European Parliament's committee on the environment, public health and food safety (ENVI). But either way, Jaruba said the Covid pandemic had boosted public support for greater EU involvement in health affairs. He also said health issues tended to be less politically divisive than other dossiers. "We will do everything to sustain and strengthen this impulse [public support for EU action], and to build on it," Jaruba 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.
|
Big things are brewing in the health committee — not least a bid for European ‘pharmaceutical sovereignty’ — but also also cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and a probe into the effects of social media’s addictive algorithms on young people’s mental health.
|
[
"Who's who in the EU Parliament committees?",
"EU Political"
] |
whos-who-in-the-eu-parliament-committees
|
2024-12-30T06:09:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/whos-who-in-the-eu-parliament-committees/arabb99912
|
EUobserver's Top 10 stories of 2024
|
Unlike some of our rivals, at EUobserver, we tend not to regard the EU Commission as purely a powerplay soap opera of Berlaymont court politics — who's up, who's down, who are the 50 movers and shakers of the year, etc etc — preferring to concentrate on our USP (unique selling point) of detailed, deep-dive, journalism in five to ten core competency areas of the commission — migration, human rights, the Green transition, rule of law, democracy and transparency, foreign interference, and workers' rights, to name just the most vital and obvious. Largely ignoring the midday press conference, and the slew of daily-trumpeted announcements (which are often not as big news, or even as 'new', as they seem), we favour researching and publishing our own longer-term investigations, and infographics, or co-publishing with partners such as Novaya Gazeta Europe , Investigate Europe and DeSmog throughout 2024. In addition, in this past 12 months of mega elections — the US, India, Europe (well, the European Parliament) plus more recently and controversially Romania and Moldova — EUobserver, despite being just an editorial staff of just six published two print magazines : one in early summer on the European Parliament elections, and one more recently in October taking a deep dive into all 25 or so European Parliament committees . Again, the unglamorous engine room of EU policy-making. In addition to stories by Elena Sanchez Nicolas (editor-in-chief and covering rule of law, digital, and environment), Nikolaj Nielsen (migration, Frontex, Freedom of Information, corruption and transparency), Wester van Gaal (the green transition and economics), Andrew Rettman (foreign affairs, Russian interference) and Benjamin Fox (Africa-EU relations, China), in 2024 we've published around 300 opinion pieces, from NGOs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, academics, think-tanks, and freelance experts, giving breadth, depth and range to our more tightly-focussed news output. And last but not least, our five columnists: Shada Islam in Brussels, Caroline de Gruyter (formerly of Oslo, now back in Brussels), Judith Arnal in Madrid, Michael Meyer-Resende in Berlin and Anton Shekhovtsov in Vienna providing weekly takes from their specialised interests (institutional racism in the EU, cultural history of EU, hard economics, democracy and elections, and Russian interference, respectively). And so, without further ado, the pieces we would like to showcase as our Top 10 of the year. As per last year's disclaimer , these are not (or not necessarily) the best-read or most viral stories of the year. Sometimes, that can simply be confusing analytics, or a story going viral/rogue on Reddit (less so on Twitter/X, these days, although LinkedIn has recovered some panache as a sober social media platform for political discussions). Certainly, we find stories have a 'long tail' — amassing a healthy readership on the day, and then a surprisingly large one a week, or a month, later. A special shout out too, to Piet Ruig , a very sharp Dutch reporter who spent several months with us in 2024, and Salome Bonneyrat , our French intern for the past few months. They are not in any particular order - enjoy! 1. INVESTIGATION: Handshake of death: EU embrace of Kagame helping silence dissidents in Belgium While Rwanda's president Paul Kagame may be every Western leader's best African friend, it's a very different story among the political and cultural diaspora who left their homeland for a new life in Europe. Foreign editor Andrew Rettman talks to relatives and survivors of those who have displeased Kagame. 2. China set to offer green investment boost to Africa, as EU watches from sidelines Our new/returning Africa editor, Benjamin Fox based out of Nairobi, looks at how China is using Africa's need for investment capital, and disenchantment with EU green regulations, to build new relationships on the continent. 3. EU Parliament voting data reveals Ukraine's MEP foes Elena Sanchez Nicolas takes a deep dive into voting records to see how the new far-right in the Brussels parliament votes against helping Ukraine — although, interestingly (and fortunately?), there are splits among the ranks of the new extremist populist flank of MEPs too. 4. Wolf in sheep's clothing? The two faces of the Russian Orthodox Church Staying on the theme of Russia's aggression, foreign editor Andrew Rettman looks at the role — some might say Fifth Column — of the Russian Orthodox church in Europe during the now nearly-three-year invasion of Ukraine. 5. INVESTIGATION: How QAnon pushed climate-denialism into European mainstream A joint piece with our friends at Lighthouse Reports and our own Nikolaj Nielsen, looking at how US climate-change denial and anti-vaccine protests have spread across the Atlantic — making even such a benign and holistic concept as the '15-minute city' into a battleground for conspiracy theories. 6. ANALYSIS: Peer-review shreds 'degrowth' concept — but is the criticism justified? 'Degrowth' — or at least some form of economic well-being not measured in pure GDP — has been on the fringes of green economic thinking for a couple of decades. A sure sign that it is breaking through into the mainstream is that it is now under fire from mainstream academics. But is their takedown itself justified, or even rigorous? Our green economy correspondent Wester van Gaal doesn't think so. 7. FEATURE: In Novohryhorivka — everything is gone except hope At the start of the year, Nikolaj Nielsen travelled around a wintry and war-torn Ukraine — then only two years under Russian bombardment, not three — to see life on the ground for those who neither fled as refugees, nor were fighting on the frontline. A cold and sobering read. 8. EXCLUSIVE: How the chemical industry pushes to relax EU regulations Again, a seemingly unsexy topic not touched by many other media outlets, but an issue that will (for the worse) affect more European lives than the jostling egos in the Berlaymont — a deep-dive by our freelancer Staffan Dahllof and Elena Sanchez Nicolas into the shenanigans behind the REACH chemicals directive, and the ever-present and ineradicable 'forever chemicals'. 9. ANALYSIS: Will capital markets really solve EU defence woes? In times of war — think Ukraine, think Gaza — buy shares in the arms industry. Doubly-so, when Nato members are waving around blank cheques to fulfil their two percent of GDP on defence spending mantra. As Europe transforms itself into a war economy, Wester van Gaal looks at where the money is coming from — and going to. 10. INTERVIEW: Lamy: EU should work with African states to make carbon tax work
|
The CBAM (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism) was, despite its lugubrious moniker, intended to be the flagship policy of the EU's Green Deal — imposing tariffs (in a good way) on such heavy-duty items as steel, cement, iron and aluminium coming in from non-EU states that do no match Europe's carbon-reduction measures. It hasn't worked out so smoothly, and former EU trade commissioner and a former director general of the World Trade Organisation Pascal Lamy explains to Benjamin Fox why not, and how it can be fixed.
|
Allow us at EUobserver to blow our own trumpet as 2024 draws to a close, with a look back at the best of the journalistic path we follow — less frothy personality-driven politics, more policy, research and investigations.
|
[
"EU Political"
] |
eu-political
|
2024-12-27T09:41:20.092Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/arc4a9656f
|
INTA: Re-shaping the EU’s trading role amid new geopolitics
|
Now into his seventh term as an MEP, few EU lawmakers have the experience of German social democrat Bernd Lange. Lange, who has just started his third consecutive mandate as chair of the international trade committee, is the ideal point-man for parliament at a time of major turbulence facing the EU’s trade policy. In particular, the EU’s trade dispute with China is preoccupying policy-minds across Europe. After the EU imposed tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, accusing Beijing of illegally subsidising its industry, Beijing has hit back by opening trade probes into imports of EU dairy, pork and cognac. “We of course also need to further develop our own course in the competition between China and the US,” says Lange, a reference not just to the EVs row but to the broader geopolitical battle for access to the critical minerals, such as cobalt, lithium and other metals, that the major economies need to drive their green industrial transitions. In the last mandate, EU lawmakers approved the bloc’s Critical Raw Materials Act, and the commission has since brokered deals offering investment in exchange for access with the likes of DR Congo , Zambia, Namibia and Rwanda. Lange expects the arguments between open markets and protectionism to be among the most divisive in parliament over the coming years. “Another main challenge will be to make sure that we work on all three pillars of the economic security strategy and not only on the ‘protect’ pillar,” says Lange, adding that if tariff and other protective measures are needed “we have to do this on the basis of facts and not politics and we should always keep the potential reaction of our trading partners in mind.” Any measures “should also be in line with WTO rules of course” — though he also notes that “it will be a challenge sticking to the multilateral rules when so many other trading partners are disregarding it.” Access to raw materials is also reshaping relations between wealthy blocs such as the EU and the Global South, particularly African states, many of whom believe that their trade agreements with the EU are fundamentally unequal. One of the demands from a growing number of African states – especially in the wake of the agreement of the African Continental Free Trade Area – is for trade deals with the EU to be revised to allow them to promote national and regional industrialisation. At present, the bulk of the continent’s exports to the EU are raw materials. Lange says that one of his main priorities is to “conclude fair and broad partnerships with the Global South so that the EU remains a relevant partner for them.” “Fair partnerships, especially with our partners in the Global South will be key,” he adds, urging EU policymakers to “think of a comprehensive strategy to have closer links with many trading partners around the world, especially also developing countries, as everyone is trying to find its way in the new context we are in.” Global Gateway — an infrastructure investment programme that the EU Commission says is worth up to €300bn to developing countries — should be “one integral aspect of this comprehensive strategy,” says Lange. He also wants his committee to be more involved in the design and implementation of the EU’s raw material partnerships. “I hope that we will be able to conclude and ratify some additional trade agreements, Lange tells EUobserver, though he concedes that “we need to be aware that such agreements might not be enough or not feasible in the short run.”
|
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.
|
One of the European Parliament’s most experienced MEPs will be handling the political hot potato of a potential trade war with China.
|
[
"EU Political"
] |
eu-political
|
2024-12-24T06:28:33.980Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar2d555ca7
|
DEVE: Keeping the EU looking outward
|
The EU’s commitment to developing countries, and development policy in general, has been seriously questioned in recent years. Falling aid spending and Europe’s preoccupation with migration control are the most obvious pieces of evidence. Keeping the EU looking outward is the task facing Barry Andrews, the new chair of the parliament’s development committee. “Instead of retreating, we must advance by expanding the EU’s humanitarian presence worldwide and continuing to support those in greatest need. In doing so, the EU must remain outward-looking, despite the growing desire by some to turn inward,” Andrews told EUobserver. "Success will be shining a light on some of the forgotten crises happening in the world right now such as Sudan,” he says, as well as ensuring that, in five years’ time, “the EU remains collectively the biggest donor for international aid in the world.” The UN’s aid wings, and other humanitarian organisations, have warned of increasing ‘donor fatigue’ in recent years, with humanitarian crises in Sudan and Yemen among those that have struggled to obtain international attention and sufficient aid. The battle over EU funds in the bloc’s next seven-year budget framework, which starts in 2028, will also preoccupy minds. A leaked budget proposal from the commission included plans to shift up to €2.6bn within its main development funding pot to tackling what it calls the “extraordinary geopolitical tension” from increased migration. Andrews, an Irish liberal MEP, says that one of his focuses will be “advocating for increased humanitarian funding and improving coordination between development aid and humanitarian efforts, particularly to enhance resilience in fragile states.” Elsewhere, the EU Commission is keen to press ahead with its Global Gateway initiative, an infrastructure investment programme that is an attempt to outflank China’s Belt and Road. Launched in 2021, the commission wants to maintain a budget line for Global Gateway in the next seven-year budget on which negotiations are likely to start in early 2025. The scheme, which the commission says will drive up to €300bn in investment across Africa and Asia, is focused on promoting green industrialisation, such as green hydrogen projects, which the EU hopes could lead to increased supply to Europe. That has led some critics to suggest that the programme is more about promoting the EU’s agenda than it is a development tool. Others point out that the funding generated by Global Gateway relies heavily on the private sector putting up the cash. Andrews says that “stronger oversight is needed to ensure that EU infrastructure projects under Global Gateway align with the dual objectives of sustainable development and poverty reduction, rather than merely advancing EU economic interests.” In the meantime, the EU’s trade deal with the Southern African Development Community is due for review, though the passing of the Samoa Agreement last year left the EU’s trade terms with the African, Caribbean and Pacific community unchanged and is unlikely to be revisited in the new mandate. Even so, MEPs must "advocate for fair and sustainable trade agreements that benefit developing countries, focusing on promoting sustainable value chains and upholding human rights and environmental standards within trade policies,” argues Andrews. Pressure on national aid budgets, as member states across the EU seek to rein in spending to reduce deficits from the Covid pandemic, will also have to be countered at EU level, says Andrews. “We are living in a time of increasing inequality and global uncertainty, and this has fuelled political divisiveness in some member states. This division is evident in calls to reduce development aid or close borders,” he adds. “One of the most contentious issues on DEVE’s agenda will be countering this rhetoric.”
|
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.
|
‘Donor fatigue’ is a major issue, with the conflicts in Sudan and Yemen overshadowed by Ukraine and Gaza, but there is also pressure to shift money from the budget to migration, and doubts over the motives of the key Global Gateway project.
|
[
"EU Political"
] |
eu-political
|
2024-12-24T06:27:57.205Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ardb7fd4bd
|
The EU's lust for Indonesia's nickel supply
|
It was intended to be a legacy project for both former Indonesian president Joko "Jokowi" Widodo and the first Ursula von der Leyen Commission: the free trade agreement between the European Union and Indonesia, referred to as the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) . Yet with Prabowo Subianto having taken office of president of Indonesia in October and the EU then conducting its commissioners' leadership reshuffle, the agreement remains on the table. This is also due to another major stumbling block: the two sides are diametrically opposed on the issue of trade in raw materials, nickel in particular. The EU’s position towards Indonesia in the negotiations over CEPA is symbolic for the hypocritical approach that has marked the recent European rush for raw materials. On the one hand, Europe has an enormous appetite for the raw materials needed for its energy transition and digitalisation, for which it is extremely dependent on other countries. On the other hand, conscious of the rich world’s history of extractivism in the Global South, this time around the EU strives for ‘win-win partnerships’ with third countries. These should ensure fair partnerships and local value addition for the host countries where mining projects would take place. So far, the EU has struggled to unify these two divergent goals. This is especially apparent when it comes to the case of nickel in Indonesia. Indonesia has some of the largest supplies of nickel in the world. It is an important ingredient in the energy transition: nickel is used to make stainless steel and for batteries for electric vehicles. Still, abundant natural resources itself are not a guarantee for economic development. Value is generally created further up in the value-chain. In the case of nickel, this is mainly in the production of stainless steel and batteries. Recognising this, Indonesia has followed a policy of keeping its raw materials inside the country, before exporting the processed goods. In fact, it has banned the export of raw nickel ore since 2014. Essentially, this is could be considered the kind of local value addition that the EU professes to support. 'Neo-colonial extractavism model' Yet, rather than supporting Indonesia, the European Union has used all instruments in its trade arsenal to get Indonesia to open up its nickel market. In 2021 for instance, it filed a complaint against Indonesia at the World Trade Organization (WTO), which ruled against Indonesia . Now, raw materials market liberalisation is one of the EU’s most important demands in the negotiations of the EU-Indonesia CEPA. Its demands include provisions in the energy and raw materials chapter that prohibit Indonesian export restrictions, including the elimination of all export duties on raw materials. This would weaken and narrow the Indonesian government's sovereignty over its natural resources and risks replicating a neo-colonial model of extractivism, which hinders Indonesia’s development. In the meantime, while the EU has been fighting Indonesia over trade rules, China has seized the opportunity. It has already invested billions in the Indonesian nickel sector. As it stands, 80 to 82 per cent of Indonesian battery-grade nickel output is expected to come from majority Chinese-owned producers this year. Can the EU still compete and form an alternative trading partner for Indonesia? It would, if the EU revises its dogmatic free-trade approach and comes up with an attractive alternative proposal. It should move towards a truly equal partnership with Indonesia, wherein it does not force it to liberalise its markets and shows genuine willingness to support Indonesian value addition and sustainable economic development. That way, Indonesia would not remain a raw material supplier for the EU and be trapped in low-value-added production. It will certainly also require a strong commitment to technology transfer needed in Indonesia. At this point, the CEPA does the opposite: it regulates several commitments that prohibit the application of local content and of technology transfer. The EU should also make an effort to mitigate the tremendous impact of mining for raw materials. Nickel extraction in Indonesia is already taking an enormous toll on the environment, communities and its workers. It is a major driver of deforestation, with nickel on track to match palm oil as the greatest source of deforestation in the rainforest-rich country. Nickel mining and processing is also causing air and water pollution and its coal-fired powerplants are massive emitters of greenhouse gases. The EU should therefore uphold the highest socio-environmental standards in its value chain and include mineral commodities in its efforts to combat deforestation. But most of all, the EU should start by reducing its own material footprint in order to stay within planetary boundaries. This will reduce its resource dependency and alleviate some of the pressure on sensitive ecosystems. Now that would be a legacy to be proud of. Rachmi Hertanti is a researcher at the Transnational Institute and member of the Indonesian Coalition for Economic Justice in Jakarta. Marius Troost is a senior policy advisor at the NGO Both ENDS in Amsterdam. Rachmi Hertanti is a researcher at the Transnational Institute and member of the Indonesian Coalition for Economic Justice in Jakarta. Marius Troost is a senior policy advisor at the NGO
|
Both ENDS
|
The EU’s position towards Indonesia in the negotiations over the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) is symbolic for the hypocritical approach that has marked the recent European rush for raw materials.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-12-23T07:52:32.441Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arad93f848
|
With Assad gone, what about the Kurds in Syria?
|
Syrians worldwide are celebrating the end of president Bashar al-Assad's nearly 25-year rule and the Al-Assad family's even longer reign. Rebel groups have defeated the weakened regime forces, abandoned by their allies, with Assad himself believed to have fled to Russia. The regime's collapse marks a significant loss for Russia , a key backer. Assad's legacy is one of brutal dictatorship, marked by severe human rights abuses, war crimes, and atrocities such as chemical weapon attacks, torture, and mass killings. While Syrians rejoice at the prospect of freedom, the post-Assad transition is fraught with challenges , as various groups, including radical Islamist factions, vie for power. A major player in Assad's overthrow is Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), an Islamist militant group with roots in Al-Qaeda. HTS has shifted its focus in recent years from global jihad to addressing local Syrian issues, gaining more popular support. We ought to remain very cautious about HTS’s softened appearance. The background ideology of the group is dangerous and many risks prevail, including the potential imposition of Sharia law. Neighbour's agendas? Meanwhile, external powers like Turkey, Israel, and Russia are pursuing their own strategic interests in the power vacuum, complicating the situation. In Rojava, the Kurdish-led autonomous region in northern Syria, residents also celebrate Assad’s fall, viewing it as an opportunity to build a democratic, inclusive Syria. However, Rojava faces threats from Turkish-backed forces and Islamist groups, who started their attacks right after the fall of Assad. Rojava faces frequent attacks from Turkey, which has invaded Kurdish areas and also threatens the stability of the region. Turkey’s indiscriminate airstrikes have targeted critical infrastructure and Kurdish communities, and its support for mercenary groups and Islamist militants has fueled violence in these areas. According to the BBC , Turkey carried out more than 100 attacks between October 2019 and January 2024 on oil fields, gas facilities and power stations. The Kurdish-led administration, which has demonstrated a strong commitment to gender equality, grassroots democracy, and multi-ethnic coexistence, deserves recognition and support from the EU. Moreover, with concerns that the recent US administration change might lead to a withdrawal of US troops from the region, the EU must act urgently to fill this void and provide the necessary diplomatic and logistical support to protect this fragile yet progressive Kurdish autonomy. In light of the recent events and longstanding repression of Syrian and Kurdish communities, it is essential for the EU to take a firm stand in support of the right to self-determination of all Syrians, human rights, democracy, and regional stability. The EU’s commitment to human rights and peace must be more than just rhetoric. We urge the EU and the international community to take the following actions: 1. Pressure Turkey to restrain from any military action against the Kurdish areas in Northern Syria and to take credible action against Islamist groups operating in the area. 2. Pressure Israel to restrain from invasive actions in the Syrian territory. 3. Recognise and support the Autonomous Administration in North and East Syria , including providing humanitarian aid and rebuilding infrastructure damaged by Turkish and Islamist attacks. 4. If the EU considers establishing any formal relationship with HTS or a new administration, it must condition this on the recognition of Rojava's autonomy and the acknowledgement of the Kurdish administration’s status both within Syria and in the international community. 5. Refrain from forced returns or suspension of asylum processes of Syrian refugees in the EU. The situation remains chaotic and uncertain. In the worst-case scenario, returns could amount to a death sentence for certain groups of people. Li Andersson (Finland), Per Clausen (Denmark), Hanna Gedin (Sweden), Merja Kyllönen (Finland), Jussi Saramo (Finland) and Jonas Sjöstedt (Sweden) are all MEPs sitting in the Left group Li Andersson (Finland), Per Clausen (Denmark), Hanna Gedin (Sweden), Merja Kyllönen (Finland), Jussi Saramo (Finland) and Jonas Sjöstedt
|
(Sweden) are all MEPs sitting in the
|
While Syrians rejoice at the prospect of freedom, the post-Assad transition is fraught with challenges. Left MEPs call on the EU to pressure Turkey and Israel to their restrain military actions, support Kurdish autonomy in Syria, and protect refugees in Europe.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
*
|
2024-12-19T10:01:27.308Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/ara05b8084
|
Amnesty: Why we called Gaza 'the most documented genocide in history'
|
EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen knows that the EU’s reputation as a credible actor for human rights and international law is in tatters over the horrors in Gaza. EU leaders and officials have gone from privately condemning the EU’s double standards behind closed doors to publicly lamenting them. Instead of tackling these double standards however, the commission president rebranded them as “anti-EU narratives” and tasked the new commissioner for the Mediterranean and foreign policy chief to elaborate a communications strategy to highlight the EU’s contribution to the region. But there are issues that even the canniest communications strategy cannot bury. After the atrocities committed by Hamas and other armed groups on 7 October 2023, Israel’s military campaign has killed over 45,000 Palestinians, 60 percent of whom are children, women and older people. The Israeli offensive has left the occupied Gaza Strip a wasteland, inflicting shocking and unprecedented levels of death, suffering and destruction. Amnesty International investigated Israel’s offensive on Gaza, examining a variety of unlawful acts constituting a pattern of conduct, the harmful and destructive impact of its policies and actions, and Israeli government and military officials’ racist, dehumanising and genocidal rhetoric. The conclusion is clear: Israel is committing these acts with the intent to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza. Israel is committing genocide. The most documented genocide in history We also found that not only is the genocide in Gaza the most documented in history, but the EU and many of its member states are failing to prevent it. Moreover, some member states risk becoming complicit in Israel’s genocide by continuing to transfer arms to the country. Amnesty International’s report is the culmination of nine months of meticulous research and spans 296 pages. During our investigation, we interviewed 212 people, conducted extensive fieldwork and analyzed a wide range of visual and digital evidence, including satellite imagery. Crucially, we also analyzed evidence of Israel’s intent, before concluding that Israel has committed — and is continuing to commit — genocide in Gaza. In 15 airstrikes we found that Israel killed 334 civilians, including 141 children, and wounded hundreds of others in direct attacks against civilians and without effective warnings. These airstrikes represent a subset of a wider pattern of deliberately indiscriminate attacks. We also documented how Israel has deliberately imposed conditions of life on Palestinians in Gaza calculated to bring about their physical destruction. Within the context of Israel’s long-standing apartheid and unlawful occupation, the inescapable conclusion is that Israel committed these acts with the intent of destroying the Palestinians in Gaza. Unsurprisingly, the world has been reluctant to recognize the situation in Gaza as genocide. After all, if what we have been witnessing every day for 14 months was indeed genocide, what would that say about the international community? The International Court of Justice (ICJ) recognized that a risk exists that genocide could be committed against Palestinians in Gaza, ordering multiple binding measures to prevent it. The International Criminal Court (ICC) further issued arrest warrants for Israel’s prime minister and former minister of defense for war crimes and crimes against humanity. As ICJ judge Abdulqawi Yousef put it: “All signs of genocide are flashing red.” Not everyone agreed with our findings. Yet many states have reached the same conclusion before us. While others may refuse to acknowledge the reality, the EU and its member states are faced with two primary responsibilities under international law: the obligation not to aid or assist genocide and the obligation to prevent it. EU summit As European leaders gather in Brussels for the European Council on Thursday (19 December), the new EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas faces the daunting challenge of convincing all 27 member states to uphold these two fundamental obligations under international law. However, in the absence of united action at EU level, individual member states have a duty to act on their own to uphold their obligations to prevent genocide and avoid being complicit in it. In practical terms, this entails five concrete actions. The remaining EU member states that continue to export or allow the transfer of arms to Israel must follow the lead of those who have rightly suspended arms exports and transshipments to Israel. States must exert diplomatic pressure on Israel, including by publicly recognizing that Israel is committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, among other violations of international law. States must support justice mechanisms, including by safeguarding the ICC from reprisals, supporting the court financially and politically, and publicly committing to enforcing arrest warrants issued by the ICC. Additionally, states have a responsibility to investigate and prosecute international crimes committed in Gaza under universal jurisdiction, or when suspected perpetrators or victims are dual nationals. For its part, the EU must not allow Israel to decimate the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestine Refugees, which remains the only lifeline for millions of Palestinians. This requires both financial and political support for the UNRWA, as well as supporting Norway’s efforts at the UN General Assembly to challenge Israel’s attempt to dismantle it. Finally, regardless of EU leaders' discourse on the ‘day after’ and long-term prospects for peace, as long as Israeli settlement expansion and unlawful occupation and apartheid persist, this will remain empty rhetoric. The EU must start by implementing its legal obligations, as clarified by the ICJ, to ban trade and investments that contribute to maintaining Israel’s illegal occupation. In the pages of history, two groups of politicians will be remembered: those who remained silent in the face of Gaza’s genocide — and those who rose up to stop it. Eve Geddie is the director of Amnesty International 's European Institutions Office Eve Geddie is the director of
|
Amnesty International
|
As EU leaders gather in Brussels for their summit, Gaza’s devastation has tarnished the bloc's reputation for human rights. Amnesty International says member states must penalise Israel alone, if new EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas cannot find unanimity in the face of 'the most document genocide in history'.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-12-19T09:34:18.236Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ard525dc24
|
EU needs to help end bias in Bosnia and Herzegovina
|
It has been almost 15 years since the European Court for Human Rights (ECtHR) found in the case blatant racial and ethnic discrimination in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s constitution. And yet nothing has changed. In the landmark case brought by a Bosnian Roma, Dervo Sejdić, and a Bosnian Jew, Jakob Finci, the ECtHR ruled on 22 December 2009 that the Bosnian constitution — drafted by European states and the United States at the end of the war in 1995 — directly discriminates against minorities by not allowing them to become candidates for the presidency. The role is reserved exclusively for members of the three main ethnic groups: Bosniaks, Bosnian-Croats, and Bosnian-Serbs. The country’s 17 “national minority groups,” including Jews and Roma-are legally second-class citizens, referred to in the constitution as “Others.” An estimated 400,000 Bosnians , 12 percent of the population, cannot run for presidency or parliament because of their religion, ethnicity, or where they live. For Sejdic and Finci, 22 December is a bittersweet date that both symbolises a victory against discrimination and a reminder that the decision still has not been carried out. Nor have five subsequent ECtHR cases against Bosnia that have established similar discrimination. As the actor with the greatest political influence, and including states that drafted the discriminatory constitution, the EU has a crucial role to play in addressing this issue. For several years, the EU had required carrying out these decisions as one of the main conditions in the EU accession process, In 2022, Bosnia was granted EU candidate status and in 2024 it opened EU accession negotiations, two important milestones, despite continuing structural discrimination. There is a growing fear that the country may be allowed to join the EU with the discrimination enshrined in its constitution. The simple reason why the implementation of European Court decisions and constitutional reform lags behind in Bosnia and Herzegovina is that those who are in charge of making amendments – the major ethnic-based political parties – benefit from the current system and ongoing discrimination. In 2012 and 2019 research, Human Rights Watch documented the impact of this exclusion. Bosnia’s Roma communities, the poorest group in the country, face systemic discrimination, with no recourse because they are barred from executive power. Only about 35 percent of Roma children attend primary and secondary schools in the country and over 60 percent of Roma don’t have access to health care. Only 11 to 13 percent are formally employed . When it comes to Jewish life and community in Bosnia, it’s mostly invisible to those in power. The estimate is that 10 percent – $3.3bn [€3.14bn] – of the property in the country seized by previous Nazi and communist regimes belonged to Bosnian Jews, almost none of which has been given back. Instead, in many cases, municipalities have taken ownership. The canton Sarajevo’s Interior Ministry is located in the building of the Jewish humanitarian organization La Benevolencija , which has not been successful in regaining its ownership. There are many other examples, that have been reported, of blatant requisition of Jewish property under previous governments, which the current Bosnian government “harmonized” through untransparent and quick court procedures . Previous attempts to adopt a national property restitution law failed due to objections from the ruling ethnic political parties. Decisive leadership and leveraging by the EU can help move the needle, including by requiring the active participation and representation of national minorities in any future planning and discussions around the implementation of the Sejdic-Finci group of decisions in Brussels, Strasbourg and Sarajevo. Experience and history have shown that when states are allowed to join the EU despite unresolved questions on fundamental rights, the issues remain unaddressed as political leverage is lost. The EU should not make that mistake in Bosnia and Herzegovina and allow the accession process to entrench what amounts to an ethnic caste system. In engaging with Bosnia on accession-related reforms, the EU should be led by international human rights law, including the European Convention on Human Rights, which the EU aspires to join . Doing so means prioritising the implementation of binding rulings by the European Court of Human Rights. Describing 15 years of failed attempts to see his decision carried out, Dervo Sejdic, now 69, said in a recent interview : “I am tired, very often frustrated, but the will for the final victory will never end. For as long as I am alive, it’s not going to stop.” The EU should honour Mr. Sejdic by using its influence to prioritize constitutional reform to end the discrimination he, Jakob Finci, and others have suffered. Elida Vikic is a senior Europe and Central Asia coordinator at Human Rights Watch. Elida Vikic
|
is a senior Europe and Central Asia coordinator at
|
Bosnia’s EU candidate status in 2022 and the start of accession talks in 2024 are key milestones, but the EU must focus on enforcing European Court of Human Rights rulings to address constitutional discrimination, argues Human Rights Watch, as EU and Western Balkans leaders meet in Brussels.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-12-18T16:39:30.572Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar2a04474e
|
EU launches investigation into TikTok over election interference
|
Following allegations of interference in the Romanian presidential election last month, the European Commission formally launched an investigation against TikTok on Tuesday (17 December). The EU executive said it will look into the TikTok recommender algorithm and the risk of paid-for political content on the Chinese social media platform. It will also investigate whether TikTok has put enough effort into addressing the risks connected to specific regional and linguistic aspects of the elections. The commission will now request further information, conduct interviews and monitoring actions to determine if the social media platform violated EU law. Under the Digital Service Act (DSA), which governs the activities of the largest social media corporations in Europe, the commission has ordered TikTok to freeze all data regarding real or predictable threats its service could present to EU elections and public discourse. The order concerns all national elections within EU member states from 24 November until next March, covering the German parliamentary election in February and the Croatian presidential election which starts in December. The European Commission previously said its digital rules are safeguarding democracy. But on Tuesday, EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said in a statement: “We must protect our democracies from any kind of foreign interference. Whenever we suspect such interference, especially during elections, we have to act swiftly and firmly." "It should be crystal clear that in the EU, all online platforms, including TikTok, must be held accountable," she also said. In a recent report , Berlin-based NGO Democracy Reporting International (DRI) showed how TikTok helped catapult Calin Georgescu, a pro-Kremlin ultra-nationalist to pole position. Since then, the Romanian constitutional court has
|
annulled
|
Following allegations of interference in the Romanian presidential election last month, the European Commission has formally launched an investigation against the Chinese social media platform TikTok.
|
[
"Digital",
"EU Political"
] |
*
|
2024-12-17T16:50:22.487Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/arbf89a2ad
|
The haves and have-nots — how delaying EU accession drives disparity in Balkans
|
European Union membership has delivered well-documented benefits to post-transition countries, particularly by accelerating income convergence with the EU average. However, an overlooked issue is the widening income gap between Balkan countries that have joined the EU — Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia, and those still outside — the Western Balkans countries. This growing divergence gains importance as the integration of the Western Balkans continues to be delayed. In 2007, when the EU expanded to include Bulgaria and Romania, income disparities between these countries and the Western Balkans were relatively modest. Romania’s GDP per capita, adjusted for purchasing power, stood at €10,800, and Bulgaria’s at €10,000—only slightly above the upper income range in the Western Balkans, where GDP per capita varied from €9,800 in Montenegro to €5,800 in Albania . Yet a decade and a half later, the income gap between Romania and Bulgaria and the Western Balkans has widened considerably. By 2023, Romania's GDP per capita has reached €30,000 (just 20 percent below the EU average), and Bulgaria's has risen to €24,200, both significantly higher than any Western Balkan country. Montenegro now has a GDP per capita of €19,500, while Albania has the lowest at €13,300 . This raises a theoretical question that may never have a real answer: what would income levels in the Western Balkans be today if they had joined the EU in 2007? This question is not as speculative as it may seem, given that the institutional capacity of the countries that joined the EU was not dramatically better than that of those remaining outside. For instance, the Corruption Perceptions Index , which ranges from one (very corrupt) to 10 (very clean), showed similar scores in 2007 for both Bulgaria and Romania as well as for all Western Balkan countries (except Albania): all scoring three, with differences between them in the first decimal place . Considering the benefits of EU single market access, increased foreign direct investment, and cohesion funds, it’s plausible to imagine that had the Western Balkans joined in 2007, their GDP per capita could be much closer to Bulgaria’s current €24,200. However, while the past cannot be changed, the future can — but it has become even more uncertain. Not only does the timeline for potential EU enlargement remain unclear, but so is the type of membership on offer. The recent Growth Plan for the Western Balkans proposes integration only into the EU’s single market, directing the integration process towards some form of a secondary membership without the full rights and benefits enjoyed by existing EU members and likely excluding complete access to EU cohesion funds. EU cohesion funds are important, with numerous studies highlighting their role in fostering economic convergence within the EU. A recent study by Poland’s ministry of economic development indicates that 25-30 percent of the real convergence achieved by the Visegrád Group with the EU resulted from these funds. The Western Balkan countries, in contrast, rely on the comparatively limited Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA). From 2007 to 2013, the IPA I financed €4.2bn to the six Western Balkan countries, with an additional €1.3bn for cross-border projects that included neighbouring EU members. From 2014 to 2020, the IPA II allocated €4.3bn under IPA II , plus €3.2bn for similar cross-border projects. In comparison, European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) allocated €46.3 bn to Romania and Bulgaria between 2014-2020. Relative to GDP, this means that the Western Balkans received funding equivalent to 5.9 percent of their combined GDP (from 2014), while Romania and Bulgaria received 23.9 percent of their combined GDP. In 2021-2027, ESIF allocated another €41.7 bn to Romania and Bulgaria. Meanwhile, the Growth Plan for the Western Balkans increases funding to the six countries to €6bn. But even with this increase, the funding level remains significantly lower than that for EU member countries in the region. This means that income divergence within the region will be further widened. Income divergence within the Balkans is creating two groups: those “left on the sidelines” and the so-called “chosen ones.” The former group is losing competitiveness relative to neighbouring EU countries due to insufficient funding for critical investments in modern infrastructure, technology, and education. Meanwhile, the “chosen ones” seated at the table in Brussels have the influence to shape EU policies in the region to serve their interests, including using political leverage to block neighbouring countries . The EU should not support income divergence within the Balkans. Opening cohesion funds to the Western Balkans, with far stricter reform conditions, can be the first step. Weak reform pressure serves only the interest groups that benefit from the status quo. By 2030, the region should join the EU as full members. Any other approach would prolong the state of limbo and exacerbate the income gap within the Balkans. Dragan Tevdovski is a university professor and served as North Macedonia's finance minister from 2017 to 2019. He also worked as an advisor to the executive director of the International Monetary Fund from 2020 to 2022. Dragan Tevdovski is a
|
university professor
|
The widening income gap between Bulgaria, Romania, and Croatia, and the Western Balkan countries outside the EU is often overlooked. But this growing divergence becomes more significant as the integration of the Western Balkans continues to be delayed, argues the former finance minister of North Macedonia.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-12-17T16:49:57.480Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar61df3d04
|
The future of Europe’s food system: which path will the EU choose?
|
The year is 2030. Across Europe, vibrant farmers’ markets teem with fresh, sustainably produced food. Young farmers are accessing affordable land to build their futures — while schoolchildren are nourished by healthy, climate-friendly, free school meals. Farmers’ incomes are beginning to grow again, as fairer prices and public money flow to smaller players. Farms act as havens for biodiversity while creating decent jobs. Although extreme storms, heat, and flooding have worsened, farms are more diverse and better equipped to weather these shocks. This is not a utopia. It’s the result of collective commitment and bold European leadership. Now imagine a different 2030. Europe’s agrifood policy has failed to rise to the challenge, and the consequences are stark. Farmers face greater financial precarity than ever – squeezed by big agri monopolies, skyrocketing input costs, competition from South America, and stagnating farmgate prices. Ultra-processed foods dominate supermarket shelves, driving health crises and rising healthcare costs. Extreme weather is devastating farms, which are ever less able to cope – while biodiversity continues to be wrecked. Climate change and fossil energy dependency propel food prices higher, pushing many people toward populist far-right politicians. These two futures hinge on the choices of Christophe Hansen, Europe’s new agriculture commissioner. As he takes office, he inherits an extraordinary opportunity – and an equally extraordinary responsibility. Two futures, one chance The good news? Hansen has a clear mandate to deliver the transformative reforms that are so urgently needed. Pressure from farmers’ protests has made reform unavoidable. The ‘Strategic Dialogue on the future of EU agriculture’ that followed – bringing together farmers, food manufacturers, civil society, rural communities, and academia – has forged consensus around a whole menu of reform options. Public surveys show strong support for change – with two-thirds of Belgians backing a ban on unhealthy food marketing ; and 30 percent of Spaniards ranking sustainable food among their top five EU priorities. This is a golden opportunity to act. The commission’s promised ‘vision for agriculture and food’ due to be unveiled within its 100 days, will set the tone for the next five years. By embracing the Strategic Dialogue recommendations, commissioner Hansen can lay the groundwork for a transformation that benefits European farmers, workers, consumers, and the planet. The path forward demands clear priorities and bold action. Fair prices for farmers Farmers are being squeezed by monopolies on all sides – struggling to earn fair prices in a system rife with unfair trading practices. They buy inputs at retail prices, sell their produce at wholesale prices, and lack bargaining power. A European-wide framework requiring buyers to negotiate prices with producers through their sectoral organizations, and ensuring farmers receive twice the living wage for their work, is essential to redress these inequities. A robust Agri-Food Chain Observatory can bring the transparency needed to expose and tackle market abuses. Such measures would empower farmers, secure their livelihoods, and properly value their indispensable contributions to our food system. Healthy choices made easy Farmers cannot shoulder the burden of transitioning to sustainable practices alone. Europe must boost demand for sustainably produced food, creating a fairer playing field for farmers and better outcomes for consumers. Reduced VAT on sustainable food products, better food labelling, and stronger rules on marketing unhealthy foods can curb the dominance of ultra-processed foods. The new farm chief can also take inspiration from innovative ‘ social security for food ’ trials in France and Belgium, and the pioneering work of cities and regions to provide healthy and sustainable school meals. Climate resilience and generational renewal EU commissioner Hansen has rightly made climate resilience a priority. The devastating floods in Valencia (which wiped out thousands of hectares of citrus, persimmons and vines, following years of punishing drought) show Europe’s farms are increasingly exposed to extreme weather. But resilience cannot be built without generational renewal. Nearly one-third of Europe’s farmers are over 65, and young farmers are locked out by sky-high land prices, which have tripled in parts of Eastern Europe over the last 15 years. Without action, farmland risks being consolidated into industrial contract operations that exploit rather than steward the land, reducing farmers to gig workers. Redirecting taxpayers’ money in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to smaller, diversified farms would not only support new entrants but also bolster biodiversity and climate resilience. A dedicated Agri-Food Just Transition Fund – a key recommendation from the Strategic Dialogue – could also help farmers transition to more sustainable practices. Progress through collaboration Systemic change requires systemic collaboration. Establishing a European Board on Agri-Food is critical to fostering cooperation across the entire food system. Farmers large and small, processors, retailers, consumers, workers, and civil society must all have a seat at the table. This board can ensure decisions are inclusive, balanced, and actionable, turning the consensus forged in the Strategic Dialogue into reality. Clear benchmarks are equally essential. Harmonised sustainability assessments with common metrics, tailored to regional action plans, could provide a shared compass for navigating trade-offs and measuring success. These steps can pave the way for a joined-up ‘ common food policy ’ for Europe. Luxembourg's Hansen has a chance to deliver not just a ‘vision’ but a legacy.
|
The choices made in the next five years will shape the future of Europe’s food systems for decades to come.
|
As new EU farm chief Christophe Hansen takes office, his defining challenge is building a food system fit for European farmers, consumers, and the planet — an extraordinary opportunity and an equally extraordinary responsibility.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Green Economy",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2024-12-16T11:48:13.894Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar82fea3e7
|
Defunding NGOs that lobby the EU will be profoundly undemocratic
|
Two weeks ago ‘Orbanesque emails’ suddenly started landing in the inboxes of dozens of Brussels-based green NGOs. CINEA , the agency that deals with funding for all kinds of environmental projects financed by the LIFE programme on behalf of the European Commission, requested the NGOs to review the grant contracts for 2024 that were approved and signed early this year. The rationale behind this?: new the commission’s policy guidelines state that EU subsidies can no longer be used for civil society’s advocacy work . This new policy is based on two-pages with guidelines from 7 May this year, prepared by the commission’s secretariat-general and directorate-general for budget. And it’s clear these could have a huge impact, not just for so-called ‘green NGOs’, but for all in the civil space in EU policymaking. According to the new guidelines “avoiding reputational risk” is a new benchmark for EU funding of NGOs. And according to the commission, that risk is particularly stark if a grant is used for “sending letters, organising meetings or providing advocacy material to EU institutions or specific members of an institution; or identifying specific members or officials of an institution to evaluate or describe their positions, or to discuss specific political content or outcome.” Should an NGO cross the vaguely and broadly described line, which most likely has no legal basis, a grant can be denied or suspended. This can or will clearly have chilling effects and limit the democratic action space for civil society, and it will tip the balance even further towards the corporate lobby groups that already dominate the lobbying scene. Years of campaigning against NGOs This move is an outcome of years of political pressure from the top of the European People Party (EPP), the conservative group in the European Parliament, who have waged a campaign to have the commission use EU grants to silence criticism. As Politico recently reported, during the EU election campaign, the EPP called for “greater accountability and transparency for NGOs, in particular those accessing EU funding.” The hostility from certain EPP politicians goes back at least to 2016 when German MEP Markus Pieper from Ursula von der Leyen’s German CDU party took the lead in an attack on NGOs. The ‘logic’ of the campaign was always that organisations that do not support their policies, and that go against some of the EU policies, should lose their funding. Pieper tried twice to convince a majority in 2017 and in 2023 to use threats of an end to EU funding as a weapon against NGOs, but largely failed the first time and got his report approved last year . When in 2016 a broad civil society movement rallied against the controversial and now defunct trade and investment agreement (TTIP) between the EU and US, Pieper tried to convince his colleagues in the Budget Committee to do a report into the finances of civil society. He commissioned a report — later retracted by the EPP — with which Pieper denounced that the EU was funding NGOs who he bizarrely claimed were "opposing European values". Pieper suggested that "NGOs that do not comply with the EU's strategic commercial and security policy objectives should not receive EU funding". The current NGO-critical and aggressive questions being discussed in the European Parliaments Budget Committee earlier this week, are, for example, about civil society protests against the Mercosur trade agreement or about NGOs litigating against coal-fired power plants. It does not take much knowledge about political reality in the Brussels bubble to imagine the dire consequences: corporate lobby groups will dominate the lobbying scene even more than is the case today. A grotesque imbalance will be exacerbated even further. for example when the commission invites yet another group of oil and gas companies to help with its energy strategy , the corporate lobbyists from the energy sector are praised for their efforts. With on the other hand, the commission takes more steps to silence green NGOs. A gag order The EPPs attack on NGOs has taken many grotesque turns. As with the Qatargate scandal that saw in December 2022 MEPs allegedly working with the Qatari and Moroccan regimes while receiving large sums of money. While the EPP were reluctant to introduce effective ethics and transparency rules, they were eager to exploit the occasion to launch yet another attack on NGOs. The EPP announced “ we need to talk about NGOs” . The sometimes successful campaigns by often under-financed and understaffed NGOs is a source of utter frustration: civil society simply counters their pro-corporate sector narrative and neo-liberal ideology. With the announced massive deregulation agenda of Ursula von der Leyen's second commission , they do not want to let this happen again, and seek to stifle any critical reflection by NGOs. The new new guidelines that have followed their campaign is nothing but a 'gag order’. In recent years this EPP-led campaign has been fired up by relentless questions and false information from far-right politicians, especially in the run up to the EU elections. Now the EPP seems to be in bed with ECR and the Patriots groups. And currently the pressure is being used in the context of the annual discharge procedure in the committee of budget control (CONT) that has to grant discharge of the European Commission Budget, where a first debate took place on Monday (9 December). And the ECR group asked for a plenary debate next week. The consequences of their anti-civil society narrative and campaign can have severe consequences.. Corporate interests already significantly outnumber and outspend public interest groups in EU lobbying: without EU funding for NGOs this problem would become even far worse, negatively impacting the quality of EU decision-making and therefore public trust. Hans van Scharen and Kenneth Haar are researchers at Corporate Europe Observatory , a Brussels-based NGO that monitors lobbying of the EU institutions. Hans van Scharen and Kenneth Haar are researchers at
|
Corporate Europe Observatory
|
The EU Commission’s new policy guidelines state EU money can no longer be used for civil society’s advocacy work. It’s clear this could have a huge impact, not just for so-called ‘green NGOs’, but for all in the civil space in EU policymaking.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2024-12-13T15:05:58.634Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/arb285b91d
|
Democracy for sale? Exposing the grip of Europe’s super-rich
|
The European Union likes to present itself as a bastion of democracy, equality, and human rights. But beneath the surface lies a troubling reality: the growing grip of Europe’s super-rich on its policies and institutions. If unchecked, this oligarchic drift risks turning the EU into a system that protects privilege over people, undermining the very values it claims to uphold. It’s time for the EU to confront the corrosive influence of wealth concentration and act decisively to reclaim its democratic foundations. Consider the staggering figures. Europe’s wealthiest individuals collectively hold $2.8 trillion [€2.6 trillion], wielding influence that goes far beyond their economic empires. From Germany's affluent elites to France's luxury magnates, the ultra-wealthy not only dominate markets but also shape public opinion , influence policies, and shape governance structures to favour their interests . Media ownership, lobbying networks, and philanthropic narratives have become instruments to consolidate their power, sometimes suppressing dissent, and marginalising ordinary citizens. Nowhere is this more evident than in the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) . CAP in hand? Originally designed to ensure food security and support rural farmers, the CAP has become a subsidy machine that disproportionately benefits the wealthy. Studies show that 80 percent of CAP subsidies go to the top 20 percent of recipients, including billionaires and large agribusinesses. For example, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán has been accused of distributing CAP funds to political allies and oligarchs. Meanwhile, small-scale farmers and rural communities — the very people the CAP was meant to protect— are often left behind. This misuse of EU funds not only deepens inequality but also raises urgent questions about the integrity of European governance. This phenomenon is not accidental; it is structural. The European Union's own policies often align with the interests of the ultra-wealthy . The Maastricht Treaty's emphasis on market liberalisation and fiscal austerity has eroded social safety nets and weakened welfare systems across member states. These measures disproportionately benefit the elite by reducing taxes and public spending while leaving the majority to face economic insecurity. The outcome is a system that prioritises profit over people, concealing oligarchic interests under the guise of legal legitimacy. We must call this what it is: an oligarchic drift that threatens democracy itself. Governance structures across Europe increasingly cater to wealth preservation rather than public welfare. Tax loopholes, opaque regulatory frameworks, and privatised public goods are symptoms of a system rigged in favour of the few at the expense of the many. This is the antithesis of the EU’s professed values of solidarity, justice, and equality. The EU must act now. Transparency and accountability are non-negotiable. Stricter regulations on lobbying and campaign financing are essential to curb the undue influence of the wealthy. Progressive taxation must be reintroduced to address structural inequalities, and welfare systems must be reinvigorated to protect the most vulnerable. The EU should also enforce greater transparency in media ownership to prevent concentrated power from shaping public discourse unchecked. Civil society plays a crucial part as well. It is essential for activists, journalists, and scholars to expose the systems that perpetuate oligarchic influence and advocate for comprehensive reforms. Strengthening grassroots organizations is vital in confronting these deeply rooted interests and ensuring that policies benefit the majority rather than a select few. Europe stands at a turning point. To maintain its credibility as a global leader in democracy and human rights, the EU must tackle this oligarchic drift with urgency. Failure to act risks not only deepening inequality but also eroding trust in European institutions. The stakes are clear: will the EU remain a union of justice and democracy, or will it become a playground for the super-rich? The answer depends on bold action—and time is running out. If the EU is serious about its ideals, it must prove that democracy and equality are more than just slogans. The fight for a fairer Europe starts now. Salvador Santino Regilme is a ssociate professor and chair of the international relations program at the Institute for History, Leiden University . Salvador Santino Regilme is a ssociate professor and chair of the international relations program at the
|
Institute for History, Leiden University
|
Governance structures across Europe increasingly cater to wealth preservation rather than public welfare. Tax loopholes, opaque regulatory frameworks, and privatised public goods are symptoms of a system rigged in favour of the few at the expense of the many.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2024-12-12T10:02:11.388Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar49007f21
|
MEPs earn €6.3m in side-jobs, nearly all top earners from far-right
|
MEPs collectively earn over €6.3m annually from side jobs, according to a report by Transparency International EU released on Thursday (12 December). Many of the things listed are public responsibilities for which MEPs receive minimal remuneration. But a large number includes highly lucrative side-hustles for big corporations that are actively lobbying EU policies, which the transparency group says raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Officially, side jobs are allowed as long as it doesn’t “improperly influence” an MEP's work. And they are required to declare potential conflicts of interest. But this hasn’t stopped them from taking on roles that might clash with their legislative duties. Public records show that Christine Singer, a German politician with the liberal Renew Europe group, serves on the EU Parliament’s committee on agriculture and environment while also earning €5,500 a month as president of the Bavarian Farm Association. This is relatively modest compared to some of the others. Filip Turek, a former racing driver and newly elected MEP of the Czech Přísaha and Motorists Alliance, earns €120,000 annually as a freelance consultant in the automobile industry. He is also a member of the parliament's environment committee which is responsible for the phase out of combustion engines. The problem is that MEPs can essentially decide for themselves whether this constitutes a conflict of interest. Even after Qatargate rocked Brussels in 2023, the parliament's secretary general maintained that "members are personally responsible for the content of their declarations." There is no "mandate to investigate or check the content, nor a legal basis to ask for proof or supporting documents," he added. But an "ethics system in which MEPs can have such a vast array of side jobs is not fit for purpose," a senior policy officer at TI-EU told EUobserver. Confusion, malpractice, who knows? The lack of rules creates problems of its own as it is not always clear what constitutes a conflict of interest. MEPs can request guidance from a group of other MEPs, the advisory committee on the conduct of members. Former Green MEP Marcel Kolaja sought guidance from the advisory body after a European investigative platform revealed he held shares in Apple and IBM while drafting legislation on big tech. He later described the advice as "extremely vague." The lack of clear rules has created a highly uneven situation, as Transparency International’s data show. Eighteen of the top 20 earners come from right-wing parties. Members of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group average €55,000 in side-income per MEP, while members of the Greens average less than €10,000. The transparency group found that nearly three-quarters of MEPs engage in additional activities, with four-fifths of these roles being board memberships. Seven percent involve shareholding or company ownership. MEPs have a base salary of a little above €100,000 per year after tax, plus a €350 per diem when in parliament. Still, fourteen MEPs earn more from their side jobs than their salaries as elected officials. And there are no limits on the number of extra jobs MEPs can undertake, nor any cap on how much they can earn. Reporting rules for MEPs have been tightened since the Qatargate scandal, which involved bags of cash allegedly used to influence lawmakers ahead of the 2022 World Cup, including the top suspect, Greek socialist and former MEP Eva Kaili. But campaigners say the new rules are still too weak and call for a full ban on MEPs taking on paid or unpaid roles with companies seeking to influence EU policy making.
|
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.
|
The far-right ECR group earns the most of any group from side-hustles, with an average of €55,000 per MEP, compared to members of the Greens, who average less than €10,000.
|
[
"EU Political"
] |
eu-political
|
2024-12-12T06:01:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar6ed2a84d
|
The fight for justice for Russian war crimes against Ukrainian children will continue
|
In Ukraine we have a word — — which means both freedom and the will to achieve it. Since the start of the war, Ukraine has suffered devastating assaults on our healthcare and education facilities, energy grids and agricultural land. The destruction has been widespread. During these years of Russia’s war of aggression, when I was honoured to serve the brave Ukrainian nation, I have learned that Ukraine’s core values can be described in just those terms — freedom, will, resilience — and justice. This was my focus as prosecutor general and it continues to be our aim – justice for Ukraine and justice for our people. To achieve both we must prosecute Russia for its aggressive acts and atrocious crimes and implement a robust justice system in line with European standards. These two dimensions must proceed at pace to achieve our ambitions. We have laid the foundation for crucial changes by building a web of accountability for Russia. Ukraine is the first country to document and investigate war crimes during an ongoing armed conflict. As a result, we know at least 142,000 war crimes have been committed, 13,000 civilians have been killed and a further 25,000 have been injured. We have identified more than 700 suspects, filed over 500 indictments and secured convictions for 133 war criminals. The focus now must be on the forced transfer and deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. More than 19,000 children have been taken from their families and homelands, and had their identities and nationalities changed before being put up for adoption in Russia. We must bring our children home and ensure those perpetrating this war crime are held responsible. Targeted investigations have revealed the extent of the torture, ill-treatment and conflict-related sexual violence regularly practised by Russian authorities against Ukrainian prisoners of war and civilians. We have responded with prosecutions and victim-centred approaches to victims and survivors, but there is more that can be done. Ukrainians are passionate about our land and Russia’s deliberate attacks on our natural environment could lead to devastating consequences for Ukraine and our neighbour countries. Ecocide too We have initiated 222 cases of environmental war crimes , and 14 instances of ecocide committed – Ukraine will be the first country who will prosecute perpetrators for the crime of ecocide. Ukraine carries much of this burden, but the international community has a significant role to play. More than 20 countries have launched investigations into Russian war crimes, showing that this concerns all of humanity and making significant strides in strengthening the principle of universal jurisdiction. This solidarity shown to Ukraine must continue, otherwise, Russia’s actions could set a precedence. We continue to work with other nations and international organisations who believe in and want to preserve a rules-based international order. Together we are gathering and preserving evidence at the International Center for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression in The Hague, to help build a robust case against Russian leadership. It's important for the international community to stand united and hold Putin accountable for his war crimes. Accountability for war crimes brings peace and stability. Anything less will upheave the world’s legal order. Ukraine has prosecuted crimes which have been before been prosecuted as war crimes. Crimes against the environment, and cyberattacks — to find Russia accountable for these will have a deterrent effect. What has been done has not only been for Ukraine, but it is for the rest of the world. I know from my time in the prosecutor’s office the dedication among our justice advocates, always focussed on making a stronger future for Ukraine, working together to deliver the vision set out by president Zelensky to end this war with victory, implement the Ukraine Peace Formula and guide our country towards European Union membership. I deeply believe in Ukraine, it its people, its spirit and its future. We will build a society founded on justice and dignity. Our quest for justice is far from over. Entire communities have been destroyed and countless lives forever altered. It is our duty to ensure every crime is documented and every survivor heard. We must record our stories and our history, so future generations will remember what happened here, that we paid deeply for our freedom, and that we deserve it. The foundations have been laid and the positive work must continue. Andriy Kostin is a former prosecutor general of Ukraine.
|
Andriy Kostin
|
The focus now must be on the forced transfer and deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. More than 19,000 children have been taken from their families and homeland, had their identities and nationalities changed before being put up for adoption in Russia, writes Ukraine's former prosecutor general.
|
[
"Ukraine",
"Opinion"
] |
ukraine
|
2024-12-11T12:25:27.037Z
|
https://euobserver.com/ukraine/are4f468cd
|
A solution staring us in the face for Europe's housing crisis
|
In this legislative mandate, there are many expectations for housing. The EU Commission has appointed its first-ever commissioner for energy and housing , and Ursula von der Leyen addressed the issue in her political guidelines, outlining that the commission will need to “urgently address the housing crisis facing millions of families and young people.” Danish commissioner Dan Jørgensen will be responsible for the first-ever European Affordable Housing Plan. In addition to this, the commission will revise the state aid rules to enable housing support measures and plans to double cohesion fund investments in affordable housing. Over the past 10 years, average rents within the bloc have risen by 19 percent, while house prices have surged by 47 percent. Just under nine percent of the EU population spends more than 40 percent of their disposable income on housing. People at risk of poverty spend an average of 38 percent of their income on housing. In some areas, such as large cities, the situation is even worse. Housing-related challenges are sparking protests across Europe, with thousands rallying in major cities. According to the post-electoral Eurobarometer, the two most common reasons for voting in the European elections were rising prices and the cost of living, as well as the economic situation of the voters. In many countries, the housing crisis has been a major issue in relation to the rising cost of living. In other words, Europeans are expecting a lot. But what does “affordable” housing actually mean? There is no common definition. Sometimes, housing is defined as affordable if you pay no more than 30 percent of your gross income; other times, the limit is set at 40 percent. However, when examining the types of models that have been effective in reducing housing costs in the market, it is clear that what we should actually be discussing is the non-profit rental market. According to Sorcha Edwards, secretary-general of Housing Europe , the housing shortage stems from a fundamental cause: public authorities halted construction efforts decades ago, transferring their responsibility to private real estate and construction companies. Private actors do not follow social incentives in their construction and pricing decisions. The causes of the lack of affordable housing vary greatly between different countries and areas, but it is clear that public intervention is widely needed. First, I support the calls for coordinated action and funding at the EU level. Key proposals include establishing an EU task force on housing and creating a major funding scheme, similar to the Next Generation EU package, to support public housing and green renovations. To meet climate goals without increasing inequality, a housing deal with targeted investments is essential. Additional measures should include allocating more cohesion funds for renovations, implementing transparency rules to counter speculative investments, and using EU financial and state aid regulations to reshape housing markets across the bloc. Second, the EU should focus on financial instruments to support municipalities and cities in developing non-profit rentals. This is key to influencing the overall housing market. In Finland, good results have historically been achieved through a model where cities own their own municipal housing companies that build, rent, and maintain rental flats on a non-profit basis. In this model, publicly supported housing production has also acted as an automatic stabiliser, and it has been possible to increase it when private construction slows down. In this way, radical slumps in housing production can be moderated. The Finnish solution Research also shows that Finland is among the few countries that have successfully reduced homelessness over the past decades. The key factors behind this achievement have been the 'Housing First' approach and the construction of publicly subsidised apartments. In the Finnish model, companies obtain financing for investments from the market but receive support for interest rates exceeding a certain level from the housing finance and development centre of Finland, a fund run by the national government. They can also receive loan guarantees and subsidies. The interest rate support can last for up to 40 years and is provided to the non-profit companies on the condition that the flats constructed are below the private rental level. In agreement with the national government, municipalities have set local targets for the share of all newly constructed flats that should be built on a non-profit basis, usually around 25–30 percent. These types of models should be used when the commission begins developing concrete proposals for the housing agenda. The European Investment Bank could provide similar guarantee support schemes and loan guarantees directly to municipalities in EU countries, on the condition that the projects are enacted on a non-profit basis and are publicly owned. We are talking about an EU-wide crisis that calls for EU-wide solutions. Li Andersson is a Finnish Left MEP and chair of the committee on employment and social affairs. Li Andersson is a Finnish
|
Left MEP
|
The two most common reasons for voting in the European elections were rising prices and the cost of living — not surprising, when over the past 10 years, average rents within the bloc have risen by 19 percent, while house prices have surged by 47 percent.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2024-12-06T10:13:31.354Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar119af51c
|
The European Investment Bank has a chronic 'revolving doors' problem
|
Over the past few months, two investigations have exposed how former European Investment Bank vice president Vazil Hudak had in multiple cases joined the leadership of companies for which he had either helped arrange or even approve loans while working at the bank. In one instance, he was appointed board member of Budapest airport — after he had signed a €200m loan for a controversial expansion project. In a second case, Hudak is listed on the Slovak electric vehicle battery start-up Inobat’s website as a co-founder. In February 2019, he told Slovak press. “I believe that the EIB advisory hub will also play a key role in supporting the newly established consortium of companies in Slovakia – InoBat." In June 2020, seven months after Hudak left the EIB, Inobat publicly announced the EIB was considering a loan application. The project was on the EIB’s webpage as “under appraisal” from April 2020 to April 2022 , the time during which the Bank requested the European Commission for opinion on the project. Lawyers for Hudak state Inobat ultimately decided to proceed without an EIB loan. In both cases, according to business registries in Slovakia and Hungary, he was in the process of joining the companies during his 12-month cooling-off, without even seeking the approval of the EIB’s Ethics and Compliance Committee. Politico revealed in March 2024 that Hudak’s Budapest airport case was under investigation by the European anti-fraud office. Lawyers for Hudak inform EUobserver that this case was closed with no further action in October 2024. Worse still, this revolving door case is just one of at least two others, investigated by the EU Ombudsman , involving former EIB vice presidents who have gone to work for clients of the bank almost immediately after leaving their posts. In one case, Emma Navarro went to work for Spanish energy company Iberdrola in January 2021, just three months after having left her position as EIB vice president, where she signed loans worth billions of euros to the same company. In another, Dario Scannapieco, only a month after stepping down as EIB vice president, went to head Italy’s state lender Cassa Depositi & Prestiti SpA which often works with the EIB as a financial intermediary. Concluding that the way the bank had handled this case was “inadequate and constituted maladministration,” the ombudsman reiterated her recommendations to allow the Bank’s Ethics and Compliance Committee “to impose measures to mitigate any potential conflicts of interest risks it identifies”. Toothless 'code of conduct' However, the EIB has not yet amended the Management Committee's Code of Conduct to ensure that all activities that may give rise to a conflict of interest are subject to approval by the Ethics and Compliance Committee. Yet, perhaps most worrying is that the Bank's responses to recurring conflicts of interest in its highest echelons have so far not resulted in any meaningful corrective action being taken. Absurdly, in other words, the bank relies on potential perpetrators to decide in advance whether conduct from which they are certain to benefit may or may not be a violation of the bank´s ethical rules While the code of conduct was modified and a longer cooling-off period was introduced, the bank has not reacted to, or even commented on, the Hudak case. Not only has the EIB failed to condemn Hudak’s blatant violation of EIB´s Management Committee Code Conduct, for example, it has continued to forge ahead in a similar way in other cases. Despite the closed European Anti-Fraud Office’s investigation into a possible conflict of interest concerning one of its investments, the EIB insisted in a comment to Politico that it will continue disbursing the loan for the Budapest airport expansion. This is unacceptable. The EIB's shareholder governments, through their board directors, must investigate and publicly explain why a vice president was permitted to take advantage of their position for personal interest. The EIB’s leadership should report how it will address its revolving door problem and prevent similar abuses from occurring in the future. In fact, had it not been for investigative journalists such as those in Politico and the Jan Kuciak Investigative Centre (ICJK), Hudak’'s shameful conduct and the EIB’s failure to prevent and respond to these findings would have never been exposed. MEPs also urged the EIB to tackle the risk of conflicts of interest as early as 2017. Nearly four years later, in June 2021, the European Parliament reiterated its call for the bank to tighten up its post-employment policy to bring it into line with that of the European Commission and similar institutions. Yet almost a year after the European Ombudsman concluded her second inquiry into the revolving door problem at the EIB and after two damning investigations into Hudak’s behavior, the EIB has given no indication that it even recognises the existence of this chronic problem. In comments in a recent Politico article on the Inobat case, the EIB denied any responsibility, claiming that its Ethics and Compliance Committee (ECC) hadn't received a request for an opinion from Hudák on his involvement with InoBat. Absurdly, in other words, the bank relies on potential perpetrators to decide in advance whether conduct from which they are certain to benefit may or may not be a violation of the bank´s ethical rules. If this is how the bank handles conflicts of interest, then the use of billions of EU public funds, which should be working in the interest of European citizens, is in serious trouble. Instead of the EIB shrugging its shoulders at yet another revolving door case, it must understand these new revelations as a wake-up call to drive the necessary changes that will enable it, as a key EU institution, to retain public legitimacy. Mark Martin is executive director of Bankwatch , the Prague-based NGO that monitors environmental funding. Mark Martin is executive director of
|
Bankwatch
|
The number of 'revolving door' cases at the European Investment Bank is rising, pointing to a systemic issue at this key EU institution and endangering its integrity. Alarmingly, the Bank’s response until now seems to be one of sitting back and doing nothing about it.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Opinion"
] |
*
|
2024-12-05T10:13:03.832Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/ar79a8e23a
|
The Mercosur deal — why would the EU trust a man like Milei?
|
The EU’s climate hypocrisy is exposed yet again: while Argentina’s far-right president Javier Milei withdrew its delegation from the UN climate summit COP29 and threatens to exit the Paris Agreement, the EU is turning a deaf ear and rushing to finalise the climate-wrecking EU-Mercosur trade deal . Despite widespread opposition from civil society, farmers and unions on both sides of the Atlantic, the European Commission is aiming to seal the deal during the Mercosur summit in Uruguay on Thursday and Friday (5-6 December) — precisely at the moment when the climate-denier Javier Milei will take over the Mercosur bloc’s rotating presidency. The deal is set to advance Milei’s destructive economic reform plans. Like his ideological partner – former far-right Brazilian president Bolsonaro – Milei combines bolstering corporate power with rolling back environmental, democratic and social rights. Under Milei’s administration, Argentina’s poverty rate has soared to almost 55 percent due to austerity cuts in public services. Likewise, his ‘chainsaw’ policies dissolved the ministry of environment and eliminated funds for the protection of native forests. As a result, Argentina’s Forest Law has been left without its main monitoring and action tools, opening the door for further deforestation of the Chaco forest, South America’s second-largest forest. Like the Amazon, the Chaco forest is considered of global importance for its role in mitigating the effects of climate change, acting as one of the planet’s largest carbon sinks. Milei’s environmental rollback coupled with the EU-Mercosur deal could cause critical global ecological spillovers, as it will further jeopardise the Chaco Forest and other critical ecosystems in the region. Studies have shown the EU-Mercosur trade deal could accelerate deforestation by 25 percent. This creates a clear conflict with the apparent ambition of the EU’s deforestation legislation (EUDR), the implementation of which has already been delayed for a year and risks being dismantled by the EU’s conservative and far-right political groups. Bolstering the fossil fuel industry is another key pillar of Milei’s libertarian reforms, spearheaded by the new Incentives Regime for Large Investment (RIGI). The RIGI regime aims to boost major large-scale investments in oil, gas, mining, agribusiness and forestry sectors, by granting big corporations far-reaching economic benefits, including massive tax-breaks. But while extractive industries profit from these generous incentives, the disastrous reform package does not include any accountability for these industries’ social or environmental impacts, nor does it set out any requirements for companies to submit environmental impact studies. Even worse, the RIGI includes the notorious ISDS (Investor-State-Dispute-Mechanism) mechanism allowing corporations to sue provincial governments in secretive corporate courts if they believe that public policies, including environmental protection measures, interfere with their profits. Negotiations are based on a text from 25 years ago and totally out of touch with the reality of the climate crises we face today The ISDS system has been criticised by international bodies like the IPCC and the UN for its damaging effect on climate action and human rights. Most alarming is that Argentina is already the world’s most sued country in investor-state disputes, including claims made by major fossil fuel giants like Total Energies and BP. The creation of a special “ Security Unit ”, tasked to mobilise military forces in extractive regions, underscores the Milei administration’s intent to suppress social resistance to these destructive projects and criminalise grassroots protests. Milei the man to do business with? And despite all this, the EU, which claims to be a champion of the green transition, is willing to do business with the climate-sceptic far-right president Milei by concluding the EU-Mercosur trade deal. The deal reinforces neo-colonial trade relations and risks pushing the South American region further into ecological collapse. Once finalised, the deal will boost exports of agricultural products such as beef, soy, sugarcane and pesticides, including hazardous pesticides banned in the EU. These commodities are the biggest drivers of deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss, and threaten Indigenous communities, who already bear a disproportionate burden of the climate crisis. The EU is now trying to greenwash the deal with an environmental annex, but this will not address the long-term destructive impacts of this obsolete trade deal. Negotiations are based on a text from 25 years ago and totally out of touch with the reality of the climate crises we face today. But Milei’s corporate-friendly policies and the EU’s business-driven agenda to boost its global competitiveness appear to be the uncontested yardstick and prevail over the adverse impacts of the EU-Mercosur deal. This is a big win for corporate lobby groups who have been pushing for the EU-Mercosur trade deal . But this shortsighted ‘corporate-first’ agenda comes with detrimental costs and could even provoke long-term economic damage, as has been proven by recent scientific studies . Milei’s 'economic shock therapy' combined with the outdated EU-Mercosur deal is a recipe for climate disaster. In the face of growing global far-right tendencies derailing climate action and intimidating civil society, partnering up with Milei and empowering his agenda, spells a dangerous shift away from the EU’s international climate, human rights and sustainability commitments. If the EU is serious about its economic and climate resilience, it needs to seriously recognise the associated costs of the climate crisis, and redirect trade policy efforts and funds into creating sustainable and regenerative economies. Likewise, the EU also needs to address its historical responsibility for the climate crisis and colonial legacy. Burying the EU-Mercosur trade deal, once and for all, will be a modest but critical step in the right direction. Professor Maristella Svampa is a writer, environmental activist, and researcher at CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council Argentina) . Audrey Changoe is trade and investment policy coordinator at Climate Action Network Europe . Alejandro Aleman is regional coordinator for Climate Action Network Latin America. Professor Maristella Svampa is a writer, environmental activist, and researcher at CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council Argentina) . Audrey Changoe is trade and investment policy coordinator at Climate Action Network Europe . Alejandro Aleman
|
is regional coordinator for
|
Despite widespread opposition from civil society, farmers and unions on both sides of the Atlantic, the European Commission is aiming to seal the deal during the Mercosur summit in Uruguay on Thursday and Friday (5-6 December) — precisely at the moment when Argentinian climate-denier Javier Milei will take over the Mercosur bloc’s rotating presidency.
|
[
"Green Economy",
"Opinion"
] |
green-economy
|
2024-12-04T10:43:32.762Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/arbe4f6de0
|
What is going on in Syria — and what is Turkey doing there?
|
The Syrian rebels' advance has been surprising. In a matter of days, they took almost the entire provinces of Idlib and Aleppo, and were at the gates of Hama, a town on the road to Damascus. But perhaps even more surprising is the fact that they seem to have moulted from an international terrorist movement to a conservative local group. When I visited the Syrian rebel front several times in 2012 and 2013, I saw radicalisation increasing, and the secular Free Syrian Army being infiltrated by fundamentalists. The leader of the so-called Islamic State or IS in Iraq, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had just sent his friend Abu Muhammad al-Jolani to Syria to establish Jabhat al-Nusra, a branch of IS. However, when the caliphate was declared in the summer of 2014, Jolani refused to let his militia merge into IS and swore allegiance to al-Qaeda instead. To the outside world, this made little difference. Jabhat al-Nusra was rightly considered a terroristic jihadist militia with the West as its main enemy. Syria observers had noticed that Jabhat al-Nusra had changed its name and cut its links with al-Qaeda in 2016 and did so again in 2017, becoming Hayat Tahrir ash-Sham (HTS) or the Organisation for the Liberation of the Levant. However, the leaders remained the same, making it look like a sham to most pundits. When rebels were rapidly capturing Aleppo last week, it appeared that the leadership of that operation was being taken up by HTS. That made commentators and Syrian activists alike nervous. Is this now the great liberation from president Bashar al-Assad's reign of terror? However, videos of the march posted on social media showed a different picture. There are no black flags to be seen, no Afghan attire, nor horror images of Christians or other minorities being slaughtered. The images that do show this, after thorough investigation, appear to be systematically older images, remarkably often from Iraq, which are now being redistributed as propaganda. What has changed? Last year, France24 journalist Wassim Nasr asked himself the same question after noticing that the discourse of al-Jolani, the leader of HTS, had become more moderate. Was this an adjustment in communication or has something more to the point actually changed? He went to Syria to find out for himself. What Nasr immediately noticed was that no armed militants could be seen on the streets. Moreover, there were no jihadi black flags to be seen. Instead, the flag of the Syrian opposition (with three stars, instead of the two stars in the Syrian flag) was hanging. Everything seemed to indicate civilian rule. Moreover, women and men could study together at schools and universities. A second observation was that minorities, from Christians to Shiites, were free to practice their religion. Churches destroyed in bombings were rebuilt. The only thing the churches were not allowed to do was ring their bells. The journalist visited several villages and towns to make sure he did not see only what the HTS rebels wanted him to see. After the hypertribalisation of IS, a process of detribalisation now seems to be taking place. During his conversation with HTS leaders, including Jolani himself, he kept getting the same message. They had become convinced that IS and al-Qaeda were no longer a model for them. More so, they felt that this terrorist and anti-Western ideology of international jihad was wrong because it had brought about "only the destruction and failure of local communities". According to the ideological leader of HTS, they were therefore doing everything possible to ensure that their members would not join IS or al-Qaeda. Finally, these leaders indicated that for them the West was no longer an enemy, and that they even hoped for the support of Europe and the US in their fight against Assad and the forces supporting him, especially Iran, Russia and Hezbollah. Again, HTS militants have not suddenly become secular, democratic pacifists, but neither can we deny that a kind of deradicalisation has taken place. After 13 years of war in Syria, and many defeats by the opposition, there has apparently been a realisation that things have to change. What is Turkey's role? Moreover, some experts indicate that Turkey would not support this operation if it were led by sectarian jihadists. It brings us to the question: why is Turkey supporting this operation? I see three reasons. First, Assad is no friend of the Turks. For several years now, Syria has become a narco-state that is disrupting the entire region with the sale of captagon . It somewhat resembles the 19th-century opium strategy of the British against China. Everyone wants this to stop. Second, much of north-east Syria is currently occupied by Kurdish militias linked to the PKK, a thorn in Turkey's side. The current operation is clearly also targeting these militias. Finally, Turkey has some 4.5 million Syrian refugees. As long as Assad is in power, they cannot return. Moreover, the moment was perfect. The three forces supporting Assad now have other priorities. Russia has a war in Ukraine while Hezbollah has just emerged weakened from a war with Israel. Iran is busy on many fronts and may also have been surprised by the well-prepared Syrian rebels. The question is how should we as Europe respond to this now? Do we once again go along with the Assad narrative that we have to choose between him and international jihad? Or do we give the rebels the benefit of the doubt to get rid of one of the world's worst dictatorships? It remains an unclear story for now. But it would be a mistake to continue to see everything from a purely ideological lens, based on 9/11 and other attacks in Europe, and forget what is happening and changing on the ground. Koert Debeuf is professor of Middle East at the Vrije Universiteit Brussels (VUB), and chair of the board of EUobserver. Koert Debeuf is professor of Middle East at the
|
Vrije Universiteit Brussels
|
Is this now the great liberation from president Bashar al-Assad's reign of terror? The timing was perfect. The three forces supporting Assad now have other priorities: Russia in Ukraine, Hezbollah weakened from war with Israel, and Iran busy on many fronts.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-12-03T10:10:46.140Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar1d153fee
|
The brutal crushing of the uprising in Tbilisi — what EU must do now
|
Friday 29 November, 2024, Tbilisi, Georgia - as regime forces surrounded the Rustaveli theatre in Tbilisi’s city centre, a group of students inside braced for the inevitable: beaten unconscious they will be arrested after an excruciating game of cat and mouse in the theatre’s hallways. Those who can still move will be forced to perform humiliating rituals before suffering the same fate. They will then spend the following days in prison under inhumane conditions and likely be denied the medical attention they require. Many know well that this is the fate awaiting them yet continue to protest. This is about their future: freedom in the European Union or Belarus-style Russian vassalage. After a rigged election victory on the 26 October, the Georgian regime felt confident. Opposition groups were in despair after years of efforts to save their country’s democracy appeared crushed by an all-powerful autocracy. On Thursday (28 November) last week, the regime officially ended the country’s EU ascension process. A move designed to deal a final blow to the withering hopes of Georgians for a prosperous European future could now mark the beginning of the end for the government. As so often in history, a totalitarian regime, in awe of its own repression, underestimates the sheer force of a people with nothing left to lose. For many Georgians this move symbolises a final descent into autocracy. The choice is now resistance or seemingly eternal desperation. Since Friday, protests have engulfed the country’s major cities. While a common sight in recent years, today’s situation is different. Significant numbers of Georgia’s governing elite are turning against the regime: whole departments-worth of civil servants are quitting, and the Georgian ambassador to the US, several of her colleagues, the deputy minister for foreign affairs and senior religious figures are resigning in protest. The brutality of the regime’s efforts to crush the protests is also unprecedented. Regime forces are arresting protestors in the hundreds, beating innocent students and the elderly in the streets and chasing protestors for kilometres through Tbilisi. In one video two policemen in riot gear are seen kicking an injured young person lying on the street — one kick in the gut, the other straight in the face. Protest leaders are terrorised through violent intimidation, the freezing of their bank accounts, and persistent slander online. Most European governments have so far limited their responses to calling on the Georgian government to investigate the election and human rights violations; the elections the same government rigged and the human rights violations the same government committed. Instead of paying meaningless lip service, Europe must now take decisive action. Three immediate EU steps The following three steps could push the situation over the edge. 1. Financial sanctions on individuals closely connected to the regime would give crucial leverage to the opposition and enable productive negotiations towards a peaceful democratic process. The primary target should be former prime minister and oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili , the chief architect of the current regime controlling almost 25 percent of Georgia’s GDP. 2. Withdrawing all recognition of the current government, including the presidential election on the 14 December 2024 (now via an electoral college instead of by popular vote) would isolate the regime and increase pressure to negotiate. 3.European governments must present a clear pathway to democracy in close collaboration with the Georgian democratic opposition. This should include the installation of a caretaker government to manage state affairs and the organisation of a free and fair election under international supervision. Europe must seize this moment to support Georgia’s struggle for democracy. As in Ukraine, a people yearning for freedom are fighting a common foe. Compared to the risks those brave students in Tbilisi’s Rustaveli theatre are taking, the support Europe could provide entails little more than a series of headlines to be glanced over for the average citizen. Yet it could turn the tide in the global struggle for democracy and build crucial momentum. With Russia tied up in a war of attrition in Ukraine and a tumbling autocracy in Syria, the fall of the regime in Georgia — a close ally of Russia, China, and Iran — would strengthen the Europe’s position in what is shaping up to become a decisive year ahead. Arthur Kroen is a postgraduate student in the history of war at Lincoln College, Oxford University. Arthur Kroen
|
is a postgraduate student in the history of war at
|
The brutality of the regime’s efforts to crush the protests is unprecedented. Regime forces are arresting protestors in the hundreds, beating innocent students and the elderly in the streets and chasing protestors through Tbilisi.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-12-02T11:22:06.389Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar73d3410a
|
Why the EU must stand with Belarus
|
Belarus is a European country. Its people share the same values as those in Warsaw, Paris, and Berlin - freedom, dignity, and self-determination. The streets of Minsk, Hrodna, and Viciebsk echo the aspirations of countless Belarusians who risked their lives in 2020, protesting peacefully for a democratic future. They made their choice: they want Belarus to be a free and independent country. Yet today, Belarus is at a crossroads. While supporting Ukraine, we must not forget about Belarus. Will it remain trapped under the thumb of a dictator serving Russia's imperial ambitions? Or will it chart a new course toward Europe and democracy? This question is not just about the future of Belarus - it is also about the future of Europe itself. A democratic Belarus will be key to securing long-term peace and stability in eastern Europe. EU support to Belarusian people Since 2020, the European Union has demonstrated its unwavering support to the Belarusian people. The EU has imposed several sanction packages on the Belarusian regime of Aleksander Lukashenka , targeting those responsible for repression of opposition and civil society and human rights violations. These sanctions have hit key sectors of the Belarusian economy, which fuels both repression at home and the criminal war against Ukraine. The EU has also continued supporting Belarusian people. It has provided over €140m in assistance to Belarusian civil society, independent media, and human rights defenders. It has opened its doors to Belarusians fleeing persecution, offering visas and international protection to those in need - as of 2022, more than 400,000 Belarusian citizens reside in the EU. This support has been critical in keeping the democratic movement alive, even under brutal repression. In addition, the EU has pledged €3bn for a peaceful democratic transition in the future. What Needs to Be Done? The EU needs to maintain and strengthen this twofold policy: isolate the regime and support the Belarusian people. Lukashenka’s regime is a direct accomplice in Russia’s war against Ukraine, allowing Belarusian territory to be used for aggression. Sanctions are a tool to influence the regime’s behaviour. They should continue to target the architects of repression … The regime must be deprived of the resources it uses to maintain control and destabilise the region. We must also support accountability efforts to ensure that perpetrators do not go unpunished. Human rights defenders, independent media, and democratic forces are the backbone of the country’s resistance. They need targeted assistance - financial, technical, political - to keep the flame of freedom alive. We must counter disinformation, support the families of the repressed, and strengthen initiatives that foster national identity. Russia’s attempts to erase Belarus’ identity, culture, and language have to be countered. We also welcome the European Parliament's decision to sign a letter of cooperation with Belarusian democratic forces. While closing doors to the regime, we must keep them open for the people of Belarus, especially those fleeing persecution. The mobility schemes, in particular for young people, need to be expanded. Ordinary Belarusians should further be able to receive visas, With more than 1,300 people behind bars - many held incommunicado for a long time - we must continue to unite our efforts for their release. Some are in critical condition and must be freed immediately. We must use all available tools, including sanctions and diplomatic efforts, not only to secure the release of all political prisoners but to end the repression altogether. A European future for Belarus Most importantly, we must show the Belarusian people a clear vision of a European future. Belarusians must know that one day, when they are ready, the door of the EU will be open for their country to join as well. The EU’s support for a democratic Belarus is more than just a moral commitment - it is a strategic necessity. A democratic Belarus would help secure peace and stability in the region, weaken Russia’s grip on Eastern Europe, and improve the security of Europe as a whole. Belarus is not just a neighbouring country - it is part of our European story. The EU will remain steadfast in its support for the Belarusian people, and their aspirations for a democratic and independent Belarus as part of a peaceful and united Europe. Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya , Belarus opposition leader, and Josep Borrell , high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya , Belarus opposition leader, and
|
Josep Borrell
|
Backing a democratic Belarus is not only a moral commitment, but a strategic imperative just as important as helping Ukraine, say Belarusian opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya and outgoing EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-12-01T12:14:23.284Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/areb665535
|
The EU's insipid response to Uganda's death penalty for gays
|
In April, Uganda’s Constitutional Court upheld the 2023 Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA). The law has been widely condemned for broad and vaguely worded provisions and brutal penalties. So-called “aggravated homosexuality,” including some adult consensual sex, could be punished with death and someone found guilty of “homosexual acts” faces life imprisonment. Legitimate public health and human rights work risks 20 years in prison for the “promotion” of homosexuality. In response, the World Bank suspended all lending to Uganda and is now attempting to roll out some mitigation measures which remain untested. The US government issued targeted individual and trade sanctions, and reallocated some health sector funding. In contrast, the EU delegation released the weakest statement possible , largely focused on “regret” for the death penalty. A statement issued by international corporations , including Google, Microsoft and Mastercard, was more condemnatory and reflected a deep understanding of the pernicious economic impact of discrimination. Despite the AHA’s codified discrimination and violence, the EU has highlighted Uganda as a hub for European money with renewed vigour. The European Commission undertook a major initiative to fund €200m business investment in Uganda and provided a platform to the same Ugandan leaders who supported and enforced the AHA. 'Playing nice' Despite ample evidence of increasing authoritarianism in Uganda, the EU now focuses on “playing nice.” It is counterproductive and harmful both to the EU’s reputation as a leader in protecting basic human rights and to Uganda’s own governance and stability. With Uganda’s elections scheduled for early 2026, the EU should revise their approach. The AHA is the latest example of abuse and autocracy of president Yoweri Museveni’s government. Extrajudicial killings of civilians exercising their rights to free assembly and expression recurs each election with no accountability, while space for political opposition and civil society is largely nonexistent in practice, and government corruption continues unabated. Last week, Ugandan forces arrested longstanding opposition figure Kiiza Besigye in Kenya, and charged him with crimes before Uganda’s military courts. In the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and an increasingly multipolar world, the EU’s foreign policy approach has been described as a ' geopolitical turn ,' in which it primarily seeks to defend its geopolitical interests – for example in a competition with Russia and China in Africa. Russian sponsorship And indeed, Russia has increasingly been looking for influence in Uganda, for example by sponsoring a pan-African anti-LGBT conference , in order to stoke anti-Western feelings. Consequently, emphasising human rights has become less important in the EU’s foreign policy. This is also what happened in Uganda — an evolution, we argue, is ultimately harmful to the EU’s own interests and Ugandan citizens. Particularly since new EU leadership arrived in Kampala in September 2022 — an ambassador and political head — the EU appears to prioritise “mutual benefits” of partnership despite risking actual or perceived complicity in abuses of the Museveni regime. The EU seems to think it is getting what diplomats call a 'seat at the table' – or rather the possibility of leveraging their views with Ugandan government officials. Likely not true and to what end? While this tactic might work with democratic governments, where rule-based order offers a degree of predictability and checks and balances against abuses, that is not Uganda where power is highly personalised, and where the 'first family' monopolises power and money. In these circumstances, the EU opting to 'play nice' strengthens Uganda’s authoritarian dynamics. The EU plays direct and indirect roles in these dynamics via aid, investment and diplomacy. Questions of how the EU should engage are critical because of Uganda’s future ‘transition’. Son anointed successor? Museveni has ruled since 1986 and is now at least 80 years old. With no developed democratic space, and ever-growing patronage and corruption, Ugandans have justifiable concerns for how any transition may unfold. Factors culminating in some future transition – however it may come to pass – have been compared to ‘walking towards a cliff’. The EU’s attitude towards Museveni’s son Muhoozi Kainerugaba is especially troublesome. Muhoozi rapidly rose through the army ranks and is currently the chief of defence forces. The regime often promotes Muhoozi as heir apparent to his father, but Muhoozi remains controversial. His X rants have made him (in)famous worldwide – in October 2022, for example, he boasted it would only take him two weeks to take over Nairobi. He is also accused of torture . If Muhoozi becomes president, consequences are unpredictable . Recently, EU ambassadors have openly published photos alongside Muhoozi. The EU deputy ambassador even complimented Muhoozi on X for his fashion, dubbed “ absolute swag .” Such superficialities are damaging; they strengthen Muhoozi’s position by granting him international standing, and further entrench the perception of his influence. According to one analyst, “every time he puts out a Tweet with an ambassador, it further sends the message: Don’t speak out against Muhoozi; he’ll be the next president.” If the EU gains any leverage by these tactics, it’s to the detriment of Uganda’s citizens. The EU’s deputy ambassador recently shared their logic for failing to have a substantial response to the AHA. Post-AHA-related human rights violations, he stated, were “not assessed” to be “widespread and systematic.” This summarises the limits of the approach: to maintain the regime’s ear, the EU willfully ignores the complexity of local dynamics where one risks one’s life to document such violations. All of this results in EU policy which, as written elsewhere , is misguided and fails to contribute to the potential for a democratic Uganda where governance is uncoupled from the Museveni family. Ugandan and EU citizens deserve better. Maria Burnett is a human rights lawyer and a senior associate (non resident) at the Center for Strategic and International Studies . She was previously the East Africa director at Human Rights Watch . Kristof Titeca is a professor at the Institute of Development Policy, University of Antwerp , and a senior associate at Egmont institute . He has worked on governance dynamics in Uganda for the last 20 years. Maria Burnett is a human rights lawyer and a senior associate (non resident) at the Center for Strategic and International Studies . She was previously the East Africa director at Human Rights Watch . Kristof Titeca is a professor at the Institute of Development Policy, University of Antwerp , and a senior associate at
|
Egmont institute
|
After Uganda passed legislation for life imprisonment — or even the death sentence — for homosexual acts, the World Bank pulled funding, the US imposed sanctions, and the EU? The EU issued a weakly-worded statement of "regret".
|
[
"Africa",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
africa
|
2024-11-29T10:59:26.748Z
|
https://euobserver.com/africa/arbb274e5a
|
Just how many fossil-fuel lobbyists did the EU take to COP29?
|
COP29 in Baku, which finished last week, was crawling with fossil-fuel lobbyists determined to eke out profits for as long as possible. Shockingly, for a second year running, it is European governments that have facilitated access for a huge number of them. Out of the almost 1,800 fossil fuel lobbyists at COP29 identified , more than 120 of them were brought in by EU member states. Italy and Greece brought 27 and 24 respectively, followed by Belgium and Sweden with 17 each. Ten countries in total were guilty of granting access to the same industry that has caused the climate crisis, many of them senior executives. Including them on national delegations means allowing them into spaces ordinarily just for governments - the perfect place to grab a minister for a quiet chat. Italy bringing the most fossil-fuel lobbyists to Baku is not surprising. Rome is Europe’s biggest buyer of Azeri oil and gas, with Athens second for its gas. They each brought in a senior executive from SOCAR, Azerbaijan’s national oil and gas company, demonstrating just how close they are. SOCAR is a major shareholder in the fossil fuel transport routes to Europe: the Southern Gas Corridor pipelines as well as the BTC oil pipeline, which was exposed recently for fuelling the genocide in Gaza. It is also behind Azerbaijan’s drive to increase gas production by a third to meet increased EU demand. It’s key player in the country’s energy exports. Italian deal-makers Two days into the talks, the CEO of Italgas, Paolo Gallo, (brought in by the Italian government with seven colleagues), signed a deal with SOCAR to strengthen their “strategic partnership” on gas distribution. Italian oil & gas major Eni, who had two senior executives inside thanks to its government, had already signed three Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) with SOCAR months before the talks began. One aimed at expanding cooperation on the exploration and production of hydrocarbons. COP29 was also full of lobbyists from the controversial Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP), the last leg of the Southern Gas Corridor that carries Azeri gas to Italy via Greece and Albania. TAP was met with resistance along the entirety of its route during planning and construction (2008-2020), and the area where the pipeline makes ground in Italy was eventually transformed into a militarised zone with locals criminalised for their protest. Greece brought three executives from the company running the pipeline, TAP AG, while Belgium’s Fluxys and Italy’s Snam, both holding a 20 percent share, were brought in by their respective governments. Most of the oil and gas companies brought into COP by EU governments are big promoters of false solutions like carbon capture usage and storage (CCUS) and hydrogen, intended to keep them in business. Hydrogen is presented by the oil and gas lobby as key to decarbonisation as it can be produced using renewable electricity. However, 99.7 percent of hydrogen consumed in Europe last year came from fossil fuels, which explains why the industry is so keen to promote it. The COP29 Hydrogen Declaration, presented by Azerbaijan as a way to “unlock the potential of a global market for [clean] hydrogen”, was welcomed by fossil fuel lobby groups but denounced by civil society. Likewise, CCUS technology has been shown to be risky, inefficient and very costly, yet it is still championed by the industry. Eni and Snam are both promoting the controversial Ravenna CCS project, receiving huge public support. During COP29 Snam was involved in promoting and lobbying for CCUS technology. Belgium’s Fluxys also promotes CCUS, particularly the usage and storage part, rebranding CO as “much more than a greenhouse gas”. This is because CCUS relies on pipelines to transport CO , so traditional gas transporters like Fluxys and Snam see new business opportunities. 'Hydrogen-ready' pipelines Same with hydrogen. Snam wants public funding to build “hydrogen-ready” pipelines like the 3,300 SouthH2Corridor, connecting Tunisia with Germany. It doesn’t care what goes in the pipeline - renewable hydrogen, fossil hydrogen, or fossil gas - as long as it’s profitable. Thanks to ongoing campaigning , participants now have to declare who they work for (the fossil fuel industry?). But the system is not working. Three senior Snam executives entered the talks not as the Italian gas transporter but as the Venice Sustainability Foundation, a body funded by Snam and Eni that promotes hydrogen from fossil gas and CCUS. The Kick Big Polluters Out campaign wants to go further, demanding a full accountability framework to protect the talks from vested polluter interests. EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra told the European Parliament he would “love to push” such an approach. But the sentiment is not yet shared by the EU governments who rolled out the red carpet for fossil fuel lobbyists and their false solutions at COP29. Pascoe Sabido is a researcher and campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory , the NGO that researches corporate lobbying in Brussels, and Elena Gerebizza is a researcher and campaigner at Recommon , the Italian campaign that challenges corporate power in the environment sector. Both are part of the Fossil Free Politics campaign . Pascoe Sabido is a researcher and campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory , the NGO that researches corporate lobbying in Brussels, and Elena Gerebizza is a researcher and campaigner at Recommon , the Italian campaign that challenges corporate power in the environment sector. Both are part of the
|
Fossil Free Politics campaign
|
COP29 in Baku, which finished last week, was crawling with fossil-fuel lobbyists determined to eke out profits for as long as possible. Shockingly, for a second year running, it is European governments that have facilitated access for a huge number of them.
|
[
"Green Economy",
"Opinion"
] |
green-economy
|
2024-11-27T10:20:00.764Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/arca0a9830
|
Despite what Italy, Greece and Austria think, Syria is not safe to return to
|
We have seen calls from some EU member states — namely, Italy, Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Greece, Slovenia and Slovakia — to normalise relations with the Assad regime on the basis that this would help to alleviate Europe’s share of Syrian refugees. Normalisation with a criminal regime cannot resolve the flow of refugees to Europe, nor will it bring any relief to Syria’s humanitarian crisis. The same goes for ‘early recovery’ initiatives, which seek to invest in a country held together by a deeply-corrupt state overseeing the spread of militias and Captagon [the drug Fenetyllin], further adding to Syria’s catastrophic humanitarian situation. In the absence of any progress in implementing UNSCR 2254 and a political solution, any step towards normalisation with the Assad regime will undermine the prospect of peace, stability and prosperity. It is clear that by all estimations Syria is not a safe place for refugees to return to. As the UN envoy recently told the Security Council, Syria is “riddled with armed actors, listed terrorist groups, foreign armies and front lines […] and civilians are still victims of violence and subject to extensive human rights abuses, a protracted state of displacement and dire humanitarian conditions." In this context, the European Court of Justice issued a ruling in October which stated that a third country for returns can only be considered ‘safe’ if the assessment applies to the country’s entire territory. By our estimations, the Assad regime now only controls around 50 percent of Syria’s territory and population, and significant parts of the country remain subject to persistent violence and catastrophic living conditions. Rewarding the Assad regime and Russia with normalisation will only help to cement Syria’s divisions and deteriorating humanitarian conditions. Without a political solution, normalisation can only worsen the situation both for Syria and Europe. There are many significant political risks to engaging with the Assad regime, not least that any investment and reconstruction will directly benefit the Assad regime and its corrupt network of officials, businessmen, and military personnel. Corrupt black hole Without guarantees or commitments from the regime and Russia, investing in Syria whilst Assad remains in power is a losing game — a black hole into which international investments, aid, and loans all disappear into the pockets of a few. This corruption will only deepen the country’s problems without any concessions or commitments from the regime towards a political solution for the country’s crisis. Furthermore, normalisation risks condemning Syria to a bleak future under the Assad regime that no Syrian would want to return to, a move that could only worsen Europe’s refugee crisis. We understand that for Europe, migration and refugee flows are an extremely pressing issue. And I can assure you that, when the conditions are right and in place, there is nothing we would like to see more than Syrians return to build Syria’s future. Many Syrian refugees have fled unspeakable horrors and brutality at the hands of the Assad regime, and will never feel safe to return until a peaceful and just political transition is underway. The three 'no's This is not such a distant prospect in spite of the country’s dire situation, however, it demands renewed European and international leadership on Syria. 13 years into the Syrian uprising, the country remains too important for the region and the wider international community to be abandoned and left on a path of destruction under this regime. The EU’s existing Syria strategy endorses the “three nos” as conditions for EU engagement and is based on the assumption that “there can be no lasting peace in Syria under the current regime.” There have been no significant changes to the situation in Syria to warrant a review of this assessment. The situation in Syria and the wider region remains critical to Europe’s security, and the objectives laid out in the EU’s 2017 Syria strategy are as relevant today as they were then. The priority for the international community is agreed to in UN Security Council Resolution 2254, and our collective task now must be to restart diplomatic momentum towards the UN-led political process. This is the only route that presents a better future both for Syria and the European Union. The situation across the region is plagued by instability, and in our neighbourhood; the prospect of a major regional war is looming. More than ever we need our allies and partners to refocus their efforts on a political solution. In this regard, we took note of the recent news that the EU will appoint a special envoy for Syria . We look forward to working with the envoy with renewed determination to advance the political process under UN Security Council Resolution 2254, as well as further urgent steps needed to alleviate the humanitarian catastrophe across the country. Dr Badr Jamous is president of the Syrian Negotiation Commission . Dr Badr Jamous is president of the
|
Syrian Negotiation Commission
|
Despite the call from Italy, Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Greece, Slovenia and Slovakia, normalisation with a criminal regime cannot resolve the flows of refugees to Europe, nor will it bring any relief to Syria’s humanitarian crisis, writes the president of the Syrian Negotiation Commission.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Migration",
"EU Political",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-11-26T11:41:10.580Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar8eace244
|
The legal and moral failings of Meloni's Albania deportation deal
|
The border externalisation strategy promoted by Italy's Georgia Meloni government represents a political and legal failure, highlighting the contradictions of a hardline rhetoric against irregular immigration. Since coming to power, the government has promised an uncompromising defense of Italy’s borders. However, this ambition has translated into an attempt to shift the management of migration outside national borders through agreements such as the one signed with Albania . Presented as an innovative solution, this strategy faces significant legal and practical limitations, raising serious questions about its compliance with European and international law while proving ineffective and counterproductive. The Italy-Albania protocol, signed on 6 November 2023, commits Albania to providing land free of charge for five years, where Italy has built, at its own expense, facilities for the detention of migrants. These facilities include hotspots for rapid processing and repatriation centers for deportation. Migrants detained in these centres would be subject to procedures under Italian law: if their asylum requests were approved, they would be transferred to Italy; if denied, they would be deported. However, if deportation was not possible within 18 months, the migrants would still be returned to Italy. The protocol explicitly excludes the possibility of migrants remaining in Albania, creating an evident contradiction: either migrants violate the agreement by attempting to escape, or the centre would have the same effect as a facility located in Italy, but with significantly higher costs. Beyond these operational shortcomings, the protocol raises serious legal issues and lacks adequate guarantees for migrants. The absence of clear provisions for transportation and compliance with European legal procedures conflicts with standards established by the European Court of Human Rights, as in the case, which prohibits migration procedures without proper legal safeguards. Furthermore, independent reports have documented discriminatory treatment of asylum seekers in Albania, compounded by often inhumane conditions in detention centres. This approach, beyond violating fundamental rights, subjects individuals to the trauma of detention, even if they ultimately end up being admitted to Italy. ECJ ruling throws spanner in the works The recent ruling by the European Court of Justice has further complicated the Italian government’s position. The court determined that a country can only be considered "safe" if safety is guaranteed uniformly across its entire territory. This interpretation led the Rome Tribunal to invalidate the detention in Albania of 12 asylum seekers from countries like Bangladesh and Egypt, which do not meet the criteria for being deemed safe. Judges ordered the transfer of these migrants to Italy, confirming that border externalisation cannot be used as a pretext to circumvent obligations under European law. While Italy's externalisation strategy faces mounting challenges, it is worrying to see other European countries showing interest in adopting similar approaches. The UK, under Labour prime minister Keir Starmer , has expressed keen interest in learning from Meloni's policies. During a recent visit to Rome, Starmer praised Italy's "remarkable progress" in curbing migration flows and combating smuggling networks. Following a tragic shipwreck in the English Channel, which claimed the lives of eight migrants, Starmer expressed a desire to replicate agreements like those between Italy and Albania to manage migration more effectively. This marks a significant departure from his previous criticisms of the Conservative government's controversial Rwanda deportation plan, which he had dismissed as a "costly gimmick." While the Rwanda plan was ultimately ruled illegal by British courts, Starmer's interest in externalisation agreements raises questions about the direction of UK migration policy and its potential alignment with Italy's contentious model. This policy also fails to address long-term implications. The agreement with Albania is limited to five years. What will happen afterward? Additionally, if EU candidate countries like Albania are pressured to manage part of Europe’s asylum procedures, it becomes difficult to imagine how they could resist increasing demands from the EU, given their reliance on European support for accession processes. The idea of outsourcing asylum procedures beyond EU borders not only represents a false solution but also risks setting a precedent that other countries — or even the EU itself — could adopt, with high costs and no tangible impact on the structural issues of migration. The construction of the Gjadër centre cost €60m, and its maintenance generates significant expenses, including for police, prison staff, medical personnel, and other officials. Even while inactive, the centre continues to incur high operational costs to prevent its deterioration, while the operation of the transfer ship costs approximately €15,000 per day. This expensive policy is not only unsustainable but also proves ineffective in achieving its stated objectives. Thus, the strategy of border externalisation benefits neither asylum seekers nor the implementing countries nor the transit countries, while severely undermining the fundamental principles of European law. When will governments finally focus on real solutions, such as equitable distribution among member states and expedited, efficient procedures? Only through respect for human rights and legal norms can the challenges of migration be addressed with seriousness and responsibility. Ghazi Ben Ahmed and Laila Sahnoune are researchers at the Euro-Mediterranean think tank " Mediterranean Development Initiative an institution focused on analysing and promoting strategic solutions for sustainable development, regional cooperation, and public policies in the Euro-Mediterranean region. Their work primarily addresses migration, economic, and geopolitical challenges. Ghazi Ben Ahmed and Laila Sahnoune are researchers at the Euro-Mediterranean think tank "
|
Mediterranean Development Initiative
|
While Italy's Albania 'externalisation' strategy faces mounting legal and financial challenges, it is worrying to see other European countries showing interest in adopting similar approaches.
|
[
"Migration",
"EU Political",
"Opinion"
] |
migration
|
2024-11-25T16:59:17.637Z
|
https://euobserver.com/migration/araa7d91c9
|
Why we should worry about Google’s stopping serving political advertising in EU
|
Google has announced its withdrawal from political advertising in the EU, starting in October 2025. This decision slipped under the radar due to the turmoil of the US election and the EU's struggle to form a new commission — but it could prove deeply consequential for people’s ability to access information online or engage in political discussion. The decision is especially concerning for civil society organizations, as their activities often qualify as political, and most of their paid advertisements will fall under the new regulatory regime of Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising (TTPA). Google’s withdrawal from the field could further exacerbate the challenges faced by civil society or impede the formation of new political parties, which often depend on Big Tech platforms to reach their audience. Google justifies its decision by pointing to the legal uncertainty introduced by the TTPA. In the announcement , Google’s vice president of government affairs and public policy for Europe, Anette Kroeber-Riel, highlights the overly broad definition of political advertising in the TTPA as one of the main reasons behind the move. Google’s decision is an imprudent reaction to a flawed regulation, even though we acknowledge that the TTPA’s definition of political advertising is indeed excessively broad. In its announcement , Google criticizes the “lack of reliable local election data permitting consistent and accurate identification of” political ads, with the technical guidance expected to arrive only shortly before the rules come into effect. Civil society organizations have raised different concerns throughout the legislative process. We warned European legislators about the dangers of over-regulation, which creates a potential threat to vibrant public discourse on critical political causes. An overly-broad definition of political advertising poses a threat to freedom of expression and access to information, as it imposes restrictive rules on content that should not fall within the scope of political advertising. Equating civil society with political parties would provide a legal basis for the rising number of Europe’s authoritarian leaders to arbitrarily restrict the work of civil society For example, campaigns supporting victims of domestic violence should not be regulated the same way as political candidates’ election campaigns. These campaigns differ tremendously in their societal roles, potential influence, the power they aim for and their financial backing. Civil society should not be treated as competitors of political parties. Applying the same rules to their campaigns creates unnecessary obstacles, limiting their ability to reach their audiences, advocate for societal causes, and sustain their fundraising activities. Furthermore, equating civil society with political parties would provide a legal basis for the rising number of Europe’s authoritarian leaders to arbitrarily restrict the work of civil society. Google’s decision to stop serving political advertising in the EU will limit people’s fundamental rights in three significant ways. First, non-partisan initiatives, including 'get out and vote' campaigns, will be prohibited on Google’s services, limiting voters’ access to essential election information. Second, civil society organizations' campaigns on general issues, such as abortion or domestic violence, if connected to legislative acts, will no longer be permitted on Google’s services, most importantly on YouTube, in the EU. This restriction will seriously hamper civil society’s ability to fulfil their role in democratic public discourse. Big Tech companies have already deranked political content and news items on their platforms. Changing their algorithm is concerning in itself, given the fact that some people get their information exclusively through these platforms. Lastly, Google’s quitting the political advertising market essentially creates an imbalance in the sector, ceding a monopoly for Meta’s platforms and leaving political parties, civil society and other entities at the company’s mercy. Europe alone now? The European Union has been at the forefront of regulating Big Tech . Landmark policies, such as the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act, the AI Act, and the GDPR, significantly shaped the practices of US-based tech giants. It seems, however, this leadership was sustainable only with US support. President-elect Trump's announcement of plans to deregulate tech companies, and to discard president Biden's relevant executive orders on his first day in office, signals a major shift. The EU will face the prospect of going alone in trying to regulate the companies that deeply influence the everyday life of nearly everyone on the planet. There is a high probability that other companies will follow Google's lead and partially withdraw from the European market. If a company so integral to our daily lives can unilaterally cut such services, thereby undermining access to information, and the ability to form opinions and participate in public discussions, while generating enormous profits from services it keeps running in the EU, then there is an issue with the law or its enforcement. EU policymakers must engage in negotiations with Google to ensure that political advertising, including civil society content, can flourish on their platforms. Local initiatives, public interest causes, and civil society organizations must have the ability to communicate and remain accessible, as they are an integral part of our democracies. Eva Simon is head of tech and rights at the Civil Liberties Union for Europe . Eva Simon is head of tech and rights at the
|
Civil Liberties Union for Europe
|
Google has announced its withdrawal from political advertising in the EU. This decision slipped under the radar due to the turmoil of the US election and the EU's struggle to form a new Commission. It will limit people’s fundamental rights in these three significant ways.
|
[
"Digital",
"EU Political",
"Health & Society"
] |
digital
|
2024-11-25T06:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/digital/araa195eec
|
Global hunger worsening at alarming rate, says UN
|
In a new report the UN’s World Food Programme warned that global hunger is rising at an alarming rate , with 343m people estimated to be acutely food insecure across 74 countries. This is nearly 200m more than pre-pandemic levels, and could rise further as food inflation remains high in many places. “Global humanitarian needs are skyrocketing, fuelled by the growing number of devastating conflicts, more frequent climate disasters, and extensive economic turmoil,” said WFP director Cindy McCain on Friday (22 November). “But funding provided by the international community is failing to keep pace." The WFP needs $16.9bn (€16.2bn) to alleviate severe hunger for 123 million people next year. Without this funding, millions could face starvation. Among those most affected, 1.9m people are facing catastrophic levels of food insecurity. Millions more in Gaza, Haiti, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar, Nigeria, and other countries live under the constant threat of starvation. Armed conflict is the primary driver in 14 out of 16 hunger zones, with 65 percent of those acutely food insecure residing in fragile or conflict-affected areas such as Sudan, the Sahel, Yemen and the Horn of Africa. Economic headwinds from the last few years are worsening the situation, with one-in-four developing economies still poorer than before the pandemic. Food prices have doubled in 26 countries over the last four years. Climate change and extreme weather events, particularly those worsened by El Niño, are another critical factor. In southern Africa, maize production has halved in Zimbabwe and Zambia due to drought, while sub-Saharan Africa faces an acute hunger crisis affecting over 170 million people. The region accounts for half of WFP’s projected funding needs for 2025. Latin America and the Caribbean are also severely affected, with over 40 million people food insecure and 14.2 million identified as needing immediate assistance. “We urgently need financial and diplomatic support from the international community to reverse the rising tide of global needs and help vulnerable communities," said McCain. Gaza's farms gone The report also describes the worsening situation in Gaza where 91 percent of the population are now “acutely food-insecure” – of whom 16 percent are in catastrophic conditions. Before the war farms covered 40 percent of Gaza. But UN satellite analysts last week found that 90 percent of cattle have died and 70 percent of Gaza’s croplands have been destroyed since the beginning of the war. “Heavy vehicle tracks, razing, shelling and other conflict-related pressures have damaged large areas of farmland, infrastructure, wells and other productive infrastructure,” Rein Paulsen, director at the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said last week in a briefing to the UN Security Council. He concluded that local food production in Gaza is “decimated.” COP29 Even while global hunger is worsening, countries also face the mammoth task of reducing agricultural emissions and adapting farm lands to climate change. At the global climate summit in Bazu, Azerbaijan, this week, country delegates and the FAO launched a new initiative to “advance climate actions through sustainable agriculture.” But making the programme work will need much more financial backing. According to a November UN study, investments of $1.1 trillion [€1.06 trillion] are needed annually until 2030 to green the world’s food systems – a 40-times increase over current numbers.
|
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.
|
According to the UN global hunger is rising at an alarming rate, with 343 million people estimated to be acutely food insecure across 74 countries.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Africa",
"Green Economy"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-11-22T13:31:11.624Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar5d5c03c8
|
Belarus' snap election — and what it means for Lukashenko's prospects
|
As predicted by experts, including these authors in EUobserver , Belarus will hold a snap presidential election. The date of the vote is 26 January, 2025. Unsurprisingly, Aleksandr Lukashenko — without delay — announced his determination to run for yet another term in office, his seventh in a row. Trying to understand the rush with the elections, most analysts agree that the regime’s international situation plays a big role in the decision. Lukashenko must have realised that continuing isolation by the West and excessive dependence on Moscow have become a threat to his power inside Belarus. If the Kremlin’s benign approach to the Minsk regime toughens, there will be no one to help him resist the pressure. Early elections are arguably supposed to re-establish a modicum of domestic legitimacy and on that basis offer a new arrangement to the West. Lukashenko has done similar things before. It would have sufficed to promise the West some domestic liberalisation, and normalisation of relations would commence. The real motivation of the West was always geopolitical: enlarging Minsk’s space of manouevre vis-à-vis Moscow. The biggest success of Lukashenko was reached in 2014-2015, after the annexation of Crimea by Russia and the start of the armed conflict in Donbas. The West agreed to pretend that Lukashenko would play a role of a mediator in the conflict, even though it was self-evident that Minsk was a location only, not an actor. Minsk 'middle-man'? As a result, Lukashenko posed simultaneously as Russia’s closest ally and a security partner of the West — with financial perks following. However, the political crisis that broke out in Belarus in August 2020 after the rigged presidential elections and the incident with the Ryanair flight 4978 in May 2021 dealt heavy blows to Belarus-West relations. Hijacking an intra-EU flight to arrest a political opponent was too much for Brussels to tolerate. The EU finally imposed on Belarus serious economic sanctions, which it had been reluctant to do in response to massive repressions against the opposition-minded Belarusians. Staging a migration crisis, lasting until now, on the borders of Poland, Lithuania and Latvia, only further deteriorated Lukashenko’s relations with the West. Russia’s war against Ukraine must have seemed to Lukashenko to be a moment of opportunity. The role of an enabler of the Russian invasion and, legally speaking, a co-aggressor made him more important for Kremlin than ever. Plausibly, Lukashenko would have had nothing against seeing Belarusian troops taking part in festivities on the occasion of Russia’s expected easy 'victory'. Yet, at the same time he was also ready to again offer his services as a mediator. Russian-Ukrainian peace talks did take place in the Homel region in March 2022. The fact that Ukraine kept its ambassador in Minsk until mid-2023 indicates that Belarus may have mattered in this respect. But for as long as the West ignored Lukashenko’s effort at 'peace', he had to change his image-making strategy. Lukashenko started emphasising his “centrality” for Putin’s decisions. Statements such as “we decided” or “I informed Putin” became routine. Two issues stood out in Lukashenko’s gamble. One was the announced return of Russian nuclear weapons to Belarus. Although the fact has not been confirmed by Western sources, Lukashenko kept claiming, despite Moscow’s denial , that the use of these weapons would require “two keys”, one of which is in his pocket. The West is a target audience for this claim, which is both blackmail and an invitation to bargain. But since its credibility is low, thus far it has had no effect on the Western stance towards Minsk. Another case was Lukashenko’s self-acclaimed role during Evgeniy Prigozhin’s mutiny in June 2023. Lukashenko publicly boasted that only thanks to his “security guarantees” and his readiness to host the Wagner troops in Belarus after the mutiny Russia had avoided warfare inside the country. Yet, the death of Prigozhin in a suspicious plane crash in August 2023 showed how 'reliable' are Lukashenko’s 'guarantees'. North Korean and Iran new best friends of Putin By mid-2024 it became clear that since Moscow had avoided international ostracism thanks to its ties with Global South and received military assistance, in particular, from Iran and North Korea, the Kremlin had less reasons to provide Minsk with any 'priority treatment'. In turn, the West eventually took a position that geopolitically Belarus is just an extension of Russia which hardly deserves a separate, softened approach. The principled position of the West as regards Belarus has started to bear fruit. If Lukashenko wants to turn the page in this relationship, he should not be sending coded and controversial signals about his willingness to “restart the dialogue”. Instead, he should release all political prisoners without any preliminary conditions. Another rigged election held in the atmosphere of fear and repression will definitely not change anything in the desperate international situation of Lukashenko’s regime. Dr Arkady Moshes is programme director of the research programme on Russia and EU’s eastern neighbourhood and Eurasia at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs , Helsinki. Dr Ryhor Nizhnikau is a senior researcher in the same research programme. Dr Arkady Moshes is programme director of the research programme on Russia and EU’s eastern neighbourhood and Eurasia at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs , Helsinki.
|
Dr Ryhor Nizhnikau
|
With a snap Belarus presidential election in January, six-term strongman Aleksandr Lukashenko must have realised that continuing isolation by the West and excessive dependence on Moscow have become a threat to his power inside Belarus.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-11-22T12:13:46.413Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar7faf86c8
|
Frontex in Serbia — a catalogue of 12 months of denials
|
On 15 December 2023, Frontex’s Fundamental Rights Office (FRO) received a report from one of the agency’s officers deployed in Bulgaria. The day before, the officer had come across a group of people 1.5km from the Serbian border; they were “exhausted”, some couldn’t move, and all of them had bruises, scratches and abrasions. Some had “fresh blood stains on their clothes”. They were disoriented, didn’t have any personal belongings with them, clearly weren’t properly dressed for the cold weather, and asked the officer where they were. When he approached them, they were visibly afraid. They said they had been beaten and pushed back by Serbian border authorities. The FRO, the border agency’s internal human rights watchdog, launched a Category 1 Serious Incident Report (SIR) - the most severe categorisation - and initiated an investigation into the involvement of Serbian officers in their pushback. Serbian authorities swiftly denied it, insisting no such incident occurred. Yet the FRO’s findings indicated otherwise: in the context of “allegations of collective expulsions and violence by Serbian officers at the Serbian-Bulgarian border” it was likely that the incident had taken place as described. New, enhanced, collaboration Frontex is ramping up its collaboration with Serbian authorities. In June of this year, it signed a status agreement with Serbia to “strengthen migration and border management cooperation”, which former home affairs commissioner Ylva Johansson has lauded as “excellent”. In reality, Frontex’s agreement with Serbia is likely to give the stamp of approval to a path of escalating violence from Serbian authorities against people on the move. The pushback last December wasn’t a one-off event. The following week, on 23 December, a similar report came from another Frontex officer deployed in Bulgaria, this time the interviewee said he had been threatened with a handgun by Serbian border police who then beat him and his friend with iron knuckles. Just a few days later, on 31 December, a third report came. Then a fourth, on 12 January 2024, where the interviewee recounted being forced to undress and left to walk barefoot for a day and a half. In each and every case, the Serbian authorities limited their investigation to checking internal logs to see that no incident had been recorded. They also sought to shift the blame, saying that the patterns which could be observed over multiple testimonies - similar numbers of people in the group, use of violence with police batons, and transfers in police cars - make the allegations sound like “instructions presented to the migrants by someone”. Noah Hatchwell from the NGO Border Violence Monitoring Network (BVMN), does not buy this defence: “patterns can corroborate allegations - not disprove them. The notion that different groups, speaking different languages, and transiting in different months have coordinated these claims against the Serbian border police is entirely implausible”. Hatchwell, along with other researchers from BVMN, has been monitoring the escalation of violence, containment and pushbacks for people seeking to transit through the country. After a shooting incident in the north of the country in October 2023, which left three people on the move dead and one seriously injured, the Serbian government launched a special police operation in the region of Vojvodina. This saw up to 1,000 officers deployed - including joint units from Hungary and heavily armed Serbian Gendarmerie special military units - and 1,027 people apprehended in just the first two days. The operation aimed at clearing the north of Serbia, along the Hungarian border, where large informal settlements in abandoned buildings housing up to 300 people at a time had developed over the last years. In October, people were violently evicted and taken to Temporary Reception Centres (RTCs) in the south and northwest of the country. By November 2023, local organisations were reporting the closure of Subotica, Sombor and Kikinda RTCs in the north. The camps to which people were transferred were filling up quickly, and the living conditions had become unbearable. In Obrenovac Asylum Centre , just outside Belgrade, people were sleeping in the corridors, on the ground and in the stairwells in extremely cramped conditions. In Preševo , on the North Macedonian border, unaccompanied minors were sharing rooms with unrelated adults due to the lack of space. In March, the centres - which had historically always been open - became “closed facilities” , leaving those inside stranded in a state of detention simply for seeking asylum in the country. In January 2024, videos obtained by North Macedonian NGO Legis showed lines of semi-naked men passing through the village of Lojane, right on the Serbian border By clearing the north, Serbian authorities had overwhelmed their capacities in the south, and it seems they had an idea on how to solve this. In January 2024 , videos obtained by North Macedonian NGO Legis showed lines of semi-naked men passing through the village of Lojane, right on the Serbian border. When asked, the men said they had been forced to strip naked by the Serbian authorities, who then forced them across the border into North Macedonia. Between July and October 2024, four more SIRs were investigated by the FRO bringing the total number of independent reports at the Serbian-Bulgarian border to 25 since December 2023. In spite of continued requests for the Serbian authorities to investigate this practice properly, reports of violence continue to escalate. This fits into the broader pattern of Frontex and the European Commission’s behaviour: systematic rights violations are ignored — whether they take place in the Aegean or Mediterranean seas, Bulgaria , Albania , Serbia or beyond — even when documented by the agency’s own internal mechanisms and deemed credible by their internal human rights watchdog. None of this impedes the expansion of Frontex’s presence , nor the negotiation of new deals with non-member states. To MEP Alice Kuhnke, who is leading negotiations for the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament on Frontex and Serbia’s updated status agreement, the hypocrisy is blatant: “it is unacceptable that the EU is planning to broaden its cooperation with Serbia in border management. The European Commission's own assessments and the latest FRO reports prove that fundamental rights and international law are being violated.” Promises of reform under new executive director Hans Leijtens have failed to materialise as reports of serious violations across multiple borders persist. While Frontex and the European Commission pay lip service to human rights concerns with fundamental rights monitors and impact assessments’, these mechanisms appear largely symbolic. Reports highlighting abuses are dismissed when they conflict with the ‘Fortress Europe’ agenda. It is time for Frontex and the commission to make a clear choice: drop the act or start taking these reports seriously by freezing EU funds to member states and third countries that systematically violate rights, and ending cooperation or new deals when such abuses come to light. Hope Barker is an independent researcher, and previously senior policy analyst for the NGO Border Violence Monitoring Network. (BVMN) Hope Barker is an independent researcher, and previously senior policy analyst for the NGO
|
Border Violence Monitoring Network.
|
As the European Parliament's LIBE committee discusses its draft report on Frontex in Serbia on Thursday, we document 12 months of serious and escalating violence from Serbian authorities against people on the move.
|
[
"Migration",
"Opinion"
] |
migration
|
2024-11-21T10:57:57.465Z
|
https://euobserver.com/migration/are14cd993
|
The backroom stitch-up of the EU commissioner hearings
|
This month's showcase hearings to approve the incoming European Commission were a spectacle — just not in the way they should have been. What ought to have been a robust democratic exercise turned into political theatre with a predetermined script. The parliament’s mainstream groups — European People's Party (EPP), Socialists & Democrats (S&D), and Renew Europe — outdid themselves, reducing this process to a farce with backroom deals, feeble questions, and a historic compromise with the far right. For a body tasked with holding the EU's executive to account, this was less a display of scrutiny and more an abdication of responsibility. The winners? The Ursula von der Leyen Commission and their new far-right pals. The losers? European citizens. The first act of this tragicomedy took place in the JURI Committee, where nominees’ financial conflicts of interest were supposedly scrutinised. And by "scrutinised," we mean "glanced at, shrugged off, and rubber-stamped." The session, which should have been a meticulous grilling, lasted less than an hour. Why? The mainstream groups had already struck a deal to protect nominees, no matter their baggage. Real questions? Forget it. Real accountability? Not a chance. Even a mild proposal for nominees to recuse themselves from decisions involving former connections was flatly rejected. The message was clear: ethics are optional when there’s political power to divvy up. If the conflict-of-interest review was a sham, the public hearings were an outright joke. These hearings are meant to assess the policy priorities and suitability of each nominee. But why bother when decisions were made in backrooms? The content might as well have been replaced with elevator music. Public hearings should be about debating the EU's direction. Instead, we got theatre without substance. Mainstream groups rubber-stamped the nominees en bloc, reducing this democratic process to a hollow ritual. Citizens deserve better than a pantomime where the actors pretend to listen while the outcome is already typed, printed, and signed. Even a mild proposal for nominees to recuse themselves from decisions involving former connections was flatly rejected The cherry on top of this debacle? The inclusion of two far-right nominees in the new commission, one potentially becoming a vice-president — the first far-right VP in EU history. This wasn’t an accident; it was deliberate horse-trading by mainstream groups. Let that sink in: the so-called 'moderates', rushing to approve their nominees, legitimized far-right politics at the heart of EU governance. For an institution that prides itself on democracy and human rights, this is a betrayal of staggering proportions. But hey, as long as everyone gets their slice of the pie, who cares if far-right ideology starts creeping into EU policy? By signing off on these deals, the European Parliament hasn’t just undermined the hearings process — it has undermined itself. It has stripped away its own powers of scrutiny, leaving the von der Leyen commission with nothing to fear. Why worry about tough questions when approval is secured behind closed doors? 'This is a political crisis' This isn’t just embarrassing; it’s dangerous. The parliament has handed its credibility to the executive branch on a silver platter. Worse, it’s shown that values can be compromised for expediency. By legitimising the far-right and ignoring ethics, the parliament has told citizens democracy is negotiable if the price is right. While mainstream groups made deals, others demanded transparency, rigorous scrutiny, and ethical governance. Proposals to empower an independent ethics body to evaluate conflicts of interest and depoliticize decisions were dismissed. Calls to ensure public hearings focused on real content, not empty pleasantries, went unheeded. Worst of all, the far right was legitimized as acceptable partners. These aren’t radical demands — they’re the basics of democracy. That they’re too much to ask speaks volumes about the state of the Parliament. The 2024 hearings weren’t just a procedural failure — they were a political crisis. By undermining scrutiny and legitimising the far-right, mainstream groups embarrassed the parliament and endangered EU principles. Hearings should have demonstrated accountability and integrity. Instead, they showcased a parliament in self-destruct mode, prioritizing power plays over the public good. But it doesn’t have to be this way. Reforming the process — empowering independent oversight, depoliticizing decisions, and refusing to compromise with far-right extremists — isn’t just desirable; it’s necessary. Without these changes, the parliament risks irrelevance, becoming little more than a rubber-stamping body for an unaccountable executive. The stakes are high, and time is short. We must fight for a parliament that puts people over politics, ethics over expediency, and democracy over deals. The alternative — a Europe run by far-right ideologues and unaccountable elites — is too grim to accept. Manon Aubry is co-chair of The Left group in the European Parliament and a French MEP. Manon Aubry is co-chair of
|
The Left
|
What ought to have been a robust democratic exercise turned into political theatre with a predetermined script. The parliament’s mainstream groups — European People's Party (EPP), Socialists & Democrats (S&D), and Renew Europe — outdid themselves, reducing this process to a farce with backroom deals, feeble questions, and a historic compromise with the far-right.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2024-11-20T10:12:57.204Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/arcb5ee9be
|
Malta's 'golden visas' — a lure for rich Chinese, little benefit to Malta
|
Several EU governments offer non-EU nationals residency by investment, but scandals in the sector and the cost of living crisis are pushing countries to reconsider such exchanges. Some countries have scrapped these schemes altogether, others raised the bar or no longer accept investment in real estate alone. Amid these changes, Malta continues inviting non-EU nationals to exchange a rather modest investment in real estate for a right to travel and live in the EU. It is time to ask, , or, who benefits? Residency by investment programmes are known as 'golden visas'. They invite affluent individuals to obtain a long-term visa for themselves and their families by injecting money into the visa-selling country’s economy. That can take various forms: job or start-up creation, purchase of government bonds, charitable donation, real estate investment, or a mix of these. Currently, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary and Spain offer the real estate investment route to a golden visa, but from available sources it appears that only in Malta purchasing or renting real estate above a certain price is a necessary condition. In many countries the focus on real estate is explained by the schemes’ origins. Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, Greece and Ireland experienced a market crash in the late 2000s. Attracting foreign nationals to buy failing real estate projects or financial instruments was an attractive alternative to bailouts. Meanwhile, Malta launched its golden visa in 2016, when its economy was booming and real estate trade flourished. It did not need saving. Using a mix of publicly available and exclusive, previously unpublished sources, the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation has analysed data on the workings of the Maltese golden visa scheme. The findings, published in a research report , show that the process by which the scheme came about was riddled with controversies. High-ranking officials have become golden visa intermediaries (agents) or worked with such agents; individuals and companies active in various parts of the golden visa ‘supply chain’ are being tried for corruption in different countries. What is less known is that golden visas spur real estate sales, but workers in this sector do not benefit – their salaries are declining. Golden visa buyers also avoid spending more than strictly necessary. The rental or purchase thresholds imposed on them to qualify for the visa lead them to compete with average residents for limited housing units on the islands. The Maltese scheme benefits Chinese nationals with capital to spare. China does not recognise dual nationality, but golden visas allow them to travel and send their children to schools in Europe As they do so, they pay real estate companies that are often closely linked with golden visa intermediaries – lawyers and other professionals shepherding their applications. The analysis by the foundation is so far the most holistic attempt to answer the question about the Maltese golden visa. Set up when Malta was luring China to invest in various sectors, the Maltese scheme benefits Chinese nationals with capital to spare. China does not recognise dual nationality, but golden visas allow them to travel and send their children to schools in Europe. Origin of wealth is checked for the main applicant only, although several generations can apply at the same time. Nearly nine out of ten Maltese visa-buyers hail from China. Given this market, Chinese-owned companies became key intermediaries in selling golden visas. In multiple golden visa countries analysed, they hire local lawyers and establish real estate agencies. Anecdotal evidence shows that profits from these operations float in offshore corporate structures and/ or flow back to China. The scheme also gives a boost to the real estate industry. But visa-buyers are unlikely to independently browse rental listings, so visa application and real estate services are often in the same hands. In other countries, notably Portugal, Spain and Greece, visa buyers’ impact on the real estate sector has become politically problematic and governments initiated reforms – but not in Malta. In 2022, members of the European Parliament adopted a resolution with proposals to reform the golden visa market across the EU. Among these proposals are “in-person interviews with the applicants and a thorough verification of how the applicant’s wealth was accumulated and is related to the reported income”, prohibition of joint family applications, and regulation of intermediaries. For the latter, the parliament demanded “a Union-level licensing procedure for intermediaries”,“a prohibition on combining the consultation of governments on the establishment and maintenance of [residency by investment] schemes with involvement in the preparation of applications”, and sanctions on non-compliant intermediaries. Only 12 members voted against the resolution – a third of them were Maltese. If enshrined in laws, all of these rules would have profound implications on the Maltese golden visa “supply chain”. Any scrutiny would prompt uncomfortable questions. But the commission has not proposed such legislation. Daiva Repeckaite is an investigative reporter with the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation , the Malta NGO fighting for press freedom and anti-corruption measures, named after the Maltese journalist murdered by a car bomb in 2017. Daiva Repeckaite is an investigative reporter with the
|
Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation
|
Malta continues inviting non-EU nationals to exchange a rather modest investment in real estate for a right to travel and live in the EU. It is time to ask who benefits?
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-11-18T11:27:32.941Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ard60d2c13
|
Orban vs EU on 'promoting homosexuality ban' law
|
This month Europe has a chance to halt the wave of homophobic violence and authoritarianism that Victor Orban set rolling across our continent — with Vladimir Putin’s blessing — when he passed a “ propaganda law ” in June 2021. The next year was the most violent in a decade for LGBTQI+ people in Europe, and similarly repressive laws - nominally aimed at protecting children from “gay propaganda” in schools — have been implemented or fought over in several EU countries including, Lithuania , Bulgaria , Italy , Poland , Romania and, Slovakia , as well as in candidate countries like Georgia . The consequences have been dire. The percentage of LGBTQI+ students reporting being bullied has jumped by almost a quarter to 67% in just four years and watchdogs warn of an emerging 'anti-children movement'—a reactionary network made up of the same groups that oppose sexual and reproductive rights, and LGBTQI+ equality. On Tuesday (19 November), judges at the European Court of Justice can turn this tide and redefine LGBTQI+ rights when they consider whether Hungary’s “ban on the promotion of homosexuality” breaches EU law. They will not just be ruling on one law. This is a battle over the future of what can be taught, spoken, and accepted across the entire continent. Hungary was the first EU country to import the legal model for stigmatising and terrorising LGBTQI+ people, that Putin put on Russia’s statute books in 2013. Hungary’s "Act on Stricter Actions Against Paedophile Offenders" disgustingly links LGBTIQ+ people to paedophiles and de facto prohibits the sharing of information about LGBTQI people with under-18s in advertising, media, schools, bookshops, and even in conversations between parents and their children! Consequently, bookstores have been fined for selling teenage LGBTQI+ literature, LGBTQI+ school professionals face workplace harassment , TV coverage of Pride marches has been censored , 72 percent of same-sex partners report always, or often, avoiding holding hands in public, and 62 percent say that violence against them has increased. Orban’s attempt to force the country’s LGBTQI+ community back into the closet is causing real-world misery, particularly for the most vulnerable section of the community, who his law is supposed to protect: children. One young student told an illuminating study how, when students found out he was gay, in fifth-grade, they beat me up, threw objects at me, and so on. I began sixth-grade at another school, but I was also beaten up while I was on my way home. It was reported to the police. I had to go to yet another school, but the boy who had attacked me kept threatening me. I tried to commit suicide several times.” In 2024, this state of affairs is intolerable, all the more as Europe’s would-be autocrats are sharpening their pencils to spread Orban’s hate legislation further across the continent. Our judges now have an opportunity to show that this will not be tolerated. All 27 judges in court Sensing the stakes, the court president has extraordinarily assigned the case to the full court — bringing all its 27 judges to weigh in — in a measure utilised in just 0.12% of cases . The outcome of this action won’t just determine the fate of Hungary’s law; it will define how far Europe is willing to go to defend its founding principles of dignity, equality and the rule of law. The court must make a ground-breaking decision on how to interpret fundamental questions about Article 2 of the cornerstone Treaty of the EU, which enshrines the values of democracy, human rights and non-discrimination. If they find that Hungary has violated EU law it could set a binding precedent for revoking similar laws across the EU, in a major victory for LGBTIQ+ and child rights activists. If Orbán chose to defy the court’s ruling Hungary could be fined of up to €1m per day which, along with lump-sum sanctions running into the hundreds of millions, are the norm in cases of “unprecedented and exceptionally serious breaches of EU law” like this one. Judgment in what is now the largest human rights court battle in the EU’s history will likely not arrive before summer 2025. In the interim, EU institutions must maintain the momentum to collectively dismantle all anti-LGBTQI policies, including those passed with the support of mainstream political groups, such as in Bulgaria . This battle isn’t about dismantling one law but defending the values at the heart of the European project. Russia has been strategically using this issue to carry out disinformation campaigns aimed at polarising and destabilising EU states and the bloc as a whole . In turn, Hungary’s state-funded think tanks have – through their connections with the US Heritage Foundation – claimed credit for far-right policy wins such as Florida governor Ron De Santis’s law banning the promotion of “gender ideology” in schools. Protecting the rights of LGBTIQ+ people and children is now the frontline battle in an identity war that Europe may not have wanted but has certainly got. As Orbán builds ever-broader and deeper ties with Donald Trump through the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) conferences — which Budapest has hosted since 2022 — we must stand shoulder to shoulder against his corrosive politics of division. This unified front must be a powerful warning to those flirting with similar anti-LGBTQI propaganda laws. Europe will not look the other way while authoritarian regimes manipulate fear and scapegoat vulnerable communities. Putin’s playbook of hatred and division cannot, and will not, find a home in a Europe founded on dignity, equality, and the rule of law. Esther Martinez is the director of RECLAIM , an NGO supporting LGBTQI rights and rule of law in Europe. She led the effort that united 16 EU states in the European Commission’s lawsuit against Hungary’s anti-LGBTQI laws. Alejandro Menéndez is RECLAIM ’s EU legal advisor, managing its helpdesk for NGOs. He advises on laws that restrict civil society, media, and LGBTQI+ rights. Esther Martinez is the director of RECLAIM , an NGO supporting LGBTQI rights and rule of law in Europe. She led the effort that united 16 EU states in the European Commission’s lawsuit against Hungary’s anti-LGBTQI laws. Alejandro Menéndez is
|
RECLAIM
|
On Tuesday, judges at the European Court of Justice can turn the tide and redefine LGBTQI+ rights when they consider whether Hungary’s 'ban on the promotion of homosexuality' breaches EU law. They will not just be ruling on one law. This is a battle over the future of what can be taught, spoken, and accepted across the entire continent.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2024-11-18T06:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar9cdf4a6c
|
Journalists need to stop sensationalising coverage of EU cohesion spending
|
As a journalist who has spent years covering the intricacies of EU cohesion funds, it is disheartening to witness how often this policy is reduced to sensational headlines. In the last few days, the media has fixated on the prospect of cohesion funds being used for defence spending , sparking alarm without sufficient context or understanding of how those funds actually work and the likelihood of seeing a third of the EU budget financing the European defence industry. While such discussions merit scrutiny, they diverge us from the core of the matter. Their true purpose is to tackle some of the most urgent challenges facing Europe today — from demographic decline to climate change. Yet, their impact has been debated and this should worry us all, for real. It is paradoxical that, while the future of cohesion funds is thrust into the media spotlight, little attention has been paid to how this third of the EU budget has been spent over the past decades. For years, cohesion policy has largely been treated as a technical and bureaucratic matter. When it made to the news, it is often through two main narratives: rare but damaging cases of corruption or delays in spending, particularly in less-developed regions. While journalists should report on these instances, they represent a tiny fraction of the overall spending. The delays in fund allocation are usually rooted in more complex structural challenges, such as under-resourced or unskilled public administrations and overly complex procedures. These issues, which deserve far more attention, are linked to the capability of public servants to identify and implement impactful investments for regional GDP growth — a topic recently highlighted by commissioner Elisa Ferreira’s reflection on the future of cohesion policy, a process that has been largely overlooked by the media. Things shifted after 2020 when cohesion funds began to be used outside their original scope. During the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic, for instance, the commission authorised the allocation of remaining funds from the 2014-2020 programming period to provide emergency support. Similarly, these funds were used to assist regions bordering Ukraine with the influx of refugees. These exceptional reallocations were justified by urgent needs in high-pressure regions. But they turned to be a good opportunity for commissioner Ferreira to bring renewed media attention to the existence of these funds as they became the first tool available for crisis management. However, when these initiatives were launched, us journalists and field experts struggled to understand the actual amount of resources available and the processes to access them, as most of the 2014-2020 funds had already been allocated. While journalists should report on delays and corruption, they represent a tiny fraction of the overall spending Before discussing the potential use of 2021-2027 cohesion funds for defence — and without succumbing to panic — we must first understand how these resources work. Every seven years, the EU sets its budget for cohesion policy and priorities, with the current programming period running from 2021 to 2027. Due to delays caused by the pandemic, these funds have only recently begun to flow. Before any funds are spent, member states must sign a Partnership Agreement with the European Commission outlining their strategic priorities. Once plans are finalised, the funds are “decided” but not immediately spent. As of today, only about three to five percent of allocated funds have been utilised. This is not a cause for concern; it reflects the necessary time for planning and execution. If we continue to sensationalise cohesion funds and ignore their role in addressing critical regional disparities, we risk politicising them to the point of jeopardising their future. This could further fracture EU unity, allowing populist narratives to thrive at the expense of long-term collective investments Critical decisions regarding the funds’ direction have already been made, and as shown by data, about 27 percent of the funds have been “decided.” Thus, the low spending rate at this stage should not be seen as an indication of failure or inefficiency. Nor does it mean they can be “redirected” to finance defense, as this is not currently an eligible objective for cohesion funds. What should actually alarm us What is true, and should alarm us, is that cohesion policy is under scrutiny because many European regions are caught in a development trap. While cohesion policy has significantly impacted the GDP of poorer regions, particularly in eastern Europe, it has struggled to foster growth in lagging areas such as southern Italy and Spain. This may prompt policymakers to reconsider the funding method, potentially opting for a more centralized approach similar to the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) model, rather than the place-based development strategy currently in use. This could potentially mean to re-direct funding where it is easier to see a return of investment, the already competitive regions, fuelling the geography of discontent. At this point, we must ask: what does the future hold for these funds if journalists and policymakers fail to grasp their true purpose and potential? If we continue to sensationalise cohesion funds and ignore their role in addressing critical regional disparities, we risk politicising them to the point of jeopardising their future. This could further fracture EU unity, allowing populist narratives to thrive at the expense of long-term collective investments. The rise of 'frugality' within the EU — a form of economic populism advocating austerity and budget cuts — has already put cohesion funds at risk in the past. Too often, these funds are discussed as a luxury or waste, without considering their broader social and economic impacts on Europe’s future. The recent alarm over the potential use of these funds for defence spending reflects this misguided focus. In reality, the most likely scenario is that regions hosting defence industries might receive support to help transition, but this should not distract from the more significant conversations about how these funds drive sustainable development and address Europe’s urgent challenges. We must understand why some strategies succeed while others fail to hold EU, national, and local policymakers accountable. As a final note: I completely understand the challenge of maintaining our independence while ensuring that our coverage of stories related to projects funded by cohesion policy does not become an echo of the European Commission. I’ve been there. However, sensationalist headlines cannot be the solution. We need to move beyond that and make a conscious effort not to patronise our readers. They are capable of grasping the nuanced information necessary to understand the true stakes. Let’s move past alarmism and commit to informed, responsible reporting that respects our audience’s intelligence. Such reporting holds both leaders and the media accountable for the future we are collectively shaping. Fiorella Lavorgna works for The Council of European Municipalities and Regions . Fiorella Lavorgna works for
|
The Council of European Municipalities and Regions
|
As a journalist who has spent years covering the intricacies of EU cohesion funds, it is disheartening to witness how often this policy is reduced to sensational headlines. In the last few days, the media has fixated on the prospect of cohesion funds being used for defence spending, sparking alarm without sufficient context.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
*
|
2024-11-14T13:39:12.436Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/ar389872b1
|
Pfizergate: von der Leyen's reputation goes on trial tomorrow
|
On Friday (15 November), the European Court of Justice will hold a hearing in the case brought by the New York Times against the European Commission , for its refusal to release text messages between Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, regarding the multibillion-euro Covid-19 vaccine contracts. The commission has claimed that it "does not hold" the messages requested, and that the exchanges, as "short-lived" app-based communications, are not subject to record-keeping requirements. The case not only highlights the opaque practices inside the European Commission but also puts von der Leyen's record on transparency and accountability on trial. What’s at stake in Pfizergate goes way beyond the procurement of vaccines. It’s about the broader practices of the commission when it comes to handling and disclosure of public information. Access to documents in the European Union is governed by Regulation 1049/2001 . A cornerstone of EU transparency, the regulation has faced continuing challenges to its implementation, as EU institutions find it all too easy to simply disregard their own obligations. In Pfizergate, the commission conveniently claimed that the requested messages did not exist, without offering any further reasoning — clearly violating its responsibilities to state reasons when refusing an access request. If the court were to side with the New York Times, it would set a powerful precedent, forcing the Commission to release the requested information. This, in turn, could reshape the whole landscape of transparency in the EU. Pfizergate has exposed the profoundly outdated understanding of what constitutes "documents". The EU access to information law and practices completely neglects modern forms of communication, like text and instant messages — part and parcel of how officials communicate on matters of public interest. Text messages were an important part of the Covid-19 pandemic response and the emergency procurement of vaccines. They must therefore be subject to the same rules as any other official documents. If the court were to side with the New York Times, it would set a powerful precedent, forcing the Commission to release the requested information. This, in turn, could reshape the whole landscape of transparency in the EU The court plays a critical role as it is the only EU institution with powers to hold the commission accountable for commitments to improve its transparency. It now has a unique opportunity to establish a new principle that all forms of communication, including those on private channels like text messages, WhatsApp and Signal, are recognised as part of the public record and subject to access requests. Criminal offence Progressive precedent already exists: in 2021, the United Kingdom’s Information Commissioner’s Office, updated its guidance to ensure that all communications on private channels are subject to FOI requests. In the UK it is also a criminal offence for public officials to delete or conceal such information. Despite promises made during the previous administration, the commission has yet to issue internal guidance on the use of modern communication tools. A ruling in favour of transparency would put pressure on the institution to follow through on these commitments and adopt more robust measures to ensure accountability in the future. The case will also have far-reaching implications on the way von der Leyen intends to lead in her second mandate. At a time when trust in EU institutions is fragile, maintaining a culture of secrecy risks fuelling public cynicism and anti-EU sentiment in member states and accession countries alike, not least in Moldova and Georgia. The commission’s persistent disregard of the significance of these issues, as highlighted in a recent report from Access Info Europe I contributed to, sends a clear signal to EU member states that opacity is tolerated and accountability is optional. This weakens the integrity of the whole Union. This case then challenges the EU's whole approach to transparency and accountability, principles that are fundamental to its legitimacy. A ruling in favour of the New York Times and greater transparency would not only clarify the commission’s obligations under existing regulation but also send a strong message about the importance of safeguarding the EU's core values. As von der Leyen enters her second term, she has the opportunity to demonstrate and reaffirm the Commission’s commitments to those values, strengthen the institution's legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens, and ultimately restore trust in her leadership. It’s an opportunity she should welcome. Ilaria Fevola is a lawyer and legal officer at ARTICLE 19 , the NGO campaigning for public and press freedoms. Ilaria Fevola is a lawyer and legal officer at
|
ARTICLE 19
|
On Friday, the European Court of Justice will hold a hearing in the case brought by the New York Times against the European Commission, for its refusal to release text messages between Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, regarding the multibillion-euro Covid-19 vaccine contracts.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2024-11-14T10:43:58.185Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/are40ac97d
|
Why are Russian 'shadow' oil tankers still sailing the Baltic Sea?
|
As leftwing MEPs and MPs, we expect a large majority to support us in Thursday's (14 November) important vote on the European Parliament's resolution addressing the Russian shadow fleet . This is a matter of deep seriousness for both Ukraine and the Baltic Sea. One of the most important ways to support Ukraine is to stop all revenues that finance Russia's illegal war. To do this, the EU must move from words to action and stop the Russian shadow fleet transporting oil on rusty ships via the Baltic Sea. If you look out from the beaches at Helsingborg, Jastarnia or Warnemunde, you can see the giant tankers that belong to the Russian shadow fleet. These are the ships that bring oil from Russia's harbours and ship it to the world market, in violation of international sanctions. The G7 sanctions against Russia are designed to put a price cap on Russian oil, but this mechanism is being circumvented by the use of shadow fleet vessels using other nations’ flags. The Russian state-owned shipping company Sovcomflot owns about a third of the ships in the shadow fleet, while the remaining are owned by private investors looking for a quick buck. The tankers are fully loaded with oil, which is resold at a higher price than the sanctions allow. Since 2023, more than 2,500 Russian oil tankers have sailed through the Baltic Sea, most of them belonging to the shadow fleet. This trade is crucial to Russia's ability to finance its illegal war against Ukraine, with up to half of Russia's total crude oil exports passing through the Baltic Sea, according to the Centre for Eastern Studies. If we are to impose real sanctions on the Russian economy, the EU needs to act decisively in order to stop the huge tankers carrying oil off the coasts of Finland, Sweden, Poland, Germany and Denmark on a daily basis. 'Ticking time bomb' There is another layer that makes the issue urgent. In addition to financing the Russian war machine, the shadow fleet is a ticking time bomb, threatening the environment in and around the Baltic Sea. The shadow fleet consists of outdated, rusty and often uninsured ships with unclear ownership information. Often, oil is transferred from ship to ship at sea, with a high risk of oil spills. The question is not if - but when - an environmental disaster will take place in the Baltic Sea. While the EU supplies Ukraine with arms and money, many member states continue to finance Russia by importing oil and fossil gas. It is devastating that the EU has not yet acted to stop this import. In practice, this means the EU is helping Ukraine with one hand and filling Putin's war chest with the other hand. If we are really serious about doing everything in our power to support Ukraine, we must immediately stop buying the oil that is financing the war. We suggest a few concrete measures to address the operations of the shadow fleet: - Ban the sale of Western tankers to buyers outside of The G7 Oil Price Cap Coalition. - Sanction more of the shadow fleet vessels currently in operation, as the UK has done already. - Put more pressure on oil brokers and refineries purchasing oil to steer away from Russian products. - Increase cooperation between local and European officials and allow the European Maritime Safety Agency to monitor the shadow fleet vessels and check for violations of maritime law and environmental rules. Now is the time for the EU to move from words to action. Substandard vessels that lack insurance and violate the sanctions have no place in the EU. Li Andersson, Jussi Saramo, Jonas Sjöstedt, Merja Kyllönen, Per Clausen, and Hanna Gedin are Left MEPs . Jan van Aken is co-leader of Die Linke in Germany, Maciej Konieczny is a Razem MP in Poland, and Zofia Malisz is a member of the Razem National Council. Li Andersson, Jussi Saramo, Jonas Sjöstedt, Merja Kyllönen, Per Clausen, and Hanna Gedin are Left MEPs . Jan van Aken is co-leader of Die Linke in Germany, Maciej Konieczny is a
|
Razem
|
If you look out from the Baltic beaches at Helsingborg, Jastarnia or Warnemunde, you can see the giant tankers that belong to the Russian shadow fleet. These are the ships that bring oil from Russia's harbours and ship it to the world market, in violation of international sanctions. On Thursday, MEPs have a chance to vote to stop this.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine",
"Opinion"
] |
*
|
2024-11-13T11:51:40.154Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/ar5280f1d4
|
Does the fundamental right to seek asylum still exist in the EU of 2024?
|
In the forests of eastern Poland, where the country meets its authoritarian neighbour, Belarus, temperatures aren’t yet sub-zero – but they will be soon. Winter is fast approaching, and with it the risk of hypothermia and death for refugees who’ve made it to the doorstep of Europe, but now find themselves trapped in geopolitical purgatory. Reduced to pawns in the EU’s standoff with Russia and its allies, the situation facing these vulnerable individuals went from bad to worse last month: the Polish government, in a truly chilling move, proposed suspending the right to asylum entirely . This was no isolated act of callousness. Across the continent, a once-fringe anti-immigration rhetoric is creeping into the popular discourse, as leaders spooked by the far-right’s electoral gains abandon humanitarian commitments in favour of draconian deterrence. The choice facing EU policymakers – and Europeans in general – is stark: honour our core values and legal obligations, or allow fear-mongering to trump compassion and good sense, betraying the fundamental principles that define us? The populists’ doomsday pronouncements are eye-catching, but the facts tell a different story. Frontex data shows irregular border crossings into the EU dropped 42 percent in the first three quarters of 2024 compared to the same period in 2023 ( 75 percent of the world’s refugees are hosted in low and middle-income countries, according to the European Commision). While certain routes have seen upticks, including Poland’s frontier with Belarus, the overall numbers pale in comparison to 2015-2016. The current situation is challenging, but manageable – and the EU has proven it can rise to the occasion. Think back to Europe’s response to Ukrainian refugees. Millions were welcomed with open arms, buoyed by an outpouring of public support and political solidarity. It was a proud moment for the EU, and a powerful reminder of what we can achieve when we lead with our values. That same compassion must extend to all arrivals, regardless of their origin. Yet, across Europe, a “fortress mentality” is taking hold – whether it’s Germany’s curbing of asylum seeker benefits , France ramping up border checks , or the European Council’s unequivocal support of Poland’s shock announcement, it seems the drawbridge is being pulled up across the continent. By adopting the rhetoric of a migrant “invasion” orchestrated by foreign foes, these countries risk betraying the EU’s founding principle that human rights are universal and non-negotiable. Do we really want authoritarian regimes dictating our moral obligations in this way? We must also remember that the individuals braving Europe’s barbed wire and border guards aren’t nameless, faceless invaders. They are fathers, mothers, and children fleeing some of the most treacherous places on earth; Afghanistan and Syria in particular. The European Commission acknowledges the unimaginable suffering in these nations, where millions require urgent humanitarian aid just to survive. We cannot claim ignorance of their plight. Despots and dictators' rhetoric However, rather than extending a helping hand, Europe risks being seduced by Russia’s cynical “hybrid warfare” framing, which treats asylum seekers as chess pieces in a global power struggle, rather than people in urgent need of assistance. We must not allow despots and dictators to rob us of our moral compass. The EU was founded on the fundamental truth that dignity is inherent to all people, not conditional on nationality. The stark reality is that fortified borders and hardline deterrence do not stop desperate people from seeking sanctuary – they only make the journey more perilous. Research shows that stricter policies simply drive refugees to take more dangerous routes, placing them at greater risk of exploitation and lining the pockets of smugglers. There are two key solutions that, working in tandem, can help protect lives while undercutting demand for criminal smuggling networks. The first is expanding legal pathways and investing in a fair and effective asylum procedure for people who’ve already made their way to Europe. This means ensuring that every asylum seeker receives a full and impartial hearing of their protection claim, with access to legal assistance, interpreters, and decent reception conditions. At the same time, we must focus on addressing the conflicts, persecutions, and human rights abuses that drive individuals from their homes in the first place. While Europe cannot solve these challenges alone, we have a moral imperative to be part of the solution through robust diplomacy, peacebuilding efforts, and targeted development aid. None of this will be easy – but it will be immeasurably harder without cohesion across the European community. We must unite behind our shared commitments and work in lockstep to uphold our moral and legal duties to those in need. Regrettably, the forces of division are fighting hard to reverse progress on this front. Collapse of pact? The EU’s recently adopted Migration and Asylum Pact, while far from perfect, represented the strongest possible framework for cooperation given the political realities of the day. However, the rising tide of far-right populism risks unravelling this fragile agreement entirely – and if the pact collapses under the weight of bigotry and paranoia, any replacement is likely to be far more hostile to refugees’ basic rights. To avert this disaster, member states must urgently recommit to safeguarding the rights of asylum seekers and support the Pact’s solidarity mechanism. Crucially, this cannot mean simply paying to militarise the EU’s external borders – an approach the accord sadly accommodates. True solidarity demands that all members step up to welcome asylum seekers and provide them with full and fair opportunities to have their protection claims heard. If Europe continues down the dark path of eroded asylum rights, we risk becoming an unrecognisable fortress, walled off from the world’s most vulnerable by razor wire, suspicion, and the very xenophobia the EU was founded to overcome. The signposts of this grim future are already emerging – several member states have suggested that Syria, a country where 70 percent of the population still requires urgent aid , is safe for returns. We need an urgent course correction, rejecting the siren song of far-right nativism and recommitting to refugee policies guided by evidence, human rights, and basic decency. Upholding our asylum obligations and border management are not mutually exclusive. Both are essential to the integrity, and soul, of not just the European project, but the humanity that unites us all. Charlotte Slente is the secretary general of the Danish Refugee Council , one of the world's leading humanitarian organizations serving refugees and displaced persons. Charlotte Slente is the secretary general of the
|
Danish Refugee Council
|
Last month the Polish government, in a chilling move backed by the European Council, proposed suspending the right to asylum entirely. Across Europe, a “fortress mentality” is taking hold – Germany’s curbing of asylum-seeker benefits, France ramping up border checks, it seems the drawbridge is being pulled up across the continent, writes the Danish Refugee Council.
|
[
"Migration",
"Opinion"
] |
migration
|
2024-11-12T16:25:39.837Z
|
https://euobserver.com/migration/ar422ca909
|
Hearings live blog: Fitto, Kallas, Mînzatu, Séjourné, Ribera and Virkkunen
|
Today marks the final day of commissioner hearings — following nearly 100 hours of grilling and live-blogging last week. On the agenda are high-profile candidates for the executive vice-presidents of the upcoming European Commission: Raffaele Fitto (Italy), Kaja Kallas (Estonia), Roxana Mînzatu (Romania), Stéphane Séjourné (France), Teresa Ribera (Spain), and Henna Virkkunen (Finland). For today's hearings, there was a key agreement between the major groups: all their evaluations will be conducted at the end of the day as a block, rather than one by one. If you missed last week's hearings, don't neglect to read Nikolaj Nielsen's roundup. 21:50 Ribera: We need you! In a final effort to convince conservatives, Ribera responded to a softball question from EPP heavyweight Christian Ehler, who wanted to know how she would reassure industries unhappy with the EU’s Green Deal. To this, Ribera answered that “everyone [needs to] feels a part of the transition.” “Of course, dialogue needs to take place,” she added, but it should not only be at the highest level — or only top-down. “Sector by sector, we need to find solutions,” she said, mindful of the different needs of various industries. “We need to find a common pathway together.” 21:46 Virkkunen ends by warning about Europe's 'now-or-never moment' Speaking in English for her concluding remarks, Virkkunen said: “This is a now-or-never moment for a direction shift.” “Technological leadership is crucial for our competitiveness,” she added, arguing that one of the main challenges facing the 27-nation bloc is “transforming Europe into an AI continent” and “a leading hub for AI innovations” where research is turned into commercial success stories. Virkkunen remained calm and answered all questions from MEPs, leaving a positive impression in the room and pledging to collaborate with them transparently. However, she avoided going into great depth on any questions, leading MEPs to repeat their inquiries throughout the hearing. 21:44 Ribera: How will she copy Spain’s economic success? Reports have shown the Spanish economy is outperforming other EU countries, one MEP said, and then wondered how Ribera, as one of the politicians chiefly responsible for that outcome, was planning to apply these successes at the EU level. “It is important to build common ground,” she said. “We have to respect what we have achieved. We cannot backtrack on what we have already assessed to be right.” “We should not waste time on things that have been backed by science,” she added, implying that adapting the economy to the new reality of climate change would be part of that success. “Why would we not be able to work together on this?” she asked rhetorically. 21:25 Virkkunen gets compliments on social media "Best hearing ever! Extremely convincing - I think she is establishing a new narrative much more business-friendly and open to innovation!," said German centre-right MEP Axel Voss on X, talking about Virkkunen's hearing. 21:09 Ribera: Centre-left MEP worried about EPP shenanigans Responding to some aggressive questioning from the EPP, Dutch MEP Mohammed Chahim from the centre-left S&D said “it seems like under the leadership of [party president] Manfred Weber [it] is headed towards a coalition with the far-right.” If the EPP chooses not to support Ribera, Europe’s largest party has the power to reject her. However, few expect the European Parliament's largest party to do so as it would risk the straightforward appointment of their own commissioners. But no punches are being pulled, even though it is not clear to all what exactly is being criticised. “It is hard to distinguish EPP questions from Patriots: full of accusations, zero substance,” said Chahim . 21:08 Virkkunen commits to implement asylum law Virkkunen committed to the implementation of the EU asylum pact and find a new common approach to returns, which she referred to as a “missing piece” of this package. “EU member states could take more action when it comes to returns,” she said, noting big differences among national capitals. The Finnish nominee also said the upcoming Democracy Shield would also emphasise increasing the resilience of people against foreign interference in elections. 21:03 Ribera: sounding a little bit too much on the left? Slightly more seriously, Ribera may not put enough effort into convincing EPP members who are clearly not happy with her leftwing interpretation of the Clean Industrial Deal. EPP MEP Liese openly questioned whether Ribera was "fit" to lead the new commission's climate, industrial, and competition efforts. While easily fielding his question, just a few minutes later, Ribera offered a decidedly socialist perspective on her responsibilities vis-à-vis the commission's green growth agenda. "Do you commit to making national financing conditional on supporting social and green goals? Will you claw back funding if they haven’t met these goals? Will state aid rules exclude fossil fuel companies?" she was asked. While not making any strong commitments, her answer may not have pleased many in Liese’s centre-right party. "Deep transformation in our industrial and energy model requires us to pay attention to workers,” she said. “The Just Transition Fund and Social Climate Fund are both still not finalised,” she added, referring to two core Green Deal programmes whose funding is still unclear. But “I will commit to ensuring that workers play an important role in this transition. Training and reskilling are essential, but so is creating opportunities,” she said. “This transition isn’t just about wealth creation; it’s about creating opportunities. We need to ensure that people feel ownership of this transformation." 20:56 EU commission investigating addicting algorithms Virkkunen said the European Commission is now investigating the use by platforms of addictive algorithms, noting that a vast majority of youngsters use social media for more than seven hours per day. “It's one part of the online platforms business logic that they try to get people to use so much time as possible on online platforms — but it's not good for our health and mental health,” she said, adding that also the content displayed on their feeds raises concerns, especially when it comes to minors. 20:47 Ribera asked: where do you stand on wolves? “I went to this hearing open-minded, not a lot of arguments to convince my group that you are the right candidate,” veteran EPP MEP Peter Liese said. “I will give you one more chance" ... after which he asked about the situation around “farmers and wolves .” 20:28 Green MEP slams party-political gamesmanship at commissioner hearings "What happened in the European Parliament today is a disappointing display of party-political gamesmanship that is almost impossible for citizens to understand. Instead of focusing on the professional and personal suitability of candidates, the parliament is damaging its own credibility with petty power struggles," said German Green MEP Jutta Paulus, referring to the ongoing political deals behind the hearings. "It is dangerous that conservative and right-wing forces are exploiting the hearings for political ends, rather than working to foster trust in Europe amidst an already tense global situation... While the United States under Trump pursues withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and oil deals are being negotiated at the global climate conference, the EU must act as a beacon of reason, rather than sowing further uncertainty both within Europe and beyond," she added. 20:23 Campaigners concerned about tech deregulation Virkkunen's hearing is raising concerns among campaigners about potential tech deregulation and the direction of the EU's digital agenda. "Commissioner-designate Virkkunen's vision of digital sovereignty so far is coming off as an agenda for deregulation and techno-solutionism," said Ella Jakubowska, a campaigner from the digital rights watchdog EDRi. 20:20 Ribera: Climate with Trump How will the EU lead on climate policy in a world where Donald Trump is back in the White house? We have to, Ribera said. “Whoever is in the White House, we have to look for alliances that can help us achieve our climate goals,” she said, “it has to happen. We have to do it.” 20:18 Virkkunen on investment gap and net neutrality The commission estimates that over €200bn is required to meet the Digital Decade goals. Virkkunen noted that only 64 percent of the EU has access to high-speed networks, with much lower speeds in rural areas, which poses challenges for businesses and farmers. However, she emphasised that EU funds are available to expedite connectivity. “It is important that the internet is available to everybody,” she said, also stressing the importance of net neutrality, where providers are expected to treat all online traffic equally, without discrimination, blocking, throttling, or prioritisation. 20:14 Ribera: Balancing competitiveness with Green Goals Addressing the challenge of competitiveness in the automotive and other traditional industries, Ribera stated, "We need to be stable. We can’t keep saying we want to be green and then backtrack. Once we set the target and understand how to reach it, we’ll develop the pathway and follow through." She emphasized the need for a deeper conversation on balancing economic growth with environmental goals, highlighting the importance of focusing on the impact for workers. "It’s not just about main growth figures; we need to consider what this transition will mean for everyone involved." 20:11 Semiconductor ecosystems Beyond monitoring what has been done up until now in the field of semiconductors, Virkkunen also said the EU needed to go further with the Chips Act to strengthen and boost this crucial sector, especially when it comes to the design and manufacturing of chips in the EU, and also working towards the creation of semiconductors ecosystems for very advanced ships. 20:07 The quote “An ‘Act’ is not the answer to everything,” Virkkunen told MEPs, referring to all legislative packages the EU has been putting forward in the field of tech policies such as the AI Act, the Chips Act, the Digital Service Act or the Digital Market Act. 19:58 Take it seriously when it comes to critical infrastructure In response to a question about whether Europe should ban Chinese equipment in critical infrastructure, Virkkunen noted that 42 percent of Europeans using 5G have their communications transmitted via radio equipment from high-risk vendors. “This is something where we have to take more actions because I think the member states, they haven't been taking this seriously enough,” she told MEPs. 19:51 Tech sovereignty remains a challenge Virkkunen is repeating herself. While she acknowledges dependencies, the need for increased investment, and the importance of cutting red tape, she remains vague on concrete measures to enhance Europe’s tech sovereignty. She advocates for open source, greater competitiveness with less bureaucracy, and making Europe a hub for innovation for cloud, quantum and AI. The question remains: how? The hearing makes clear that there are no easy answers. 19:50 Ribera: Bringing social and ecological justice into the mix The data is terrifying, she continued explaining Anja Arndt, who is a MEP from Alternative for Germany (AfD). “We have passed 1.5 degrees global warning, the gulf current is near collapse, that could create very difficult circumstances for northern Europe,” she said. The collapse of the so-called Atlantic meridional overturning circulation [AMOC] has led to deep panic among climate scientists, as it might decrease temperatures in Europe by between 10 and 30 degrees, while warming would continue in southern climes. Ribera so far has been the only politician who has mentioned it. “We need to decarbonise. We in Europe have the capacity to do this,” she said. “But the fact is that we need to take in consideration that so much change in a short period of time will have social impacts.” That is why “we need to combine the update of industry as well as social inequality,” she said. 19:43 Ribera: Climate denialism ‘most worrying thing’ “Only seven percent, 0.007 percent of emissions, is produced by people,” German far-right MEP Anja Arndt asked, or told, Ribera, seeking to provoke her. “I appreciate your comment, not because I agree with you, but because it is useful to stress something that I said before, namely that the most worrying concern to me, to my children, to my grandchildren is denying the effect of climate change,” Ribera replied, “and on it’s impact on our prosperity, and on it’s impact on our economy.” 19:37 Similar situation in the defence and tech sector Reflecting on the Draghi report, Virkkunen argued that there are “too many barriers between the member states” and that Europe is “too dependent” on certain tech sectors such as microchips and AI, where many investments are being made at the moment. Comparing the situation in the defence and tech sector, she said Europe needs to strengthen its capacity. She said that about 80 percent of acquisitions are made outside of the EU, which means that “the security of supply or the security of our economy is not sustainable”. “We need to have our own industry,” she said, a doing that members attest must also invest in defence procurement. 19:36 Ribera on strong ground The strong economic performance of the Spanish economy is making Ribera’s job as a socialist covering economic policy topics easier, as some conservatives, including German MEP Markus Ferber, whose own economy is not doing so well, are questioning her credibility and approach, referring him back to growth figures that show Spain is currently a (more?) attractive economy to invest in. 19:26 Ribera: State aid needs to be tracked and transparent “We can help, but we can do much more than what we have done,” she said, but suggested that housing is a national and regional responsibility which the EU can only be a partner in. Responding to questions about loosening state aid rules, she said that state aid funding and public support should be tracked in much more detail “so that we can learn.” This echoes an important and core criticism from the EU Court of Auditors who recently slammed the previous commission’s performance on this issue, saying that they “lacked even the most basic information.” 19:21 Ribera: Shows ability to balance climate and competitiveness One of the big open questions is how far Ribera aligns with von der Leyen’s pro-business second mandate, which aims to enhance competitiveness and decarbonise simultaneously. “We want to have an economy that works,” she told MEPs. “The clean industrial deal must remain a key objective,” she added, quickly covering all major policy elements that are expected to fall under the comprehensive legislative package, which is intended as the follow-up to the EU’s Green Deal. Ribera’s priorities, while broadly in line with the EPP’s stance, emphasised public finance to “steer private capital” in the right direction. This approach sounds quite different, for those familiar with fiscal and monetary debates, from the standard refrain of “we need private capital because there isn’t enough public money to go around,” commonly used by von der Leyen’s allies as their go-to policy stance. These subtle differences have previously led far-right conservatives to label Ribera as part of the “extreme left.” In her opening remarks, Ribera also appeared far more focused on “achieving climate targets” than some of her green team colleagues, including von der Leyen’s party colleague Jessika Roswall, who will lead the EU’s environmental policy agenda. Roswall barely passed her hearing last week, leaving most MEPs underwhelmed. 19:19 Cutting red tape If confirmed, Virkkunen said she would look into reporting obligations in tech policy to see how to cut red tape. This has been raised during the first part of the hearing by several MEPs, who argue that the EU’s heavily-bureaucratic legislation is a burden for innovation. Responding to a liberal MEP, Virkkunen also pledged to go back to the parliament with a fitness check with the digital area to ensure MEPs are aware of what has been done to simplify rules. “I think it's also [a] good time to look that are we having too detailed regulation,” she also said, echoing concerns from industry players and main lobbyists. 19:04 Virkkunen calls for stricter protections for children online under DSA Virkkunen says that protecting children online will be one of the main priorities of the next European Commission, especially when it comes to the implementation of the DSA. “I think we have to be also very strict here when we look at the responsibility of the online platforms,” she said, arguing that addictive algorithms that make people spend more and more time on online platforms pose a systematic risk that is addressed in EU law. “If they are aware, if online platforms are aware that the minors are using their services, then the services should be fit for minors age,” she said. 19:03 Ribera: Calls for EU disaster preparedness after Valencia flood Ribera began her hearing by acknowledging the death and suffering of “families and victims of the floods” in Valencia, thanking those who have shown up to help “restore some sense of normalcy.” To prevent destructive environmental disasters from becoming so deadly, she warned that the EU should learn from Spain’s experiences and invest in building warning systems fit for a world where climate-related disasters are set to become more frequent. 19:02 Ribera: Immediate backlash from Spanish conservatives Spanish ecology minister Teresa Ribera, the candidate for the next commission’s second-most powerful position — which will cover the vast policy areas of both competition and all matters related to green industrial policies — immediately faced calls on social media from the Spanish conservative party Partido Popular (PP) to be rejected by the parliament. Ribera has been put forward by EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and is unlikely to be rejected, as most in the European People’s Party (EPP), of which PP is also a member, will follow von der Leyen. However, this nomination highlights the resistance some feel toward Ribera, who is considered too far to the left by many in Europe. 19:00 Virkkunen addresses skills problem Virkkunen said Europe needs better regulation to attract innovation, but she said this shouldn’t be translated into more bureaucracy. This means that the permitting processes in the member states should be faster than they are now, the Finnish nominee said. Beyond looking into how to encourage innovation across Europe, Virkunnen also said that it's important also to pay attention to skills shortages. “This is one of our main challenges in Europe,” she said, adding that Europe should also be able to attract talented people from all around the world. 18:54 Virkkunen's (very detailed) opening remarks Switching between English and Finnish (but mostly English), Henna Virkkunen, the 52-year-old former MEP and newly-appointed European Commission executive vice-president for tech sovereignty, security, and democracy, baldy stated that “Europe has enormous potential” in her opening remarks. Virkkunen noted the EU is “far too dependent on third countries” when it comes to the tech sectors. “We have a lot of work ahead of us… our tech sovereignty depends on a strong microchip industry,” she added, calling for increased efforts to reach the EU’s 20-percent global production target. She also pledged to launch a quantum strategy to boost the EU’s quantum computing capabilities and said her first 100 days would focus on increasing AI computing power through the AI factories initiative. And she also promised an EU Cloud and AI Development Act to expand access to advanced AI for smaller businesses, promote data sharing, and improve access to high-quality data.“ I want Europe to become an AI continent, the best place in the world to develop trustworthy and advanced AI,” she said. On the DSA and DMA proposals, Virkkunen stressed the need for rigorous oversight and enforcement and committed to protecting citizens, particularly children, from social media's harmful effects. Virkkunen will also collaborate with the commissioner for democracy on the Democracy Shield initiative to protect elections from interference, disinformation, and manipulation by foreign actors like Russia and China. The Finnish nominee also warned about the “technology leakage to countries of concern”, arguing that Europe should ensure that “the supply of critical telecom equipments is in the hands of trusted vendors.” In her final opening address, she also addressed her responsibilities in the field of security. “The best investment right away to European security is the investing in the security of Ukraine,” Virkunnen said, arguing that Europe shoudl build “a true EU defence union” with a competitive defense industry. 17:58 Séjourné wrapping up He repeats the usual niceties about working with MEPs to conclude the green industrial deal. He says that he acknowledges that there are highly divergent opinions among MEPs about the EU’s future, but that lawmakers have “shared responsibility”. He also vows to “champion” European competitiveness and industry. Séjourné has not always been convincing and endured plenty of Macron-bashing from French opposition MEPs. But he has survived. Thank you for your interest in our coverage and re-join our live blog at 18:30 for the final two nominees. 17:43 Mînzatu ends: Speed up and be prepared Mînzatu has ended. At times giving long-winded responses, she appeared mostly at ease and fielded questions on education and labour. She highlighted homelessness, artificial intelligence, mental health, youth, the fight against poverty, workers' rights, skills, disabilities, and an eagerness to engage with member states. Several MEPs complained about the title of her portfolio, which is vast and overlaps with other EU commissioners. She also became personal, evoking her childhood and growing up in a tiny apartment in Brasov, Romania.“I slept with my mother in the same bed until I was 17, and my father in the kitchen,” she said, given the small space. Hungarian MEPs pressed her on the student-exchange programme Erasmus and Hungary’s exclusion given outstanding rule-of-law issues. But Mînzatu stuck to the EU line, indirectly telling Hungary to clean up its act. Her sometimes pro forma and vague responses were perhaps less convincing, with an overall message on greater ambitions on education and being prepared for the future. “The commission needs to strike a very, very delicate yet strong balance between being innovative, having strong industries, cutting red tape for SMEs, making life simpler for authorities, but also making sure that our Europeans don’t get poorer,” she said in her closing statement, which got a round of applause. 17:22 Séjourné caught in Europe's rightward turn These hearings are also a reminder to observers of how the Parliament is noticeably more right-wing than its predecessors. Green, liberal, and socialist voices are clearly outnumbered. Meanwhile, far-right and nationalist parties appear to be much more coherent and cohesive. Whether this transfers to legislative files is unclear, but the early signs are that majorities in parliamentary committees and the plenary will also shift to the right. 17:16 Séjourné on green hydrogen Bernd Lange, chair of the international trade committee, says that the EU’s green industry and energy transition depend on large volumes of green hydrogen imports. He asks how the EU can guarantee a sufficient supply of green hydrogen in the future. Séjourné says that the commission must continue to look at ways to reduce the EU’s dependencies on energy and raw materials supplies. He promises to come back to Lange with “a fleshed out proposal”. 17:11 Mînzatu: Gender equality A Spanish socialist MEP who is the women’s rights committee chair asks Mînzatu how she intends to reduce gender pay gaps and monitor the implementation of the pay transparency directive. “We will have this gender dimension in all the policies that we deploy. This is my desire. This is the way to go forward,” says Mînzatu. Mînzatu says it’s important to understand why women are less present in certain sectors and jobs. As for monitoring the directive, Mînzatu gives a boiler plate response on desire to work with member states. 17:10 Séjourné: Green targets still under pressure German far-right MEP Markus Buchheit is the latest to urge Séjourné and the new EU commission to put aside the threat of fines for companies that do not meet EU green targets. He also demands a review of the ban on combustion engines in 2035. Séjourné bats away the question, but these demands, led by right and centre-right MEPs, are clearly not going to go away. 16:50 Mînzatu: Hardship tale of tiny house Mînzatu is asked about Romanian national media reports that she purchased a house, a historical monument, in the city centre of her home town in Brasov and then extended it without permits. Mînzatu debunks the story. “I have bought a 60 squared-metre house in which I was born, in which my family had lived as a tenant since 1974 - so 50 years ago. My mother rented this social house, 60 square meters, a house that was owned by the state during the communist regime with no paperwork,” she says. “My mother is 90. The house was built during my mother’s time. I have, from the ministry of culture, official paperwork from 2011 and from this Monday, yesterday, attesting that the house is not a historic monument,” she says. “It was built in 1949, again, yes, we extended it because it was 60 metres [squared]. I was sleeping with my mother. I slept with my mother in the same bed until I was 17, and my father in the kitchen. We did extend it after I bought it in 2009 because that’s why we bought it,” she adds. 16:48 Séjourné and the motorists' man in Brussels Filip Turek, a Czech MEP elected on a ticket of protecting motorists, demands a 2025 review of the EU's ban on combustion engines. The rules on car makers are too strict, he says. He accuses the commission of “ideological regulation”. Séjourné shies away from a direct answer and says that companies need to be supported to make the green transition. 16:45 Mînzatu: Hungary and Erasmus blockade A Hungarian far-right MEP, from the Patriots for Europe Group, presses Mînzatu on the EU’s decision to exclude Hungarian universities from the Erasmus student exchange scheme over rule-of-law issues. “Europe wants its Hungarian students back on track, and for that, I am pleading with Hungary and inviting you to solve those legal issues that have shown that you are not committed to all the European values that join us together in this union,” says Mînzatu. “It is up to you, and I wish, and I hope that the Hungarian government really understands that,” she adds. 16:44 In the final hour The pace is slowing in Séjourné’s hearing as we enter the final hour. Séjourné has a good grasp of the portfolio and, as a former MEP and leader of the liberal Renew group, knows his way around the Parliament. The French right really went after him in the early stages of the hearing, but he appears to have weathered the storm. 16:22 Séjourné on REACH reform French socialist MEP Thomas Pellerin-Carlin asks about reform of the REACH chemicals directive . In response, Séjourné says there will be zero tolerance of carcinogens in nappies and babies' bottles. He adds that there is a long backlog of authorisation cases under the REACH directive and promises to speed up the process. 16:20 Mînzatu: Disabilities Pál Szekeres, a wheelchair-bound Hungarian far-right MEP from the Patriots for Europe Group, asks if Mînzatu has any strategy for the employment of people with disabilities. “Do you, for example, prefer to have tax breaks or incentives rather than handouts?”, he asks. Mînzatu says the first step is to look at best practices among member states, noting that some allow people to retrain their social benefits while returning to work. “It’s important to also look at our our policies, our tools, our financing tools, and to target a bit better the needs of the people with disabilities,” she says, noting that tax benefits could also encourage uptake of jobs. 16:10 Séjourné: Procurement rules Alice Bah Kuhnke, a Swedish green MEP, asks for a commitment for mandatory minimum social and environmental standards in public procurement rules. Séjourné gives an evasive answer, saying that simplification is the key when it comes to procurement. 16:09 Mînzatu: English dominance A Spanish Green MEP asks how to promote multilingualism, noting there is a huge gap between English and all other languages across the EU. “Indeed, we have the ambition in the EU that our population speak at least two languages, besides their native language. And we are indeed failing a bit behind this task and this ambition,” concedes Mînzatu. Mînzatu says EU funding and policies could possibly encourage the use of technologies to enhance language learning. 16:02 Mînzatu: Include young people Mînzatu says youth cannot be discussed in silos, noting they need to be present in discussions that impact them. “They have to be present in the discussion, as I’ve mentioned, about potential legislation on workers rights, on AI at work,” she says, as well as on mobility of work. 15:59 Séjourné's patience running out Séjourné is getting tetchy now, after right-wing French deputy Marion Marechal Le Pen questions his legitimacy as a commission candidate, describing him as Macron’s “last man standing.” He earns applause for his response, questioning why Le Pen is getting personal rather than engaging on substance. 15:55 Séjourné: Combustion engine ban Now Séjourné is asked whether he would consider reviewing the 2035 deadline to ban combustion engines. He says that the US and China have an advantage on electric car production. He points out that China wants to expand car production in Europe at the same time as plants in the EU are closing. “It’s not the technology that is the problem, it is how we are getting there,” he says. 15:54 Mînzatu: Brain drain/lure The immigration issue creeps into the grilling from the far-right Patriots for Europe Group, with one of their French MEPs demanding if the EU’s talent pool to attract foreign workers is not only a brain drain on their home countries, but also a lure for others to remain on EU territory. “We have to look at the EU talent pool as one part of the whole solution that we need for a competitive labour market,” says Mînzatu. 15:52 Séjourné: SMEs' access to finance Siegfried Muresan of the centre-right EPP asks what can be done to address the high financing costs facing European businesses and to make it easier for small firms to access finance. Séjourné says that this is a “vital” question. He says that 80 percent of European small firms rely on banks for financing, whereas in the US most access funding via the capital markets. He promises to move the EU towards this model, but without going into specifics. 15:45 Mînzatu: Job title issue keeps dogging her The centre-right European People’s Party is also not happy with her title. “There is no education in the title of your portfolio. Have you given your opinion on that?,” says a centre-right MEP. Mînzatu pivots and says she plans to make Erasmus stronger and boost vocational educational training. “This is essential for what we’re discussing here, skills portability, ensuring we are closing the labour gap in our markets,” says Mînzatu. 15:43 Séjourné under unfriendly fire Séjourné is facing plenty of hostile questioning from French MEPs, several of whom complain that he was not Emmanuel Macron’s first choice as commissioner nominee. Far-right MEP Sarah Knafo is the latest to stick the boot in, claiming that he won’t defend France’s interests in Europe. Séjourné is staying calm and still refusing to be drawn on French party politics, but it’s been a bumpy start. 15:36 Mînzatu tackles a pro-Russian MEP A Bulgarian far-right MEP (Europe of Sovereign Nations Group) asks if EU funds for military and defence will drain other budgets aimed at helping European citizens. “Never,” responds Mînzatu. “Without protecting our citizens' rights. There is no European Union,” she adds. 15:35 Mînzatu: Job title and AI come up again A French left-wing MEP complains that social rights and employment are not clearly listed in Mînzatu’s portfolio title. Mînzatu says she didn’t choose her job title, but is open to any changes. On AI, Mînzatu says she “will have to look at all potential avenues to ensure that our workers rights online are protected for our future generation of workers.” 15:33 Séjourné on industrial decline Manon Aubry, the French leader of the Left group, says that president Macron's government has been responsible for industrial decline. Séjourné replies that there are different causes for the EU’s industrial losses, but that the commission will focus on competitiveness. He also promises to address high energy prices. Aubry’s follow up focuses on the new free-trade agreements being signed by the EU, which are exposing EU farming and industry to social dumping and de-industrialisation. How can there be decarbonisation without a green industry, she asks? Séjourné replies that he is not opposed to international trade. He says that EU free-trade deals are being tailored to promote the bloc’s industry. 15:26 Mînzatu: AI and worker’s rights A Dutch Green MEP says the AI Act does not regulate the use of algorithmic management at work, nor labour rights. Demands if Mînzatu will propose a policy on algorithmic management. Mînzatu wouldn’t yet commit on it. 15:21 Mînzatu: Just Transition Fund Estonian renew liberal MEP asks how the EU’s Just Transition Fund will be used to create jobs, given moves towards climate neutrality. Although the fund doesn’t fall directly under her portfolio, Mînzatu says a core part of her mandate is skills portability. “The best value that we can offer to the quality jobs roadmap is to work with social partners,” she says. 15:18 Mînzatu: More Erasmus for vulnerable students A conservative Italian MEP presses Mînzatu on how to make Eramsus more inclusive, including for students with mobility issues. “I was one of those potential Erasmus students who could not afford to take a scholarship because the resources were just not enough,” says Mînzatu. Mînzatu says some 17 percent of total Erasmus beneficiaries come from vulnerable backgrounds. “My ambition is to go to at least 25 percent. I would want that at least one of four Erasmus beneficiaries to come from vulnerable backgrounds,” says Mînzatu. 15:11 Mînzatu: Pension age A French far-right MEP (from the Patriots for Europe group) asks about possible moves to increase retirement age, a hot-button issue in France, which has, in the past, seen widespread protests against French president Emmanuel Macron on the subject. “Pensions are regulated in member states, but we are living, indeed, in an ageing society with new challenges in terms of how we approach the length of our presence in the labour market,” says Mînzatu. Mînzatu says there is a gap of income between men and women in old age, where EU institutions could have an impact by looking at member states' plans to redress the balance. 15:08 Séjourné refuses bait on French politics French far-right National Rally party MEP Virginie Joron says that she is surprised to see Séjourné in the chair, needling him for representing a party that lost French legislative elections. Joron says that the EU’s proposed ban on combustion engines will kill the car sector in Europe. Séjourné refuses to be drawn into a slanging match on French politics, but says that he won’t take any “legitimacy lessons” from Joron. He adds that he has a plan to boost electric-vehicle sales across Europe. 15:06 Mînzatu: right to disconnect? A socialist MEP from Belgium asks Mînzatu if she would commit to the right to disconnect from work. Mînzatu says the issue is important and that she would launch a “consultation with social partners.” Mînzatu says such issues mostly affect female workers. “This is a gender issue as well,” she says. 15:02 Séjourné: A plan to save European steel Romanian social democrat Dan Nica asks if Séjourné will use his first 100 days to propose measures to save the steel industry, including protection measures. Séjourné says that the steel industry employs more than 300,000 Europeans. He promises that “this industry will not be allowed to die” and that measures will be applied to guard against state-subsidised low prices from China. 15:00 Mînzatu: Questions start, on mobile workers A German centre-right MEP presses Mînzatu on labour mobility, how to promote it, and the future of the European labour authority. Mînzatu says she will strengthen the authority’s mandate, once its evaluation is completed. “For our Europe, it is clear that more and more of our mobile workers are relevant, are important, and their rights and their protection needs to be ensured,” she says. 14:57 Stéphane Séjourné shows of linguistic skills France's Séjourné is switching between English, French, and Spanish in his opening statement. The nominee to be the EU’s 'industry and prosperity' commissioner opens by saying that the EU needs to play “economic catch up” and to improve living standards. “We need to decarbonise and grow our industry,” he says, adding that “sectors face the ‘scissors’ effect of high energy prices and Chinese over capacity”. The electric vehicle and heat pump markets are stagnating, Séjourné says. Most of the barriers that businesses faced 20 years ago are still there, he notes. “For the EU to be competitive we need more than just a single market ... we need a simple market," he adds. He promises “simplification, smart investment, and strategic action.” 14:55 Mînzatu: Eradicate homelessness Mînzatu gives sobering figures. Says a quarter of the children in the EU are on the brink of poverty. Another 100 million people are living with disabilities, many of whom want to work but cannot, she says. “We have almost a million homeless people. And I will make this point to you that we can eradicate homelessness in Europe," she says. 14:51 Mînzatu: Alarming deficit of teachers “We see an alarming deficit in the number of teachers in most member states,” says Mînzatu. Mînzatu says the EU needs more skills in key areas such as science, technology, engineering, and maths. She touts the added value of quality education and occupational training for everyone, across all EU territories. “I will look into a system that gives European recognition for vocational and educational training,” she says. 14:45 Mînzatu: Unclear portfolio Welcome back for our coverage of this afternoon's hearings. Romania’s 44-year old socialist Roxana Mînzatu is vying to become European Commission executive vice-president for ‘people, skills and preparedness.’ The two committees grilling Mînzatu both complain about her portfolio title, noting it doesn’t reflect her tasks on jobs and social rights. It also doesn’t mention education, they said. Currently an MEP, Mînzatu opens her statements with a brief autobiography and Romania’s revolt against the communist regime almost exactly 37 years ago. Mînzatu says principles guiding the European project are more important than ever: democracy, rights, values, freedom of thought, opportunities, and choices. 12:37 Fitto’s over In his final remarks, Fitto pledged to collaborate with the European Parliament and urged a rethink of Europe’s future. “We have to look behind us, remember where we come from, so that we can build a credible perspective, and think about the message that we want to leave for our children,” he said. 12:25 'Well done Kaja Kallas' Kallas' hearing has ended on a friendly, but slightly dull note. "We're all starting to take Estonian language lessons now," said the chair, German centre-right MEP David McAllister. "Well done Kaja Kallas," he added, while wrapping up the meeting. Kallas' concluding remarks were mostly clichés about working closely with the European Parliament if confirmed and about the importance of EU unity. "We work as team Europe for the same purpose - that will be security in Europe, to deliver for our citizens a happier and better future and also to our neighbouring countries," Kallas said. The three-hour Q&A went around the globe, with questions on Belarus, Cuba, the Arctic, the Western Balkans, space, and cyberspace, as well as Russia, China, the Middle East, and Africa. Kallas didn't seem to put a foot wrong and appeared well briefed on all the dossiers. She didn't promise much in the way of travel, except for saying she would go to the Western Balkans. But she put in time and effort to disprove sceptics that she only cared about Russia and Ukraine, even though her firm Atlanticism and her preoccupation with European territorial integrity still shined through. 12:16 How many Fittos? Green Croat MEP Gordan Bosanac says there are three different Fittos. “From your today's answers, one really has to question your political integrity, because what you are telling us there is one Fito, democratic, democratic Christian. And then there is a second Fito of Fratelli D'italia. And apparently, there will be the third Fito as a potential commissioner.” Fitto responds that there is “only one Fitto” who is committed to the guidelines of EU commission president Ursula von der Leyen. "I will commit within the European Commission to continue to follow up on the proceed the process that we have undertaken, to take with the flexibility that would come from this debate," he said, arguing in favour of potential changes and flexibilities on the laws and rules already agreed during the previous legislative term. 12:08 Kallas: A 'fresh face' in Africa Belgian right-wing MEP, who is of Burkinabè origin, Assita Kanko, urges Kallas to "take Africa seriously, not merely as a vassal of the EU". Kallas promised a summit to "listen to African leaders, not just preach our way of life". "I hope we have an African summit in 2025. I will do everything to make sure it takes place," she said. Kanko also raised a laugh around the room when she called Kallas a "fresh face" of the EU in Africa, compared to her predecessors in the post, who came from ex-colonial EU nations. But Kallas took her seriously, noting that Estonia, which shook off Russian occupation in 1991, empathised with countries' "fight for freedom". "I'm willing to invest my time in Africa," Kallas said. "We [Estonia] don't have a past [in Africa], so I am a fresh face," she added. Kallas also promised further EU action to stop female genital mutilation in Africa. 12:00 Fitto on housing When asked about specific measures to improve the housing crisis in Europe by the chair of the employment committee, left-wing MEP Li Anderson, Fitto is vague. Housing is “a very worrying issue,” Fitto said, arguing that differences in rural areas and cities deserved the commission's attention. He also committed to support a new programme worth €7-14bn as part of the EU's long-term budget to address the need for renovations and “further new measures”. 11:57 Kallas: No one knows what Trump will do Pressed again on what the EU would do if US President-elect Trump walks away from helping Ukraine to fight Russia, Kallas downplayed the threat. "I'm surprised to hear you know what Donald Trump is doing. I don't think that anybody really knows what is the new president elect doing [before he comes into office]," she said. 11:55 No comments on Italy-Albania deal Fitto refuses to comment on the Italy-Albania deportation deal, stating that since his appointment as commissioner nominee, he has refrained from discussing national politics. “I'm not someone who makes many statements, and I tried to focus really on solving problems,” Fitto told MEPs. 11:52 Fitto on responding to natural disasters Asked about how to make sure regions like Valencia can access EU funds quickly and without major bureaucracy requirements, Fitto replies that “it's after the initial rescue phase that we need to think about how we should look at the European solidarity fund, for example, but also having flexibility with cohesion funds.” He also added that prevention policies were needed. “When there's a natural catastrophe, we can't pretend that we don't have to deal with it”. 11:31 It's getting repetitive After two hours of grilling, MEPs are starting to repeat themselves. Fitto is handling the questions well, managing to dodge the tricky ones about his past that could potentially hurt his chances of confirmation. He's staying calm, showing a knack for deflecting pressure. 11:30 Kallas: Russia's last colonial war? Goaded by two pro-Russian MEPs, who claimed the EU is to blame for the war in Ukraine, Kallas quotes US historian Timothy Snyder: "Snyder said 'In order for a country to be better, it has to lose its last colonial war'. Russia hasn't lost its last colonial war yet. We have to make sure they lose it now," she said. 11:28 Kallas: Backs idea Iranian guard is 'terrorist' entity Asked by liberal Lithuanian MEP Petras Austrevicius if the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps should be designated a "terrorist" entity by the EU, Kallas pledges her support for the move. She cited Iran's "involvement in European countries, like Sweden, for example," referring to a recent hand-grenade attack against the Israeli embassy there. "If confirmed, I intend to raise this issue with foreign ministers," she added. 11:26 Fitto on outermost regions Rody Tolassy of the far-right Patriots of Europe, asks Fitto to improve access to regional funds, arguing that access to cohesion funds of outermost regions is often linked to national GDP. “That’s not appropriate,” Tolassy said, adding that he was not particularly interested in the rule of law issues raised by other MEPs. Fitto said that resources can be specifically earmarked in a tailor-made manner for outermost regions, where special exceptions or derogations could be considered. “I think it's important that we could should work together to try and find a general strategy on the outermost regions, particularly when it comes to exceptions,” he said. 11:12 Fitto avoids questions about direct funding for regions Fitto avoided a question from Liberal MEP Ciaran Mullooly, who asked him if he would support funding directly to the regions and local authorities, given the “tiny” absorption rate and the problematic red tape. “We need to be there on the ground and to really understand what is happening there,” the Italian nominee said, arguing that the commission will look into implementation and bureaucratic problems. 11:10 Kallas vows to go after EU companies profiting in Russia Asked about future Russia sanctions, Kallas strikes a hawkish note, saying EU firms doing business with Russia ought to face restrictions (hello Austria's Raiffeisen Bank International). She also pledges to work with EU states on seizing frozen Russian central bank assets to pay for Ukraine's post-war reconstruction. "It's our own European companies who have a big question to answer. We should ask why do these companies think it's OK for them to be really profiting from this situation in the short term, because they think it [the Ukraine war] doesn't concern me, while calling out at the same time: 'Why doesn't the war end?'," she said. "It's not fair that our tax payers are paying for something we aren't destroying [Ukraine], so it should be Russia who pays ... I can go into the details of legal argumentation, as a lawyer myself," says Kallas. The Russian asset-seizure "will happen sooner or later," she predicted. 10:50 Fitto’s moral lessons After receiving criticism from a left-wing Spanish MEP about being a symbol of “neo-fascist whitewashing” but also an “incompetent when it comes to managing and implementing European funds,” Fitto remained calm, appealing for respect and receiving a round of applause. “I don't know what your idea of a fascist is. That's up to you to decide,” he said, arguing that “respect is the foundation of any relationship” he has with people and that, if confirmed, they should sit down together to try to find some common ground. 10:48 Kallas: Silent on UNRWA Kallas claims the EU is showing heart to Palestinians, but ducks a question of what she would do to stop Israel banning the UNRWA refugee agency and indicates she is open to working with the Israeli foreign minister. "We are the biggest donor of the Palestinian Authority, to helping the Palestinian people in that region," she said. "The EU doesn't recognise the violent [Israeli] settlers [in the West Bank]. We have sanctions in place for those people," she added. "The association council should be a good place to address the issues with Israel by all 27 [EU] countries, so I hope the association council actually meets," she said. The EU-Israel "association agreement" gives Israel preferential access to the single market, but Ireland and Spain have called for it to be suspended on human rights grounds, with EU foreign ministers to discuss the issue on 18 November. 10:47 Kallas: No EU alternative to Nato Kallas firmly rules out the idea that the EU should have its own army alongside Nato, an idea favoured by France, Germany, and Italy. Kallas cites the importance of having a clear "chain of command" in a battlefield situation. "If we create an alternative structure, it would be just confusing when the real conflict could be hitting our continent," she said. The former Belgian prime minister, Guy Verhofstadt, didn't like this . 10:45 Socialist MEP warns Fitto about 'very bad experience with Várhelyi' Socialist Hungarian MEP Klára Dobrev explains to Fitto that the European Parliament has had “a very bad experience” with certain commissioners such as Hungary's Oliver Várhelyi who, she said, was the right hand of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. “He did not represent European interests, but Mr. Orban's interests,” she told to the commission nominee. “For us, your independence, your political integrity, is extremely important,” she said. Responding to Dobrev’s questions, Fitto pledged to be “independent” and “equally distant” to all 27 member states. “When you are a minister of a country, you institutionally represent your country because you take an oath to your constitution. Now being a commissioner means that you represent the European Union, the European Commission, and I am here to guarantee this commitment,” he said. 10:40 Fitto emphasises simplification and flexibility “When it comes to cohesion policy, the topic of simplification is decisive,” Fitto said. “Together with Commissioner Dombrovskis, I will be able to work individually on all of the necessary measures." He said that there were two key issues the EU needs to address: simplification for small and medium-sized companies, and the relationship between different institutional levels, where delays and difficulties can arise. “We want to see a strong acceleration when it comes to cohesion funds,” he added, emphasising the need to simplify procedures, streamline institutional levels, and introduce more flexibility. 10:38 Kallas: Cruising at the half-way mark We are now half-way through her hearing and Kallas remains bright and smiling, with open body language and a candid tone. The main themes so far: to stay tough on Russia, boost the EU's military industrial complex, be empathetic but realistic in the Middle East, and to work with African countries to chill migration. A handful of far-left and far-right MEPs have tried to needle her, but Kallas has debunked their attacks, while remaining respectful toward them on a personal level. We've had ripples of applause and friendly jokes also from several central-European, as well as French, and most women MEPs toward the candidate. 10:24 Fitto says 'no' to cohesion funds centralisation Accusing an MEP of making “political statements” about Italy and reforms done under the EU's post-Covid Recovery and Resilience Facility plan, Fitto said that he will not back any attempts to centralise when it comes to cohesion funds. “The aim is to give value to the roles of local authorities,” he said. 10:21 ‘Problematic’ Fitto “Hearing with Fitto (is) very concerning,” Green MEP and co-chair Bas Eickhout says on X. “He doesn’t want to talk about his own voting behaviour, dodges questions on Rule of Law where he was of the opinion Europe shouldn’t say anything and lukewarm on Green Deal. Problematic,” he adds. 10:10 Fitto avoids defence question Fitto has dodged a question on defence policy after MEP Valentina Palmisano referenced media reports about using EU funds for defence, saying he won't comment on articles not backed by an official European Commission statement. 10:06 Kallas: Pushed on Israel and Rwanda A left-wing MEP takes a sharper tone, accusing the EU of double standards, by being hard on Russia, but soft on Israel and Rwanda. "It's heartbreaking and we have to work to stop this [attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in the Middle East] but we are not alone, we have to work with our allies, such as the US, to achieve results on the ground, also the Gulf countries," says Kallas. Kallas had already met the Jordanian and Egyptian foreign ministers to speak about the conflict, she added. Turning to Rwanda, she said "it's very difficult to see Rwandan troops in Congo", referring to accusations that Rwandan president Paul Kagame was fuelling conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Kallas mentions the use of targeted sanctions against Rwanda if needed to curb this, but also praises ongoing EU talks with Kagame to secure access to Rwandan minerals for EU mining firms. "I'm glad to see the progress [on minerals]," she said. "We also need sustainable trade regarding critical raw materials - it's in our interest," she said. 10:05 Fitto's commitment to the rule of law under scrutiny Slovenian Green Vladimir Prebilic said that he was “puzzled” about Fitto’s sincerity of his commitment to the European project after voting against resolutions in favour of the rule of law. “When it comes to the rule of law issues, it can be very difficult to take statements from a political debate a few years ago,” Fitto responded to Prebilic, arguing that he has been part of the rule of law dialogue in his functions a minister for EU affairs and committing to uphold EU values if confirmed. 9:59 Kallas: Soft ride so far Kallas seems to have the room eating out of her hand, with soft questions on protecting human rights and EU unity, especially from liberal, Green, and centre-left MEPs. Right-wing Polish MEPs also voiced support for Kallas, on the grounds that she is the first candidate from their region for the EU foreign policy job. "Having escaped occupation, we [Estonians] really see the value of rule of law, for our prosperity as well," she said, on the need to promote human rights in EU foreign policy. 9:48 Kallas quotes Ben-Gurion For anyone thinking Kallas would be all Russia and no Israel, she's been doing her homework on the Middle East. In reply to a question about Palestinians' rights, Kallas quoted the 20th century founder of Zionism and former Israeli prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, saying he had pledged Israel would be founded on two principles: "security" and "justice". 9:45 Regional development trap and brain drain Regions are trapped in a so-called "development trap,” Fitto says, arguing that the EU needs to develop mechanisms to incentivise talent in regions at risk of brain drain. He also talked about better investment in connectivity and digitalization, better job opportunities and a development model, particularly linked to tourism, which could be a motive for the future. “We have to accept that the range of problems is very diverse,” he adds. 9:43 Kallas: Shows off her EU summit experience Portuguese far-right MEP António Tânger Corrêa voiced sour grapes that Kallas was part of an EU mainstream which had criticised right-wing governments in Hungary and Poland. But Kallas pulled him up on a point of fact. "Your question implied I said something bad about Poland or Hungary - it's not true," she said. Kallas also appeals to her experience of how EU negotiations work at summit level to show that she is capable of working with difficult partners. "It's not always easy to bring everyone on board, but there's a real spirt of compromise around that [EU leaders'] table and I think we should continue with that," she said. 9:33 Kallas: Met JD Vance already In response to her first question on how she would work with US president Donald Trump - Kallas said she has already met Trump's vice president JD Vance. "We will seek connections, we'll seek meetings with incoming president elect and his team," she added. She didn't mention EU fears of Trump's Russia-friendly views or his threat to impose tariffs on European exports, but did try to appeal to his transactional mentality. "If the US is worried about what happens in the South China Sea, they should be worried how we react to Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine. It's in their interest to do so," she said. 9:32 Fitto on simplification Responding to questions in Italian, where Fitto expressed himself more confidently, he said that “simplification will be an important new development for the future work of the European Commission” and that it was crucial to discuss the future of cohesion funds. 9:30 Kallas: Keen on North Africa migration deals In what she called "mutually beneficial partnerships", Kallas said she will work on EU migration deals with North African states. She pays lip service to human rights concerns, but was more interested in border control. "We must protect our external borders for it [internal EU free movement] to work. We cannot be borderless both inside and out," she said. 9:29 Kallas: Tough on China Kallas presents China as part of a new anti-Western axis together with Iran, North Korea, and Russia. "China has changed over the past two years it is now more a competitor and systemic rival," she said. The EU needed to "derisk" its supply chain dependence on China. "China also needs to feel a high cost" for backing Russia in Ukraine, she added. 9:27 Fitto criticised on rule of law German Green MEP Daniel Freund said on X that Fitto’s voting record in the European Parliament shows he is not “pro-EU and pro-rule-of-law”—two conditions set by EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to work together with Italian PM Georgia Meloni's European Conservatives and Reformists group. Fitto voted against triggering a court case against the European Commission for failing to activate Rule of Law conditionality, addressing media freedom and the further deterioration of the rule of law in Poland, and holding those responsible for the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia accountable in Malta, Freund said. 9:25 Kallas: Focus on Russia and Middle East Kallas' hearing has begun, with rhetoric on how the 47-year old former Estonian prime minister "grew up behind the Iron Curtain with no choices and no freedom", but her country later "escaped the Soviet prison". She says her two priorities are the " full-scale war in European continent" and Middle East "conflict raging on following heinous attacks against Israel". There must be "victory in Ukraine" she said, speaking in fluent English. Kallas doesn't criticise Israel directly, but tries to show empathy for civilian casualties in a neutral way. "My heart goes out to every victim and their loved ones," she said. She also called for "all parties to exercise restraint" and voiced "unwavering support for the two-state solution," amid mounting Israeli calls to annex Gaza and the West Bank. 9:14 We're underway.... Speaking in English, Fitto began his introductory remarks by recalling his three terms as an MEP in the European Parliament, where he served on the regional affairs committee. “I am not here to represent the political party. I am not here to represent a member state. I am here today to affirm my commitment to Europe,” he told MEPs, who have previously raised concerns about Fitto’s appointment. This is the first time an executive vice-president will be in charge of cohesion and reforms. 8:40 All eyes on Fitto Liberal Irish MEP Ciaran Mullooly said on X that he would ask Fitto "to reject [the] crazy media hype over using cohesion funds for defence spending", while Green Italian MEP Leoluca Orlando has rejected his appointment. "We cannot allow those who hinder the European project to play a key role. This is a crucial moment," Orlando said. 8:30 Fitto and Kallas open the day Despite opposition and concerns raised by several political groups in the European Parliament, the head of the EU executive appointed (Italy) as a vice president with major powers overseeing the EU's regional funding. Fitto, appointed to be executive vice-president for cohesion and reforms, has served as a member of the European Parliament, representing Italy's right-wing Brothers of Italy party. Fitto's experience includes roles as minister for European affairs and minister for regional affairs in Italy and a long-standing focus on economic development, cohesion policy, and Mediterranean relations. Estonian PM prepares to become the EU's new top diplomat, bringing extensive experience in digital innovation, cybersecurity, and a firm commitment to EU unity and support for Ukraine. Watch for her emphasis on Russia, China, and Africa, but less so on the Middle East. For more background, check out
|
Andrew Rettman's piece
|
Follow our live blog for real-time updates and insights on the EU commissioner hearings as they unfold.
|
[] |
*
|
2024-11-12T07:49:27.655Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/ar407b9bbc
|
Questions for Ribera — can we really compete our way to decarbonisation?
|
Teresa Ribera, a climate action and social justice veteran, is slated on Tuesday (12 November) to become the EU’s vice-president for a clean, just and competitive transition. As Spain’s minister for ecological transition, Ribera led the country’s first comprehensive climate plan, took important steps to phase out coal and helped to integrate a robust social perspective into energy policy. But will she succeed in bringing that same level of ambition and perspective to the commission? Going from the Mission Letter , presented to her by Ursula von der Leyen, there is reason to worry that social and climate justice might get overshadowed by the competitiveness craze that has taken over Brussels. The competitiveness-decarbonisation duo in her portfolio is a relationship fraught with pitfalls from the onset. The climate urgency is such that subordinating decarbonisation to competitiveness spells out disaster for everyone: if our climate ambitions are driven by competitiveness, we will not achieve long-term planetary health. Even if decarbonisation is acknowledged as the North Star, the emphasis on competitiveness risks confused aims and focus on initiatives of support, investment and lower costs to the business environment, through frameworks such as the Clean Industrial deal. It diverts the focus from ambitious measures to avert the worst of climate change, whilst threatening to deliver an energy transition that favours industry profits over people’s welfare and social justice elements at the same time. False solutions It is destined to lead Europe down a treacherous path of false solutions such as fossil-based hydrogen, which have hurt people and the planet for too long. Ribera’s written answers to parliament questions are not doing much to assuage concerns in the climate justice community. This is evident, for example, when Ribera speaks of using “the principal levers that are at our disposal to drive the clean transition” but skips the most important one: a clear commitment to phase out gas with a date attached to it. Something the EU Commission president is also hellbent on ignoring. A solid deadline with a date is needed to send a clear message to the industry and provide a tangible path towards clean energy and true climate neutrality. It will sift out any false solutions that are pushed by the fossil fuel industries as an excuse to continue with business as usual, and an opportunity to shape a hopeful vision of a fossil free future, that protects people and offers a path to genuine energy security. The commission in itself has taken a step in the right direction by including a commitment to phase out fossil fuels in their commissioner’s mission letters. But the real-life potential of this initiative remains unclear since it’s cloaked in caveats and vagaries that leave us wondering about the final result and impact. Conservative colleagues Ribera is joining a politically and institutionally-complicated college with a couple of colleagues whose views and track records on the just transition and net-zero are far more conservative or controversial. And while she might be in charge of keeping Europe on track with the Green Deal, she will not shape climate and energy policies by herself. An energy policy divided over three to five portfolios is destined to create a delicate balancing act between commissioners, priorities and objectives. Cue political horse-trading and territorial disputes over power. Ribera is known to be a bridge builder who can find synergies in challenging circumstances. That’s an important strength when the EU is simultaneously faced with widespread political upheaval and with one climate catastrophe after another. Yet a just green transition will not take place if climate action is solely placed in the service of competitiveness. What Europe truly needs is an alignment between climate and societal needs, and Ribera could play a key role in fostering this shift. The new commission must do more than offer a band-aid on a broken arm, it needs vision, ambition and sign-off on tangible action that will deliver a carbon-neutral continent for every citizen. Setting a definitive end date for fossil gas in Europe is a prime example of such action. Here is a chance to improve public health by removing toxic gases from our houses and streets; an opportunity to synchronise climate justice and global justice by putting an end to the EU’s fracking for gas around the globe, which pollutes air and water of local communities; and empower citizens to play a vital role in the energy transition if they choose to by supporting energy communities. Ribera’s written answers have yet to inspire confidence, but the commissioner hearing will reveal much about her vision and commitment. We’ll be watching closely. Cristina Pricop is anti-fossil gas campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe . Cristina Pricop is anti-fossil gas campaigner at
|
Friends of the Earth Europe
|
As Spain’s minister for ecological transition, Teresa Ribera took important steps to phase out coal and helped to integrate a robust social perspective into energy policy. But there is reason to worry that social and climate justice might get overshadowed by the competitiveness craze that has taken over Brussels.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Green Economy",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2024-11-11T09:01:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar309b8b1e
|
Trump means EU now has 10 weeks to sort its Western Balkans policy
|
Donald Trump’s victory in Tuesday’s presidential election in the United States makes it imperative for Europe to act decisively, and quickly, in the one region where it has real power — the Western Balkans. The European Union has ten weeks –— until Trump’s inauguration — to get serious about its geopolitical role. While the EU won’t be able to substitute for US power across Europe in the immediate term, it can do so in the Balkans. This is necessary for Europe’s security outlook, but also as a first step in a broader recalibration of global political actors in the wake of this electoral outcome. However, the Western Balkans is also the region where the EU’s more recent policy approach has resembled most that of Trump. For too long, the EU and its member states have viewed the Balkans through the enlargement lens, reducing the process to bureaucratic box-ticking and abandoning its potential transformative power. To the contrary, the EU has used the enlargement process as a cover for opportunistic deal-making — giving in to local leaders’ revival of ethno-territorial, divisive agendas, thus threatening not only the stability of the region, but also the Union’s own security interests. Trump’s victory makes it imperative for the EU to recommit to assertive comprehensive security as the foundation of its engagement with the region. As a starting point, this should include immediately bolstering EUFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina and KFOR in Kosovo. Both countries are in the crosshairs of president Aleksandar Vučić’s irredentist 'Serbian World' , a copy/paste of Putin’s 'Russian World' which are ideological policy frameworks completely antithetical to a values-based EU orientation. At the same time as recommitting to its security role in the Balkans, the EU also needs to overhaul its underlying policy, which has been allowed to drift for many years. It needs to urgently shift from what has become a values-free enlargement process to an approach that is both based on the fundamental values enshrined in Article 2 of the Lisbon Treaty and uses the full panoply of European influence, including making use of the region’s economic dependency on the EU. 'Enlargement theatre' Enlargement theatre without values has undercut citizen support for the accession process, as citizens in the region dismiss it as hypocritical and self-serving to elites they distrust at home – and in Brussels. The Western Balkans is the one region where the EU has had a leadership role for some two decades – but it has failed to fully seize it. Instead, it has engaged in a make-believe enlargement process which has failed to incentivize and enact reform in the countries of the region, many of which have seen significant backsliding on democracy and the rule of law in recent years, led by Serbia. Yet the EU’s policy — in lockstep with that of the Biden administration, marking a continuity with the Trump administration’s regional policy — has been to court Vučić, studiously ignore his increasingly autocratic control of the state and society, and reward this regression with increasingly economistic transactionalism that undermines the values dimension of accession as well as the region’s security. The rationale is that this will 'peel' Belgrade away from Moscow’s orbit; however there has been no evidence of this over a decade. Wishful thinking Bosnia and Herzegovina received candidate status despite failing to meet the 14 conditions outlined by the European Commission in 2019. Montenegro, with its most pro-Kremlin and pro-Serbian government since independence, is held up as a success story. North Macedonia, which demonstrated citizen courage in demanding the reforms needed for a country with EU aspirations, has been repeatedly punished by EU states with their own narrow agendas. And Kosovo , which is under direct threat from Belgrade, has been made to languish in no-man’s land under EU measures, punished for insisting on upholding the principles and values previously set by the West in the political dialogue. Replacing the US security role in Europe is not feasible in the short term — but replacing US troops in KFOR is, and would take away a second Trump administration’s blackmailing power towards Prishtina for any potential revival of ethno-territorial division ideas. Bolstering EUFOR’s overall deterrent capacity, including deploying EUFOR to Brčko, the connecting tissue between the two halves of Bosnia’s secessionist entity Republika Srpska, would put an end to the ambitions of local strongman Milorad Dodik, Putin’s main asset in southeastern Europe. Both moves would curb Moscow’s influence in the region, whose main vectors are Vučić and Viktor Orbán . They would also demonstrate resolve in a region where political bullies only understand firm pushback, not a soft touch. The European Commission keeps claiming a “geopolitical” role, pointing to an accession process that is “back on track” and “accelerating,” as DG NEAR’s Gert Jan Koopman told the European Parliament in September. But enlargement policy has been fundamentally reimagined thanks to a transactional approach which frontloads economic aspects of integration at the expense of a values-based societal transformation. At a time when liberal democracy is under direct threat in Washington and a resurgent, imperialist Russia is waging a war of extermination against Ukraine, the EU no longer has the luxury of bureaucratic inertia. It must take the initiative, defusing the standing security risks proactively with hard power, to enable actual broad progress in the Western Balkans. Toby Vogel is a Brussels-based co-founder and senior associate of the Democratization Policy Council , a think tank in Berlin, where Bodo Weber is also senior associate. Toby Vogel is a Brussels-based co-founder and senior associate of the
|
Democratization Policy Council
|
Donald Trump’s victory in Tuesday’s presidential election in the United States makes it imperative for Europe to act decisively, and quickly, in the one region where it has real power – the Western Balkans. The EU has ten weeks – until Trump’s inauguration – to get serious about its geopolitical role.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-11-08T10:08:47.130Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arfbff04bc
|
Russia, Azerbaijan and COP29's 'peacewashing'
|
As the global climate summit COP29 starts next week, the European Union has taken bold steps to create concrete changes to keep global heating to the 1.5°C temperature rise agreed at the Paris Climate Summit . Yet it appears that this European goal is threatened to be derailed. The upcoming COP29 conference in Baku will place Azerbaijan — a nation deeply reliant on fossil fuels and heavily involved with Russia — in the global spotlight. Criticisms of Azerbaijan's COP29 role go beyond just its climate policies; its troubling record on human rights, democracy, and the environment paints an uneasy picture for a nation hosting a climate summit. As COP29 approaches, understanding the dynamics between these two nations is crucial, given the negative influence Russia could wield on climate commitments. Azerbaijan's woeful track record Azerbaijan is already one of the world's largest exporters of fossil fuels. It plans to increase gas production by a third by 2030 , shining a light on its own weak emission reduction goals, which do not meet the Paris Agreement goals to reduce global warming. Oil and gas currently fuel around 90 percent of the country’s exports and account for 60 percent of the state budget . Critics don’t just warn about potential environmental consequences but also note that under the current regime, activists face repression, with around 25 journalists and environmental activists arrested for their work leading up to COP29. These crackdowns have sown fear in the remaining activists left in the country, further diminishing the voices able to speak up against human rights and climate abuses. Local and international NGOs are calling on EU member states, who are relying increasingly on Azerbaijan to replace Russian fossil fuels, to condition trade ties with the country on genuine human rights and climate commitments. Civil society and progressive governments have an essential role in countering harmful narratives and sustaining momentum on the fossil fuel phase-out agenda but have limited place for advocacy due to the hostile measures currently seen in Baku. Greenwashing and peacewashing Azerbaijan is pushing for COP29 to be branded as a “peace summit,” calling for regional stability. However, with recent military action forcing over 100,000 Armenians to flee Nagorno-Karabkh , these peace gestures appear more like peace washing than true diplomacy. Similarly, Azerbaijan has provided few tangible strategies for decarbonising its economy, with some criticising the country's climate action as “critically insufficient.” Hosting COP29 appears by all accounts to be an attempt to greenwash its authoritarian practices while failing to align with the summit’s core mission of reducing fossil fuel dependency and advancing renewable energy. Russia’s presence in Baku adds another layer of concern, potentially shifting COP29’s focus toward fossil fuel expansion rather than climate action. Russia has received global condemnation for its horrific fossil-fuel-funded war on innocent Ukraine. Russia’s involvement and Azerbaijan’s COP29 leadership could divert attention from crucial climate commitments, undermining the summit's goals and calling into question the decision to hold the summit in Baku in the first place. Human rights violations and restrictions on environmental organisations are becoming increasingly normalised in Azerbaijan , which could have significant social and political repercussions both domestically and internationally. These issues are compounded by the EU’s ongoing support for an authoritarian regime focused on expanding fossil fuel production, posing long-term risks to both democratic values and environmental progress. Azerbaijan and Russia maintain a complex relationship, intertwined due to their roles as significant energy producers and influential geopolitical players. Azerbaijan, a key oil and gas exporter, has collaborated with Russia on several energy initiatives, including the North-South Transport Corridor , which enhances trade routes and energy cooperation between the two nations. The country’s electrical power system is interconnected with those of Russia , Georgia, Iran, and Turkey on the Nakhchivan border. However, the electricity system is synchronised only with Russia’s, as Azerbaijan was previously part of the USSR’s grid. Azerbaijan and Russia also agreed during Putin's August 2024 trip to Baku to " start joint production of oil tankers ." This partnership spotlights Azerbaijan's strategic balancing act with strong Russian influence while attempting to project itself as a reliable partner with Western interests. Russia, one of the world’s largest oil and gas producers , has historically prioritised energy exports over climate commitments and shows no genuine interest in meeting Paris Agreement goals . As sanctions from the West continue to limit Russia’s access to certain markets, Putin is increasingly building partnerships with non-Western allies like China and Central Asian countries to solidify its energy agenda. Opportunity for Moscow COP29 may serve as a stage for Russia to promote an energy transition plan that maintains fossil fuel dominance under the guise of economic development, challenging renewable energy commitments and raising questions about whether it will help COP29 advance any meaningful climate action. If Russia’s influence grows in Baku, COP29’s core mission could be at risk, potentially setting back any progress in fossil fuel transition and methane reduction. The international community must leverage the summit to demand more substantial human rights and climate responsibility commitments from Azerbaijan and Russia. Azerbaijan’s strategy of ramping up oil and gas production directly counters efforts to cut global emissions. EU countries — particularly as they deal with Azerbaijan for energy sources — must reassess whether supporting Azerbaijan’s fossil fuel industry aligns with the EU’s own climate goals. Thankfully, some MEPs have already begun calling out the EU to axe any energy deals with Azerbaijan in light of the human rights abuses taking place in the country. Instead of emboldening authoritarian regimes, COP29 should be an opportunity to reinforce sustainable and rights-respecting climate action. COP29 offers a critical moment for the European Union to take a leadership role in acting to save the climate. Yet, it must also confront the contradiction of supporting fossil fuel exporting nations like Azerbaijan, Russia, and last year's hosts, the UAE, while pledging to mitigate climate change. Without addressing these fossil fuel alliances, such as the Azerbaijan-Russia connection, the EU risks undermining both European and global urgent climate targets, while jeopardising the integrity of democratic values worldwide. Svitlana Romanko is executive director of Razom We Stand . a Ukrainian NGO calling for a global embargo on Russian fossil fuels. Svitlana Romanko is executive director of
|
Razom We Stand
|
Criticisms of Azerbaijan's COP29 role go beyond just its climate policies and troubling record on human rights, painting an uneasy picture for the host of the UN climate summit. As COP29 approaches, understanding the dynamics between Azerbaijan and Russia is crucial, given the negative influence Moscow could wield on climate commitments.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Green Economy",
"Ukraine",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-11-07T13:10:41.858Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar02116e5d
|
Commissioner hearings live blog: Hoekstra, Kos, Serafin, Dombrovskis
|
Today marks the final day of commissioner-designate hearings this week! After grilling 16 nominees for around 50 hours over the past three days, today MEPs will question the Netherlands' Wopke Hoekstra, Slovenia's Marta Kos, Poland's Piotr Serafin, and Latvia's Valdis Dombrovskis. Here’s yesterday's live blog on Lahbib, Albuquerque, Kadis, Síkela, Kubilius, Várhelyi, our coverage on McGrath, Zaharieva, Jørgensen, Šuica, Roswall, and Brunner, and Monday's news feed of Šefčovič, Micallef, Hansen, and Tzitzikostas is available here. 17:46 Closing time Dombrovskis is wrapping up. He says that the EU needs unity to speak with one voice and defend its economic interests. He asks MEPs for their continued confidence for five more years. 17:32 Time is running out... This hearing is slowly drawing to a close. Few can question that Latvia’s Valdis Dombrovskis knows the portfolio inside out and there is little chance of him being rejected for a third term as a commissioner. That said, the last three hours have been painfully short on insight or inspiration beyond repeated promises of cutting red tape. For such an important portfolio this has been a very damp squib. 17:23 Serafin hearing ends on a half-way positive note Despite not being able to answer all questions in detail, Serafin offered hope that member states will once again learn to work together under the pressures of war and geopolitical challenges. “We can do things together, whether we like it or not, spending on defence will increase, that is the historical necessity,” he said. 17:15 Cutting the reporting burden Anna Cavazzini, who chairs the internal market committee, asks Dombrovskis for more specifics on how he will hit his target of reducing the reporting burden for business by 25 percent. In another jargon-heavy response, he says that the stress-testing of EU law and ‘implementation dialogues’ with businesses will be the main tools. 16:55 Serafin: Defence budget not my responsibility Finally addressing the lack of EU budget for its defence ambitions, he admitted there was "not enough" but added that it was not his responsibility to raise the necessary cash, but that of member states. 16:54 Third-term too far? Now an MEP is questioning why Dombrovskis should get a third five-year term after ten years handling economic portfolios similar to the one he has been nominated for. In that time, the EU economy has stagnated. Dombrovskis says that he has stood in several European Parliament elections and been elected with a strong mandate. He says that the EU economy has proven its resilience against the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s war against Ukraine, and that he has been at the heart of the EU’s economic policy response to these crises. Purchasing power in the EU is stronger than it was a decade ago, he adds. 16:41 Biased scrutiny board? Several MEPs have complained that there is a bias towards economics and economists in the membership of the EU’s Regulatory Scrutiny board and not enough representatives from other fields. They cite a recent report by the EU Ombudsman critiquing the transparency and composition of the RSB. Dombrovskis replies that all of the RSB’s impact assessments are supposed to cover social, economic and environmental factors. He fudges the question about the composition of the board. 16:35 The elephant in the room The Draghi and Letta reports on the EU's competitiveness and single market both warned of the risks of the EU falling further behind the US and China. The EU economy now faces the prospect of a second Trump administration imposing tariffs on all EU goods and 100 percent levies on foreign cars. Yet The Donald has been conspicuously absent from this hearing. Dombrovskis hasn't mentioned the impact of the imminent changes in the White House, and neither have any MEPs.... 16:31 Serafin: Trade war? Trump’s reelection finally came up, albeit in relation to a potential trade war between the US and the EU which he has threatened with in the past. “I don’t want to speculate about a trade war,” said Serafin, ending the topic. 16:18 Serafin: Almost no mention of Trump's re-election One of the biggest potential shocks for the EU budget this week has been Donald Trump’s reelection as US president. His threats to exit Nato and leave the EU to face Russian aggression alone mean that much of the upcoming budget discussions will focus on how to increase defence spending. At the national level, many governments are constrained by the EU’s fiscal rules, prompting EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen to propose ideas for boosting defence spending at the EU level. “When it comes to new priorities like defence, it makes sense to spend money at the EU level instead of the national level,” said Serafin. But so far, Trump’s name has been mentioned only in passing, and the impact of his reelection on both defence and the EU budget has similarly been mostly overlooked. However, both factors are likely to dominate EU budget discussions not just next year, but well into the future, as defence firms require long-term commitments for substantial orders due to the complexity involved in producing modern weapons systems (sometimes spanning “10 to 15 years,” Thorstein Korsvold, a spokesperson for Nammo, a large Finnish arms manufacturer, previously told EUobserver.) 16:09 What will happen with the RRF cash? MEPs are pointing to the billions of euros in the Recovery and Resilience Facility that have been unused, with some countries only accessing 40 percent or 50 percent of the funds allocated. Dombrovskis says that Italy is continuing to make requests for funds. However, he doesn’t address the question of whether unspent funds will be returned to member state treasuries. 16:02 Billions to Hungary, why? Despite dismantling the judicial system and media, Hungary is still receiving funds. Asked how he would use his influence, Serafin said that he would be “committed to apply the conditionality regulation to the letter” — a reference to rules that allow the commission to suspend payments out of the budget to countries that are in violation. 15:56 The dismal science Thomas Carlyle famously described economics as "the dismal science", and this hearing is becoming a microcosm of how euro-jargon can reduce vital debates on the regulatory burden on businesses, tax and spending, and investment to little more than a word mush. It doesn’t help that the Latvian nominee Dombrovskis is in command of his brief but is not a fluent or charismatic speaker. 15:54 Serafin: just a pre-season friendly? Although Serafin gives detailed answers to questions concerning the future budget, the debate is superficial because the decisions are not up to the people in the room, but will primarily be determined among member states. Another aspect, as noted by Slovenian MEP Romana Tomc, is that this week's hearings for the 21 commissioners are merely a "tactical warm-up" for the far more significant hearings of the six executive vice presidents next week. “Key decisions about the composition of the commission will be made next week,” she said on social media. “No political group with a candidate among the future vice-presidents (EPP, S&D, ECR, Renew) will jeopardise its position with complications before the critical hearings.” 15:44 Cashless economy Spanish centre-right MEP Fernando Navarrette Rojas casts doubt on the commission’s digital euro project and asks if it should be abandoned. Dombrovskis replies that the EU is seeing a major shift in the payments system away from cash. He says that the digital euro would boost pan-European businesses and that this does not mean that cash will be phased out. 15:28 Dombrovskis on austerity Left MEP Manon Aubry argues that the EU’s fiscal rules are leading to austerity, the costs of which will be borne by young people and cuts to environmental spending. Aubry asks the EU focuses on spending cuts rather than increasing revenue. Dombrovskis says that the rules represent a careful balancing act, but that financial stability is a precondition. He adds that the EU has tabled proposals to improve tax collection and tackle tax evasion and avoidance. He points to the G20’s proposal for a global wealth tax and promises that the commission “will be part of this debate”. 15:22 Serafin: More green funds, but no commitment When asked whether he would consider increasing funding for biodiversity and climate change spending, Serafin said it was not up to him. “I cannot give you any number on this point, but when I see the scale of investments that are needed, also at the level of households, then I believe that it is our responsibility to increase financing, but I cannot at this point give you an exact number,” he said. 15:20 New investment fund? Dombrovskis is asked if the EU needs a new investment instrument to succeed the Recovery and Resilience fund set up during the Covid-19 pandemic which expires next year? Dombrovskis refuses to be drawn but he says that the lesson of linking reforms to investment is something that should be learned from. The new EU competitiveness fund will also be a new source of cash, he says. 15:12 Serafin: How will the competitiveness fund be financed? “The idea of the fund is to concentrate on the sectors that are most critical,” he said, without mentioning which ones these are, suggesting that money would come from the next seven-year budget which will come in 2028. When pressed, that investment needs come in at a breezy €800bn a year according to Draghi. “Indeed, €800bn is not what we can expect from the EU budget [€170bn last year]. 15:03 Mind the jargon Brussels veteran Valdis Dombrovskis is bidding for his third term as an EU commissioner and his third economic portfolio. Dombrovskis has a reputation as the 'technocrats technocrat' which appears well matched with a portfolio title of economy and productivity, implementation and specification. His opening statement is very jargon heavy. Elsewhere, he promises that the EU will have a stronger voice on world stage, and more coherent policy making. “We need simpler rules that are easier to implement,” he says, adding that “simpler does not mean deregulation.” Each commissioner will be responsible for stress testing the rules that cover their portfolio. He promises to outline how this will work to MEPs in the first few months of his mandate. Markus Ferber, a German Christian Democrat, asks if Dombrovskis will fully enforce the EU’s new fiscal rules. That’s a thinly-veiled reference to the political crisis in Germany, where the centre-left coalition has collapsed after chancellor Olaf Scholz's demand to loosen the spending limit known as a "debt brake" that requires German governments to balance the budget led to the sacking of neo-liberal finance minister Christian Lindner. Dombrovskis replies that the rules will be enforced in full and even-handedly. 15:02 Serafin: We should pay back Covid-era debt “When it comes to paying back NGEU [€728bn pandemic restoration] debt, I believe we should stick to our commitments,” Serafin told MEPs. EU officials are examining ways to roll over (renew) the debt, as suggested by former European Central Bank chief Mario Draghi. This could extend €350bn of borrowing, leaving only interest rate costs, while both inflation and economic growth eat away at the relative value of the debt. But this was not to Serafins liking. “From 2028 until 2058 we will be paying back principal debt. We should stick to it,” he said. 14:46 Serafin: 'Emotional moment' "This is a very emotional moment for me. I would not sit here without the fight of generations of Poles for freedom and what we used to call: a return to Europe," said Serafin, in a veiled reference to the threat posed by continuing aggression from Russia. "Cooperation between Europeans will be as important in the future," he said. "My most important task is to prepare for the Multiannual Financial Framework (seven-year budget). 1,000 days ago, Russia launched a full-scale invasion. Security and defende will become a priority; there is no way around it. That is why I will work for an MFF that addresses this challenge," he said. "A new EU competitiveness fund can play a key role," and our "budget has to be more flexible to respond to disasters and crises." 14:26 Piotr Serafin: Veteran with little room for manoeuvre Piotr Serafin was appointed by Ursula von der Leyen as budget commissioner for the next five years. He formerly led the cabinet of ex-EU Council president Donald Tusk (and the current Polish premier), and led the energy secretariat in the same body, which makes him one of the more experienced members interrogated by MEPs this week. Veteran tough he is, he'll have little to work with as he cannot make any unilateral actions when it comes to the bloc’s budget. This morning: 12:26 Kos highlights EU values, Ukraine solidarity in closing remarks Kos has finished speaking. Her closing remarks were big on values "justice, respect, compassion", rather than on geopolitics or finance, echoing her rhetoric throughout the hearing. "No one should live under fear and oppression," she said, in her vision of a fully-enlarged EU. Kos also put Ukraine enlargement front and centre in her agenda. "My dear Ukrainians, the European Union is supporting you from a profound sense of shared destiny," she said. The hearing saw Kos face repeated questions about secret communist sympathies and spy allegations, as well as question marks over her PR work. She was cool under fire, but judging by the low volume of applause, the centre-right EPP group has managed to dent her appeal with all this talk. 12:17 Hoekstra: did what was he was expected to do Although his start was a bit rough, by the end Hoekstra was clearly having fun. Compared to his chequered political past in Dutch politics, he is somewhat of a more natural fit in the procedures of the EU. He capably saw off climate denialism, is clearly driven to play an active role in EU Council tax debates. He promised "no backtracking on climate targets," while sounding business-friendly enough to likely be acceptable to most MEPs who will vote on his appointment this afternoon. 12:11 Kos denies being ex-Yugoslav spy "I was never an informant or collaborator of the secret service of ex-Yugoslavia," she says, in answer to yet another question on the subject, this time from German far-right MEP, Hermann Tertsch. She denies that her Swedish PR firm has ever worked with Russians on the EU sanctions list. 12:10 Kos: Turkey progress to depend on Cyprus Progress on visa-liberalisation or better customs perks for Turkey will depend on its willingness to join UN-led talks on Cyprus, Kos has said. "There'll be no further development if we don't see development in the Cyprus issue," she said. "Relating with Turkey is an opportunity to speak about this again and again, also about human rights and rule-of-law," she added. Kos noted that "we stopped [enlargement talks] in 2018 because they didn't follow European values", but declined to say the process should be terminated once and for all, due to Turkey's authoritarian regime. The chair of the hearing, German centre-right MEP David McAllister, takes the mike to point out that the Turkish ambassador to the EU is among the audience. 11:59 Kos tries to sound strong on Ukraine Far-right German MEP Hans Neuhoff repeats Russian talking points on the need for Ukraine to submit to a ceasefire. Kos says: "All of us want to have peace in Ukraine but this peace has to be just and lasting and it cannot be done without the people of Ukraine". She waits for applause, but gets only a lukewarm ripple. Throughout the hearing, centre-right MEPs have been attacking her on allegations that she collaborated with the former Yugoslav secret services and had communist sympathies. The last one was German centre-right MEP, Sven Simon, who asked if she would sue her accusers. Kos has consistently side-stepped direct answers on the issue. But have the accusations done their damage? 11:52 Hoekstra: silences another climate-change denier Confronted with another climate-denier from the German party Alternative for Germany, Marc Jongen MEP, Hoekstra said “There is room for you to further warm to the topic.” “If we do nothing, we are sure to see many, many, many more of the disasters we have just seen in Spain, and all over the world,” he added. “I wish it were true. I wish it was true, that we could postpone solutions. It is not true.” “We waited too long, and now we need to speed up,” he said. 11:40 Hoekstra: capital gains tax, meh, billionaires tax? Yay! Asked whether he would support a tax on capital gains, Hoekstra said that organising wealth taxation via the Group of Twenty wealthy countries where a two-percent ‘billionaires tax’, conceived by G20 advisor Gabriel Zucman, is currently being discussed is probably more effective. “Wealth accumulation is highly unequal,” said Hoekstra. “3,000 people control $14 trillion, or roughly $4bn per person. This is an outrageous number, and ensuring that this wealth is taxed in a fair way is imperative." “But this is easier in the G20 than the capital gains angle,” he said, although the US has long been unenthusiastic, and is likely to be even less friendly under the Trump administration. The alternative Capital Gains Tax is a levy on the profit of sold assets (ranging from houses to stocks). It has been put forward as an effective way to tax the wealthy. But this is unlikely to be unanimously accepted by EU countries, Hoekstra implied. “When I talk to the people [handling taxation legislation in the commission], there is a list of proposals that they tell me are stuck in council, stuck in parliament or are just politically infeasible,” said Hoekstra, who was clearly comfortable talking about the topic. “I can only pull, I cannot push” he added, implying that ultimately it is the member states that decide on taxation matters, not the commission. 11:33 Kos to hire 'famous people, influencers' to promote enlargement in EU Slovenian centre-right MEP Matej Tonin gives Kos a chance to draw on her PR experience with a question on what she might do to promote enlargement in sceptical societies, such as France and the Netherlands. Kos has few specifics, saying EU commission campaigns would be "tailor-made to member states". But she also aimed to be "engaging with famous people, influencers, people who are known, so I hope you do all support me in this campaign". Tonin, whose party hates her, also needled her on whether she'd worked for the former Yugoslav secret service. She side-stepped the insinuation, saying bigger things - such as belief in the value of EU enlargement - connect them, compared to domestic political disagreements. 11:20 Kos to 'double the money' for NGOs Kos has pledged to get "double the money" for EU backing for civil society and media in enlargement candidate countries, if nominated. "That's a good sign, right?", she said. That budget was worth €9bn in 2021 to 2023, before Moldova and Ukraine joined the list along with the Western Balkans and Turkey. She has been consistently firm on the need to fight Russian disinformation, as well as democratic backsliding. 11:14 Hoekstra clear on biofuels in cars: no After first being somewhat vague on what the future of a successful EU car industry might look like, Hoekstra now rejected the suggestion that biofuels could be part of it.“This cannot be,” he said, for the simple reason that they will remain polluting. 11:12 Kos: Limited sympathy for Bulgarian pressure on Skopje Bulgarian centre-right MEP Andrey Kovatchev wants Kos to pressure North Macedonia in a bilateral row over national identity. He tries to bamboozle her by citing chapter, verse, protocol, and cluster of their bilateral accord. "I see you know every detail of what's going on," she says, before herself reeling off the full name of the "Treaty of friendship, good-neighbourliness and cooperation between the Republic of Bulgaria and the Republic of Macedonia". Kos rules out changing the EU's existing accession negotiation mandate on North Macedonia to include new Bulgarian conditions. "That's not realistic", she says. But she adds that Skopje must fulfil the "friendship" accord with Sofia, which concerns language status and minority rights, if it wanted a fair wind in its enlargement sail. "Pacta sunt servanda," Kos says. 11:10 Hoekstra: Who will pay for the Clean Industrial Deal? S&D MEP Tsvetelina Penkova asked Hoekstra what he expected of the Clean Industrial Deal — would it be a single piece of legislation or a large package of laws? She also wanted to know how it would be funded: by state aid from individual countries or through a new EU funding mechanism. “Funding for the Net-Zero Industry Act was unclear,” she reminded Hoekstra. He has had “only two conversations with co-commissioner hopefuls Teresa Ribera (S&D) and Stéphane Séjourné on the industrial deal,” he said, so “a lot of work still has to be done.” But Hoekstra said “it should include simplification of permitting and ways to unlock more private and public sector capital. It should also focus on skills, he added, and “making sure people can actually work in these new sectors.” “It should also address heavy industry,” he said, which he linked to the work to reduce the price of energy (a core demand from industry, which has been adopted by the commission and forms the heart of Mario Draghi’s energy arguments in his recent report on competitiveness). “I admit it is difficult to combine economic and climate impacts,” Hoekstra said. Addressing finance, he said that “it should be funded by both national and European money.” EU funding could come out of the proposed Competition Fund, which has yet to be negotiated and for which there is currently likely no majority in either the council of member states or the EU Parliament. Hoekstra suggested that it should be a targeted funding tool comparable to the existing Innovation Fund, Modernisation Fund, or Just Transition Fund. 10:54 Kos: Serbia should align with EU sanctions on Russia "This is not [formally] a precondition for enlargement, but of course I cannot imagine a country not aligning their behaviour, legislation, or words, with CFSP [common foreign and security policy], can enter the EU, but this is a process, it won't happen from one day to the next," Kos says. 10:53 Hoekstra: 'that's the full story' on my Panama Papers Virgin Islands start-up Left MEP Manon Aubry interrogated Hoekstra over his history at Shell and McKinsey — and the fact that his name came up in the 2016 Panama Papers leak of the world's fourth biggest offshore law firm, Mossack Fonseca, implicating him he had dirty business of global tax evasion. “You have every right to scrutinise me,” he said. “Regarding the Panama Papers: in 2006, a friend of mine started an eco-startup in southern Africa. He needed funding, and I was one of the people who contributed, with an amount between €25,000 and €35,000. “What that company did — common for businesses at the time — was to use the Virgin Islands as a financial route, something that 70 percent of companies, including those supported by the World Bank, did for security reasons. EU and World Bank funds were spent the same way.” “This investment has always been part of my tax declarations and was scrutinised before I became the Dutch finance minister. At that point, I had to liquidate all my assets. I never received dividends, and any profit from the increase in share value was donated to a children’s cancer research charity before I took office as finance minister. That’s the full story.” 10:40 Hoekstra: Will trees do the job? "Everyday we delay climate change gets worse,” said Italian S&D MEP Annalisa Corrado, who wanted to know what Hoekstra will do to boost carbon dioxide removal by natural means, through the planting of trees or the restoration of currently degraded natural ecosystems. “I think there is a huge opportunity using carbon capture technologies , but you are absolutely right our soils and forests are crucial as well,” he answered. “If you compare planting trees per tonne CO2 and technologies, it is ten-to-100 [times] more effective.” Although promising work on the topic he stayed vague on concrete proposals, instead referring to the Clean Industrial Deal, the key policy for the next five years centred around competitiveness.There is much doubt among scientists about the feasibility of planting vast — continent-sized — forests to remove carbon dioxide from human activities out of the air. 10:31 Kos grilled on personal integrity Milan Zver, a centre-right Slovenian politician, says Kos is facing "political imprisonment" by her leftwing friends in Ljubljana, whom he accuses of being close to Russia. "Will you be able to stand by Ukraine 100 percent and will you strive for Belgrade to open all political archives?", he asks. Kos asserts her independence. "I don't share common name with Milan Kučan [a Slovenian communist ex-president] or anyone else," she said. She also cites her award as "ambassador of the year" in Germany as a sign of her integrity and professionalism. The issue coming back to haunt her here is pro-Russian comments that she made shorty after Russia's full invasion of Ukraine in 2022, when she was working as a PR consultant. "Have you ever worked or collaborated with repressive institutions or held membership in any communist party?", he asks. He also wants her to name every PR client she worked with since 2021 for the sake of transparency. "Yes. I worked for the company Kreab here in Brussels," she says, but was paid just €4,280 for two innocuous sounding tasks, she said. "I helped them looking up women who could attend a roundtable on healthcare at Davos" and worked "on ratification of trade agreements in Slovenia". 10:25 Hoekstra: We can’t suck our way out of the problem German EPP MEP Christian Ehler wanted to know how Hoekstra would expand the carbon capture and storage technologies in Europe — which includes underground storage sites under the North Sea, and transport lines. Giving little detail about plans, Hoekstra did say that Europe could not “CCS its way out of the [climate] problem.” 10:15 Hoekstra: E-fuels for cars? Probably not German far-right MEP Anja Arndt, after denying man-made climate change, pushed Hoekstra on whether he would be open to expand the role of e-fuel cars made of hydrogen, which most experts agree are far less efficient and more expensive than electric vehicles (EVs). “I haven’t come across many car companies who are actually waiting for this,” Hoekstra said. “We need to focus on electrification, but we will come up with a targeted amendment for e-fuels.” “E-fuels are probably better for other businesses than the car industry,” he adds. 10:07 Kos: Albania return hub 'not working well' Italian leftwing MEP Ilaria Salis tries to needle Kos on Italy's return hub for failed asylum seekers in Albania. Is there a risk enlargement will be used as a "bargaining chip" to force other candidate countries to set up similar centres, Salis asks? "This is a bilateral agreement ... this is not an EU project. We will see how this agreement will work, for the time being it's not working well," said Kos. "I know your [Salis'] party is really a watchdog on what's happening in those centres and that's OK," Kos adds. She then repeats the EU mantra — that failed asylum seekers must be sent home, while human rights must be protected, with "voluntary, safe, and dignified returns". 10:05 Hoekstra: ‘Bummerking of Brussels? Hoekstra, previously described by the NRC, the Dutch newspaper of note, as ‘Bummerking of the Binnenhof’ (the Inner Court of parliament) for being consistently disappointing in his political roles, first as finance minister (2017-2022), then as leader of the Dutch Christian Democrats (2021-2022), is seemingly starting to bum Brussels MEPs out. His tendency to use a lot of words without offering clear answers is increasingly frustrating lawmakers. In particular, his evasive responses on how to save Europe’s struggling car industry — including declining electric vehicle sales — disappointed MEPs, such as German MEP Tiemo Wölken from the Socialists and Democrats (S&D). Wölken remarked that Hoekstra’s vague call for a “bright future for the car industry” was “not as clear as I expected.” 10:02 Kos: Anti-enlargement fears are 'irrational' Referring to popular "fears" that letting in poorer states to the EU "will make living conditions worse", Kos dismisses these as a problem of disinformation. "We also have to address the fears, and this is at the level of irrationality, and we have to talk about this, talk about this, talk about this," she said. 09:51 Hoekstra: ETS ‘crown jewel’ of EU green policies EPP MEP Peter Liese asks Hoekstra how he plans to guide revenues from Europe’s carbon emissions trading system to reach businesses and poorer households more effectively. EU-ETS revenues reached a record high of €43bn in 2023, representing 60 percent of the global total. Although revenues will be lower this year, it is still an important source of income for the EU. In the next five years €170bn will be spent by member states. “ETS is the crown-jewel of our [climate] policies,” said Hoekstra, but the way it is distributed by member states has been criticised. Therefore the policy will be reviewed in 2026, and be expanded to other sectors, including buildings, road transport and aviation which will both be ‘phased-in’ in the coming two years. “Let’s make sure member states spent is cost-effectively, and climate-effectively,” said Hoekstra, promising to collect the best policies so-far, which he said included the French the social leasing plan, a state measure to give less fortunate people access to an electric vehicle for €100 a month. 09:48 Kos draws line in sand for Georgia Kos says Georgian government must "abolish two laws" if it wants to restart the EU accession process, "the law on foreign interference and the law on values and family - this would be the first sign" it wants to resume relations with the EU. She adds: "I have a message for the people of Georgia: don't give up hope". "Nothing is done yet, nothing is finished yet, I hope", she says. 09:43 Kos champions QMV Hungarian MEP Kinga Gál quizzes Kos on her avowed support for moving from consensus to majority-voting in the enlargement process. For King, this would silence small countries, such as hers. Kos reassures her that unanimity would remain "at the end and at the beginning" of the process. But she adds: "We could be much more effective with qualified majority in interim steps, opening the cluster [of enlargement-talk clauses], closing the cluster". 09:36 Did Kos just take a swing at Trump? Speaking of geopolitical pressure to speed up enlargement, Kos said "the geopolitical situation, which is not easy, especially this week", referring to the US election. Kos then went on to suggest that Trump might undermine EU values. "I see a positive side to these [US] elections, because it shows us we should make more of what Europe is based on our values ... perhaps we could become the last party in the world defending these values," she said. Trump is famously thin-skinned and this might not bode well for her relationship with the new White House on Ukraine and further afield. 09:23 Hoekstra: Taxation close to my heart “Taxation is an issue close to my heart, because taxation is the engine we use to pay for everything we find meaningful,” Hoekstra told MEPs. He will be responsible for rolling out the carbon border tax , expanding the emission trading system to aviation and shipping, and guiding the energy taxation negotiations between member states. “Our tax systems must keep up,” he said. “They must facilitate rather than hamper our transition.” 09:22 Kos: Zero tolerance on human-rights abuse Kos pledges enlargement focus on Ukraine and on "our friends in Moldova", rather than the Western Balkans — a region closer to her heart, given Slovenia's history. Says she will work on the "reconciliation" needed on "bilateral issues" in the Balkans region, alluding to ongoing post-war tensions between Serbia and Kosovo. Will "engage" with Turkey, Kos said, but warned that she will defend human rights, instead of seeking a purely "economic relationship". Speaks of "zero tolerance" for crackdowns on civil society and journalists in candidate countries. "I commit to walk the talk on EU values," she said. Cyprus reunification and Armenia-Azerbaijan also on her radar. 09:18 Hoekstra: von der Leyen’s jack-of-all-trades Of all the new commissioners responsible for rolling out the Clean Industrial Deal, Dutch politician Wopke Hoekstra’s future impact is perhaps the most difficult to predict. Hoekstra, a former McKinsey consultant with a long track record in Dutch politics, is the only one of the team of green commissioners who also served in the previous EU College. Once again, he will serve as the EU’s chief diplomat at the UN climate summits . But this time — if accepted by the European Parliament –— he will also be charged with guiding difficult energy taxation negotiations between 27 member states, a file that has been stuck in the Council of member states for years. In addition to handling politically sensitive files, he will host biannual “implementation dialogues” with businesses and stakeholders (including lobbyists). These discussions are intended to smooth over green rules from the last Commission, but he will also be in a position to lead the EU’s deregulation — or "streamlining" — efforts. This makes him somewhat of a jack-of-all-trades within the green team of commissioners. As an EPP member, he is positioned to serve as the connective tissue — and von der Leyen’s representative — between the various climate and energy commissioners who are associated with the S&D and Renew parties (with the exception of Jessika Roswall). 09:14 Kos shows off language skills Marta Kos' hearing has begun and she looks and sounds like the experienced diplomat and lobbyist she is. Speaking initially in Slovenian, she recalls the history of European reunification after the Cold War. She says Europe must support Ukraine in its war against "Russian aggression". Switching to German, she praises enlargement, but says it must be a merit-based process, based on EU values. Turning to English, she says she will impose penalties on countries which backslide on reforms (hello Georgia). 8:37 High expectations for Hoekstra Austrian Green MEP Lena Schilling said in a statement that she expects Hoekstra to commit at today’s hearing to continue the Green Deal and to phasing out fossil fuels. "We urgently need an end to harmful subsidies for coal, oil, and gas - any financial support for fossil fuels only accelerates the climate crisis and endangers our planet. I call on Hoekstra to finally speak clearly and take a stand," she said. 8:32 To be or not to be? Is Marta Kos a lobbyist? Marta Kos, Slovenia's commissioner designate, previously told EUobserver she is not a lobbyist despite working for a major consultancy firm in Brussels. Kos was listed as a senior advisor at Kreab , whose Brussels-based office earned over €6m last year to tweak EU policies and laws on behalf of multi-national corporations. Among Kreab's bigger clients are Amazon, AGC Chemicals Europe, AstraZeneca, Daikin Chemical Europe, Scania, Third Way, and Trina Solar. "I would hereby kindly like to inform you that I have never worked as a lobbyist in Kreab or elsewhere and have never been registered as one," said Kos, in an email to EUobserver in September. 8:30 Who is Hoekstra and why is he so controversial? After serving as commissioner for climate action since October 2023, Hoekstra has been reappointed as the next commissioner for climate, net zero, and clean growth. However, he is facing criticism from politicians and activists for allowing senior oil and gas executives to attend last year’s COP28 summit in Dubai without restrictions. For more background, you can read Sam Bright's piece here.
|
Prior to his time in Brussels, Hoekstra was Dutch foreign affairs minister between January 2022 and August 2023 and finance minister from 2017 to 2022. His appointment last year as climate commissioner, following the departure of socialist Frans Timmermans, raised concerns due to Hoekstra's past roles at the consultancy firm McKinsey (2006–2013) and as a corporate employee at the oil giant Shell (2002–2004).
|
Follow our live blog for real-time updates and insights on the EU commissioner hearings as they unfold.
|
[] |
*
|
2024-11-07T07:52:53.402Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/ar6ea793c9
|
Flawed forestry data undermines effective policies
|
The volume of growing trees in Swedish forests has doubled over the last hundred years. There is a continuous increase in living biomass, and the state of Swedish forests as a sink for carbon has never been more important. The same goes for the use of wood-based products in displacing emission-intensive materials like concrete, plastic, and steel. The significance of timber and wood in the green transition of Europe is immense. And the potential is even bigger. This might come as a surprise for many following the debate in recent years. We have constantly been alerted about a state of emergency, where alleged aggressive forestry practises supposedly have led to massive deforestation and forest degradation in Europe in general and in the Nordics in particular. But the claim that there has been an abrupt increase in harvesting is not correct. As citizens we expect policies to be based on correct data, obtained through solid and scientifically reliable processes. This is not least important when it comes to environmental policies and our ability to tackle climate change. From the perspective of policy- and lawmakers, this is obviously of equal importance. The stakes are too high for allowing incorrect or incomplete data in policy making processes. European policymaking in the field of forestry bears witness to the damaging effect when this happens. It is essential that the incoming commission does not repeat the mistakes of the outgoing and instead bases its forest-related policies on solid science and proven statistics. Claims of accelerating deforestation and harvesting have been based on data obtained from satellites. Images were compared to measure changes in land use and the conclusion has been that there is a rapid depletion of important forest resources. One article that had substantial impact was published in Nature in 2020. It pointed at almost 50 percent increase in wood harvesting within the EU. With Sweden and Finland alone contributing about half of the increase. Policy papers issued by environmental organisations, think tanks and others have repeated the data as proven facts. Proposals for radical restrictions on forestry have been based on this research. The data has even been used in policy documents authored by EU institutions, noting also that the original research was conducted by researchers at The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. Closer scrutiny of the underlying studies has proved data and conclusions inaccurate. The article in Nature was thoroughly rebutted by leading experts in the field, and issues with the alarming results have been raised in other scientific articles as well. For us working in the forest industry this comes as no surprise. Reports of massive increase in harvesting did not make sense if one observed what was happening on the ground. Looking at official statistics, the transportation of timber or the deliveries to saw and pulp mills, a case for massive increase did not add up. Unfortunately, the impact of the corrections was dwarfed by the impact of the erroneous results. The main technical reason for the misleading results is that the process for obtaining data was flawed. This is unfortunate particularly as there are dependable and since decades thoroughly evaluated official statistics on the state of Nordic forests. The ongoing Swedish National Forest Inventory, which constitutes Sweden's official statistics on forest resources, is conducted by the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. It confirms what has been well known for a long time: the total volume of Swedish forest has continuously grown, and the amount of carbon embedded in Swedish forests has increased. The Swedish National Forest Inventory has been operating since the early 1920’s, and for more than hundred years the system has been refined and developed. It is today considered to be world leading in the field. It relies on on-site inventory, aerial laser scanning and robust methods developed by experts in the field of statistics. With continuous improvement of its methods, it provides the most accurate picture of the state of Sweden’s forests. The data is publicly available as part of Sweden’s official statistics. It is also frequently used by scientists. Experts on Swedish forest inventory and statistics – both from the official authority (The Swedish Forest Agency) and from academia – could immediately reveal the errors in the case presented in Nature. To limited avail. Due to the introduction of sustainable forestry processes, including continuous investment to increase both the value and yield of Swedish forests, the volume has grown. The forest is today denser and more productive than before. This process is driven by engagement by more than 300.000 private and corporate owners of Swedish forest lands, ranging from properties of just a few hectares to major landowners such as SCA. National policy has also encouraged a long-term perspective on production and conservation and has allowed evolving practices and technologies to renew the industry. Without the modern forest industry, the importance of Nordic forests as a carbon sink would be much smaller and the opportunities for the EU to transition away from fossils reduced. Our industry is eager to continue to be part of the transformation of Europe and to continue to make substantial contributions to our efforts to fight climate change, promote growth and secure jobs in rural areas. The incoming commission has an important task to get things right. This calls for more truly science-based policy. And for less policy-based science. Ulf Larsson is President and Chief Executive Officer of Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget (SCA). He has extensive experience from executive positions dating back to 1987 with Scaninge Timber, SCA Skog and SCA Timber. He is currently a Board Member of SCA and of the Swedish Forest Industries Federation and of the Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI). Ulf holds a BSc in Forestry. SCA is Europe’s largest private forest owner with a forest holding of approx. 2,7mn hectares (equal to the size of Belgium) in northern Sweden, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Ulf Larsson is President and Chief Executive Officer of Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget (SCA). He has extensive experience from executive positions dating back to 1987 with Scaninge Timber, SCA Skog and SCA Timber. He is currently a Board Member of SCA and of the Swedish Forest Industries Federation and of the Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI). Ulf holds a BSc in Forestry.
|
SCA
|
As citizens we expect policies to be based on correct data, obtained through solid and scientifically reliable processes. This is not least important when it comes to environmental policies and our ability to tackle climate change.
|
[] |
stakeholders
|
2024-11-06T15:05:52.405Z
|
https://euobserver.com/stakeholders/ar37dfe9d4
|
Hoekstra under fire for COP28 fossil-fuel invites 'under false pretences'
|
The European Commission is facing criticism from politicians and campaigners for giving a free pass for senior oil and gas executives to attend last year’s COP28 summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE). The EU invited five representatives of fossil fuel giants, including executives from BP, ExxonMobil, and Eni, to the flagship climate talks in December last year. More fossil fuel lobbyists were granted access to the Dubai summit than any previous year. EU climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra explained in late April that the five oil executives were invited to COP28 on the basis of their participation in EU events during the summit. “The five representatives… received a 'Party Overflow' badge on the grounds that they were panellists in specific side-events,” Hoekstra stated in a letter to MEPs, following a complaint in December. However, DeSmog can reveal that two of the executives did not in fact participate in any EU events at COP28, drawing into question the veracity of Hoekstra’s letter to MEPs. Exxon’s chief lobbyist in Brussels, Nikolaas Baeckelmans, and Eni’s chief operating officer Guido Brusco were invited to the Dubai summit by the EU, yet the EU Commission admitted that neither took part in events, when questioned by DeSmog. The commission initially suggested that Baeckelmans and Brusco were replaced at the last minute by higher ranking speakers in their organisations – a claim that does not appear to be true. The new speakers from Exxon and Eni were in fact more junior staff members – further drawing the EU’s claims into question. Pascoe Sabido, a researcher and campaigner at the transparency pressure group Corporate Europe Observatory, said that the EU had “completely embarrassed itself with its flimsy excuses” for why Baeckelmans and Brusco were invited to COP28. “What was the EU thinking when it decided to bring senior executives from BP, Exxon and Eni to the UN climate talks? It’s surreal,” he said. “Supposedly the bloc is in favour of a just and fair fossil fuel phase-out, but each of the three companies has a proven track record of lobbying aggressively against such a thing.” Sabido added that the “EU’s credibility is seriously on the line for this year’s COP29 ”. This year’s conference will begin next week (11 November) in Baku, Azerbaijan. On 4 November, more than 100 civil society groups wrote to Hoekstra urging him to not bring fossil fuel lobbyists to this year’s climate talks in Baku. “It is no more reasonable to ask ExxonMobil and BP how to transition away from fossil fuels than it is to ask Phillip Morris how to quit smoking,” the letter stated. The annual COP summit allows negotiators and leaders across the globe to put in place commitments to address the climate crisis and assist the worst-hit countries. These summits now often involve hundreds of side events hosted by individual states and pressure groups. By virtue of attending the summit, the fossil fuel executives were allowed access to these events, which are open to all attendees, though they could not access the formal negotiations. Hoekstra, a member of the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) and a former Shell employee, is set to face questions from MEPs on Thursday morning (7 November) as he attempts to convince them to re-elect him for a five-year term as the EU’s climate commissioner. Lynn Boylan, an MEP representing Sinn Féin, told DeSmog: “It is laughable that the European Commission still thinks it is acceptable to bring fossil fuel lobbyists to the COP negotiations.” She added: “That Hoekstra thinks it is acceptable to bring these major polluters to the global climate negotiations shows such a disconnect. He claims that they were invited to speak at events (claims which seem false) but even at that, why were these companies being invited to speak at all?” A European Commission spokesperson told DeSmog that the oil executives “do not have access to our delegation offices nor would they be considered as part of the EU delegation. The EU organises almost 100 side events at the EU Pavilion, on a wide range of topics… the events are aligned with EU policy priorities and feature a wide range of different speakers, including NGOs, academics, scientists and institutional and government speakers.” Eni confirmed that Brusco didn’t speak at any events at COP28. Exxon didn’t respond to DeSmog’s request for comment. A fossil fuel frenzy The host of COP28, the UAE, used the climate summit to strike a dozen fossil fuel deals according to the campaign group Global Witness. The Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (Adnoc) either negotiated or closed oil deals with 12 countries, including the UK, while its chief executive Sultan Ahmed al-Jaber was president of COP28. Exxon CEO Darren Woods attended the Dubai summit, during which he urged world leaders to focus on reducing emissions rather than phasing out all fossil fuels. At least 2,456 fossil fuel lobbyists were granted access to the Dubai summit – nearly four times more than any previous year. “We know that these companies delayed and obstructed climate action for decades – it does not take much insight to know that they are coming to COP to do the exact same thing,” Boylan said. “Hoekstra should know this too – he did, after all, work for Shell for several years. “We have a situation where fossil fuel lobbyists are better represented at COP than delegates from the poorest countries, or indigenous peoples.” The climate action plan of Azerbaijan, this year’s COP host country, was rated “critically insufficient” by Climate Action Tracker (CAT) in September, while its state-owned oil and gas company Socar and its partners are set to raise the country’s annual gas production by more than 30 percent by 2033. Lena Schilling, MEP from the Austrian Green Party, described the attendance of fossil fuel lobbyists at COP28 as “outrageous” and called for tighter restrictions on their activities. “I urge the commission to establish a strict conflict of interest framework to curb fossil fuel lobbying within EU institutions,” Schilling said. “Just as we’ve set up firewalls against tobacco industry influence, we urgently need the same for fossil fuels. These lobbyists should have no influence on decision making.” As stated by the world’s foremost climate science body, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), unabated fossil fuels must be phased out as quickly as possible in order to limit global warming to 1.5C. This goal, established by the 2015 Paris Agreement negotiated at COP21, is designed to limit the worst and most irreversible impacts of climate change – including droughts, flooding, and poverty. Sam Bright is DeSmog’s UK deputy editor. He was previously the investigations editor of Byline Times and an investigative journalist at the BBC. He is the author of two books: Fortress London , and Bullingdon Club Britain . Sam Bright is DeSmog’s UK deputy editor. He was previously the investigations editor of Byline Times and an investigative journalist at the BBC. He is the author of two books: Fortress London , and
|
Bullingdon Club Britain
|
Campaigners say the EU Commission has “completely embarrassed itself” by offering “flimsy excuses” for taking oil and gas lobbyists to last year's flagship summit. Wopke Hoekstra, the EU climate commissioner who defended the invites, will face MEPs for a grilling on Thursday.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Green Economy"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-11-06T11:43:49.610Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar69d17e3f
|
World leaders swift to congratulate victorious Trump
|
World leaders were swift to congratulate Donald Trump on his convincing win in the US presidential election on Wedneday (6 November) morning — even before the full and official results were announced. With a returning Trump looking set to win both the popular national vote, as well as the US electoral college, from Europe, EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen was one of the first off the mark. Von der Leyen, starting her own second five-year term, said she "warmly congratulated" Trump, saying: "The EU and the US are more than just allies. We are bound by a true partnership between our people, uniting 800 million citizens. So let's work together on a strong transatlantic agenda that keeps delivering for them." She added a guarded message on the prospect of US tariffs under Trump, one of the main thrusts of his policy platform, however. "Let us work together on a transatlantic partnership that continues to deliver for our citizens. Millions of jobs and billions in trade and investment on each side of the Atlantic depend on the dynamism and stability of our economic relationship", her official statement at around 09:30am Brussels time added. Perhaps most eyes, however, were on Kyiv, where Trump has promised to end the war with Russia "on day one" of his presidency, which will start on 20 January 2025. President Volodomyr Zelensky tweeted "Congratulations to @realDonaldTrump on his impressive election victory! "I recall our great meeting with president Trump back in September, when we discussed in detail the Ukraine-US strategic partnership, the Victory Plan, and ways to put an end to Russian aggression against Ukraine. "I appreciate President Trump’s commitment to the 'peace through strength' approach in global affairs. This is exactly the principle that can practically bring just peace in Ukraine closer. I am hopeful that we will put it into action together," said Zelensky, who added that his country would "rely on continued strong bipartisan support for Ukraine in the United States." "Ukraine, as one of Europe's strongest military powers, is committed to ensuring long-term peace and security in Europe and the Transatlantic community with the support of our allies," he added. There was no immediate reaction from Russian president Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin. However, Leonid Slutsky, head of the foreign affairs committee in Russia’s lower house of parliament, says Trump’s victory opens up a chance for “a more constructive approach on the Ukraine conflict from the Republicans.” Meanwhile, Mark Rutte, the new secretary-general of Nato — an organisation Trump has repeatedly threatened and called into doubt — said: "I just congratulated @realDonaldTrump on his election as president of the United States. His leadership will again be key to keeping our Alliance strong. I look forward to working with him again to advance peace through strength through Nato." Paris, Berlin, London From the major European capitals — Paris and Berlin — there were also warm words. French president Emmanuel Macron gave his congratulations, adding: "Ready to work together as we did for four years. With your convictions and mine. With respect and ambition. For more peace and prosperity." Macron added that he had already spoken with German chancellor Olaf Scholz about the result. "We will work towards a more united, stronger, more sovereign Europe in this new context. By cooperating with the United States of America and defending our interests and our values, " he said. Scholz himself, facing a possible collapse of his governing coalition in Berlin, said: "For a long time, Germany and the US have been working together successfully promoting prosperity and freedom on both sides of the Atlantic. We will continue to do so for the wellbeing of our citizens." Outside the EU, new British prime minister Keir Starmer, whose Labour party had sent volunteers to help the defeated Democrat party, prompting angry claims of 'foreign interference' by the Trump campaign, called it a "historic election victory." Just four months into his own premiership, Starmer tweeted: "I look forward to working with you in the years ahead." The PM added London and Washington were "the closest of allies. We stand shoulder to shoulder in defence of our shared values, freedom and enterprise." He pointed to "growth and security and innovation and tech" as hopeful areas of transatlantic collaboration, but — like nearly all other Western leaders — made no mention of Ukraine. Indeed, many of the boilerplate congratulations seemed to ignore Trump's actual record in office from 2016 to 2020 — not least, the violent insurrection he provoked after losing to Joe Biden in 2019. The outgoing Belgian president of the European Council, Charles Michel, struck a slightly more guarded note. In his congratulatory tweet, he made particular mention of "defending the rules-based multilateral system." The incoming EU foreign affairs chief, Kaja Kallas, congratulated Trump, and said "I look forward to working with him and his team." Far-right jubilation Meanwhile, from the pro-Trump autocratic leaders in the EU, the response was almost ecstatic. Viktor Orban called it "the biggest comeback in US political history!" The Hungarian prime minister, who broke EU protocol by flying to Moscow this summer to meet personally with Putin, called it an "an enormous win. A much needed victory for the world!" Marine Le Pen, leader of the hard-right French National Rally party, and defeated presidential candidate in 2012, 2017 and 2022, called Trump's victory "a new political era". "I wish Donald Trump every success in his new presidency of the United States. "American democracy has clearly expressed itself and Americans have freely chosen the president they have chosen," she tweeted. Le Pen is likely to stand again in 2027, when Macron steps down. This new political era that is beginning must contribute to the strengthening of bilateral relations and the pursuit of constructive dialogue and cooperation on the international scene. There was no immediate reaction from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu — who pointedly used the day of the US election on Wednesday to sack his defence minister Yoav Gallant — but Israeli president Isaac Herzog welcomed Trump as a "champion of peace." There was no immediate official reaction from China, perhaps waiting for a full and official US result later on Wednesday.
|
Matthew is EUobserver's Opinion Editor. He joined EUobserver in June 2018. Previously he worked as a reporter for The Guardian in London, and as editor for AFP in Paris and DPA in Berlin.
|
Despite most of Europe, according to opinion polls, hoping for a Kamala Harris presidency, European leaders were extremely quick off the mark to congratulate Donald Trump on his return to the White House.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-11-06T10:04:52.917Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arb29ca9c6
|
Hearings live blog: Lahbib, Albuquerque, Kadis, Síkela, Kubilius, Várhelyi
|
Today is the second full day of hearings, running from 9:00 AM to 9:30 PM. On the agenda: grilling Belgium’s Hadja Lahbib, Portugal’s Maria Luís Albuquerque, Cyprus’s Costa Kadis, the Czech Republic’s Jozef Síkela, Lithuania’s Andrius Kubilius, and Hungary’s Olivér Várhelyi. The hearings, however, will be overshadowed by the backdrop of Trump leading in the US elections. Here's yesterday's live blog covering McGrath, Zaharieva, Jørgensen, Šuica, Roswall, and Brunner. For Monday's coverage of the hearings of Šefčovič, Micallef, Hansen and Tzitzikostas read our finished live blog here . 22:14 Signing off, see you tomorrow for another four hearings. 22:08 Várhelyi ends - will he scrape through? Várhelyi ends by reeling off the three main bits of legislation he aims to deliver: the Critical Medicines Act, a bio-tech act, and revised medical devices legislation. He promised a plan on fighting anti-microbial resistance and one on cardiovascular health. He reiterated that animal welfare had to be "economically viable". Going into the hearings, Várhelyi was dubbed the least likely to get through, due to gaffes in his first term as enlargement commissioner, and due to antipathy toward Hungary's far-right government, which proposed him. MEPs didn't take him to task for his past fiascoes in Palestine and Bosnia, but they did give him a hard time on EU values. Várhelyi answered the questions with a brass neck, but was it enough? 21:54 Kubilius is a wrap Kubilius ends his grilling by MEPs with an ominous statement. "If you want peace, prepare for war." It remains to be seen if his case has convinced MEPs. Ideological differences aside, his command of the policies appeared solid with an extended round of applause by MEPs. 21:46 Várhelyi booed on women's rights Nicolae Ștefănuță, a Romanian green MEP, draws blood with another attack on Várhelyi's ruling party values at home. "In your country women have to listen to the heartbeat of the foetus, at the most vulnerable moment in their lives, destroying their mental health," Ștefănuță says. Várhelyi replies: "I think I've been very clear about women's health," drawing jeers from the audience. "Yes. I have," he goes on. "I've always been on the of side women, but, again, abortion is not an EU competence," he says. 21:39 Várhelyi: Anti-vaxxers grind axe Christine Anderson, a German far-right MEP, voices anger that Várhelyi won't take her fears on vaccine side-effects seriously and urges him to compensate "victims" of EMA-approved drugs. "I'm happy to sit down with the 'victims of the vaccines' if you think it will help ... but I'm still convinced of the safety and efficacy of all vaccines authorised by the EMA," he says. "If you look at the broad numbers, it's clear they're safe and effective," he adds 21:38 Kubilius: Gender mainstreaming in defence? Kubilius is pressed on how he intends to gender mainstream the space and defence industry. “I don’t know what are specific problems in defence industry if you compare with other industries on gender mainstreaming,” he says. The immediate needs in the sector is about the lack of skills and the shortage of students, Kubilius says, yet acknowledges he’ll address any gender issues, if needed. 21:36 Várhelyi: Sorry, not sorry Emma Fourreau, a 25-year old French left-winger, doesn't hold back, calling Várhelyi a "misogynist who is remote-controlled by [Hungarian prime minister] Viktor Orbán". "You say you're sensitive to women because you live with women - it's like a racist saying he's not racist because he has a black friend," she adds. She reminds him that he once called MEPs "idiots" on an open mike in 2023 and that his government's "regime is clamping down on judicial independence and human rights". Várhelyi appears unfazed. "I have a mission letter and tasks to deliver, given me by the president of commission, which I will deliver," he said. He said his "idiots" remark had not referred to MEPs, but he still apologised for the misunderstanding more broadly speaking. "I regret what has happened I can only offer an apology. I hope you accept it," he said. 21:25 Kubilius: Peace needs to be defended Kubilius says he can’t understand how one can guarantee peace on the European continent if one is not ready to defend it. “If you look back to when we were enjoying a so-called peace dividend after the 1990s, when everybody thought that there will be no aggressors anymore, and we made some kind of strategic mistake,” he says. Kubilius says the return of totalitarian regimes, citing Russia’s war-mongering president Vladimir Putin, compels Europe to defend itself and increase its defence industry capabilities. “You can have peace, according to Putin, when everybody around is surrendering,” he says. Kubilius says he is not willing to have peace on Putin’s terms, citing his life-experience in Soviet era Russia. 21:23 Várhelyi: Friend of science When one left-wing MEP claimed Covid vaccines had made 11 million people in Germany unwell, Várhelyi turned on her. "When it comes to side-effects I think we have credible science in the EMA [European Medicines Agency]," he said. "I'm quite surprised about this number – 11m people in Germany are having side-effects? ... this is a staggering number, I don't know where it comes from", he added. "To overcome future pandemics without vaccines is impossible," he also said. 21:08 What are Várhelyi's values? MEPs' questions have been probing whether Várhelyi cares about women, children, animals, and the environment. He claims to care about them all, but the two themes he keeps returning to is how to make European bio-science firms more profitable and how to make farmers better off. Help for businesses and farmers are also hobby horses of the populist party in Hungary that proposed him. "Clinical trials in Europe is 100 days more than in the US – 100 days in business is more than eternity", he said on drug regulation, for instance. "We have to help them [industry] to stay in Europe". 21:06 Kubilius: Joint procurements on defence Green Lithuanian MEP and former European Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius asks if Kubilius intends to set an obligatory mandatory joint procurement on defence. Kubilius appears to skirt the question.“I think we need to have clear numbers about our capabilities, about our needs, so that we could understand what kind of armaments we need, so that we could procure them jointly,” he says. 20:58 Kubilius: More acronyms than tanks German socialist MEP Tobias Cremer says Europe appears better at producing acronyms, citing various programmes, than producing tanks. “You said that you want to streamline the governance of the EU defence sector. So my question is, how are you planning to do so concretely,” asks Cremer. Kubilius says that while the governance issue is important, he can’t give a precise answer because “my portfolio and institution of defence commissioner is a totally new one.” 20:58 Várhelyi shows sovereignist roots When asked if he supported extending EU powers on health policy, Várhelyi echoed the nation-state first ideology of Hungary's ruling party, Fidesz. "I am a great supporter of the European Union, where it can make a difference on the ground", he said, but added "health is a competence of member states". "Yes. Maybe more could be done at EU level," he said, referring to vaccine-buying as an example. But he didn't sound as though he wanted to fight for greater EU powers. "I believe in working bit by bit," he said. 20:51 Várhelyi 'sensitive' to women's rights Danish liberal MEP Stine Bosse needles Várhelyi on women's rights, asking if he'd support using EU money for women to leave conservative member states to go to more liberal ones to have an abortion. Várhelyi doesn't answer the question directly, but claims to be attuned to female needs. "I do think I understand what women’s rights entail, I’m subject to it every year [sic]. I'm very sensitive about it", he says, adding that abortion is not an EU competence, and to make it so, would require breaking open the treaty. 20:41 Kubilius: Defence bonds Kubilius questions if there is enough money in the EU budget to cover security and defence needs. He was asked about defence bonds to shore up funds but wouldn’t commit. “They are speaking about defence bonds with European budget, like a guarantee, which was done during the pandemic,” he says, noting other proposals are also being discussed. 20:38 Várhelyi appears not to care about hedgehogs Left German MEP Sebastian Everding quips about Várhelyi only mentioning animal welfare in the final two minutes of his opening remarks: "I am delighted we’ll have a commissioner for animal welfare, but I was worried whether you were going to be it, until the last two minutes of your speech." Among other questions, he asks Várhelyi if he will extend his protection to the European hedgehog. Varhelyi did not answer, leaving hedgehogs all over the EU in uncertainty. 20:38 Várhelyi more interested in farmers than animals Time and time again, when asked about animal welfare, Várhelyi circles back round to talk about farmers' welfare instead. "It's very clear when we're talking about farmed animals we also have to talk about farmers ... so they can achieve better conditions," he says. He is not against "mass-scale animal farming" because "this puts food on our table," he says. 20:29 Kubilius: A King without a Kingdom Kubilius says his position is like a defence minister without an army, citing a description of his portfolio by the New York Times. "I joke that some kings or some ministers have an army, but they do not have guns. I am pretending to be that guy who is responsible for guns," he says. 20:16 Kubilius: Multiple shields Aside from the EU’s proposed €500bn air defence shield, Kubilius also mentions plans for a north-eastern border shield that will also cost billions. “It’s not only a physical shield, but also an electronic shield,” he says of the hypothetical north-eastern border shield. “We are talking also about what we could call, you know, a cyber shield,” he says later on. 20:14 Várhelyi on 'animal dignity' Anne-Sophie Frigout, a French MEP from the Várhelyi-friendly Patriots for Europe group, asks him for more details on how he will protect "animal dignity" – for instance, by seeking alternatives to animal testing in science, and by curbing religious rituals (kosher and halal) in the slaughter of animals. But Várhelyi appears tone deaf, with a reply on the need to make pesticides cheaper instead. He calls ritual slaughter "a very difficult social dilemma" and "a very thorny topic", but gives no indication of his views on how to regulate this issue. 20:12 Kubilius: We are not competing with Nato Kubilius say Nato’s role is to develop military defence plans and is a high military command.“We are not going into that area, but we can come with what I call our added value on resources, on capabilities. We can raise money,” he says. 20:05 Kubilius: Piles of weapons? Kubilius says creating stocks of arms, from a defence and industry point of view, is critical. He cites the failed promise of 1 million rounds of ammunition for Ukraine given the depletion of stocks among EU states. "Member states do not have industries... [they] are not able to produce immediately. So in order to avoid such kind of, you know, supply crisis, that is why it will be good to look into, also to know possibilities of stocking piles,” he says. 20:04 Várhelyi promises to be tough on Hungary, if need be Italian socialist Camilla Laureti notes that: "You were proposed by a government that allegedly channelled EU funds to its friends", referring to agricultural subsidies. Várhelyi says that while farming subsidies aren't in his portfolio, he would crack down on abuse in Hungary as in any other EU state. "The rules will be enforced with full force, whichever the member state," he says. 19:50 Kubilius: Elon Musk satellites With Musk having launched some 6,000 satellites, Kubilius is pressed on how the EU intends to compete. He cites EU’s multi-billion secure satellite constellation known as Iris2. Although first announced in 2022, Iris2 was still at the procurement phase as of this summer, and will reportedly not provide services until 2030. 19:48 Várhelyi quizzed on sex Second question, coming from the socialists, also designed to make Várhelyi uncomfortable: Where does he stand on abortion, LGBTI rights, and trans-rights in the health sector? Várhelyi tries to fudge the answer by referring to basic human freedoms being enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. "We have different solutions member state by member state and this is the choice of society", he says. He keeps his answer short. 19:44 Kubilius: Stop obsessing over the US Kubilius says the EU needs to focus on strengthening "our defence capabilities" and stop spending "too much time" discussing US politics. 19:41 Várhelyi already under attack for Hungarian vaccine behaviour Peter Liese, a centre-right German MEP, goes for the throat with the first question of the night: "We hope you're not responsible for another pandemic. But you might be, and the government you represent was very critical of the European response and they negotiated with Russia for another vaccine [Sputnik]". Várhelyi says it' "very clear" only the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has the authority to clear vaccines for use in the bloc. "I will want to rely on the work of the EMA in future as well," he adds. Liese won't let it go: he follows up to ask if it was mistake the Hungarian government vaccinated people with the non-EMA approved Sputnik vaccine? Várhelyi claims that in "exceptional circumstances", national-level "prior-authorisations" may be allowed. He looks uncomfortable. 19:37 Kubilius: 'Peace' commissioner? Left-wing Belgian MEP Marc Botenga is critical of the need for a defence "military" commissioner, when a commissioner for social affairs and employment is missing from Von der Leyen’s team. "Well, you can call me commissioner for peace, not commissioner for militarisation," counters Kubilius, to a round of applause. Kubilius says his portfolio focuses on defence. He also cites Nato defence plans and the need for an additional 49 military brigades. 19:30 Várhelyi: Ran out of time for animals Várhelyi apologised to the chairman for having run out of his allotted time, before he had even spoken of animal welfare. He continued to speak anyway, with a vague commitment to improving animal welfare in agriculture via a consultation with farmers, before moving on to other promises, such as reducing food waste and pesticide regulation. 19:29 Várhelyi: Critical Medicines Act Pledges a “Critical Medicines Act within the first 100 days as a priority action”, to improve supply chain security and boost medical companies in Europe. Promises a revision of pharmaceutical laws, a new European bio-tech act, investment in preventive medicines, and to reduce the regulatory burden in the field of data and AI in the medical sector. Overall, he is more business-friendly than patient-focused. But he also promises to crack down on children’s access to novel tobacco products and to investigate the adverse mental health effects of excessive use of social media. 19:25 Kubilius: In a simulation, Russia could occupy Germany in 10 days. Kubilius says intelligence services predict that Russian troops marching towards Germany in 2028 could occupy it within 10 days if there is no Nato support and if spending on defence and military remains on par to today’s levels. 19:24 Kubilius: Trump threat to pull out of Nato? “We need to spend more, but not because that is demand from [US] president [Donald] Trump, but because of [Russian president Vladimir] Putin,” says Kubilius. Before 2022, spending by EU member states was around €200bn per year, which has since increased to around €350bn, he says. 19:15 Kubilius: EU air defence shield Kubilius says such a plan would cost around €500bn. “The question will be, in which stages we can start to do that, and which technologies we shall us use,” he says. 19:14 Kubilius: Russia’s war machine “Russians can produce during six months, everything, what [the] German army has in their stocks. That should be a warning signal to all of us,” he says. 19:13 Várhelyi: ‘Proud’ to be doing health and animals Olivér Várhelyi’s hearing has begun. It’s a step down for him from his previous portfolio, of enlargement, to be dealing with health and animal welfare, reflecting how unpopular his far-right political party, Fidesz, has become in the EU. But he says: “I’m very proud and honoured I was designated by Ursula von der Leyen as commissioner for health and animal welfare”. He claims to have an affinity to the portfolio because he comes from Szeged, in Hungary, whose university produced two Nobel prize-winning scientists. “Health policy was always present in my different career steps”, he adds, reeling off pharmaceutical laws he had worked on as Hungary’s former EU ambassador. Várhelyi focuses much more on health and life science firms than animal welfare, a subject which he calls “very close to our citizens’ hearts” (if not his own). He sloganises about the need to “cut red tape ... unleash full potential ... help our citizens”. Promises to invest in preventive health, increase security of supply of medicines in Europe, and maintain top food safety and animal welfare standards. 19:04 Kubilius: Space money Kubilius says the global market for the space industry in the next 10 years will be larger than €1 trillion. Europe’s fragmentary regulatory landscape complicates the innovation for European Space startups, he says. As for the stalled space law, first promised by the previous Ursula von der Leyen commission, Kubilius says it will help create a single market for space and provide a common framework for security, safety, and sustainability. 18:47 Kubilius: US looks to China, leaving EU behind Kubilius lists four challenges. First, he says the US is likely to increase focus on the strategic challenges posed by China. “This longer term shift necessities a more self-reliant European defence structure,” he says. Second challenge: defence spending. “Chronic under-investment has left critical gaps in our capabilities and readiness,” he says. Third challenge: the European defence equipment market remains highly fragmented, which leads to inefficiencies, duplication of efforts and lack of interoperability. “Our defence capabilities are lagging behind,” he says. Fourth challenge: Adversaries and strategic rivals are rapidly outpacing Europe, with Russia and China seeing substantial increases in the defence budgets over the past two decades. “It looks like Russia in 2025 in purchasing power parity terms for military needs, will spend more than all the EU 27,” he says. 18:42 Kubilius: A possible first-ever commissioner for defence and space Lithuania’s former two-time prime minister and current MEP, Andrius Kubilius has been tasked by Ursula von der Leyen to help create “a true European defence union.” The demands come at a critical time for Europe as the future US presidency under Donald Trump is unlikely to commit to its security and defence, while Russia’s war continues to rage in Ukraine. But big questions remain over possible competing interests with Nato, as well as how his portfolio will shape the European Union over the next few years. Never before has there been a commissioner for defence and space. “The mission letter tasks me to help Europe prepare itself for the most extreme military contingencies, which means to prepare for possibility of Russian aggression against EU member states,” he tells MEPs. 17:53 Kadis cites Greek mythology in conclusion In his concluding speech, Kadis brought a touch of history — making reference to Greek mythology, citing “Okeanos Oceanus”, the personification of the ocean, seen by the ancient Greeks as an immense river that completely encircled the world. “Oceanus legacy lives on today in the way we view the ocean as a vital source of life with enormous potential,” said the Cypriot commissioner nominee, noting that the ocean plays a big role in the livelihood of both costal communities and cultural heritage. Kadis also highlighted the maritime potential for the future of the EU. “The ocean holds immense potential for the European Union's competitiveness, growth, security and environmental stability.” 17:35 We’re on to Sikela’s concluding remarks Sikela promises to protect the EU’s aid budget and ensure that it reflects the “geopolitical importance” of the bloc’s international partnerships. He earns a solid round of applause. It’s been, for the most part, a solid but uninspiring performance, though that partly reflects the modest ambitions of the von der Leyen commission on development. 17:29 Kadis on Illegal fishing As Kadis started the third phase of his hearing, one MEP asked him about his action plan for tackling illicit fishing. He reiterated "zero tolerance" and noted that the most effective instruments against illicit fisheries are to develop "stricter legislation" — stressing the importance to cooperate with the European Parliament. 17:22 Bullman back Now Socialist group co-ordinator Udo Bullman is back, demanding that parliament has proper oversight of the Global Gateway projects. Sikela promises to take the matter up with the College of Commissioners. 17:15 Kadis in favour of renewing fisheries agreement with Morocco Kadis was questioned by an MEP asking whether he envisaged renewing the agreement with Morocco and developing other similar agreement with the Saharawi? On which he answered positively, saying “the European Commission has a very fructifious [sic] relationship with Morocco.” He added the Morocco-EU treaty was of “mutual benefit.” The fishery agreement with Morocco ended last year, after a duration of four years, and allowed European vessels with Moroccan permits to fish in Moroccan-controlled waters. 17:14 What about aid? Charles Goerens is back, quizzing Sikela on aid spending. He points out that many countries have reduced their development budget in recent years despite promising to spend 0.7 percent of GDP on aid. He asks Sikela what the commission will do to hold member states to their spending promises. Sikela says that his experience of the Czech EU presidency was that member states need to be convinced that it is in their interests. “Promises should be fulfilled”, he says, adding that ”there must be a really extraordinary reason” not to. 17:05 Kadis 'they do not recognise borders' on invasive species Kadis was questioned by an MEP on what would be done to protect against invasive species and to avoid the significant harm caused to fish stocks in the Mediterranean area in particular. Those animals "do not recognise any borders," he said. Kadis emphasised the need for EU member states to coordinate their efforts to combat invasive species, noting these species may potentially spread outside the Mediterranean region where they are the currently the most numerous. 16:51 Kadis supports aquaculture Kadis was questioned about whether or not he supports aquaculture. He stated that after being elected, he will launch a European campaign to promote and present aquaculture in a more positive light throughout the EU. "European consumers are a little bit sceptical when it comes to aquaculture and a bit too reluctant to buy aquaculture products, even though we know that the quality is very high," he said. 16:27 Kadis elusive on protecting marine biodiversity On the question how he plans to protect marine biodiversity, the future designate commissioner for fisheries was more elusive — only stating that technical support exists to help member states. “There's a technical support, that's an implement that can be used by the member states,” he said. 16:19 Sikela under pressure on Rwanda deal Sikela may be causing himself a problem with his stance on the EU-Rwanda minerals deal. After another critical question about human rights abuses from Italian socialist Marco Tarquinio, Patriots MEPs Thierry Mariani points to a UN report which found that Rwandan forces were seizing minerals in DR Congo and selling them on to the EU. He asks Sikela to promise to amend the pact with Rwanda. Sikela is now back-tracking but appears to have been poorly briefed on the issue. 16:16 Kadis invited to Galicia A Spanish MEP stressed the issues of the northwest Spanish region, stating that “there are 120,000 [fishermen] in the region which are active” in the region. “So it's necessary to understand what the problems are of these people — come to Galicia, come designated commissioner” said the Spanish MEP. On which Kadis promised he would come to the Spanish region to see exactly what were the issues there. 16:10 Rwanda Green MEP Mounir Satouri says that the EU’s minerals deal with Rwanda is leading to war crimes , pointing to the Rwandan government’s support for militia groups pillaging resources in eastern DR Congo. Sikela says the information he has seen suggests that the situation is “not so dramatic”. The deal with Rwanda is “one of the good co-operations in Africa,” he adds. 16:07 The China price Many EU lawmakers are worried about China and Helmut Geuking, a German EPP MEP, asks how the EU can ensure that its money does not end up in the hands of China. Sikela says that sometimes the EU is funding projects where Chinese suppliers are used because they offer the lowest prices. He adds that these procurement rules need to be changed. Chinese offers tend to be lower than European tenders. 16:04 Kadis on relations with UK fishing industry (again) Now Kadis is asked by a French MEP from Renew what he will do to ensure EU, and French fishing fleets especially, have a fair access to UK waters. “I won't stand back” he said on this matter. 15:56 Kadis' 'holistic' approach to save Baltic Sea Kadis claims he will use an holistic approach to fight the degradation of the Baltic Sea.“There are lot of factors that degraded the environment. So we need a holistic approach in order to to secure the recovery of the area, which are the measures,” he said. “I will dedicate much of my effort to the recovery of the Baltic Sea." 15:51 No EU development bank Now Sikela is asked if he will support the creation of an EU development bank? Sikela says the EU needs to better utilise the institutions it already has, pointing to the European Investment Bank . He says one of his first tasks will be to meet the president of the EIB Nadia Calviño. 15:46 Parliament demands more oversight of Global Gateway projects. Polish centre-left MEP Robert Biedroń says that the parliament needs to be involved more in the design of Global Gateway. He says there needs to be an audit and scrutiny body to cover all Global Gateway projects. Sikela slightly fudges his reply, saying that he wants to have very close contact with the parliament. I have “no problem” with such scrutiny, he says, but that they need to agree on the format and level of granularity involved in such information exchange. 15:38 Kadis 'will not shy away' from review of fishery policies Questioned on the review of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), Kadis said “if this exercise points out to weaknesses, I will propose measures to address these weaknesses, and I will not shy away.” 15:36 Sikela promises to be 'very careful steward' of EU money European of Sovereign Nations MEP, Marc Jongen, is asking about control of EU cash and the sums lost to corruption. Sikela says that he will be “a very careful steward” of EU money when it comes to funding being lost to graft. He has promised greater “efficiency” in EU development spending several times already. 15:32 Global Gateway - neo-colonialism? Now Sikela is being asked about the EU’s strategy on critical raw materials. Spanish leftist MEP Isabel Serra Sanchez asks if Global Gateway is being used to promote European companies’ interests and a neo-colonial agenda. The Czech nominee replies that if the EU fails to counter China in DRCongo, Beijing will quickly control most of the world’s cobalt production. 15:31 On the Baltic Sea Emma Wiesner, Swedish MEP, questioned the designate commissioner on his plan for the Baltic, highlighting that the Baltic Sea's environment and fish populations are on the edge of collapse, while the EU allowed fishing quotas to be doubled this year, indicating that “the CFP is not doing enough,” she said. “I could say that we are not at the highest standards,” said the former professor of biodiversity conservation. “We will fully respect the scientific advice in the scientific community,” adding that this will be one of the main priorities during his mandate. But, on the question whether or not the future commissioner plans to review the Baltic Sea map for fisheries, he answered.“It will not necessarily include new legislative action." 15:19 Sikela quizzed on debt relief Luxembourgish liberal MEP Charles Goerens says that it would be a mistake to think that the EU has a good reputation in Africa. Russia, Turkey, China are present in Africa. Debt is taking on huge proportions, he says. He asks Sikela if he will promote an initiative to cancel debt if China does the same. “We can start to discuss debt relief but we have to engage other G7 lenders,” replies Sikela. ”If we have agreement with our allies we can force China to follow”. 15:17 Kadis on relations with UK fishing industry Costas Kadis was questioned on the relationship with the United Kingdom fisheries. Fishing rights offshore the UK and in the North Sea have been under intense strain in recent years, with Brexit in 2020 causing severe disagreements, particularly between France and the UK. Kadis replied: “We need to strengthen our relations with the United Kingdom, and this is what I will try to do. I will try to have a positive agenda with the UK.” But, EU fishing come first, “what I can assure you is that our decisions will place the European fishers [fleets] in the centre and their interests in the centre of our attention,” added the Cypriot commissioner designate. 15:08 The EU's 'listening capacities' German social democrat Udo Bullman MEP asks Sikela how the Global Gateway can be better implemented? How do we enhance our listening capacities for the needs of partner countries?, he asks? Sikela says more contact with local institutions is needed. “We are talking about a relationship of equals,” he says. Communication with local partners needs to be “on a daily basis”, he adds. 15:00 Costa Kadis hearing opens The Cypriot designate commissioner for fisheries in his opening speech attempts to demonstrate he is suited for the job using his national background. “I want them to know that they will have a champion in me,” he said.“because I am one of them [the costal communities], an islander from Cyprus,” he added proudly. 14:58 Sikela focuses on the Gateway Former Czech trade minister Jozef Sikela’s hearing with the parliament’s development committee has started. Sikela has been nominated to replace Jutta Urpilainen as the EU’s international partnerships commissioner. His opening remarks have a heavy focus on Global Gateway, the EU’s infrastructure investment fund which, Sikela says,”can address the root causes of irregular migration” pointing to “investment in economic development, opportunities...creating jobs”. “Our partners want more from Europe,” he says, but — in an allusion to China and Russia — “lately they have received more from assertive actors with an aggressive approach but little development focus.” 12:35 Lahbib: Hearing too short? Well, no In her final remarks, Lahbib stated that the hearing was too short for her - though journalists covering it would likely disagree. Given her broad portfolio, she told MEPs that implementation would be at the heart of her mandate. She pledged to fight against inequalities and to ensure that people can live in safety. “This safety starts with strengthening our preparedness and resilience,” she said. She also reiterated her strong commitment to enhancing humanitarian aid efforts and reinforcing conflict prevention measures, emphasising their critical importance in addressing global crises. “You can count on my full commitment, determination, and strength to support those in need, both within our border but also beyond”. And that's all from the Belgian commissioner wannabe. 12:13 Albuquerque hearing over Well, that's it folks. MEPs will now decide on Albuquerque's fate and probably announce her appointment soon. 11:52 Albuquerque: Money laundering - what will you do? S&D MEP Marina Kaljurand asked how the commissioner would ensure that the EU’s new anti-money laundering body is set up quickly and "has sufficient resources to carry out its tasks." “It takes time to set up such an authority,” said Albuquerque, pointing out that the information technology needed to track international financial crime is “very, very demanding,” meaning it may take a while before the EU agency begins operations. 11:46 Albuquerque: Crypto influencers are misleading consumers Greens MEP Anna Cavazzini asked Albuquerque whether, in the context of the upcoming financial literacy strategy aimed at improving EU citizens' financial savvy, she would consider addressing the misinformation spread by crypto-influencers on social media. “This risk needs to be addressed,” said Albuquerque, but she also suggested that crypto misinformation should be tackled by other commissioners as well. “These products also reach children, very young children,” she said, adding that she would be working on the topic with Henna Virkkunen, the Finnish executive vice-presidential hopeful, who will be responsible for 'technology sovereignty,' security, and democracy. While she was unclear on what specific measures she would take, Albuquerque pledged to take the issue seriously. 11:44 Lahbib calls to respect American election result Lahbib avoided directly responding to questions about how she would deal with Donald Trump, should he be confirmed president of the US. “Whatever the result is, we must show our respect for the decision taken by the American people,” the Belgian candidate said, adding that the US election campaign had been somehow “polarised” in terms of gender, which is “a pity”, she said. 11:27 Lahbib as a ‘bridge builder’ The Belgian commissioner candidate said her work will involve collaborating with 14 other commissioners, which will mean working closely with policymakers from different political families. But she said she was ready for the challenge. “I’ve made myself known as someone who is a bridge builder, and that is the approach that I will defend in this future commission,” Lahbib told MEPs. 11:14 Lahbib on conversion practices In the next LGBTIQ strategy, expected in early 2025, Lahbib committed to developing policies which raise awareness and fight against conversion policies in EU member states. “Conversion practices are anything except therapies because there is no illness to be treated. These are traumatising therapies … [which] lead to broken persons,” she said. According to a study by the EU Parliament, it is estimated that around five percent of LGBTI+ individuals have been offered conversion practices, and two percent have undergone them. Currently, there is an ongoing European Citizens’ Initiative urging the EU Commission to ban these practices. But health policies remain a competence of EU member states. 11:10 Albuquerque: Securitisation was badly used in the past, but … In her mission letter to Albuquerque, EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen called for expanding securitisation in the banking sector to increase the amount of available private finance. Securitisation refers to the process of converting and repackaging illiquid assets (such as loans, mortgages, or receivables) into securities that can be traded in financial markets and used as collateral for new loans, thus expanding the size of financial markets. Excessive use of this method, coupled with poor oversight - partly due to corporate capture of the agencies tasked with overseeing banks, and partly due to the increasing complexity of securitised assets - was a key factor in the financial crisis. In her response to MEPs' questions, Albuquerque acknowledged the risks, but expressed a willingness to expand securitisation: “Securitisation was badly used in the past, but it is an important tool to free up space on bank balance sheets,” she said. “The problem is not the instrument, but how it is used.” She will hold a consultation with banks and other "stakeholders" and said it was "too early to tell" how the role of securitisation will develop. 11:02 Lahbib on UNRWA and children in Gaza Lahbib said she is committed to supporting UNRWA, since the UN agency is considered the only organisation which right now can provide humanitarian aid and essentials for Palestinians. But she also acknowledged that access to humanitarian aid is “a real problem” in the region. “My priority will be to continue to deliver the necessary aid to the population which has been caught up as victims in this conflict, particularly the children who are currently deprived of their second dose of polio [vaccines],” she said. 10:55 Albuquerque grilled on financialisation of homes Greens MEP Maria Toussaint raised the increasing financialisation of housing, which she warned is pushing housing prices up across Europe. “As you know, 50 percent of homes are owned by large private investors, which increases the risk of housing bubbles,” she said, and “aggressive rental policies” of such investors are increasing the price of homes. But she pointed out that "the financialisation of the housing sector is currently not included in the EU’s financial regulation plans". She wanted to know if the new commissioner was sensitive to the risk and had concrete plans to address it. “I think that financial markets can actually help,” said Albuquerque, signalling she had no plans to limit the role of private investors in the sector. “That being said, if confirmed, I am more than happy to consider measures,” she added. A recent study of 13 cities by the London School of Economics found that financialisation “generally” leads to the kind of investments that push up rents “at the expense mainly of lower-income households.” 10:54 Lahbib wants more LGBTIQ-friendly cities In her post-2025 strategy, Lahbib said she would like to see more LGBTIQ-friendly cities in Europe. “This is something positive, something inclusive, which we can do rather than just reacting to violence. I mean, the two things need to happen in parallel,” she said, arguing that events, such as pride marches, can help make such committees “be more visible and more at ease”. 10:47 Lahbib says current humanitarian aid system is 'not sustainable' We are over halfway through the hearing and Lahbib is doing well. She noted that 90 percent of humanitarian aid comes from just 20 member states. “That is not sustainable,” she said, arguing that OECD countries, the G20, and Gulf countries should also contribute. “Anybody who wants to play a role on the international stage should participate in providing humanitarian aid,” she also said. If confirmed, which now seems likely, she also stated that she will "help" member states fulfil their commitments to allocate 0.07 percent of their GDP to humanitarian aid. This promise was made in 2023. 10:33 Lahbib on surrogacy and children rights When far-right MEP and former Frontex chief Fabrice Leggeri accused Lahbib of supporting surrogacy, the Belgian commissioner candidate stated that this is a competence of EU member states. Regarding children's rights, which can result from surrogacy, she said that there are differences in legislation within the EU that lead to more inequalities, particularly regarding children. "It is important that these children enjoy the same rights as any other child, regardless of who their parents are, and that is a fundamental right," she said. 10:26 Albuquerque: not deregulation but streamlining Responding to repeated questions about her plans for simplifying green financial reporting rules, Albuquerque said that it is “not about deregulation” but “making sure” existing regulations are better implemented, correcting overlaps between rules, and “streamlined.” 10:22 Lahbib's past as a journalist triggers questions on Crimea In 2021, as a journalist for the Belgian radio-TV RTBF, Lahbib reported from Crimea, a region under illegal Russian occupation since 2014. However, MEPs accused her of lacking objectivity and of reporting that Crimea was part of Russia. “There is no doubt … since I've been a foreign affairs minister, I've defended the sovereignty of Crimea [as] being part of Ukraine,” she said. “I went there to report on the situation of artists in difficult situations. I wasn't invited by [Russian president Vladimir] Putin. I was invited by an artist who lives in Belgium,” she added, rejecting accusations that her trip was funded by Putin's daughter. Lahbib is responding to all the questions in French, showing noticeably more confidence and assertiveness than in her earlier English introductory remarks. Lahbib, who studied journalism in Brussels, worked as a journalist, reporter, news anchor, manager, and documentary maker from 1993 until 2022. 10:18 Albuquerque: MEP warns deregulating financial markets a risk "We welcome her [Albuquerque's] commitment to the swift implementation of the Basel III rules,” said Greens MEP Rasmus Andersen. “But competitiveness should not come at the expense of financial stability," he added. “We are also deeply concerned about the pressure for higher returns and the financialisation of housing markets,” he said. "There should be no reckless deregulation of financial markets,” he warned, as this had led to the 2008 financial crisis, he added. 10:16 Albuquerque: incomplete banking union a ‘disadvantage’ Europe faces a problem with its unfinished banking union, which is making it harder for companies to access financing for their projects, Albuquerque said. “It is now time to get together and complete it,” she said. 10:02 Lahbib's response on abortion rights earns applause Reflecting on Lahbib’s introductory remarks, Abir Al-Sahlani, an Iraqi-born Swedish liberal MEP, also shared her experience before asking her question: “I was too not supposed to be here and not even to survive, but here we are, crossing one glass ceiling at a time”. When asked by Abir if she would work to include the right of abortion in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Lahbib smartly referred to a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights in 2023 that stated that the lack of safe and secure access to abortion was an attack on individual private rights and the rights of the family. “We are all subject to that decision, and that is a foundation, we can build on,” she said, receiving a round of applause. “Women's bodies have always been a battlefield in the fight for gender equality, and I will continue to fight this fight,” the Belgian candidate also said. 09:56 Albuquerque: implement Basel III 'without delay' Greens MEP Kira Marie Peter-Hansen congratulated commissioner hopeful Albuquerque but called on her to fully implement Basel III banking regulations immediately and “without further delay." Basel III is an internationally agreed set of measures meant to prevent a repeat of the 2007-2009 financial crisis. Published in 2010, it was meant to come into force in 2013, but elements of it have since been postponed multiple times. “For us, it is very important to have a robust financial system that can withstand shocks,” Albuquerque said. “I really meant what I said; financial stability is absolutely key. That means Basel III has to be implemented,” she added, but said European banks should not be disadvantaged compared to international competitors, adding that a “level playing field” must be ensured. 09:37 Lahbib’s to-do list In her introductory remarks, Lahbib pledged to protect the rights of people with disabilities, Roma communities, and LGTBI and women's rights. She also suggested creating a strong EU preparedness strategy, looking into whether a preparedness law could be helpful, along with strengthening the European Civil Defence Mechanism. The flash floods in Valencia are “yet another terrible demonstration that we need to be better prepared for disasters,” she said. With armed conflicts on the rise, currently totalling 120 worldwide, Lahbib stated that, if confirmed, she would strengthen humanitarian aid and address gaps in Europe’s response, while respecting the voluntary targets set by member states. “It is about our international humanitarian commitments, but also about our own security,” she said. 09:35 Albuquerque: starts off deeply pessimistic Portugal’s financial-services commissioner hopeful Maria Luis Albuquerque kicked off her three-hour parliamentary hearing with a dour, pessimistic warning about Europe’s future. “There can be no doubt that Europe’s economy is falling behind,” she said. “I fear Europe is losing the ability to decide its own future.” But recent reports by former European Central Bank president Mario Draghi and Italy’s former prime minister Enrico Letta “shed light” on what needs to be done,” she said, offering some hope. 09:13 Lahbib’s hearing kicks off Hadja Lahbib’s hearing begins with a minute of silence to honour the victims of the devastating floods in Valencia, showing solidarity with those affected in the region. The liberal politician, of Algerian Kabyle origin, who had been serving as Belgium’s foreign minister since July 2022, could soon make history as the first-ever EU commissioner who is also a person of colour. In her introductory remarks, Lahbib shared her personal journey. "Nothing predestined me to stand here in front of you,” she said, arguing that she was not expected to go to university or become a war reporter or a minister. “Why do I tell you my story? Because it's a European story”, she added. “These are the European values that have made me who I am: a steadfast believer in a society free from discrimination and free from inequality,” she also said, noting that many people in the EU faced discrimination on a daily basis. 8:30 Watch out for 'revolving doors' and Várhelyi Portugal’s Maria Luís Albuquerque, nominated to oversee financial services, has already raised concerns over potential conflict of interests due to her ties to the financial sector and her 2015 move from the Portuguese ministry of finance to a non-executive director role at UK-based Arrow Global. For more background on Albuquerque, check out this oped by Maria van der Heide, head of EU policy at ShareAction . Similarly, Czech commissioner nominee Jozef Sikela, appointed to be in charge of the €300bn Global Gateway, brings nearly a decade of experience from his tenure at Erste Group, one of central and eastern Europe’s largest financial services providers. Don’t miss this piece by our reporter Benjamin Fox to help you get ready for the hearing. Keep an eye on Hungary’s commissioner-designate Olivér Várhelyi, tapped for health and animal welfare, who might have a tough time reaching the two-thirds majority he needs. His hearing runs from 18:30 to 21:30, and you can bet abortion rights will be a hot topic. Várhelyi is also likely to be questioned about his 9 October
|
announcement on X
|
Follow our live blog for real-time updates and insights on the EU commissioner hearings as they unfold.
|
[] |
*
|
2024-11-06T07:39:40.480Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/ar62eaa96b
|
What tonight's US election result means for EU defence
|
Tonight's US presidential election has significant implications not only for American voters but also for the future of the EU-US relations, especially in the context of European defence. Many analysts suggest that Kamala Harris and Donald Trump represent two contrasting doctrines of US foreign policy. While this may be true regarding the war in Ukraine, the differences are less clear when it comes to European affairs, particularly the integration of the EU’s Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP). Regarding the war in Ukraine, it is expected that Kamala Harris will continue the policy of the Biden administration. Both she and her running mate, Tim Walz, are staunch supporters of Ukraine. So far, the US has committed over $55bn [€50.5bn] in security assistance and $175bn in financial aid to support Ukraine’s defence efforts. The Democratic Party leadership believes that the Russian economy cannot sustain its war effort much longer, and a negotiated peace treaty may eventually be inevitable. Under her administration, it will not be surprising to see an increase in both military and financial support for Ukraine to intensify pressure on Russia. However, Harris recognises that post-war borders will likely differ from those in 1991. In contrast, Trump has repeatedly stated that he opposes continued aid to Ukraine, arguing that it is unrealistic for Ukraine to fully recover territories seized by Russia. If elected, he has suggested prioritizing mediation efforts between the conflicting parties, even at the risk of straining US-Ukraine relations. It is worth noting that Trump maintained relatively good relations with Russia during his presidency. Furthermore, he frequently expressed his wish to end the US's ‘endless wars’ in the Middle East, including Afghanistan (despite criticising the manner in which the withdrawal was executed). Despite these claims, a rapid deal with Russia under Trump remains uncertain, as opposition from the US military establishment and other institutional actors would likely be significant. Furthermore, Trump has a history of overpromising on foreign policy matters, as seen in his 2016 campaign pledges to quickly resolve complex international issues. So, it is not very certain that under his presidency we will see a swift solution. More similarities than differences? While their views on Russia differ, Harris and Trump’s approaches to European defence integration show more continuity than contrast. Many analysts emphasise the differences between Nato and the EU, often implying that EU member states present a unified front toward US defence demands. This view is partially accurate, especially regarding Nato's pressure on European countries to meet the two percent of GDP defence spending target and Trump’s often exaggerated threats to withdraw US support for Nato members failing to meet their financial commitments. The war in Ukraine has certainly increased the importance of European defence in the agenda of policymakers, but the European security architecture does not include only the CSDP and Nato. Disagreements between leaders of the EU member states about financing defence armaments programmes stagnate further the integration of the CSDP, while multilateral agreements, such as the Lancaster House Treaty between the UK and France, and organisations like the Organisation for Joint Armament Co-operation (OCCAR), contribute to the complex web of European defence structures. Regardless of who wins tonight, the US will likely continue navigating these complexities to maintain Nato's central role in European defence, particularly in the realm of defence procurement. A recent example of this strategy is the June 2023 Memorandum of Understanding between the Nato Support and Procurement Agency and OCCAR, which strengthens OCCAR’s position in armaments cooperation at the expense of the European Defence Agency (EDA), an EU framework meant to support the integration of the CSDP. The disparity in their budgets speaks volumes: in 2023, OCCAR managed €6bn for 20 projects, while the EDA’s total budget stood at a mere €44m. With OCCAR’s member countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK) accounting for more than 80 percent of the EU’s defence budget, such agreements make it challenging to persuade key EU members to increase investments in the EDA or expand OCCAR to include smaller EU states with less competitive defence industries. Similarly, the Nordic Defence Cooperation (NORDEFCO), a grouping of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, is enhancing its collaboration with Nato, further complicating efforts to strengthen the EU’s defence posture through frameworks like PESCO. So, despite Ursula von der Leyen’s aspirations to create a European Defense Union, significant support from the US remains unlikely, no matter who will be in the White House. The next US administration will likely continue exploiting (or even amplifying) competition among Europe’s various defence frameworks, making the goal of EU strategic autonomy a difficult and distant prospect. Christos Kourtelis is assistant professor at Panteion University in Athens. Spyros Lymperis studies politics and international relations at Panteion University. Christos Kourtelis is assistant professor at
|
Panteion University
|
Many analysts suggest that Harris and Trump represent two contrasting doctrines of US foreign policy. While this may be true regarding the war in Ukraine, the differences are less clear when it comes to EU affairs, particularly the integration of the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-11-05T13:23:10.767Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar2ac5a7f1
|
Trump and Orbán: two peas in a pod
|
There was once a politician who, after narrowly losing an election to an older, soft-spoken opponent, immediately started to plan his comeback. Doubts surfaced about his electability, from his own party and the public at large, but he managed to rally support and come back stronger, uniting his party, and later, the entire rightwing of his country. By repeatedly suggesting that his election defeat was the consequence of impropriety, he successfully framed himself as an anti-establishment figure determined to right the wrongs of the past. More than a party leader, he became a symbol, either revered or passionately hated. From that point forward, his country's politics centred on whether one supported or opposed him. If you’re thinking of Donald Trump, think again. It is, in fact, the story of Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. But its resonance with Trump’s political journey raises alarm bells. Long before Trump’s presidency, Orbán had already transformed his party, making it an effective vehicle for his personal ambitions. After losing the Hungarian premiership in 2002, Orbán remodeled himself in opposition, and eventually reclaimed power eight years later. Over the past 14 years in office, he has built not only a movement, but an entire state, centered around the kind of authoritarian-populist ideology found in Trump’s MAGA movement. Warning signs in the US are already evident. Trump’s family and friends are making fortunes, including Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, who has received billions of dollars in investment from a Saudi Prince, mirroring István Tiborcz, Orbán’s son-in-law, whose wealth skyrocketed with the nepotistic award of state contracts and EU funding . Trump’s references to immigrants as “poisoning the blood” of America echo Orbán’s own assertions that Hungarians “do not want to become a mixed race.” Free and fair debate is severely hampered by the cultivation of a sympathetic media landscape. While Orbán has ruthlessly forced opposition voices into submission or oblivion, through a combination of hostile takeovers and intimidation, Trump has succeeded in capturing the rightwing media and is now making in-roads into silencing opposition, as indicated by the decision of the LA Times and the Washington Post not to endorse a presidential candidate for this year’s election. Hungary as laboratory and blueprint Over 14 years, Hungarians have witnessed the erosion of checks and balances, the manipulation of public perception through state-controlled media, and the enrichment of those close to the prime minister. The country is becoming an authoritarian laboratory, and a blueprint for rightwing leaders who wish to consolidate power in their home states. Americans, however, have one final chance to step in, heed warnings from the Hungarian experience, and avert the subversion of their democracy. For many in the US, their country’s democratic backsliding is almost unimaginable. However, with a second Trump presidency, the political normalcies known for decades may no longer exist. Americans must take a stand against clear, self-defined, anti-democratic forces. First, they must seek to protect their institutions at all costs. In Hungary, these fell swiftly, and, today, are controlled by Orbán's allies, including the Public Prosecutor’s Office, from which they can shield high-level government officials and prosecute those deemed ‘enemies of the state.’ They also took over the Curia, Hungary’s Supreme Court, using it to rubber-stamp Orbán’s continuous efforts to remain in power. Once such institutions are captured, it takes several election cycles, at best, to wrestle them back Appointing loyalists is, effectively, the backdoor to state control. The move is hard to challenge as it utilises existing legitimate systems. We can already see signs of this playing out in the US, with the Supreme Court and some lower-level judges. It is also evident in alterations to voting procedures in states like Georgia, where election deniers took control of the election board and pushed to reintroduce hand-counting ballots to assist Trump if he contests the results. Once such institutions are captured, it takes several election cycles, at best, to wrestle them back. Second, they must safeguard, and rally around, independent media. To retain power, an autocrat must control the media ecosystem and the messaging citizens receive. Here is where the US most resembles Hungary. Fox News, OANN, Newsmax and others are reminiscent of Hungary’s state-controlled propaganda machine. Already, the American rightwing media ecosystem is highly effective even without central control from the government. Aside from keeping the political camp unified and ensuring electoral success, this ecosystem erodes any sense of ‘sacred’ values within the political camp, as its media outlets can rationalise anything. Lastly, they must seek to preserve civil society. Civil organisations serve as a critical counterbalance to state power. These groups can uniquely uphold the ideals of freedom and democracy by maintaining a public life that is not controlled by the government. They kept the ideals of freedom alive across central and eastern Europe before the fall of the Iron Curtain, and most recently helped pave the way for the return of a more democratic era in Poland, following the eight-year rule of the nationalist, rightwing, Law and Justice Party. Embracing such organisations, whether liberal or conservative, is vital for those committed to democracy. In 2010, when we, in Hungary, faced the rise of an autocrat, there was no modern precedent in the Western world to learn from. Americans now have a clear blueprint on how burgeoning strongmen seize power — and therefore a chance to prepare. In the coming election, they have the opportunity to prevent democratic slip from going any further, an opportunity that must not be missed. Gergő Papp is a Hungarian political campaigns consultant, with a focus on democratic movements and efforts to resist the rise of authoritarianism.
|
Gergő Papp
|
Hungary is becoming an authoritarian laboratory, and a blueprint for rightwing leaders who wish to consolidate power in their home states. Americans, however, have one final chance to step in, heed warnings from the Hungarian experience, and avert the subversion of their democracy
|
[
"EU & the World",
"EU Political",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-11-05T13:17:42.606Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arf1b45de5
|
Why Germany should pause its arms sales to Israel
|
Just over one year ago, on 8 October, 2023, Malek al Kafarna, then 13, woke up at home in Beit Hanoun, northern Gaza, unsure if he’d go to school as the Israeli military had begun its intense aerial bombardment. The day before, Hamas-led Palestinian armed groups attacked southern Israel, in which attack at least 800 civilians, including 36 children, were killed and 251 people were taken hostage. EU states are contributing to the ensuing disaster as they continue to send weapons and military equipment to Israel. Five days later, on 13 October, the Israeli military ordered everyone in northern Gaza to evacuate to the southern part of the Strip. Malek fled with his parents, seven-year-old brother, and 14-year-old sister. They first sought refuge in Jabalia refugee camp, and then Al-Shati refugee camp, but moved further south after the attacks followed them until they eventually reached Nuseirat, in central Gaza. “Israelis had declared that area safe,” Malek’s mother, Leila, had told me over a call. However, on 24 October, when Malek and Leila were at the camp’s central market awaiting food coupons, an Israeli strike hit the market without warning, killing at least 21 people, including nine children, and injuring at least 80 others, according to Airwars . The strike caused Leila to lose consciousness. “After I woke up, I was still holding my son’s arm, so I started running, thinking I’m running with my son,” she said. “I felt like my son was light, as if there was no weight on the arm. So, I looked and didn’t see my son anywhere near me, and that was when I discovered that I was holding only his arm.” She ran back and saw Malek running toward her before he fainted. An ambulance took Malek and Leila to Al-Aqsa hospital in Deir al-Balah, where they waited for hours. Gaza’s healthcare system was overwhelmed, suffering from shortages of staff and medical supplies. Malek survived, but he lost his left arm, which has affected him psychologically as well as physically. Malek and his mother were fortunate enough to evacuate to the United Arab Emirates for treatment in December, but Malek’s siblings remain behind, and the family doesn’t know whether they’ll ever see each other again. Malek’s story is tragically common. Now repeat in Lebanon One year of the Israeli military’s relentless use of explosive weapons in densely populated areas of Gaza now risks, terrifyingly, being repeated in Lebanon. The use of explosive weapons with wide effects raises the risk of unlawfully indiscriminate attacks . It also creates unique vulnerabilities for children, who are more susceptible to burns and are more likely to die from blast injuries than adults. The ongoing use of explosive weapons heightens concerns that children will continue to pay the highest price in this conflict. As of 10 September, more than 16,000 children had been killed in Gaza and as of 8 October, 127 children had been killed and 890 injured in Lebanon. Like Malek, thousands more children in Gaza have acquired a disability from injuries caused by the Israeli military’s conduct in Gaza. This is in addition to approximately 98,000 children in Gaza who already had a disability before October 7, 2023. They are living through a vicious, nightmarish cycle in which more and more children are acquiring a disability and at the same time all children with disabilities are facing increased threats to their lives and safety , as Human Rights Watch documented in a recent report. The Israeli army’s evacuation orders and lack of effective advance warning of attacks are disproportionally harming children with disabilities, who cannot easily flee. Despite the International Court of Justice’s repeated orders requiring Israel to prevent genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and to enable unfettered humanitarian aid to reach the population, Israeli authorities continue to devastate crucial services like health care and obstruct the entry and distribution within Gaza of lifesaving aid. These actions are especially harmful to people with disabilities, including children, who are struggling to survive without essential medication, assistive devices, and other means necessary for their survival. The Airwars report indicates that the Israeli military used explosive weapons in their attack on the market in which Malek lost his arm. Made in Germany While Israel gets most of its weapons from the United States, some European Union member states have supplied other types of military equipment to Israel. Germany stands out as the second biggest exporter of major conventional weapons to Israel, with the government authorising military equipment worth approximately €326.5m in 2023, a 10-fold increase from 2022. Human Rights Watch has repeatedly called on governments to suspend arms transfers to all warring parties so long as they commit widespread laws-of-war violations with impunity. EU member states that continue to provide arms to Israel risk complicity in war crimes. As the Israeli military continues its attacks on Gaza and expands its operations in Lebanon, using explosive weapons in densely populated cities and villages puts the lives of more children at risk, irreparably changing lives like Malek’s. The EU can, and should, play a leading role in protecting children in armed conflicts. EU member states need to stop the supply of weapons to Israel and adopt persuasive efforts to press the Israeli authorities to end their serious violations of the laws of war that are destroying children’s lives. Emina Ćerimović is associate disability rights director at Human Rights Watch . Emina Ćerimović is associate disability rights director at
|
Human Rights Watch
|
The Israeli army’s evacuation orders and lack of effective advance warning of attacks are disproportionally harming children with disabilities, who cannot easily flee. Germany stands out as the second-biggest EU exporter of major conventional weapons to Israel.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-11-04T11:00:06.142Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar930cf28a
|
EU appears woefully unprepared for COP29
|
This year's 29th session of the UN Climate Change Conference (COP29) is supposed to take bold actions to tackle climate change — but our planet and its people are still affected by climate disasters of unprecedented scale. The 1.5C threshold that was the stretch target established in the Paris Agreement in 2015, and the Sustainable Development Goals are far from achieved, and the European Union’s struggle to maintain the leadership it has long held in climate negotiations is only making matters worse. Under these circumstances, it is questionable whether smallholder farmers and small food processors of the countries most affected by the impacts of climate change will still be able to produce enough food for their own regions in the years to come. Without immediate action, food sovereignty will be unattainable for a growing number of low and middle-income countries, adding a new dependency to an already long list. Besides, farmers might soon be unable to grow many of the world’s favourite foods and it is fair to wonder if the delegates at COP39 will still be able to enjoy a cup of coffee to survive long nights of negotiations. While the Council of the European Union has recognised the need to reform the climate finance architecture in its conclusions ahead of COP29, the EU has so far not put any concrete proposals on the table and does not appear to have a clear implementation agenda. The proposed initiatives under the European Green Deal — which aims to make the EU climate-neutral by 2050 — do not fully acknowledge the connection between market demands in the EU and production practices outside of it. These measures pose significant challenges to smallholder farmers and food processing SMEs in non-EU countries and risk to cause environmentally and socially harmful impacts there. A global Green Deal? In response to the European Green Deal, the Fair Trade Movement together with SOLIDAR has made a bold proposal for a Global Green Deal — a plan for more social and environmental justice in global emissions reduction efforts. It calls for fairer policies that recognise climate impacts on farmers and proposes a just transition strategy towards compliance with EU requirements, which includes support and long-term finance. We urge policy makers to consider the following aspects during COP29 and beyond: farming communities need new solutions that can be immediately effective building on practical methods to produce and process more sustainably, something the Fair Trade community has done for decades worldwide. Fair Trade as a social movement demonstrated its ability to foster regenerative agriculture, sustainable production and consumption patterns, and social and environmental justice. This has notably been achieved through the vital role of Fair Trade enterprises that prioritise environmentally and socially sound practices over profit maximisation, along with certification programmes like Fairtrade, which support farming communities in addressing a wide range of social and environmental issues. In addition to enabling communities to continue producing qualitative food, the EU must also promote food processing and diversification of supply chains in producing countries to retain value locally and build the foundation of a true food sovereignty policy in countries most affected by the climate crisis. Climate programmes must meet the needs of farming communities. Governments must change how they design climate programmes so that farmers and agricultural workers always have a seat at the table and can shape the programmes according to their communities’ needs. Mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage Climate finance must be more accessible and more ambitious. Mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage must be funded separately. The gap in adaptation funding must urgently be closed through additional funds, leveraging EU subsidies and other innovative sources. Climate finance programmes must pay greater attention to the links between mitigation and adaptation and prioritise actions that foster both. Trade policies must protect human rights and the environment. Governments must implement regulations, incentives, and sanctions that shift power relations in global trade, and give preference to small-scale farming and processing which tackles structural poverty in interconnection with environmental degradation. The Global Green Deal is strongly aligned with the first pillar of the COP29 presidency, which aims to increase climate ambition in parties' proposals. Ambassadors from several nations support this idea, which has also been endorsed by members of the European Parliament's Fair Trade Working Group. In addition, the European Committee of the Regions has called on the EU to defend a similar project of a Global Green Deal in its official COP29 negotiating position. By placing the concrete proposals of the Global Green Deal at the heart of its official negotiating position at COP29, the EU could lead meaningful climate negotiations. World conflicts and geopolitical strains have made it more important than ever to work together to reach joint targets. The EU must use one of the last chances it might get to advocate for solutions that put people and the planet first and leave no one behind – to protect the world’s climate and secure its place as a global leader. Sophie Aujean is the director of advocacy at Fairtrade International . Leida Rijnhout is the chief executive of World Fair Trade Organization (WFTO) . Jorge Conesa is the managing director of the Fair Trade Advocacy Office (FTAO) . Sophie Aujean is the director of advocacy at Fairtrade International . Leida Rijnhout is the chief executive of World Fair Trade Organization (WFTO) . Jorge Conesa is the managing director of the
|
Fair Trade Advocacy Office (FTAO)
|
While the Council of the European Union has recognised the need to reform the climate finance architecture in its conclusions ahead of COP29, the EU has so far not put any concrete proposals on the table and does not appear to have a clear implementation agenda, writes the NGO Fairtrade.
|
[
"Green Economy",
"Opinion"
] |
*
|
2024-11-04T10:59:56.942Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/ar46e9cf39
|
The meme-ification of politics in Romania
|
Far-right Romanian presidential candidate George Simion is not just running a campaign, he’s waging a meme war. In today’s digital age, the way politicians communicate with the public has fundamentally shifted – and internet memes are emerging as powerful weapons for shaping public perception and discourse. Memes as political weapons We are entering an era where individual personalities often eclipse party ideologies – and even parties themselves. The recent campaign of Simion is a perfect case study of how political actors use memes to craft and amplify a candidate’s image. Memes have evolved into something far more powerful than mere internet jokes. Bypassing traditional media, they have become potent tools for shaping public perception and discourse . In political campaigning, memes are especially useful to populist and far-right candidates who thrive on anti-establishment sentiment. Simion has embraced memes not just as part of his communication strategy, but as a central pillar of his campaign. He has engaged his supporters on a deeply personal level, turning himself into a political celebrity in the process. Simion's meme template The striking aspect of Simion’s meme strategy is his use of a specific meme template. Making direct eye contact with the viewer and with a 'finger gun' inspired by the early 20th-century recruitment posters featuring Lord Kitchener and Uncle Sam , Simion's template has been modified countless times — by both supporters and opponents – a blank canvas for internet users to either praise or mock him: Simion's supporters have shared his original Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) campaign picture (bottom left corner) or amended the template, superimposing positive messages. Slogans like 'The Man Romania Needs' or 'A True Patriot' reinforce Simion's image as a champion of the people. His critics, meanwhile, have added sarcastic, mocking captions such as 'Abolish The Law Of Gravity, And All Romanians Will Be Able To Fly' (top quote, bottom right), ' Just 5 RON For Ethnic Hungarians Who Vote AUR' (top right corner). ( is a traditional dessert for Hungarians from Transylvania, and ethnic Hungarians in Romania usually vote for the Democratic Union of Hungarians from Romania.) Both serve to amplify Simion's presence, ensuring that his image – and his name – remain in the public consciousness. ‘All publicity is good publicity’ By flooding social media with his own content, Simion not only controls the narrative , he also ensures that his messages reach voters unfiltered. This is a significant departure from the times when candidates relied heavily on traditional media to convey campaign messages. Today, candidates like Simion can reach millions of potential voters directly through social media, with memes as their main vehicle. Such direct engagement is particularly appealing to younger voters, who are more likely to consume political content online than through traditional media. Simion’s campaign thus circumvents the gatekeeping role of journalists, allowing him to shape his image and message without external interference. Using memes as a political vehicle allows candidates to circumvent the gatekeeping role of journalists, and to shape their image and message without external interference This tactic is not just about reach; it’s about resonance. Memes, with their viral potential, can amplify a message far beyond the capabilities of traditional political advertising. These images, coupled with snappy, relatable captions, reinforce the idea that Simion is one of 'us' rather than one of 'them'. It is particularly effective in a country where distrust of politicians runs high amid a growing appetite for anti-establishment rhetoric. Being the subject of conversation — positive or negative — is often more valuable than the content of the conversation itself. The constant adaptation of Simion’s meme template has made him a central figure in Romania’s online political discourse, blurring the lines between endorsement and critique. Viral politics Memes do more than just reflect a candidate’s personality — they also serve as powerful amplifiers of ideology. Simion’s memes often carry subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) nationalist and populist messages. Embedding these ideas in humorous or provocative content, Simion can communicate his ideology to a broad audience without overt messaging that might alienate some voters. A meme that jokingly mocks EU bureaucracy, for example, can simultaneously reinforce nationalist sentiments among voters who feel alienated by Romania’s relationship with the EU. By embedding campaign messages in humorous or provocative content, political candidates can communicate their ideology to a broad audience without overt messaging that might alienate some voters Humorous elements can also appeal to voters who might not otherwise engage with traditional political discourse. In an age where voters often feel disconnected from mainstream politicians, Simion’s memes present him as a figure who is not only in touch with topical issues, but also speaks the language of the people. Memes' viral nature means that these messages can spread rapidly across social networks, reaching far beyond Simion’s immediate supporters. As memes are shared, liked, and commented upon, they take on a life of their own, becoming part of the broader political discourse. This amplifies Simion’s message, and helps normalise and legitimise his political platform within the mainstream. The meme-ification of politics Simion’s presidential campaign is testament to the power of memes in modern-day politics. By harnessing the viral potential of internet culture, Simion has managed to craft a compelling, relatable image that resonates with a wide audience. His memes also offer a glimpse into the future of political communication. The influence of traditional media continues to dwindle, as social media becomes increasingly central to our lives. Memes, therefore, are likely to play an increasingly significant role in shaping political narratives. Social media memes are reshaping the political landscape in ways we are only just beginning to understand For candidates like Simion, memes are not just tools — they are weapons in the battle for public opinion. The widespread adaptation of his campaign meme template, whether in support or mockery, supports the idea that in the digital age, visibility is king. It’s clear that memes are not just a passing trend; they are here to stay – and they are reshaping the political landscape in ways we are only just beginning to understand. The future of democratic discourse The rise of meme politics also raises important questions about the future of democratic discourse. While memes can make politics more accessible, they can also oversimplify complex issues and contribute to the polarisation of public opinion. As memes continue to blur the line between entertainment and politics, voters will need to become more critical of the content they consume. Voters will also need to be more aware of how these seemingly innocuous images shape their perception. For better or worse, the future of political campaigns may very well be determined by who can create the most shareable meme . Mimi Mihăilescu is a PhD candidate at the University of Bath.
|
Mimi Mihăilescu
|
The recent campaign of far-right Romanian presidential candidate George Simion is a perfect case study of how political actors use memes to craft and amplify a candidate’s image.
|
[
"Digital",
"EU Political"
] |
digital
|
2024-11-01T08:55:55.762Z
|
https://euobserver.com/digital/ar13f54193
|
Von der Leyen's 'mission letters' let slip deregulation agenda of next commissioners
|
When MEPs get the chance to grill potential commissioners next week , they need to challenge candidates on the deregulation machine EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has set in motion. The commission is already rolling back previous commitments on phasing out toxic chemicals, and from combustion engine phaseouts to deforestation prevention, many other social and environmental laws are in danger. And von der Leyen wants her second commission term to add many more tools to the deregulatory toolbox. She is clear that the next five years' focus is on industry’s "competitiveness" – that means deregulation of EU rules that industry perceives as burdensome. Heavily-inspired by corporate lobbying campaigns — and backed up by high-profile reports by Letta and Draghi — von der Leyen is turning EU decision-making into a deregulation machine where ambitious new social and ecological policies face so many hurdles that there’s little chance of making it through in one piece. While laws already in place are threatened by slashing enforcement and oversight. Civil society groups and trade unions are deeply concerned. The trade union confederation ETUC denounced these plans: “Workers’ rights and collective bargaining must be protected and reinforced, not subject to deregulation attacks. In particular, we sound an alarm bell about ‘administrative burden reduction’ leading to deregulation or an inability to monitor and inspect compliance.” These concerns are fully justified. Corporate Europe Observatory went through Von der Leyen’s priorities for each of the candidate-commissioners (the Mission Letters). We found over 15 different tools for systemic deregulation and slashing standards; most new, others harsher versions of existing ones. Let’s zoom in on a handful of the most worrying components of the deregulation machine that von der Leyen intends to construct. 25 percent reduction in corporate reporting obligations Firstly, all commissioners are asked to reduce corporate reporting obligations by 25 percent for all businesses (35 per cent for SMEs). These arbitrary targets are especially dangerous given reporting is absolutely crucial for these laws to work properly. As Dutch investigative journalists Follow the Money recently revealed , civil servants stress that reporting is often crucial to meet policy objectives or necessary for audit purposes. Ursula von der Leyen's new mantra is wanting closer involvement of business in checking new draft legislation To imagine reporting can be cut substantially without affecting the outcome of a law is a fantasy. Equally worrying, all commissioners are tasked with ‘stress-testing the ’: ie reviewing existing EU legislation to simplify and reduce burdens on industry. This is unprecedented and truly uncharted territory. Despite claims to the contrary, in a political context where corporate competitiveness is seen as the main priority, social and environmental standards will inevitably be lowered. New hurdles will be added to the passage of proposed new laws, which will be checked for how they might affect 'SMEs' and 'competitiveness'. This on top of the already very comprehensive system of impact assessments: the Commission's existing ‘ Better Regulation ’ toolbox is de facto deregulatory, and its the Regulatory Scrutiny Board routinely intervenes to lower social and environmental ambitions. Von der Leyen's new mantra is wanting closer involvement of business in checking new draft legislation. She mentions several new ways in which businesses will be consulted: ‘Implementation Dialogues’ with ‘stakeholders’ and a new consultation approach called 'Reality Checks'. Business-friendly 'impact assessments' No details, but there’s every reason to fear that this will mean giving corporate lobbies an even more direct role in shaping EU legislation. What should ring loud alarm bells in the European Parliament is the commission's demand to force the parliament and European Council to use the same kind of business-friendly impact assessments as they do. MEPs' amendments to the commission’s draft legislation would be subject to these impact assessments. This would be absurdly undemocratic, restrict the freedom of parliament, and force EU decision-making even further into a narrow corporate-friendly pathway. Too many good ideas already suffer 'death by impact assessment'. Finally, von der Leyen’s deregulation machine also targets national governments, regions, and municipalities. A new Single Market Strategy "to speed up the removal of barriers" and a possible “Single Market Barriers Prevention Act” would give the commission further powers to control national and local governments, and limit the democratic space for progressive measures. Many policies labelled 'regulatory barriers' are in fact legitimate and valuable progressive laws and policies. As our report 30 years of the EU Single Market shows, the commission regularly challenges national laws and policies that industry considers to be violations of the single market. As a result of airport lobby complaints, EU infringement procedures led to the gutting of the French government’s ban on short-haul domestic flight routes (where fast trains are available). Such decisions are often a highly pro-business and neoliberal interpretation of single market law, by commission departments that ignore for example the EU's own climate goals. The combined effect of these planned deregulation measures and more will render it much less likely for ambitious progressive regulations to protect people and the environment to clear the decision-making process full of carefully designed hurdles. That’s disastrous at a time of multi-faceted crises where a deep, socially just ecological transformation of our societies is needed. Olivier Hoedeman is a researcher at Corporate Europe Observatory , the NGO monitoring business lobbying of Brussels. Olivier Hoedeman is a researcher at
|
Corporate Europe Observatory
|
Corporate Europe Observatory went through Ursula von der Leyen’s priorities for each of the candidate-commissioners (the so-called 'Mission Letters). We found over 15 different tools for systemic deregulation and slashing standards.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Green Economy",
"Opinion"
] |
*
|
2024-10-31T11:48:43.175Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/ar3d655039
|
Tweak the EU-Mercosur trade deal to include forest conservation
|
After more than five years of negotiations ratification of a EU-Mercosur trade agreement may finally be at hand. It’s far from a done deal. In Europe, several countries want to push for a rapid ratification of the trade deal between the two parties, even though some countries, including France, are still attempting to block the treaty . On the Mercosur side, they are objecting because of the EU’s new and strict deforestation laws . But the best route forward is neither to ratify the EU-Mercosur trade deal as it is, nor abandon it. If the EU-Mercosur trade deal ratified in its current form, then the larger market can lead to agricultural expansion, with associated deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. If the deal is ratified, the Mercosur countries might turn their export to other partners , instead, with weaker or no environmental provisions. But a better alternative is available. With minor modifications, the trade deal can be used as a carrot that motivates tropical forest conservation instead of deforestation. Here is how: Both the EU and the Mercosur countries would like to commit to reduced deforestation in the future. By making the terms of trade contingent on the forest cover, the parties can connect an environmentally sustainable trajectory to the terms of trade that are favoured by the Mercosur countries. According to the trade deal on the table, the tariff lines for the different products are contingent on a timeline that stipulates how the tariffs will be gradually eliminated, year by year, over a 10-year period. Because of this existing contingency, it is possible to add a request for the clock to be restarted as soon as deforestation rates increase above, for example, the 2023 level. With such a contingency, which is relatively straightforward to add, products from Mercosur will face higher tariffs for a larger number of years if deforestation increases. Forest conservation contingency Forest conservation, in contrast, brings with it the reward that the tariffs on exports from Mercosur will decline faster. Thus, the Mercosur countries will be incentivised to conserve tropical forests because of this contingency. The contingency is credible, and not an empty threat, because forest cover is accurately measured by satellites, and because certain EU member countries would be more than happy to impose increased tariffs on Mercosur beef, for example, whenever the deal permits such an increase. Relative to the deal currently on the table, the EU benefits because of the conservation incentives that come along with the contingency. Mercosur member countries benefit if tariffs are reduced faster because of the contingency to conservation. In addition, each government benefits by tying the hands of its successor. After all, with such a contingent trade agreement, forest conservation will be beneficial for future governments even if these do not share current Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's willingness to conserve forests. Designing the appropriate contingency is not rocket science. On the contrary – even a simple economist, such as myself, can shed light on how it can work in practice. In a pair of recent research articles , I show how contingency can benefit all parties and motivate forest conservation without being an “empty threat” that lacks credibility. In fact, even if Mercosur proceeds by liberalising trade with Asia — and Asia doubles its demand for beef and soy — contingency can help. Free trade, in this situation, would raise the amount of agricultural land by 27 percent, according to the estimates, but this number drops to 14 percent if the EU offers a contingent trade agreement. The figure is close to zero if the US joins the EU in offering a contingent trade agreement — even if Asia does not. The good news from this line of research is that trade and environmental conservation can go hand-in-hand if the terms of the trade deal are contingent on environmental performance. The bad news is that if the parties push for ratification prematurely, they throw away a great opportunity to combine free trade with environmental conservation. Bard Harstad is the David S. Lobel professor in business and sustainability and a professor of political economy at Stanford University , California. He has won several awards for his research and has taught environmental economics at Harvard, MIT, Toulouse, Oslo, and at Stanford. He is also an editor of Review of Economic Studies — one of the top-five journals in economics. Bard Harstad is the David S. Lobel professor in business and sustainability and a professor of political economy at
|
Stanford University
|
After more than five years of negotiations ratification of a EU-Mercosur trade agreement may finally be at hand. It’s far from a done deal. The best route forward is neither to ratify the EU-Mercosur trade deal as it is, nor abandon it, writes Standford professor of business and sustainability, Bard Harstad.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Green Economy",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-10-30T12:05:23.567Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar91544298
|
Handshake of death: EU embrace of Kagame helping silence dissidents in Belgium
|
European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen is just one in a long line of EU leaders who've embraced Rwandan president Paul Kagame. She last did so amid EU overtures to access Rwanda's minerals, knowing full well he stood credibly accused of war crimes, assassinations, and torture in Africa. But did she know he is also terrorising Rwandan dissidents much closer to home — on the streets of Brussels? Fear of being poisoned by Kagame's agents is widespread in the Rwandan diaspora in Belgium. Even high-profile African activists, such as Paul Rusesabagina and Denis Mukwege, aren't safe when they visit the home of the EU institutions. Some Rwanda-associated poisons can be administered via a handshake or soaked into an item of clothing. The last time von der Leyen shook Kagame's hand was on 18 December 2023 on a visit to Kigali. "Unfortunately ... she did not have a chance to enjoy the local cuisine. However, she did have the chance to try Rwanda's excellent coffee," her spokesperson said. No one is seriously suggesting the Rwandan leader would dare to poison a high-level EU politician. But even though EU leaders themselves are physically safe, they still ought to worry about their moral hygiene — because every time they meet Kagame, they embolden him to commit further crimes by giving him a sense of impunity. And that means their handshakes are putting Rwandan dissidents who live in Europe, as well as in Africa, in clear and present danger. Toxic handshake Rusesabagina is the real-life hero of the 2004 film Hotel Rwanda about the 1994 genocide, who is hated by Kagame and who now lives in the US. And when Rusesabagina came to Brussels for a family wedding in August 2024, he was urged to take special care by his Belgian and US security advisers, who spoke to EUobserver. They warned him not to travel or stay anywhere alone, not to use unfamiliar taxi drivers, not to meet strangers or accept gifts from them, not to use his normal mobile phone, and not to hire a car. Part of their advice was designed to evade Rwandan electronic surveillance, since Kagame's agents had already once kidnapped Rusesabagina, in Dubai in 2020. But another part was because Kagame has a track record of transnational assassinations, including by poison. "The Rwandans are master poisoners. There's one toxin that can be administered via a handshake: The assassin smears it onto the palm of their hand, shakes the victim's hand on some pretext, then walks away and takes an antidote to save themselves," said a Belgian security source, who asked not to be named. Rusesabagina's adopted daughter, Carine Kanimba, told EUobserver: "My family was really worried about my father coming to Belgium because it's like a playground for them [Kagame's intelligence service]. This is where they have full access. They can hurt you. They've killed people here before". Kanimba was orphaned in the genocide while she was an infant and is now a human-rights activist living in the UK. The family marriage in Brussels (her cousin's) was followed by Kanimba's own wedding, near Verona in Italy, also in August. While planning the two events, the family notified Belgian and Italian intelligence services, hired private security guards, and vetted catering staff and equipment to make sure their food was safe. "My wedding was meant to be full of love, and it was, but everyone in the family was conscious of the risk," Kanimba said. "It might sound like a movie, but it's not — there have been a lot of people who dropped dead because of poisoning by the regime," she said. Kanimba herself has faced death threats, issued in person to relatives and on social media. "One of Kagame’s top aides said on X that I deserved a 'golden machete', which shocked me to the core, because my parents were probably killed with a machete [in the genocide]," she said. Kanimba's phone was also hacked with Israeli-made Pegasus spyware in 2021, which is sold to states' intelligence services. "I've learned over the years, the more that we talk publicly about such threats, the safer we become," she said. "But the the fact I'm having this conversation with you today, so many people have been killed for the kind of conversation we're having [about Kagame]," Kanimba said. For his part, Mukwege is a Congolese gynaecologist who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2018 for helping rape victims and who has spoken out against use of rape by Rwandan soldiers and Rwanda-linked rebel groups in Africa. Mukwege also won the European Parliament's Sakharov award in 2014. But when he came to Brussels on a trip in May 2015, he was put under close surveillance by Rwanda's embassy. Mukwege had received a courtesy car from the EU parliament, but when he arrived at the offices of Belgian newspaper Le Soir for a welcome reception, journalists recognised his driver as being a member of the Rwandan embassy's security staff and advised Mukwege to insist on a different chauffeur. Mukwege told Belgian friends at the time how the bogus driver, who had infiltrated the parliament's car-pool, had behaved on the way. He had begged Mukwege to hold his mobile phone and speak to his friends because he was so famous, which Mukwege refused to do. Mukwege, who is based in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), declined to speak with EUobserver. But the same bogus driver also offered him a suspicious tie on the same pretext, according to a contact in his Panzi Foundation in DRC. And, according to two Belgian security sources who asked not to be named, the tie, which Mukwege also declined to touch, had been laced with poison. Recalling how it happened, one of the Belgian sources told EUobserver: "He [Mukwege] got into a car with a driver who he didn't know, and the guy said to him: 'Dr Mukwege, you're my hero! Please accept this tie as a humble gift. It would make me and my family so proud if you were to put it on'." 'Munyuza's droplets' Less well-known people are all the more vulnerable. Rwanda was a Belgian colony until 1962 and Belgium is home to some 20,000 to 30,000 people of Rwandan origin - its largest diaspora community in the world. Most of them live scattered in small towns in the Flanders region, such as Aalst or Dendermonde. Those of them who are genocide refugees still feel traumatised and divided. But Rwandans also come together at church and music events, with 2,000 to 3,000 guests expected to visit the Inyange folk-dance festival in Brussels on 23 November, for instance. One of those taking part in the festival, Rwandan human-rights activist Natacha Abingeneye, who lives in Aalst, believes Kagame's agents murdered her father in Brussels in 2005. He was a former government minister in Rwanda, was giving evidence to the UN's International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda when he went missing, and his mutilated body was later found in a canal in the EU capital. Abingeneye herself became a target when her civil society group, Jambo, tried to organise a debate on Rwanda in the Belgian parliament in 2018. Her name was smeared in dozens of articles in Kagame-linked media, claiming, for instance, that she had funded Rwandan death squads in 1993, even though she would have been seven years old at the time. "There was also suspicious behaviour at my home, but not enough to press charges [with Belgian police]," she told EUobserver. "Sometimes, I'd see a car had been following me all the way from Brussels to the roundabout near where I live, and I'd just continue driving because I was scared to stop, as I was alone," she said. "Shady figures would come to my door, ring the bell, and run away," she added. Speaking of the fear caused specifically by regime poisoners, she said: "It's not mythology. It's reality. It's a method that they have used so much in Rwanda that it even has a name in Rwandese: 'utuzi twa Munyuza', which means 'droplets of Munyuza's waters'." The phrase refers to Dan Munyuza, who is now Kagame's ambassador to Egypt, even though he was exposed in a conversation leaked on YouTube to have plotted poisonings of Rwandan dissidents abroad. "Everyone knows that if they want to eliminate you, we share a coffee, you go home, I go home, I'm dead, and no one knows what happened," Abingeneye told EUobserver. "The other day, I went to a team-building event in a bar. I left my drink, went away, picked it up again and everybody was like: 'Are you crazy?'," she said. "It [poisoning] is as quick as a wave of someone's hand over your glass," she added. Her father's 2005 death is not the only one which has caused suspicion in the Rwandan community. Rodolphe Shimwe Twagiramungu, for example, was a 34-year-old Rwandan musician who went to a nightclub on Avenue Louise in Brussels on 17 April 2022 and who was found dead in a nearby street the next morning from unknown causes. Twagiramungu's father had been a former Rwandan prime minister and another Kagame enemy. And the Rwandan diaspora aside, if you are a white Western national it doesn't necessarily mean you are untouchable. Urban legend Many Congolese people in Belgium even believe Kagame once poisoned the then-Belgian foreign minister, Louis Michel, in 2002. Michel visited Kigali while calling out Kagame for fuelling conflict in DRC, but fell gravely sick when he returned to Europe and collapsed at a Nato summit in Reykjavík. Michel, who is the father of outgoing EU Council president Charles Michel, didn't reply to EUobserver. But one Belgian contact who knew him said: "After this incident, one thing is sure: Louis Michel never criticised Rwanda again". The Michel-poison theory is seen as an urban legend by Belgian security services because the potential cost of a major diplomatic incident if it got out far exceeded the benefit of silencing him. "Kagame may be dangerous, but he's not stupid, and he would do a cost/benefit analysis on every case. It’s much more likely Michel was infected by a bacteria or virus, which happens easily enough in Africa," a Belgian security source said. But when Canadian writer Judi Rever, who wrote a Kagame-critical book, visited Belgium in 2014, Belgium gave her two bodyguards after receiving intelligence the Rwandan embassy in Brussels planned to hurt her. Some Belgian journalists living in Brussels who spoke to EUobserver asked not to be quoted in this article because of personal security fears. And Peter Verlinden, a former journalist and now politician living near the Belgian town of Leuven, who wrote a Kagame-critical book in 2015, still requires special protection nine years later. "To this day, my wife and I are under a specific protection system by Belgian security services. I can't reveal how it works, but if we ever needed help, we can just call and a rapid response [police] unit arrives in minutes wherever we might be," he told EUobserver. Verlinden has received death threats on his phone and on social media and, as with Kanimbe, Belgian intelligence services found Pegasus on his mobile. "I think the aim of the [Rwandan] regime in Europe is to cause fear, not to kill," Verlinden said. "But if I go to an event with Africans, I only eat from the public buffet and I always serve my own plate [for fear of poison]. I wouldn't use a Rwandan taxi driver whom I didn't know," he said. Designer drugs The use of sophisticated poisons in targeted assassinations in Europe is more readily associated with Russia. But even if Rwanda's spy services were tiny compared to Russia's, that didn’t mean they couldn't acquire frightening capabilities if they wanted to, said Belgian forensic toxicologist Jan Tytgat. "Novichok is absolutely available on the dark web and we should be concerned about its potential use around the world," he said, referring to a Russian-made nerve toxin. "There are pages where you can ask AI: 'Please design me the newest generation of organophosphates to kill people' - it's crazy," he added. Tytgat has worked with Belgian police on more run-of-the-mill cases. He is also professor of pharmacology at KU Leuven university in Belgium and has done research into new medicines in the field in Africa. A handshake poison could be made from 'designer drugs', such as fentanyl derivatives, he said. "People have designed synthetic molecules that are 10,000 times more potent than morphine. You put a few crystals in the palm of your hand, and if you give a strong handshake, a couple of those crystals will humidify on the sweat and skin of your victim, and this is really sufficient to put them in a comatose state," Tytgat said. The assassin could protect themselves by taking an antidote, putting ointment on their hand, or wearing gloves. A necktie poison could be made from African plant extracts, as well as Novichok-type synthetic compounds, the Belgian toxicologist said. It requires plants that are rich in atropine, but these are commonplace in central Africa. Symptoms of atropine poisoning were "hallucinations, disturbed breathing, you have incredible thirst, you feel as dry as a bone, then you have neurological problems from which you can die," Tytgat said. He was not aware of any exotic poisoning cases in Belgium. And in red-flagged incidents, Belgian authorities had access to equipment that could decipher a poisoner's hidden signature, he said. "With high-resolution mass spectrometers we can do isotope mapping [of poison molecules], and knowing the isotope load in a molecule you can, with some luck and some help from AI, devise where it was made and when it was made," he told EUobserver. But in day-to-day medical practice, atropine-type poisoning by an obscure Rwandan plant extract could be overlooked, he said. "If you go to a full forensic toxicologist, initially we might also get a negative result, but we'd continue," Tytgat said. "In a standard hospital, I fear they might overlook uncommon plant- or animal venom-based intoxications, because of the protocols they follow in Belgium or in any other typical EU country," he said. Another poison more native to central Africa is black mamba venom. It can kill people in "five minutes," Tytgat said. But snake-venom proteins were too large to enter through a victim's skin pores and would have to be injected, for instance with an insulin needle, which would be obvious to "any good pathologist," he said. Intervention Team Rwanda's embassy to Belgium is located in the green Woluwe Saint Pierre district in Brussels, some 15 minutes down the road from von der Leyen's HQ. When EUobserver took a photo of the building on 22 October for this article, a Rwandan man in a bright blue shirt jogged over to ask questions and surreptitiously filmed the reporter on his phone. The Belgian foreign ministry declined to confirm how many Rwandan diplomats the embassy contained. Belgian sources estimated it has some seven to 15 diplomats, as well as locally hired staff. "About half of them [Rwandan diplomats] are probably intelligence officers under diplomatic cover, which would be a lot, by any normal standards", a Belgian contact said. The Rwandan embassy told EUobserver in an emailed statement: "Rwanda has a handful of diplomats accredited to the embassy and ... their identities and roles are known to Belgian authorities". One of them is first secretary Gustave Ntwaramuheto , who was also accredited at the EU institutions until 2023, and who is a former military captain. Ntwaramuheto declined to speak to EUobserver. But, according to an investigation by Jambo in 2019, he is in charge of a task-force which carries out surveillance and violence against Kagame's adversaries in Belgium. "There are groups of thugs linked to the embassy. They call it the 'Intervention Team' and they are highly organised. It's professional, with a direct, national-level chain of command," Jambo's Abingeneye said. Rwandan intelligence also spies on people's comings and goings at Belgium's Zaventem airport, according to Jambo. Rwanda told EUobserver: "The Rwandan embassy in Belgium operates in accordance with international diplomatic standards and within Belgian law. Allegations made by politically-motivated actors [Jambo] known for their conspiracy theories ... have no basis in fact". But the actions of Belgian authorities suggest otherwise. Belgian intelligence services took the Rusesabagina family-wedding threat in August 2024 "seriously", Kanimba said. Persona non grata And Belgium took an unprecedented step in April 2024 when it made Kagame's new ambassador to Brussels, Vincent Karega, persona non grata before he even arrived, by declining his accreditation. Karega had previously been expelled from DRC for backing rebels and had represented Kagame in South Africa in 2014, when a Rwandan exile was murdered there. "No new [ambassador] candidate has been proposed by the Rwandan authorities," the Belgian foreign ministry told EUobserver on 25 October. Verlinden, the Belgian politician, said: "What has been lacking in Belgium until now has been political courage, but with the Karega decision, this seems to be a first sign that things are improving". But at the same time, Belgium's capabilities are limited. Its VSSE homeland intelligence service has slashed its Africa section over the past 10 years, recalling Kanimba's fear that Belgium was Kagame's "playground". The VSSE's Africa department used to have some 25 posts in its heyday, but now had just one full-time and one part-time intelligence officer covering African threats, a Belgian contact said. The VSSE declined to comment. Normal bilateral relations despite the Karega row also mean that Belgian judicial authorities still cooperate with Kigali. Belgian prosecutors raided Rusesabagina's home in the Kraainem district in Brussels in 2020 and gave his private documents to Rwanda in the run-up to his Dubai kidnapping on the basis of a Rwandan extradition request. "The 2020 search request was channelled officially by diplomatic means" and "carried out in strict compliance with Belgian law," the Belgian Federal Prosecutor's office told EUobserver on 20 October. "We do not disclose figures, but judicial cooperation between Belgium and Rwanda [still] occurs regularly," they said. They added, however: "If the extradition request has a political character, [this] is a ground for refusal". "To date, no extradition has been accepted," they said. EU whitewashing Rwanda is rich in tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold and signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the EU on its mining sector in February. The minerals deal would help "fight against illegal trafficking of minerals and ... conflict minerals", the EU commission told EUobserver, while opening up Rwanda to EU mining firms. EU leaders at their summit in Brussels on 16 October also called for the creation of overseas return hubs for rejected asylum seekers. But when asked by EUobserver if this might involve Rwanda, the commission said it "does not speculate on hypothetical scenarios". France relies on Rwandan troops to help protect French energy firms in nearby Mozambique from an Islamist insurgency. French president Emmanuel Macron also gave Kagame and his wife a welcoming hug at a summit in France on 4 October. And to add insult to injury for dissidents, Rwanda will host the UCI Road World Championships cycling race in September next year. The international embrace of Kagame comes despite storied warnings that this emboldens him to do further violence. EU parliament resolutions , reports by British civil society group Global Witness, and investigations by US group Human Rights Watch (HRW) have been ringing the alarm bell for years. Reacting to the latest HRW report, the EU commission said: "We call on Rwanda to conduct prompt, impartial, and effective investigations into all allegations of torture ... Perpetrators of any such acts should be brought to justice". Meanwhile, von der Leyen herself has lived in Belgium for over five years, amid regular Belgian media reports on Kagame's harassment of Rwandans who also live there. And the Belgian foreign ministry told EUobserver the "timing of the signing of this agreement [the EU's minerals MoU] was unfortunate", given Kagame's behaviour. "You can't say you didn't know - today there's enough proof and documentation," said Abingeneye. Speaking of the cycling championship, Kanimba said: "Rwanda is beautiful, the hills are gorgeous, so I understand the cyclist community viewing my country as a good place for this, but it's covering a lot of darkness and pain, it's hurting our people". "It's sportswashing at its core," she added. But top EU politicians who meet with Kagame do even more damage, activists say. "They're going on like it's business as usual with a known murderer", Kanimba said. Abingeneye said: "If a European president stands in front of their people and shakes the hands of a killer, then they’re whitewashing his actions and they become partly liable for them". It made Kagame feel free to keep hurting people "because you showed him there are no consequences", Abingeneye added. "I am Rwandan and European. I feel deeply European, but I'm so disappointed when I see this," 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.
|
Every time EU leaders shake hands with Rwanda's president Paul Kagame, they embolden him to commit crimes against dissidents in Belgium, making themselves morally liable.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Rule of Law"
] |
*
|
2024-10-30T05:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/ar76de3ba9
|
The EU's democratic future may rest on two commissioner-designates
|
In theory, EU law requires democracy both at member state level and at the EU level. In reality, one member state — Hungary –— is no longer a democracy, and several others are under threat. These domestic threats to democracy in turn undermine democracy at the EU level, potentially poisoning the Union as a whole. The incoming European Commission’s policies on democracy protection both mischaracterise the threat and do not take it seriously enough. Next week, when the European Parliament holds hearings for commissioners-designate , it should insist that they recognise the erosion of national democracies as a profound, home-grown threat to the Union and promise to tackle it head-on with the powerful tools already at their disposal. Democracy features as one of the EU’s foundational values in Article 2 of the EU Treaty (TEU ). Article 10 further details that the functioning of the Union must be based on representative democracy, with citizens being represented at EU level, both through the democratically elected European Parliament, and through their democratically elected national governments, operating in the (European) Council. The legal requirement of multi-level representative democracy is also implicit in other EU norms, such as rules about European political parties. Today’s realities make a mockery of these professed norms. Over the last decade the OSCE has consistently found that national elections organised in Hungary are not free and fair while leading international democracy-raters no longer classify Hungary as a democracy at all. The problem is not contained at national level, as the EU has seen with Viktor Orbán flouting the norms of the rotating Council presidency and his new EU level Patriots for Europe Party pursuing leadership positions in parliament. In other words, the Hungarian case shows how the rise of autocratic forces at the national level can infiltrate and undermine democratic institutions at the EU level. The EU’s deep double democracy problem, which one of us described as the EU’s authoritarian equilibrium , raises fundamental challenges for the daily operation of the Union. The EU's internal implosion? Despite this profound threat the commission is still dithering. The incoming commission led by Ursula von der Leyen does claim that defending democracy is one of its flagship concerns, but it pretends that the threat is mostly coming from abroad in the form of election interference and media manipulation. It completely fails to recognise that the most pressing dangers are coming from inside the Union’s own house. This is reflective of its practice to draw clear lessons from external democracy ratings in addressing third states yet mostly ignore them when these concern member states. Instead, the new commission’s political guidelines mention softer initiatives like increasing media literacy and fact-checking. They also mention the relevance of previously adopted legislation, such as the European Media Freedom Act and rules to prevent harassment of actors such as journalists and NGOs. Spotlight on two particular commissioners-designate Also the so-called “mission letters” of the two commissioners-designate who would be most responsible for defending democracy, Michael McGrath (Democracy, Justice and the Rule of Law) and Henna Virkkunen (Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy), suggest that the new commission would mainly focus on protecting democracy with a new policy called the “Democracy Shield”. However, that “shield” would focus mostly on preventing foreign election interference with technical measures – again ignoring the fact that the primary threat to democracy in the EU is homegrown. It is time for the European Parliament to demand that the commission face up to inconvenient truths and use the many tools at its disposal to confront them. Orbán’s new Patriots party could clearly be deregistered and defunded With commissioners-designate McGrath and Virkkunen set to have hearings on 5 and 12 November, the parliament has a real opportunity to press for action. The parliament’s recently published “advance questions” for the two nominees ( here and here ) barely mention the issue of democracy. Failing to demand action on this front would be a grave mistake. If the Parliament takes its role as the direct representative of EU citizens seriously, it must insist that the Commission use the tools already at its disposal to restore and defend democracy inside the Union. For starters, current rules on financing of European political parties give the Commission the possibility to trigger a request for de-registration and de-funding of a European party if its actions — or those of its component members — violate EU values. On this basis, Orbán’s new Patriots party could clearly be deregistered and defunded. The Patriots are on record as having promised to comply with basic EU values in their programme and actions, while a number of their component parties are flouting EU law and undermining democracy at home. Parliament can also insist the commission to start, and fast-track, infringement procedures when national democracy is directly attacked. While the commission has started to do this with Hungary , infringement actions taken so far barely scratch the surface of the democracy problem there. The parliament can also insist that the commission protect national media through infringement actions based on the right to vote, which includes the right to receive unbiased political information, as was previously proposed by one of us. And it can ask the commission to promise it will consider expanding rule of law conditionality to include “democracy conditionality” after the Court of Justice announced in its conditionality decision that of the values of Article 2 TEU constitute the “ the very identity of the European Union as a common legal order ”. Just as it is a threat to the budget if a member state violates rule of law requirements, it is a threat to the EU if its member states do not guarantee free and fair elections . Without democracy at national level, EU institutions rest on a rotten foundation. It is time for the newly-elected parliament to exercise its own democratic mandate by ensuring that the new commissioners prioritise democracy as a central value both at EU level and in the member states. John Morijn is Henrik Enderlein fellow at Hertie School Berlin and professor of law and politics in international relations at the University of Groningen . Kim Lane Scheppele is Laurance S. Rockefeller professor of sociology and international affairs in the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs and the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. Laurent Pech is full professor of law, dean of law and head of the Sutherland School of Law at University College Dublin . R. Daniel Kelemen is McCourt chair at the McCourt School of Public Policy and professor of law at Georgetown University . John Morijn is Henrik Enderlein fellow at Hertie School Berlin and professor of law and politics in international relations at the University of Groningen . Kim Lane Scheppele is Laurance S. Rockefeller professor of sociology and international affairs in the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs and the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. Laurent Pech is full professor of law, dean of law and head of the Sutherland School of Law at University College Dublin . R. Daniel Kelemen is McCourt chair at the McCourt School of Public Policy and professor of law at
|
Georgetown University
|
Next week, when the European Parliament holds hearings for commissioners-designate, it should insist that they recognise the erosion of national democracies as a profound, home-grown threat to the Union and promise to tackle it head-on with the powerful tools already at their disposal, write four professors of international law at Princeton, Georgetown, Dublin and Hertie universities.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2024-10-29T11:20:00.638Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar158bd696
|
Advancing animal welfare in the EU
|
The ideal mission letter for the new commissioner for health and animal welfare and the role of the European Parliament. At the start of a new political term, it is natural to reflect upon the progress we made, the small and big victories we obtained, but also on the missed opportunities, what could have been done and wasn’t, and where we could have had more impact on animals’ lives. Looking back at the past five years, we cannot but feel proud of all our movement has achieved to inform public opinion, stimulate policy-makers, and ultimately keep alive a science- and evidence-based debate on the animal condition. We went through a pandemic and an economic slump, and we still have wars at our doorstep amidst increasing social unrest. And yet, despite all this, the last special Eurobarometer , three successful European Citizens Initiatives on animal welfare and the engagement in our Vote for Animals European election campaign, all confirm that the support of Europeans for the animal cause has never been stronger. The positive news is that, after years of campaigning, we now have a European commissioner for health and animal welfare . This sends a clear political signal and represents a concrete commitment to dedicating resources to the animal condition in the EU. At the same time, . In a letter we addressed to President von der Leyen, we expressed our concern that only This is insufficient considering all the legislative changes needed to improve the animal condition in this political term. Let us not forget that, of all that was promised in the EU Farm to Fork Strategy, only two legislative proposals are still standing, one on the welfare of cats and dogs, and another revising the Regulation on live animal transport. However, there is much more to do and we firmly believe that the mission of the commissioner for animal welfare should address many urgent issues that have been neglected for far too long. Firstly, we fully expect this Commissioner to deliver on the based on the Five Domains model and the most recent EFSA opinions, including a complete reform of slaughter and transport practices. in line with the demands of European citizens. As part of this, we need to see , with strict standards for farming, transport, and slaughter, a moratorium on the expansion of salmon farming, and a ban on octopus farming. The should become pivotal in supporting the transition towards sustainable food production with high animal welfare at its heart. The Commissioner for Animal Welfare should protect all animals. We need to create with improved legislation on breeding, stricter controls on sales and transport, better protection for equines, and an . We must , by introducing clear reduction targets, ensuring adequate funding for research and innovation in alternative methods and training of young researchers in the use of non-animal models. Ultimately, this should lead to a revision of the current legislation. Far from the public eye, trillions of sentient beings are still suffering in ways that are difficult to describe, in windowless sheds, barren tanks, on trucks, and inside slaughterhouses across the EU. This suffering not only continues unabated, but it is soaring. We firmly believe that the current animal welfare crisis - with the devastating consequences it has on the environment, animal and human health - is a gaping, bleeding wound that cannot be cured with patches such as precision livestock farming, gene editing, or rearing different species. We need to put into question our system of beliefs on the treatment of animals and reassess our relationship with them before we reach the point of no return. We are hopeful that this political term can mark the beginning of such an in-depth reflection. We now have another opportunity to call on the commission to change the mission letter to truly address the animal cause: thanks to the new president of the intergroup of animal welfare and conservation, Niels Fuglsang (S&D, Denmark), we are organising an exposition at the European Parliament, and we would like to welcome you all to the vernissage on 5 November at 12:30. More information here . Ann De Greef is the director of GAIA, the most influential and well-known animal rights organisation in Belgium. GAIA campaigns against organised animal cruelty and human practices that cause massive suffering to animals. Reineke Hameleers is CEO of Eurogroup for Animals, a pan-European animal protection organisation convening more than ninety members in the EU and beyond. She is also a Vice-President of the World Federation for Animals.
|
Ann De Greef is the director of GAIA, the most influential and well-known animal rights organisation in Belgium. GAIA campaigns against organised animal cruelty and human practices that cause massive suffering to animals.
|
The ideal mission letter for the new commissioner for health and animal welfare and the role of the European Parliament.
|
[] |
stakeholders
|
2024-10-28T13:24:09.638Z
|
https://euobserver.com/stakeholders/ar3210c6ee
|
Georgia, Moldova ... Russia's 'shadow war' on democracy
|
The Soviet Union was far from a superpower when the Cold War began. Yes, it had defeated Hitler’s Third Reich and occupied half of Europe. But in 1945, the United States enjoyed superior economic and military strength. Faced with unmatched American power, Stalin chose to pursue a cautious approach instead of direct military confrontation to exert Soviet influence. In 1946, the Soviets bowed to Western pressure to withdraw their troops from northern Iran after attempting to install two communist-dominated provincial regimes there. Stalin established the Cominform , or the Communist Information Bureau, to consolidate his conquest of Central and Eastern Europe and diminish the appeal of US postwar reconstruction. It was not until Greece came under pressure from a communist guerrilla movement in 1947 that the words ‘containment’ and ‘Cold War’ entered Western vocabulary. While Russia today poses a completely different threat from its Soviet predecessor, Vladimir Putin does share similar geopolitical challenges that Stalin confronted immediately after the Second World War. Nato has survived the end of the Soviet threat that it was originally founded to contain and welcomed in states that lie in close proximity to Russia. The combined GDP of Nato’s 32 allies outpaces Russia nearly eight times. The Russian president has likely made the same strategic calculation as Stalin did that there would be little or nothing to gain from an all-out war with the West. Instead, the Kremlin mobilised sophisticated non-kinetic warfare methods with the aim to push back the US from what it considers to be Russia’s traditional sphere of influence. This ‘shadow war’ approach can be seen in the recent elections that have taken place across central and eastern Europe. In Moldova, the European Union was caught off guard as Russia used illicit finance to manipulate the EU candidate country’s democratic process. Moldovan authorities detected that €36m worth of transactions were made from the sanctioned Russian bank Promsvyazbank. The extremely narrow result in Moldova’s EU referendum will certainly encourage Moscow to pour more funds into electoral corruption. The pro-European government lies increasingly vulnerable to losing its parliamentary majority next year. The elections in Georgia are a warning of what could potentially happen to Moldova in 2025. Bidzina Ivanishvili has effectively captured Georgia’s state institutions to serve solely Russian interests. Under the oligarch’s Georgian Dream party , the south Caucasus nation introduced a foreign agents law that all but stifled its process of European integration. Black Sea dominance? This leaves Russia with a strong position in the Black Sea, which is critical to its claim to be a great power. The possibility of a Russian foothold in southeastern Europe should be a serious cause for alarm. It would enable Putin to launch attacks on Ukraine from its southwest and encircle the country thanks to the presence of Russian forces in Belarus. But perhaps what is particularly concerning is the increasing level of influence that Russia enjoys within the EU itself. Since his full-scale invasion of Ukraine commenced in February 2022, Putin has found useful allies in Hungary and Slovakia. While both of these EU member states suffered under communist rule, their governments are sympathetic to Russia’s resentment towards a US-led order that threatens the notions of national identity and statehood. Viktor Orbán and Robert Fico have often come into conflict with Brussels for blocking vital EU support for Kyiv’s war effort. Austria and Bulgaria A Russia-friendly bloc could well emerge in central Europe with the Freedom Party (FPÖ) securing victory in Austria’s parliamentary elections in September. The leader of the Austrian far-right party, Herbert Kickl, has pleaded for an "understanding" from both Ukraine and Russia and points some of the blame for the war towards the US. Although the FPÖ has been shut out of power, Moscow may still benefit geopolitically. It is not certain whether Austria’s two main centrist parties will be able to form a coalition government . Meanwhile, in Bulgaria, Russia has been adept at weaponising the country’s political instability and persistent corruption. The pro-Kremlin party finished third in Bulgaria’s inconclusive elections on Sunday, closely behind the centrist We Continue the Change-Democratic Bulgaria. Revival’s emergence as a serious political force frustrates the return of effective reform-oriented governance in the Balkan country and weakens EU backing for Ukraine. Putin has shown that he is prepared to reassert with force what he believes to be Russia’s rightful place in the world. The principal threat is less Russia per se than Moscow’s capabilities to exploit the vulnerabilities that exist within democratic societies and political systems. If Ukraine is to achieve its victory, the West should start to confront this new reality. Hugo Blewett-Mundy is a non-resident associate research fellow from the EUROPEUM Institute for European Policy in Prague. Hugo Blewett-Mundy is a non-resident associate research fellow from the
|
EUROPEUM Institute for European Policy
|
The possibility of a Russian foothold in southeastern Europe via Georgia and Moldova should be a serious cause for alarm. It would enable Putin to launch attacks on Ukraine from its southwest and encircle the country thanks to the presence of Russian forces in Belarus.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-10-28T11:59:56.688Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar03185acf
|
How Big Tech's revolving doors erode EU antitrust laws
|
Big Tech is facing increasing governmental attempts to challenge its monopolistic power. But Big Tech itself, as well as the law firms defending these behemoths from antitrust investigations, are recruiting former regulators through the revolving door, and with seeming impunity. For example, law firm Monckton Chambers caught a real big fish earlier this month when it recruited Nicholas Khan KC, a member of the commission's legal service. Khan has represented the commission in hundreds of cases before the European Court of Justice, including some of the most high-profile cases, such as the Google antitrust cases and the Illumina/Grail merger cases. He won’t be a stranger to his new colleagues. Monckton Chamber has been involved in exactly the same competition cases from the other side of the aisle, defending corporate clients the commission has been investigating. And Khan’s insider knowledge of how the commission carries out antitrust investigations is set to benefit his new employer. Monckton Chamber explicitly welcomes Khan’s “unmatched expertise of how the European Commission investigates infringements of EU competition law”. From DG Competition to Microsoft This is, unfortunately, not a standalone case. Khan KC is one of several high-level competition officials joining the private sector in the last few months. Over the summer, the former antitrust official Nicholas Banasevic joined Microsoft to lead its competition and regulation team. For years, Banasevic led the commission’s attempt to crack down on Big Tech’s abuse of its monopoly power before joining the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in 2022. LobbyControl and Corporate Europe Observatory have submitted a complaint to the commission challenging their granting of permission for Banasevic’s move to Microsoft. In the same month Henrik Morch, a DG Competition official with more than 30 years of experience at the Commission, joined the antitrust practice at law firm Paul, Weiss, a move which prompted the EU Ombudsman to open an investigation . As the European Ombudsman has rightly pointed out, these moves are highly damaging to the integrity of the EU’s competition policy and have a corrosive effect on public trust. Former competition officials possess in-depth knowledge and confidential information that they may use to the benefit of their new employers. And even though the Commission claims it puts firewall restrictions in place to mitigate the risk of a conflict of interest, it has no way to enforce these restrictions and admits it relies on trust in the former official to comply. Making matters worse, the commission refuses to provide any transparency on the restrictions it puts in place – in contrast to the British Competition Authority CMA, for instance, which delivers high standards of transparency . Big Law teams up with Big Tech These revolving-door cases at DG Competition come at a crucial time. Over the last few decades, Big Tech companies have monopolised key features of the internet. However, both in the United States and in the EU, Big Tech’s monopoly power is coming under increasing scrutiny. A US judge recently ruled that Google holds an illegal monopoly on internet search engines, and the EU is attempting to rein in Big Tech’s monopoly power abuses with the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The DMA – which went into effect last March – has been heavily contested by Big Tech. In what the digital rights organisation EDRi has called a strategy of “delay, depress, destroy”, the Big Tech giants are fighting tooth and nail to avoid compliance with the DMA obligations. Tech journalist Cory Doctorow labelled Big Tech’s compliance plans as, in effect, a message to the European Commission to “drop dead”. Meanwhile, ByteDance (which owns TikTok), Apple , and Meta (which owns Facebook) have all filed legal challenges against the DMA in court. Revolving door cases undermine the EU’s competition enforcement Big Tech’s strategy is crystal clear: Avoid regulatory and legal scrutiny by employing an army of lawyers and lobbyists. Together Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft are now spending €33.5 m on lobbying the EU institutions – an all-time high. The many revolving door cases – often involving former officials who have played a key role in regulating Big Tech – can only be seen as another attempt to sabotage any challenge to Big Tech’s toxic business model. It is time to close the revolving door, before corporate power spins out of control.
|
Max Bank is Researcher and Campaigner at LobbyControl, and Bram Vranken is Researcher and Campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory.
|
A few weeks ago, yet another EU competition official joined a law firm to work for clients facing antitrust investigations. DG Competition's spinning revolving door is putting the integrity of the EU’s competition policy at severe risk.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2024-10-28T06:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar1234f8b4
|
20 years of Frontex: Human rights abuses getting worse
|
These are the words of Syrian asylum seeker, Alaa Hamoudi . The Hellenic Coast Guard left him adrift in the Aegean Sea for 17 hours before he was taken to Turkey and detained in inhumane conditions. A Frontex plane reportedly surveilled the entire pushback , and when questioned about it Fabrice Leggeri, then director of the agency, lied to the European Parliament . Today marks 20 years of Frontex. In that time, the agency’s budget has skyrocketed by 14,000 percent and its powers have expanded accordingly. Frontex now has a hand in screening procedures and return operations, the armed standing corps has continuously grown, and they now have the competence to acquire and operate their own assets in countries of operation. And those countries are no longer limited to member states: Since launching joint operations in Albania in 2019, the agency has been active in countries across the Western Balkans region, Northern and Western Africa. This growth shows no signs of slowing, with European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen pledging to triple the Frontex standing corps - to 30,000 members - as one of her priorities in her acceptance speech this July. In the halls of the European institutions in Brussels, for many the agency stands for ‘stronger borders’ and ‘orderly, managed migration’, but for people crossing borders it represents something quite different. In Albania, people have been hung out of cars and beaten. In Greece, they have been thrown into the Evros river with their hands tied, and left adrift on floating life rafts - at least 55,000 people between 2020 and 2023 have been pushed back across the Aegean sea into Turkish territorial waters. In Bulgaria, they have been attacked by dogs and shot at - official reports state almost 150,000 have been pushed back into Turkey over the last four years, but the real numbers are likely far higher. At all of these borders, Frontex’s complicity is undeniable - people have the right to ask for asylum, and stopping them from exerting that right is a clear violation of the law. Not only that, the agency has actively participated in covering up these crimes and, in some cases, they have been directly involved . And before people can even reach the continent of Europe, as they cross deadly seas in ramshackle boats, overfilled with people seeking safety, Frontex is there too. The agency has expanded its role in Africa, through intelligence sharing , the deployment of Frontex Liaison Officers to Niger , Senegal and Libya , working arrangements on border security and on deportations with several countries, providing training and equipment to border forces. The cooperation with often authoritarian governments leads to increases in violence, human rights violations, and internal repression in the countries concerned. In the Central Mediterranean, Frontex’s drones communicate the positions of these boats to the so-called Libyan Coast Guard who intercept them and take them back to Libyan detention centres where they face crimes against humanity. In the last three years, Frontex has done this at least 2,200 times , affecting tens of thousands of people. The agency, and the EU, try to pass these off as life-saving actions by Frontex who alert the nearest country’s rescue coordination centre to launch an operation to ‘save’ the people at risk at sea. In reality, they ‘save’ people from death by drowning close to European shores, so they can die hidden in Libyan detention centres instead. Frontex’s 20th anniversary is not a cause for celebration but an urgent reminder that the dismantling of an agency that has consistently perpetuated human rights abuses across Europe’s borders is long overdue. Time and again, Frontex failed to alert nearby humanitarian Search and Rescue ships that could ensure that people are disembarked in safe harbours in Italy and Malta, where their claims for asylum can be properly processed. In fact, even when ships have been in the Italian and Maltese search and rescue zones, rather than the Libyan one, Frontex has instead chosen to pass the coordinates over to the so-called Libyan coast guard instead of their EU counterparts. Just like Alaa Hamoudi before us, we at Refugees in Libya are taking legal action against Frontex and demanding they end this practice. But the issue doesn’t end there: Frontex is doing the same in Tunisia despite numerous reports of people being beaten and dumped in deserts by the Tunisian authorities. When Hans Leijtens took over the role of executive director of Frontex in March 2023, taking on an agency mired in scandal and corruption , he said the ‘toxic’ atmosphere which allowed rights violations to continue unabated was a thing of the past. But pushbacks continue in the Aegean , Frontex officers are intimidated into silence in Bulgaria , and people are abducted at sea and brought back to Libyan detention sites time and time again. Nothing has changed under Leijtens' leadership, and instead of reckoning with the reality of what Frontex is - an EU wide paramilitary (or militarised) police force complicit in horrendous abuses - the Commission seeks to strengthen and expand its mandate even more, emboldened by so-called centrist politicians, such as members of the liberal Renew group who called for still more funding for the agency in October’s plenary session in Strasbourg. Frontex’s 20th anniversary is not a cause for celebration but an urgent reminder that the dismantling of an agency that has consistently perpetuated human rights abuses across Europe’s borders is long overdue. The EU needs to reckon with its role in driving people from their homes in the first place, and ensure safe mobility for all.
|
David Yambio is a campaigner from the NGO Refugees in Libya and Josephine Solanki works for Abolish Frontex
|
Frontex’s 20th anniversary is not a cause for celebration, write David Yambio and Josephine Solanki: Despite calls for accountability, the EU border agency remains heavily criticised for covering up rights violations.
|
[
"Migration",
"Opinion"
] |
*
|
2024-10-25T09:45:09.094Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/ar3202abcf
|
After the far-right victory: what's next for the Austrian government?
|
Elections in Austria are over. The Austrian far-right celebrated a historical victory by winning the most votes following a similar success in the European Parliamentary elections in July this year for the first time ever. But what came as a huge electoral success does not translate into power-sharing as it happened in 2017, when the far-right Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) became a coalition partner of the centre-right Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP). Usually, the federal president gives the mandate to form a government to the strongest political party. While this is not enshrined in the constitution, it has been the political norm since 1945. Not so in 2024, when FPÖ made a historic win to become the strongest party. This time around, Austrian president Alexander Van der Bellen opted to invite the second strongest party, the Austrian People's Party (ÖVP), to start negotiations as every single party ruled out going into coalition with the FPÖ. For many conservatives, this was an “irresponsible” move. This would only further the resentment against the “system,” as the FPÖ calls the rest of the established political opponents. Some conservatives might even prefer a coalition with the far-right, with whom they rather share many of its economic as well as anti-immigration and anti-Islam views. But if the ÖVP opts to govern with the FPÖ, it would hardly be able to claim the chancellery. The ÖVP profits from the overall exclusion of the FPÖ from power-sharing, as it allows the ÖVP to run the new government, although it weakens its leverage vis-à-vis potential coalition partners, including the Social Democrats (SPÖ) and potential third parties, which could be either the Greens or rather the Liberals (NEOS), who are put in a position to demand much more from a weaker leader, who just became the second strongest. And what happens to the FPÖ? The far-right has since been able to victimise itself against the backdrop of this exclusion. With 57 members in parliament (conservatives following with 51 and social democrats with 41), the party has a chance to nominate the first president of the National Council, who occupies a high symbolic value being the second most important political position in the polity, receive more financial and human resources that can expand the FPÖ’s influence in Austrian society. But being excluded from power-sharing solely due to its chairman Herbert Kickl also creates distress in the ranks of the FPÖ that feel that the party should not depend on the fate of one person. At the same time, staying out of power might prove much more fruitful in the long run. In times of high inflation, the war in Ukraine, and the long-term impacts of the pandemic, irresponsible opposition politics might be the easiest to do. And for the ÖVP to find common ground with the Social Democrats as well as a third party, be it the Liberals (the most realistic partner due to its economic program) or the Greens, might be much more demanding than fulfilling and might even create an early break-up of the coalition, which might create the best opportunity structure for the FPÖ to make even more gains. If the FPÖ has proven anything in the last few years, it is that it is here to stay in a powerful position. While Kickl was able to lead his party to electoral victory, he remains one of the least sympathetic politicians. In other words: The FPÖ does not depend on their leaders, but represents the most powerful force in Austrian politics today. And parts of its policy platform will be implemented with the ÖVP, which has coopted many of its policy claims anyway — another factor that legitimises the FPÖ in the long term and one reason why many former voters of the ÖVP had drifted to the FPÖ. While a stable coalition between the ÖVP, the SPÖ, and the Liberals seems difficult to imagine, it might work if all partners accept a give-and-take that allows all members to fulfil some of their promises. If it fails, there might be still a chance for a renewal of a coalition between the Conservatives and the far-right, albeit with other chairmen.
|
Farid Hafez is a senior researcher at Georgetown University’s The Bridge Initiative in Washington DC.
|
Elections in Austria are over. While a stable coalition between the conservatives, socialists, and liberals seems difficult to imagine, it might work if all partners are willing to compromise. If this fails, there could still be a possibility of renewing the coalition between the conservatives and the far-right, though likely with new leadership.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Opinion"
] |
*
|
2024-10-24T12:10:26.193Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/ara9becdf0
|
Why do you never hear 'carbon pricing' in Brussels anymore?
|
A crucial policy issue is now flying under the radar in Brussels — even as the European Commission awaits formal approval. Carbon pricing, primarily through the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS), is central to the EU's ambitious goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. The ETS covers sectors like electricity and heat generation, industrial manufacturing, and maritime transport. By attaching a price to emissions, it incentivises reductions in these high-polluting industries. The aim is to cut emissions by 62 percent by 2030 compared to 2005 levels and reach net-zero by 2050. However, to meet these targets, carbon prices must rise over time. If prices remain at their current levels— hovering around €65 per tonne in recent weeks — emitters whose abatement costs exceed that price will continue polluting. Even though it is traded on an open market, carbon is not like other commodities, it has no intrinsic value – the industrial demand for carbon is far below emission levels. Its value solely rests on the regulatory framework the EU created around emissions. The EU created scarcity and demand by requiring polluting installations to hold an allowance for every tonne of emissions. Initially, these installations received emission quotas. If they emit beyond their quota, they must buy additional allowances on the market. If they emit less, they can sell excess allowances — a classic cap-and-trade system. Over time, more allowances are being allocated through auctions (currently, 53 percent of volumes), and the number of available allowances is decreasing. Under the 2023 revision of the ETS directive, the commission set an annual reduction factor of 4.3 percent until 2027, rising to 4.4 percent from 2028. To put this into perspective, this means that the number of allowances should shrink by about 25 percent by 2030 and should be halved by 2040. Unless emissions decrease at the same pace — meaning that the European economy has to transform equally rapidly — allowances are going to become rarer and more expensive, fast. At the same time, carbon pricing is expanding. A new, parallel system — ETS2 — was introduced in 2023 to cover fuel combustion in buildings, road transport, and additional sectors such as small industry. It is currently being rolled out across the EU. At the national level, Germany and Austria have also implemented their own carbon pricing markets. This may seem highly technical — and indeed it is — but its consequences are profound. Elephant in the room When carbon prices exceeded €100 during the winter of 2023 and remained above €80 for most of the last two years, the impact on energy prices and industrial output was severe. The elephant in the room is that reducing allowances further will push prices higher, generating significant transition risks. The industrial and social fallout from the environmental shift ahead is likely to dwarf what has been experienced so far. From an outside perspective, it seems European institutions are acutely aware of the coming economic and social upheavals but are hesitant to fully confront them due to the political fallout The recent report by Mario Draghi on European competitiveness touches on carbon pricing, mainly focusing on revenues from auctioned allowances and the risk of carbon leakage — where industries relocate to countries with laxer environmental standards. This is the primary concern addressed by the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which imposes a levy on certain imports to equalise carbon costs for foreign producers. Yet, there are concerns that CBAM will not fully prevent the offshoring of high-polluting industries. It is notable that the Draghi report largely sidesteps carbon price trajectories themselves and mostly overlooks the effects of their asynchronous increase compared to our main competitors. Meanwhile, the commission is setting up a Just Transition Fund to help low-income households cope with the impacts of ETS2 and has created a Just Transition Mechanism to support households, companies and regions negatively affected by the transition. However, the scope and integration of these tools with future carbon price trajectories remain largely unaddressed, as does the impending phase-out or restructuring of polluting industries — a central objective of the overall regulatory framework. Deafening silence Equally troubling is the lack of reference to carbon pricing in recent high-level addresses. Ursula von der Leyen’s speech before the European Parliament and the 2023 State of the Union both omitted any significant mention of it. Similarly, the 'mission letter' for Wopke Hoekstra, the commissioner-designate for climate action, only calls for the efficient implementation of the existing framework and the development of a post-2030 strategy. From an outside perspective, it seems European institutions are acutely aware of the coming economic and social upheavals but are hesitant to fully confront them due to the political fallout. The transformative implications of a genuine environmental transition that aligns with carbon neutrality goals are bound to provoke a backlash, particularly in an era of rising populism. While the transition is essential to stave off the worst impacts of climate change, current political conditions may not allow for the necessary changes. Ignoring the issue only delays the reckoning, leaving the next European leadership vulnerable to crises as the social consequences of the transition begin to bite. If the EU is to succeed in this defining political ambition, carbon pricing — and its wide-reaching effect — must move to the forefront of the political agenda. Jean-Baptiste Vaujour is an energy economist and professor of practice at Emlyon Business School in Lyon, France. In 2015 he received the Marcel Boiteux prize for energy economics from the French Association of Energy Economists. Jean-Baptiste Vaujour is an energy economist and professor of practice at
|
Emlyon Business School
|
Hardly touched upon in the Draghi report, not mentioned by Ursula von der Leyen in her State of the Union address, and Wopke Hoekstra's 'mission letter' as climate commissioner only talks of implementation — whatever happened to carbon pricing?
|
[
"Green Economy",
"Opinion"
] |
green-economy
|
2024-10-22T10:47:53.432Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/ar11ac914a
|
EU is turning a blind eye to deteriorating situation in Kyrgyzstan
|
In June 2024, after five years of negotiations, Kyrgyzstan and the European Union signed a new cooperation agreement , the Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (EPCA). And in September, following the same path, the German chancellor Olaf Scholz met with the Kyrgyz president during his central Asia visit to discuss new investments in the energy sector and stronger ties. These economic partnerships send a clear message: despite the increasing attacks on civil society and the repressive laws being passed, Germany and the EU more broadly are ready to continue business as usual and prioritise their own strategic economic interests over human rights. After signing the EPCA agreement, the foreign affairs chief of the EU, Josep Borrell, said the EU would “continue working with Kyrgyzstan on further strengthening the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and promote cooperation with civil society.” Beyond these vague promises, however, there seems to be no real intention to push the Kyrgyz government to respect human rights. Another 'foreign agents' law Back in April, Kyrgyzstan adopted the controversial “ foreign representatives ” bill, which imposes additional and restrictive reporting requirements on all non-commercial organisations that receive foreign funding. The law stigmatises them, by defining them as “foreign representatives”, and threatens their ability to operate freely. The implementation regulations , currently under discussion, go even further as they require the names of anyone working for “foreign representative organizations” to be added to a public registry. They also allow the ministry of justice to empower other state bodies to conduct investigations into these organisations. These provisions are against basic constitutional principles and go beyond what the law would allow for, contravening the fundamental principle of the rule of law. UN experts , the OSCE , the EU delegation in Kyrgyzstan and international and national civil society organisations have all expressed strong concerns. The law shows that the government wants to control who can speak and what they say. It shows that the government, to protect the interests of the political and economic elites, is ready to turn its back on its own citizens. It shows that Kyrgyzstan - which was once an island of relative freedom and stability in the region - is ready to sacrifice democracy, freedom and human rights. Self-censoring starts Already now, some civil society organisations are starting to self-censor themselves and avoid publicly expressing some opinions or concerns, for fear of being labelled as “foreign representatives”. And some staff members of local NGOs have said they will leave their organisations if they are listed in a public registry, as they fear this might put them at risk. Since the current president came to office in 2021, space for civil society and the media has gradually deteriorated . According to Transparency International , Kyrgyzstan has recently “turned from a bastion of democracy with a vibrant civil society to a consolidated authoritarian regime that uses its justice system to target critics”. In January, the national security services raided the offices of two media outlets and arrested 11 journalists . Transparency International also reports that corruption levels are increasing: the country’s Corruption Perception Index score has gone down by five points since 2020. These attacks on civil society and the restrictive legislation are bad news for all Kyrgyz citizens. Development activities are much more effective and sustainable when people - including human rights defenders, workers and journalists - can freely ask questions, raise concerns, and participate in inclusive and democratic processes without fearing reprisals. Their work is paramount to ensure that economic resources are spent to benefit the public and do not get diverted to serve the interests of the elites. Actors such as the EU and the international finance institutions operating in Kyrgyzstan (such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, European Investment Bank, Asian Development Bank and World Bank) have so far failed to effectively use their leverage to support Kyrgyz’s civil society. When Georgia approved a similar foreign influence law in May 2024, the EU expressed strong concerns. On 28 June, turning words into actions, the EU put Georgia's membership application process on hold . But just three days earlier, the EU took a very different stance towards Kyrgyzstan: despite the approval of a similar foreign agents law, the EU did not hesitate in signing a new economic cooperation agreement with the Kyrgyz government. Already in 2016, the EU gave Kyrgyzstan special market access through the so-called Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+) . In turn, Kyrgyzstan had to commit to implementing 27 international conventions on labour and human rights, environmental and climate protection, and good governance. In the latest GSP+ monitoring report , released in November 2023, the European Commission notes that Kyrgyzstan is violating most of the core international human rights treaties, and that journalists and human rights defenders are facing “pressure and intimidation for expressing their opinions, including threats of violence and harassment and targeted prosecutions.” In a statement commenting this report, Iskra Kirova , Europe and central Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, says: “As the EU aims to deepen relations with central Asian states and build influence, it is a missed opportunity and undermines credibility if Brussels fails to apply the rules of its own instruments”. When actors such as the EU or development banks approve loans or economic agreements, they have the responsibility to ensure that economic partnerships go hand in hand with progress on human rights and democratic governance. And if the situation gets worse instead of getting better, they should send strong messages and reassess their partnerships. Kyrgyz citizens deserve better. The future of Kyrgyzstan will look bright only if people who care for their country can speak loudly. All the international institutions that have the power to influence the Kyrgyz government need to support the voices that risk being silenced. And they need to do it now. Tolekan Ismailova is a human rights defender from Kyrgyzstan and director of the NGO Bir Duino Kyrgyzstan. Tolekan Ismailova
|
is a human rights defender from Kyrgyzstan and director of the NGO
|
Economic partnerships with Kyrgyzstan send a clear message: despite the increasing attacks on civil society and the repressive laws being passed, Germany and the EU more broadly are ready to continue business as usual and prioritise their own strategic economic interests over human rights.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-10-21T09:52:00.109Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar6e8d4392
|
The EU’s borrowing instruments pose new risks to its public finances
|
When NextGenerationEU was agreed in 2020, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen greeted it as a " historic agreement ". The plan to raise funds and provide up to €724bn in grants and loans to member states struggling with the economic and fiscal impact of the Covid pandemic was in many respects pathbreaking for the EU’s public finances. It also paved the way to large-scale European Union (EU) borrowing operations. Since 2020, the Commission has borrowed over €450bn. In addition to NextGenerationEU, the Commission has funded the SURE programme during the Covid pandemic and much-needed financial assistance to Ukraine. As of this year, only four of its member states have more debt outstanding than the EU itself. Though such borrowing operations have a long history, they are unprecedented in scale and pose new challenges for both EU debt management and financial accountability. Thanks especially to the European Court of Auditors, we are becoming increasingly aware of the many problems linked to the operation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), the centrepiece of NextGenerationEU. Published earlier this month, the court’s annual report for 2023 highlights that " around one third of the RRF’s grant payments did not comply with the rules ." Marking your own homework? And that concerns just the irregularities on the commission’s side — national disbursements are audited by national auditors. There are already plenty of examples where RRF funding has gone to white elephants and other badly designed programmes, or been lost to corruption . One problem that has bedeviled the proper use of the EU’s borrowed resources has been the complex governance of the RRF. The facility requires member states to meet agreed-upon milestones to receive funds. However, in practice these are often not clearly defined — as the investigations of the auditors have demonstrated. Of course, it is foolhardy to expect completely effective spending — but such problems cast doubt over any proposals or future plans to harness the commission’s borrowing ability. As much as the commission aspires to become a sovereign-style issuer, its ability to secure cheap funding in the long run remains uncertain The commission’s borrowing operations have themselves become the source of much concern. Since 2021, the commission has operated a diversified funding strategy, which means that it has had more flexibility over when and how much debt it issues. But over the course of 2022, the commission’s borrowing costs increased to such an extent that the EU budget had to be revised twice to ensure enough money for interest payments. In the mid-term revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), agreed earlier this year, the resources for interest payments were bracketed out of the MFF to protect other spending priorities. What is more, it remains difficult to say whether the commission is doing a good job at managing its debt. Although a Court of Auditors report from last year reached broadly positive conclusions and the commission’s borrowing costs have come down in recent months, the EU’s bonds are not considered equivalent to sovereign bonds . As much as the commission aspires to become a sovereign-style issuer, its ability to secure cheap funding in the long run remains uncertain. Big unanswered question A big question lurking behind all the commission’s borrowing operations is, however, how they are guaranteed in the Union’s budget. For example, to repay the borrowing for the grants handed out under the RRF, member states will have to send money to Brussels in addition to their annual budget contributions. Only one of the three planned new 'Own Resources' to pay for the RRF grants has so far been adopted. Moreover, the commission might already be exploring ways to delay the repayment of RRF debt that is scheduled to begin in 2028. While borrowing has been the easy part, servicing this debt might prove politically tricky. The EU’s aid to Ukraine has created another long-term risk on the EU’s balance sheet. Recent loans to Ukraine under the MFA+ in 2023 and the Ukraine Facility in 2024 were so large and risky that they could no longer be guaranteed through the EU budget. By guaranteeing these loans under the Own Resources ‘headroom’, member states are effectively shouldering the risk that Ukraine might not repay in full its more than €33bn in debt. Under the terms of the EU’s loans to Ukraine, it likely will not be until 2033 that these risks materialise. However, the need to write off some of the EU’s loans to Ukraine is likely. A few years ago, it would have been unimaginable that the EU could borrow to finance grants to member states, or that it could emerge as the largest international provider of financial support to Ukraine. Yet, this rapid rise in EU borrowing has created considerable risks to the EU’s public finances. To prove itself as a credible borrower — perhaps gain the status of a sovereign-style issuer — and even to expand its borrowing powers, the EU must do more to tackle these risks head-on. David Howarth is professor at the University of Luxembourg and co-director of the Banking on Europe research project focused on EU borrowing institutions and instruments. Lukas Spielberger is a post-doctoral researcher at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. David Howarth is professor at the University of Luxembourg and co-director of the Banking on Europe research project focused on EU borrowing institutions and instruments.
|
Lukas Spielberger
|
A few years ago, it would have been unimaginable that the EU could borrow to finance grants to member states, or that it could emerge as the largest international provider of financial support to Ukraine. Yet, this rapid rise in EU borrowing has created considerable risks to the EU’s public finances
|
[
"EU Political",
"Green Economy",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2024-10-21T05:22:15.544Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar1d62ff2a
|
EU minerals pact with Rwanda: a green light for DRCongo plunder?
|
The EU is negotiating the details of its strategic partnership with Rwanda at a time when Rwandan troops have invaded the neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). A UN group of experts report from July conservatively estimated that 3,000-4,000 Rwandan troops are stationed in DRC’s North Kivu. Using heavy weaponry, they have been fighting alongside the M23 rebel group and were instrumental in vastly expanding their territorial control by encircling the provincial capital Goma in April 2024. Rwanda’s president Paul Kagame has appeared to question the border between Rwanda and DRC — which many Congolese have interpreted as an annexation threat. Both sides have frequently employed heavy artillery within or near densely populated areas causing heavy civilian casualties. The Rwandan-backed M23 militia has been involved in severe human rights abuses such as abducting, imprisoning, torturing and executing civilians, as well as recruiting children, some of which may constitute war crimes according to the UN experts . The EU Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen in February called on Rwanda to “immediately withdraw its troops from DRC, cease all support to M23”, but unless the EU accompanies the statement with strong measures, demands like these fall flat. Western donors fund almost a third of Rwanda’s budget and European countries are some of Rwanda’s major donors and therefore have considerable clout. Rwanda’s profiteering from smuggled Congolese minerals The “sustainable and responsible production and valorisation of critical and strategic raw materials” is listed as one of five areas of cooperation by the EU in its agreements with Rwanda. It’s hard to imagine a scenario further away from that description, than Rwanda’s military involvement in DRC and its minerals sector. The Rwandan-backed M23 has established full control over coltan production in the Rubaya area that is estimated to supply 15 percent of the world’s tantalum demand, the metal into which coltan is processed. The rebel group generates some $300,000 [€277,000] a month, the head of the DRC stabilisation mission declared recently. For several months, the M23 also controlled all trading routes for minerals from the area which is within a close distance of Rwanda’s border. UN experts note that Rwanda’s coltan exports have increased by 50 percent in 2023 compared to 2022. This means Rwanda has become the world’s largest coltan exporter in 2023 despite its own limited deposits. The historical context underscores the gravity of the situation. During the Second Congo War (1998-2003), the Rwandan military and its proxies plundered vast quantities of 3T minerals (tin, tantalum, and tungsten ores) from DRC. Ever since, Rwanda has continued to profit from taxing smuggled 3T minerals, which have fuelled conflict. Rwanda's involvement in the illicit gold trade is also well-documented. Despite its own negligible production, gold has become Rwanda’s major export product, making up 47 percent of exports in 2020 after an extraordinary 755 percent increase in 2019. Experts believe that most of this gold is smuggled from DRC, further entrenching Rwanda's role in the conflict minerals trade. The EU Commission proposes “traceability … at the core of the EU-Rwanda critical raw materials partnership” supposedly as a countermeasure to the huge risk of sourcing conflict minerals. But Global Witness has shown that ITSCI, the dominant traceability system for 3T minerals in Rwanda has laundered huge volumes of smuggled conflict minerals since its set up. The EU risks further fuelling violence in DRC with its raw materials deal with Rwanda. Rwandan 'realpolitik' One reason why the EU has not been willing to take decisive action may be Rwanda’s growing geopolitical role for the EU’s procurement of raw materials from Africa. Rwanda’s military is supporting Mozambique to fight an Islamist insurgency which has threatened access to natural resources extracted by Western companies. In 2022 the EU paid €20m to support the Rwandan troops in Mozambique and currently considers adding double the amount. Analysts have noted the role of Rwandan troops in protecting a French-owned gas facility and more recently also Western minerals projects . Apart from such bilateral agreements, Rwanda is also the largest African contributor of troops to UN peacekeeping missions while, ironically, simultaneously targeting staff assets and operations of the UN peacekeeping mission in eastern DRC. Rwanda often threatens the withdrawal of peacekeeping forces to evade sanctions, according to Rwanda’s former ambassador to the UN. So far, the EU has only sanctioned two individuals of the Rwandan Defence Force involved in the invasion of eastern DRC. Speaking anonymously to Politico , an EU official said that the EU wants to use its raw materials partnership with Rwanda “to leverage change on the ground” by requesting that Rwanda map its mines and participate in the Extractives Industry Transparency Initiative, which promotes the open and accountable management of oil, gas and mineral resources. These are important conditions for a potential EU strategic partnership with Rwanda, but only once Rwanda has fully withdrawn its troops and stopped financing M23. The EU must urgently use its leverage to pressure Rwanda to withdraw its troops from DRC and stop funding the M23 rebel group. That means that the EU should freeze its official development assistance to Rwanda and consider further sanctions against commanders of armed groups and senior officials responsible or complicit in abuses. The EU should suspend its negotiations of a raw materials partnership with Rwanda. Once Rwanda has withdrawn its troops, the EU should assess whether a raw materials partnership with Rwanda can be reconciled with its sustainability principles. If the EU pursues the partnership, it should set conditions that bring transparency into Rwanda’s mining sector and make details of the partnership public. Alex Kopp is senior campaigner at Global Witness , an NGO challenging corporate power. Alex Kopp is senior campaigner at
|
Global Witness
|
With a strategic partnership with Rwanda for critical minerals signed in February 2024, the EU is attempting to step up access of raw materials . However, Rwanda’s invasion of the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo and a long track record of profiting from smuggled conflict resources from DRC make the EU’s deal very problematic.
|
[
"Africa",
"Green Economy",
"Opinion"
] |
*
|
2024-10-18T11:24:45.080Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/ar24df2f21
|
How Ukraine's energy sector will get through the winter — or not
|
Last month, the Russians launched a massive missile strike on Ukraine’s energy sector. Power was temporarily cut in multiple regions across Ukraine, and several energy facilities were damaged. The United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine deemed the attack as a “violat[ion of] international humanitarian law,” and the International Energy Agency has warned that Ukraine’s energy grid may not be ready for the upcoming 2024-2025 winter. This is not the first time the Russians have targeted Ukraine’s energy sector. In fact, the Ukrainians have become accustomed to these Russian tactics. In 2015, the Russians launched a cyberattack on Ukraine’s power grid. Many Ukrainians were without power, and this left them vulnerable to the cold winter weather. The Russians then conducted similar attacks on Ukraine’s energy sector in 2016 and 2021. Now, the Russians have launched missile strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure throughout the full-scale invasion in an act to deliberately cut off energy supplies to Ukrainian citizens. In previous years, the Ukrainians overcame these difficulties . But this year, there will be greater complications . Following the recent Russian attacks, many experts are unsure if Ukraine’s severely damaged energy infrastructure will be ready to face the upcoming winter. According to The Economist, “Ukraine’s generating capacity was 36 gigawatts of electricity” before Russia’s invasion in February 2022. After the start of the war, Ukraine’s energy production declined due to constant Russian bombardments. Now, Ukraine is producing 18 gigawatts of electricity. Optimists vs pessimists Given this sharp decline, the Ukrainians are working hard to address these energy concerns ahead of the upcoming cold winter. One option is to rebuild their damaged and destroyed energy produces. Optimists believe that this would produce another two or three gigawatts. Meanwhile, other energy experts are exploring how nuclear energy can help prepare Ukraine for the winter. However, there are several challenges with these approaches. According to Le Monde, the Ukrainians are “lacking a sufficient number of anti-aircraft systems and ammunition” to defend themselves from Russian attacks on Ukraine’s energy grid. This makes reconstruction considerably more challenging as Ukraine’s infrastructure is constantly exposed and vulnerable to Russian attacks. Second, Ukraine requires significant finances to rebuild its energy sector. Foreigners are hesitant to invest in Ukraine’s energy projects during the ongoing Russian invasion. Risk insurance companies are also slow to assist the Ukrainians. According to the Kyiv Independent, Ukraine has lost billions of dollars in foreign investments following Russia’s full-scale invasion. This has made rebuilding the country difficult. In addition, the Russians are targeting construction sites, meaning these rebuilding efforts are being thwarted as the buildings are damaged or destroyed. Third, time is not on Ukraine’s side. To date, Russia has damaged or destroyed “all of Ukraine’s thermal and hydroelectric power plants.” Ukrainian officials fear that various regions throughout the country will be without electricity for extended periods throughout the day during the winter. This will leave thousands of Ukrainians without heat and electricity. Despite these challenges, there are several options Ukraine should pursue to enhance its gigawatt capacities ahead of the upcoming winter. For example, in March 2022, the Ukrainians synchronised their electricity grids with the Continental European Network. This has helped Ukraine “ stabilise its electricity system .” Given this success, the Ukrainians should continue to push for greater power grid interconnectivity. Second, the Ukrainians are exploring decentralised energy systems. Constructing low-capacity energy sources , such as household batteries and power generators, makes them less susceptible to Russian attacks. According to Ukrinform, construction of such devices could “support the energy system this upcoming winter.” In addition, gas turbines could assist with these issues. Third, some experts have pushed Ukrainian officials to pursue alternative energy options. The United States Agency for International Development and the European Union have already provided millions in energy assistance to Ukraine for renewable options. For example, wind turbines and solar panels have served as additional sources of energy in Ukraine. Pursuing alternative energy would help Ukraine reduce its dependence on coal and other fossil fuels. In addition, these options are reliable , and they are clean for the environment. Finally, according to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, it is harder for Russian missiles and drones to target renewable infrastructure. In short, Ukraine must work effectively and efficiently to enhance its energy sector. Russia’s ongoing invasion has badly damaged Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Numerous regions of the country have faced power shortages and blackouts, and the Ukrainian government is racing against the clock to provide energy for its citizens ahead of the cold winter. Pursuing greater power grid interconnectivity, exploring decentralised energy systems, and building alternative energy options, will help provide additional sources of energy to the country. They may not be a permanent solution, but they will be enough to help Ukraine get past the upcoming winter. With many lives at stake, it is well worth the gamble. Mark Temnycky is an accredited freelance journalist covering Eurasian affairs and a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center . Mark Temnycky is an accredited freelance journalist covering Eurasian affairs and a nonresident fellow at the
|
Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center
|
In previous years, the Ukrainians overcame these energy infrastructure difficulties. But this year, there will be greater complications. Following the recent Russian attacks, many experts are unsure if Ukraine’s severely damaged energy infrastructure will be ready to face the upcoming winter.
|
[
"Green Economy",
"Ukraine",
"Opinion"
] |
*
|
2024-10-17T09:16:58.869Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/ar8ec3bccc
|
How EU can save one of Azerbaijan’s political prisoners
|
On July 23 last year, while driving outside Azerbaijan’s capital Baku, my parents’ car was rammed by plainclothes police who violently bundled them into their vehicle and threw them into custody. My father Dr. Gubad Ibadoghlu was accused of religious extremism and handling counterfeit money — politically-motivated and bogus charges which he categorically denies — and detained for nine months before being released under house arrest. He now faces a potential 17 years in jail if convicted. With rapidly deteriorating health, it could be a death sentence. Such a travesty of justice would be concerning anywhere but this is being perpetrated by the host of the upcoming UN Climate summit on 11 November. A major oil and gas producer like Azerbaijan was already an unseemly setting for the COP29 on environmental grounds alone . But in a matter of weeks delegates will fly into a country which rights watchdog Freedom House labels as one of the world’s least free and where the remnants of independent media and civil society are under sustained attack. On 17 October, the European Parliament will shortlist three candidates for the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought – the EU’s highest tribute to human rights work, named for the Moscow-born nuclear physicist and pioneering activist Andrei Sakharov. My father is among the nominees and a win would mark the first time an Azerbaijani dissident is honoured. It would be a fitting tribute to someone whose life and career mirrors that of the award’s namesake — both professors from post-Soviet countries fighting against state tyranny and their own internal exile. More crucially, an invitation to the awards ceremony in December would also allow my father to receive urgent heart surgery in Europe. Such a travesty of justice would be concerning anywhere but this is being perpetrated by the host of the upcoming UN Climate summit on 11 November My father’s health was already fragile when he returned to Azerbaijan last year — after being given false assurances of his security — but cardiologists have testified that an aneurysm poses an imminent danger to his life. He is being punished for his academic work, which has long advocated for transparent management of oil and gas resources, and for his investigations into the kleptocratic regime of president Ilham Aliyev. Ruling with an iron-fist since 2003, Aliyev seeks to use the COP29 to greenwash his country’s toxic environmental record and to snuff out the last remaining voices of dissent. Europe should not let him get away with it. At the time of his capture, my father was establishing a London-based foundation to support higher education for young Azeri leaders of the future that would be funded by the assets of corrupt elites confiscated by British authorities. The government of Azerbaijan fears its young people spending time in free countries, less they encourage a push for democracy back home. My father is a well-known figure in Azerbaijan and his detention last year ushered in a chilling effect on the country’s already beleaguered civil society. If a London School of Economics professor can be snatched off the street in broad daylight, then who is safe? 'Reliable' and 'trustworthy' Aliyev? But even abroad, Azerbaijani opposition figures are not safe. On 1 October, anti-government critic Vivadi Isgandarli was fatally beaten and stabbed in an attack at his apartment in France. Recent years have seen the unexplained deaths of several dissidents . Many more have been assaulted or kidnapped . Since my father’s detention, my family and I have received relentless threats and harassment both online and in person. The regime appears to act with complete impunity, at a time where its energy reserves have become even more useful for Europe. Months after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen flew to Baku to sign a deal doubling Azeri gas imports to 20bn cubic meters a year by 2027 , referring to the country as a ‘reliable’ and ‘trustworthy’ partner . Such a characterization is curious. Flush with its fossil fuel fortune, little of which is shared with the Azerbaijani people, the ruling elite spends billions on bribing government officials resulting in lobbying scandals stretching from Brussels to Washington. Europe has merely replaced dependency on one energy-rich dictator with another, and one that maintains a solid friendship with Moscow. When the Sakharov awards ceremony takes place on 18 December, the COP29 will have culminated and the media circus will have moved on, which is when we expect a new wave of repression against anyone who spoke up. In 1975, Andrei Sakharov was awarded the Nobel prize but was prevented by Soviet authorities to travel to Norway to receive it, and he spent some of his last years in internal exile. The shortlisting, and hopeful awarding, of Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu for the Sakharov prize would not just deal a blow to tyranny and greenwashing, it may be the difference between life and death. Zhala Bayramova is a human rights lawyer and daughter of Azerbaijani renowned LSE professor, anti-corruption expert, vocal activist and critic of the Azerbaijani government, Gubad Ibadoghlu . Zhala Bayramova is a human rights lawyer and daughter of Azerbaijani renowned LSE professor, anti-corruption expert, vocal activist and critic of the Azerbaijani government,
|
Gubad Ibadoghlu
|
Awarding the Sakharov prize to Gubad Ibadoghlu would put pressure on the COP29 host, Azerbaijan, writes his daughter.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Green Economy",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-10-16T09:03:57.581Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/are5e52049
|
Georgia and Moldova vote — but to go East or West?
|
In the coming week, a crucial decision beckons for two European countries that were once part of the Soviet Union. What is their vocation on the geopolitical chessboard? Should they continue on their chosen path of rapprochement with the West and the European Union, or is it time to return to the fold of Moscow? It may seem like an extreme simplification, but this is the binary choice faced by Georgia and Moldova. Along with the outcome of the Ukraine war, the decisions of these two countries will determine the contours of tomorrow's Europe. On 20 October, Moldovans will vote in the first round of a presidential election and choose by referendum whether they wish to amend the constitution to allow their country to join the EU. Six days later, Georgians will elect their parliament and so decide whether to put an end to 12 years of government by the populist pro-Russian Georgian Dream party and return the country to the hands of the pro-European opposition. The polls give a clear lead to the incumbent Moldovan president, the pro-European liberal Maia Sandu , over rival candidates. Her strongest opponent is the former prosecutor-general Alexandru Stoianoglo, who is the candidate of the Socialist Party of the pro-Russian former president Igor Dodon. As for the referendum, the same poll gives a two-thirds preference to the 'Yes' side, in line with a similar figure in favour of Moldova joining the EU (63 percent). But in the event that the pro-European side does not win, the pro-Russian or "sovereigntist" parties will promote a rapprochement with Moscow. In its wake would likely come repressive legislation inspired by the Russian law on foreign agents, as has happened in Hungary , Bulgaria and Georgia. In Georgia , the situation is more complex. In recent months, the positions of the government and the opposition parties have hardened. The ruling party, Georgian Dream (KO), is being manipulated in an increasingly secretive manner by the party’s founder and the country's richest man (his fortune is estimated to represent almost 30 percent of the national GDP), Bidzina Ivanishvili . While continuing to advocate closer ties with Europe, the government is adopting measures that have seemingly been lifted straight from the Kremlin's handbook for authoritarian regimes. Georgia's recent law on "foreign agents" and the law adopted in September 2024 to ban "LGBT propaganda" are so incompatible with EU membership that Brussels has suspended the accession procedure launched in December 2023. The aim of the laws, like their originals in Vladimir Putin 's Russia, is to crush civil society and thus root out dissent. The de-facto side effect: Georgia's distancing from the West and its rapprochement with Moscow. Most of Georgians want to join the EU Such an outcome is clearly not desired by most Georgians. Almost 90 percent of them want to join the EU. And yet the less attentive among them are vulnerable to the rhetorical gymnastics of the ruling KO. The party claims to be pursuing EU membership (its ubiquitous campaign logo even features the European flag), all while it makes repeated gestures of goodwill — and even submission — towards the Kremlin. To the point that several KO members have been targeted for sanctions by the United States . KO is credited with around 33 percent of the vote by the most recent polls . To oppose it, civil society and the opposition have come together in a united front. More than 99 percent of the organisations (small associations, NGOs and independent media outlets) targeted by the so-called Russian Law have refused to register as "foreign agents". This puts them at risk of heavy fines, but they are betting on an end to the reign of Ivanishvili's party. Once split between various movements with diverging leanings, the political opposition has regrouped into a handful of informal coalitions. The sum of their votes is likely to approach 50 percent, according to the aforementioned polls. Georgia's president, Salome Zourabichvili (an independent), has used all the levers at her disposal to secure the country's European foothold. Her " Georgian Charter " aims to provide a roadmap for the pro-Western opposition to the Georgian Dream. The document proposes that, following the elections, a technical government should ensure the democratic transition and implement the reforms necessary for EU membership. 19 parties have signed up. KO is playing the card of division, posing as the guarantor of traditional values (it enjoys the support of the Orthodox Church) against pro-Western liberals. Firstly, prime minister Irakli Kobakhidze announced the banning of the opposition coalition after the elections, then Ivanishvili accused it of wanting to "open in Georgia a second front" of the war in Ukraine. Georgia has things in common with Ukraine: both countries were once unwilling republics of the USSR, and both are now occupied by Russian or pro-Russian troops (in 2008, Moscow invaded the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia: Tskhinvali for the Georgians). KO thus leverages Georgians' fear of being dragged into the conflict across the Black Sea by what it calls the "World War Party" – the Western coalition that is backing Ukraine against Russia. And yet, to judge by the plethora of Ukrainian flags and anti-Russian graffiti on the streets of Tbilisi, the Westerners' solidarity with Ukraine is shared by a large number of Georgians. With the ostensible purpose of sparing Georgia the fate of Ukraine, the Georgian Dream seems to have made a pact with the Russian devil. The party's mafia-like methods of intimidation appear inspired by the FSB, the Russian security agency, observes Marika Mikiashvili , a researcher and member of the liberal Droa party. For months now, opposition figures and their families have been receiving anonymous phone calls of varying degrees of menace. They have been followed in the street, beaten up by groups of masked thugs, and subjected to defamation campaigns. The latter has taken the form of posters with their picture and the word "traitor", plastered onto their homes or workplaces. Such methods “are very different from what Georgians are used to, with a level of physical and verbal violence that has never been seen before", notes Mikiashvili. Georgia's civil society has responded in kind. The largest protests in Tbilisi since independence in 1991 saw hundreds of thousands of people take to the streets to demand the withdrawal of the draft "Russian law". The movement’s leaders were of the Gen-Z age. Their spirit of independence, creativity and solidarity made an impression both in Georgia and abroad. The Venezuela scenario For its part, the Georgian Dream naturally denies any form of coercion. It claims to be confident of victory, despite the evidence. PM Irakli Kobakhidze and media outlets close to the government repeat that KO is polling at 60 percent. That figure is “beyond ridiculous", according to historian Beka Kobakhidze (no relation to the prime minister). "They have never received 59 percent of the vote and certainly not now, after so many months of protests and anti-Western and pro-Russian policies from their side." However, Beka Kobakhidze emphasises the risk that KO will rig the elections and declare itself the winner regardless of the result. He points to the Venezuelan scenario (in which president Nicolás Maduro has repeatedly validated unfair elections on his path to dictatorial rule). "Worrying signs point in that direction", remarks Kobakhidze. “[KO] has changed the electoral law such that the government can now certify the results without involving the opposition. They have put up a three-metre-high wall around the headquarters of the electoral commission and removed the paving stones in the streets adjacent to the parliament for fear that any demonstrators might make use of them, as happened in Kyiv during the Maïdan uprising in late 2013. They have the police, the judiciary and the electoral commission under their thumb. So the Maduro scenario is plausible." Yet, if such protests do erupt,"it is likely that the government will be reluctant to use violence along the lines of the Russian model", believes Marika Mikiashvili. "Georgia is a small country; everyone knows everyone else and what is considered violence in Georgia might not even be considered violence elsewhere. We are not habituated to violence. Here, burning a car during a demonstration is quite exceptional. Last year, we saw the first Molotov cocktail since the clashes that preceded independence [in 1991]. If by some chance the government were to start firing on crowds, most of the police officers would come under irresistible pressure from society, from their own relatives and families, " Mikiashvili says. The stakes in the elections go beyond Georgia, she says. "Experts agree that Georgia now is on the frontline of civil liberties in the wider region, starting from, well, maybe even some EU members" — an implicit reference to Hungary and Slovakia. "If Georgian Dream stays in power this year and beyond, it will be a huge confidence boost for other illiberals in Europe and especially in the enlargement area to [encourage them to] proceed with whatever laws and actions they want." Particularly vulnerable is neighbouring Armenia, another former Soviet republic with a complicated relationship with Russia. In the recent regional conflict, Armenia lost the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh after Moscow withheld its military and diplomatic support. "The victory of Georgian Dream would [thus] endanger the physical integrity and democracy of Armenia, which would find itself encircled by pro-Russian autocratic regimes", observes Marika Mikiashvili. The Ukrainian scenario And in the event of an opposition victory, should we fear a scenario similar to that of Ukraine in 2014, when Russia invaded? Beka Kobakhidze cautions against the comparison: "Some representatives in the Russian Duma [parliament] have said that Russia is ready to intervene militarily if KO were to ask for its help. But I don't see how that could happen, because Georgia is not Crimea. Georgians generally dislike Russia, to put it mildly. Russia has lots of hybrid mechanisms available and I believe they'll go for that option." "I don't know what the outcome of this election will be", says the writer and opposition figure Lasha Bakradze . "What I know is that it will be neither fair nor free. But we must fight because this is not a normal election. It is a referendum on the future of Georgia. Do we want to live in a country like Russia, with no freedom of expression? Or do we want to be part of the Western community and, in the future, the EU?" Gian-Paolo Accardo is the editor-in-chief of Voxeurop , the co-founder and CEO of Voxeurop European Cooperative Society and the editorial coordinator of the European Data Journalism Network . Gian-Paolo Accardo is the editor-in-chief of Voxeurop , the co-founder and CEO of Voxeurop European Cooperative Society and the editorial coordinator of the
|
European Data Journalism Network
|
In the space of six days, between 20 and 26 October, two former Soviet countries will decide where they stand in geopolitics – and perhaps in history. Do Georgia and Moldova have a Western calling, or will they return to the bosom of Moscow?
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-10-15T14:54:51.245Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar10b889d1
|
EU needs to demand proof Rwanda will end torture in prisons
|
“Yordani, as in the Jordan river. That’s where they put prisoners and beat them,” a former prisoner in Rwanda told Human Rights Watch . In the New Testament, John the Baptist was washed of his sins in the Jordan River. In Rwanda, it’s described by former prisoners as a “place of fear,” where prisoners are forced into a large metal container filled with water and almost drowned and beaten, apparently as punishment. “They submerged us with our clothes on, and then we were pulled out and beaten in the mud. We were made to run around the courtyard, barefoot, soaking wet, and beaten. I don’t have any words to describe it,” said another former prisoner. “Some people died… when we saw someone come out of there, we didn’t see a man anymore.” For decades, Human Rights Watch has documented an entrenched culture of torture and ill-treatment of detainees in Rwanda with near total impunity. Our new report indicates there may be hope for change. But for change to occur, and to address the systemic nature of the abuse, the Rwandan government and partners like the European Union — which announced a €19.5m “Justice and Accountability Programme” with Rwanda’s justice ministry in January — need to examine the gravity of the abuses in the country’s official and unofficial detention facilities. Our research, conducted between 2019 and 2024, found that detainees in Rubavu and Nyarugenge prisons and a safe house in Kigali known as "Kwa Gacinya" were subjected to horrific torture and ill-treatment and, at times, unlawful detention. We found that the very institutions that are mandated to safeguard people’s rights and prevent such abuse, such as the judiciary and the National Commission for Human Rights, failed to transparently investigate and report on allegations brought to them. However, on 5 April, the Rubavu High Court, in the country’s Western Province, convicted Innocent Kayumba, a former director of Rubavu and Nyarugenge prisons, of the assault and murder of a detainee at Rubavu prison in 2019, and imposed a 15-year sentence and a substantial fine. Two other prison officers and seven prisoners, who were accused of acting under instruction, were convicted of beating and killing prisoners. Three other correctional officials, including former Rubavu prison director Ephrem Gahungu and deputy director Augustin Uwayezu, were acquitted. On the one hand, this is a rare occasion of accountability for abuse by authorities. However, all the accused were acquitted of the crime of torture, which under Rwandan law carries a heavier penalty. In addition, several senior prison officials were acquitted altogether despite the apparently damning evidence against them, according to former detainees. The trial and our research raise important questions about the failure of Rwandan institutions to protect detainees from abuse. Kayumba was transferred from Rubavu to Nyarugenge in 2019, the year he killed the detainee at the centre of the court case, and was allowed put in place the same abusive practices in a second prison. The trial did not cover abuse at Nyarugenge prison, nor did it question the judiciary and the correctional service’s repeated failure to order investigations into allegations of torture brought to them. Where the EU comes in The EU’s projects purport to improve the delivery of justice, improve “social and economic reintegration measures” for detainees, and enhance accountability mechanisms. But the risk of torture, ill treatment, and other human rights violations is not referenced in its ‘ Action Document ,’ the plan published by the EU Commission . The National Commission for Human Rights is a partner, even though it is not independent and is in constant denial with regards to torture and ill-treatment. The Rwandan government and its backers have an opportunity to address torture. The Rwandan government should cooperate with torture-focused mechanisms and submit its long overdue state party report to the UN Committee against Torture and permit the subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to resume its visit to detention facilities unhindered. Rwanda’s international partners should ask for demonstrated commitments to investigate torture in Rwanda’s prisons. Such investigations should be conducted with the assistance of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and United Nations experts on torture and prison conditions and its findings should be made public. Rwanda’s partners should make clear that their support for the country’s justice system is conditional on ensuring that no detainee ever be subjected to “Yordani” treatment ever again. Clémentine de Montjoye is a senior Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch . Clémentine de Montjoye is a senior Africa researcher at
|
Human Rights Watch
|
Rwanda’s international partners should ask for demonstrated commitments to investigate torture in Kigali's prisons. Not least the EU, which announced a €19.5m “Justice and Accountability Programme” with Rwanda’s justice ministry in January.
|
[
"Migration",
"Africa",
"Opinion"
] |
migration
|
2024-10-15T13:13:52.067Z
|
https://euobserver.com/migration/ara9c366ed
|
Tusk's '100 days' promise on abortion - why has nothing happened?
|
Exactly a year ago on the eve of Poland’s elections, I joined a huge queue snaking around a polling station in Warsaw on a cold autumn day. Despite the chill and the hours spent waiting to vote, the atmosphere was festive. There was a mood of anticipation in the air: a palpable sense that change was coming after eight years of regressive rule by the Law and Justice (PiS) party. As I watched the exit polls in a packed bar later that night, it became clear that this had been an election like no other with a record turnout (74 percent) and unprecedented numbers of women and young people coming out to vote. Among the things that had galvanized so many people had been the assurances by Donald Tusk and his Civic Coalition, that they would reform Poland’s dangerous and draconian abortion law which only allows terminations in cases of rape, incest or risk to the pregnant person’s health or life. While abortion had already been severely restricted in Poland since 1993, a ruling from Poland’s discredited Constitutional Tribunal in 2020, which went into effect the following year, removed one of the legal grounds for abortion — in cases of foetal impairment — and left a near-total ban. If elected, Tusk promised he would make access to free, safe and legal abortion for all a reality within 100 days of coming into power. '100 days' turn into 365 days...and counting And yet those 100 days have come and gone and a year after Tusk swept to power, the possibility of Poland providing access to safe and legal abortion for all who need it, seems as distant as ever. In July 2024, the parliament failed to vote through a bill tabled in an effort to undo the harm caused by the rolling back of the abortion law during PiS’s rule and the 2020 judgment of the PiS-controlled Constitutional Tribunal. The bill, which also proposed to end the criminalisation of “aiding with an abortion”, was defeated by members of the ruling coalition, the Polish People’s Party (PSL) who voted it down alongside members of PiS and other conservatives. Both PSL and centrist Poland 2050 politicians have spoken in favour of reinstating a “compromise” abortion law dating back to 1993, which allowed for terminations in cases of severe or fatal foetal impairment in addition to the current legal grounds. Alternatively, they have suggested putting the matter to vote in a referendum. Both these propositions are contrary to international human rights law and standards, which require Poland to decriminalise abortion and guarantee access to safe abortion to all who need it without discrimination and with respect to personal autonomy and human rights. Three more years? In August, Donald Tusk said , matter-of-factly, that it would not be possible to get a parliamentary majority to support the revision of the abortion law until the next election. The implication of this statement is that no further efforts will be made to push through reform for at least another three years. But for Polish women, girls and any person who can become pregnant, waiting three years is not an option. Since the perilous restrictions came into force in January 2021, they have been keenly felt and have had sometimes tragic consequences for women and their families. A “chilling effect” has meant that doctors are more likely not to take lifesaving steps for pregnant patients and since the ruling restricting the law came into force, several women lost their lives . New guidelines on abortion that the government issued in August were presented as a measure that would help mitigate the “chilling effect” on healthcare staff. Yet, while they clarify that mental health grounds should be respected in the same way as other health grounds for abortion, they also simply reiterate the very limited circumstances in which legal abortions can be performed. Polish women are well used to broken promises and to our votes being instrumentalised. We were under no illusion that the much-needed change would come thanks to the political goodwill of any man happening to lead our next government. Because we have been at the forefront of this change. Polish women have been organising, marching and facing arrest. They have been pursuing legal challenges in the courts and lobbying the politicians in parliament. They have been doing grassroots reproductive rights work in Poland and abroad and some - like Justyna Wydrzyńska – have provided abortion pills to those in need and been prosecuted as a result. And despite the risk of criminalisation, we are continuing to take our reproductive health and autonomy into our own hands. The women-led grassroots organization Abortion Dream Team is crowdfunding to open the first abortion clinic in the country. And in September , the longstanding Federation for Women and Family Planning (FEDERA) opened its first sexual and reproductive health clinic in Warsaw. Women cannot keep dying from gender-based violence committed by our own state. The government’s lack of action on abortion is reckless, cruel and dangerous. It is utterly unacceptable for women and girls to be forced to continue running the gauntlet of the current parlous abortion law for another three years. More lives will be lost. Prime minister Tusk and the other leaders of the coalition parties need to wake up and recognise our human right to abortion, accessed freely, safely and legally, in Polish law. The man so many w omen elected as Polish PM must uphold his promise and work with rights holders, civil society and experts to bring his coalition partners to a place where legal abortion in Poland becomes a reality. Anna Błuś is gender justice researcher for Amnesty International . Anna Błuś is gender justice researcher for
|
Amnesty International
|
If elected, Donald Tusk promised a year ago he would make access to free, safe and legal abortion for all a reality within 100 days of coming into power. So why has nothing happened?
|
[
"EU Political",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
search
|
2024-10-15T12:39:10.438Z
|
https://euobserver.com/search/Ondrej%20Houska
|
The rule of law report is toothless — and member states know it
|
The EU Commission is selling its 2024 rule-of-law report as an effective enforcement tool to address rule of law violations by member states. In reality, it is merely a monitoring exercise. In its 2024 so-called 'horizontal communication' the commission boasts that 68 percent of the 2023 report’s recommendations were followed up by member states. This statistic suggests a significant improvement, however, upon closer examination the commission’s rosy representation is misleading. In reaching this optimistic assessment, the commission perceives progress where there is little to none, such as where reforms have been announced or initiated, without giving enough weight to their effectiveness, pace or impact. Looking at the figures more closely, a new gap analysis finds that only 19 percent of the 2023 recommendations were significantly progressed or fully implemented, much less than is needed to reverse democracy’s downward trend. Most member states dragging their feet The Commission’s findings portray member states as earnest participants, willing to implement the recommendations and address their shortcomings. In reality, most member states have little regard for the rule of law report recommendations. Liberties analysis found that only six percent of last year’s recommendations were fully implemented while in the case of 50 percent of recommendations, member states did the bare minimum. This dismal performance is a far cry from the commission’s glowing self-assessment and reveals that few member states take the recommendations seriously. While the usual suspects such as Hungary and Slovakia largely ignored its recommendations and Austria barely made a dent in its proposed reforms, member states with stronger democratic records such as Germany, France, Austria and Spain didn’t fare much better. When these countries drag their feet instead of leading by example, it encourages notorious rule-breakers to follow suit. This opens the commission to accusations of favouritism and unequal treatment if only certain countries are reprimanded. If we take the commission’s figures at face value, the decision to keep the rule of law report as a standalone exercise might be understandable. But Liberties’ more realistic assessment illustrates the dire need to bolster the annual rule of law cycle with enforcement measures. Without the threat of financial penalties or enforceable court decisions, member states have little incentive to take the rule of law report seriously. Liberties’ Gap Analysis calls on the next commissioner to link member states’ track record implementing recommendations with existing rule of law tools, such as the conditionality mechanism and infringement proceedings. By overstating member states’ progress and neglecting to use its rule of law toolbox, the commission is cheating EU citizens out of a future where European democracy is healthier and more robust. This new political term is a chance to do things differently. With extremist parties surging in popularity and democracy more fragile than ever, the price of doing nothing is too high. Eleanor Brooks is communcations officer at Civil Liberties Union for Europe (Liberties) , the Berlin-based NGO. Eleanor Brooks is communcations officer at
|
Civil Liberties Union for Europe (Liberties)
|
Member states' dismal performance on rule of law is a far cry from the EU Commission’s glowing self-assessment — and reveals that few member states take the recommendations seriously
|
[
"Rule of Law",
"EU Political",
"Opinion"
] |
rule-of-law
|
2024-10-14T08:52:13.796Z
|
https://euobserver.com/rule-of-law/ar9f4c7f7a
|
Carbon capture doesn't work — yet the EU is going for it
|
The fossil fuel industry, and its army of lobbyists, are keen to keep emissions burning — and business as usual — by capturing carbon. Sounds deceptively simple. But the Industrial Carbon Management Forum (ICM Forum) — ending on Friday (11 October) in Pau, France, that advises the European Commission on carbon capture, is a textbook case of false solutions, corporate capture, and fossil-fuel influence. The problem? Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies are prohibitively expensive, haven’t improved in 40 years, and don’t work as a climate solution. In reality carbon capture is an industry ploy to delay a fossil fuel phase out; it doesn't work at scale, but what it does do is reinforce fossil fuel infrastructures – and even more oil extraction – rather than encouraging a necessary transition to real alternatives. Failed technology The ICM Forum working groups, dominated by fossil-fuel interests, have been given a mandate to shape key EU energy policy, greenwash, and waste billions in public money to protect industry interests. That's a major obstacle to genuine climate action. CCS (or CCUS when including utilisation in products) is a cornerstone of the fossil-fuel industry's attempts to evade the kind of profit-threatening emissions cuts that scientists affirm are essential to avoid runaway climate change. Carbon capturing technologies have been trialed for over 50 years, to the tune of more than $83bn [€76bn] globally, with negligible results. Today, EU countries capture just 1.9 Mt CO2 per year and permanently store none of it. That’s a pathetic 0.076 percent of the EU’s 2023 emissions . Barely 53Mt have been captured globally. An Oxford University report shows no evidence of technological improvements or cost reductions in any part of the capture, transport, or storage process in the last four decades — and a high-CCS pathway would cost $20 trillion more. Despite these failings, the EU has spent the past two years turbo-charging policies to support the massive scale-up of this technology. The most recent effort is the Industrial Carbon Management Strategy (ICMS) which echoes industry demands by dramatically upping carbon capture targets to 450Mt by 2050, requiring 19,000km of CO2 transport infrastructure by 2040 — set to cost European taxpayers a whopping €16bn. Achieving these targets would require at least a 200-fold increase in capacity over the next 25 years — an implausible feat, given only 40 projects are operational globally and 80 percent of attempted large-scale CCUS projects fail . A new study by IEEFA estimates the total cost of Europe’s planned CCS projects will be €520bn, of which as much as €140bn required from taxpayers. So why is the EU pushing risky, costly, proven-to-fail carbon capture technologies when better alternatives exist, like reliable, rapidly advancing, and quicker-to-implement renewables? Put simply: lobbyists. Corporate Europe Observatory's Carbon Coup report revisited report reveals the commission's own annual advisory ICM Forum, set up in 2021, is a fossil-fuel industry jamboree. It’s comprised of industry insiders and organisations tied to — or at least in lockstep with — fossil-fuel interests, yet has exerted significant influence over CCUS regulations and EU public funding – and is even invited to steer policy. The commission’s efforts to present the ICM Forum as a ‘balanced’ multi-stakeholder platform are misleading: every working group is chaired by the fossil fuel industry or pro-CCUS, industry-linked organisations. The ICM Forum’s proposals have already shaped key policies — such as the ICMS taxpayer-subsidised infrastructure targets. As EU commissioner Kadri Simson told the 2023 CCUS Forum: “You called for a specific and verifiable target for storage capacity, industrial support, and structural solutions… and this proposal does exactly that. I believe this is an opportunity for EU oil and gas producers.” Ticking time bomb Worryingly, the ICMS includes provisions protecting fossil-fuel companies from liability. But CO2 pipelines are a ticking time bomb; several leaks in the US have already led to shelter-in-place orders and hospitalisations. Recently updated CCS directive guidance documents show major monitoring gaps, self-reported safety measures, and scarce industry liability periods. The oil and gas lobby knows that if it can lock in CO2 infrastructure it can effectively lock in the future of fossil fuels. It offers the false promise that nothing has to change — even as global warming supercharges dangerous weather events, such as the atypical hurricane currently heading straight for the site of this week's ICM Forum location in France. That’s why it is so insidious that the commission has copy-pasted the ICM Forum’s demands and is now handing them the implementation of key energy policies, which would force countries to throw billions of public money at the cost of real solutions. The CCUS Forum is an archetypal example of corporate capture, one enthusiastically endorsed by the commission, in a major coup for the fossil fuel industry. An industry whose history of lobbying to delay, weaken and sabotage climate action, along with its vested interest in keeping fossil fuels flowing, means it should have no place influencing climate policy. Instead, an EU capable of meeting its climate justice responsibilities needs fossil-free politics . We cannot allow this push for large-scale CCUS, CO2 infrastructure, and a CO2 market to be an escape hatch for the fossil fuel industry, nor a costly distraction from taking urgent action to tackle the climate crisis. Belén Balanyá is a researcher and campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory , the NGO monitoring lobbying of Brussels. Her work focuses on exposing the false solutions to the climate crisis and the corporate interests behind them. Belén Balanyá is a researcher and campaigner at
|
Corporate Europe Observatory
|
The Industrial Carbon Management Forum (ICM Forum) — ending on Friday in Pau, France, that advises the European Commission on carbon capture, is a textbook case of false solutions, corporate capture, and fossil-fuel influence.
|
[
"Green Economy",
"Opinion"
] |
green-economy
|
2024-10-11T10:01:43.341Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/arf91dd4be
|
When and how MEPs will quiz the would-be EU commissioners
|
The EU Parliament has organised public hearings from 4-12 November to grill the future commissioners' suitabilities for their new jobs and knowledge of their assigned portfolios — before the new EU commission takes office. The detailed schedule (see list below) of the hearings was adopted by the leaders of political groups and the president of the European Parliament on Thursday (10 October). This follows the European Parliament’s legal affairs committee’s (JURI) examination of all declarations of interest of commissioner designates to ensure there were no conflicts of interest. This process, which started last week behind closed doors, was a prerequisite for the hearings to take place. All declarations of interest will be publicly available before the start of the confirmation hearings. Commissioner nominees must declare any assets over €10,000 and disclose memberships in associations, political parties, trade unions, NGOs, or other organisations that might influence their public duties. According to media reports , only three commissioner-designates were initially cleared: Wopke Hoekstra (Dutch candidate for climate, net zero, and clean growth), Piotr Serafin (Poland’s candidate for budget, anti-fraud, and public administration), and Olivér Várhelyi (Hungary’s candidate for health and animal welfare). This means that JURI had requested additional information from 23 other commissioner-designates. The examination of financial declarations, however, has faced criticism. The head of the Left, Manon Aubry, recently described it as a “fake process” that does not allow MEPs to carry out a thorough assessment. “From a procedural point of view, some reasonable criticism of the legal framework can arise and we will have the opportunity to analyse it and suggest amendments if needed,” Bulgarian MEP and JURI chair Ilhan Kyuchyuk responded in a statement. Approval not guaranteed Each candidate must attend a live-streamed three-hour-long hearing in front of the parliamentary committee or committees responsible for the portfolio they have been assigned. Parliament's committees involved in each of the hearings can submit a series of written questions in advance to the candidates, which must be responded to at least 48 hours before the start of the hearings. The number of questions of each committee depends on the number of committees participating in the hearing. After the hearing, the chair and coordinators of the committee responsible for the hearing draft an approval or rejection letter for each commissioner. But approval is not guaranteed. In the past, some hearings have led to the withdrawal of a candidate or a change in their portfolios, mostly because of the nominee's lack of knowledge of their subject area. Back in 2019, MEPs rejected three candidates for commissioner: Romania's Rovana Plumb, Hungary's László Trócsányi and France's Sylvie Goulard. Earlier, in 2014, Hungarian nominee Tibor Navracsics was approved as commissioner designate, but not for the portfolio that outgoing EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker gave him. After the hearings Before the commission takes office, parliament needs to give the green light (by a simple majority in a plenary vote). Once parliament has given its consent, the European Council officially appoints the European Commission. While the commission aims to take office early in December, this date might be postponed to later in January should one or several nominees be rejected. Detailed timeline: (14:30 - 17:30): Sefcovic (INTA/AFCO) — (AFET, IMCO, PETI, DEVE, JURI) (14:30 - 17:30): Micallef (CULT) — (EMPL, LIBE, JURI) (18:30 - 21:30): Hansen (AGRI) — (ENVI, PECH) (18:30 - 21:30): Tzitzikostas (TRAN) — (ENVI) (09:00 - 12:00): McGrath (LIBE/IMCO/JURI) — (AFCO, CULT, BUDG, CONT, FEMM) (09:00 - 12:00): Zaharieva (ITRE) — (CULT) (14:30 - 17:30): Jorgensen (ITRE/EMPL) — (ENVI, REGI, IMCO, ECON) (14:30 - 17:30): Suica (AFET) — (EMPL, LIBE, DRO!) (18:30 - 21:30): Roswall (ENVI) — (IMCO, ITRE, AGRI) (18:30 - 21:30): Brunner (LIBE) — (DEVE) (09:00 - 12:00): Lahbib (DEVE/FEMM/LIBE/ENVI) — (EMPL, SANT) (09:00 - 12:00): Albuquerque (ECON) — (IMCO, LIBE) (14:30 - 17:30): Kadis (PECH) — (ENVI) (14:30 - 17:30): Sikela (DEVE) — (AFET, FEMM, INTA, LIBE) (18:30 - 21:30): Kubilius (AFET/ITRE) — (TRAN, SEDE) (18:30 - 21:30): Varhelyi (ENVI/AGRI) — (ITRE, SANT) (09:00 - 12:00): Hoekstra (ENVI/ITRE/ECON) — (EMPL, TRAN, FISC) (09:00 - 12:00): Kos (AFET) — (LIBE, AFCO, DROI) (14:30 - 17:30): Serafin (BUDG/CONT) — (LIBE, JURI) (14:30 - 17:30): Dombrovskis (ECON/JURI) — (BUDG, AFCO, EMPL, IMCO, FISC) (09:00 - 12:00): Fitto (REGI) — (TRAN, BUDG, AGRI, PECH, EMPL, ECON) (09:00 - 12:00): Kallas (AFET) — (DEVE, INTA, FEMM, SEDE, DROI) (14:30 - 17:30): Minzatu (EMPL/CULT) — (FEMM, LIBE) (14:30 - 17:30): Séjourné (ITRE/IMCO/ENVI/CONT) — (INTA, EMPL, BUDG, JURI)
|
(18:30 - 21:30): Ribera (ENVI/ECON/ITRE) — (IMCO, EMPL, TRAN, REGI, AGRI)
|
The precise schedule of the European Parliament's public grillings of the next 27 would-be EU commissioners has been announced.
|
[
"EU Political"
] |
eu-political
|
2024-10-10T12:56:11.476Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar5d1db587
|
The 100,000 pages of Ukraine EU accession problems
|
If Ukraine is to join the EU it will be required, as part of its accession criteria, to implement around 100,000 pages of the bloc’s rulebook. Implementing these rules could come at the cost of longer term social, economic and political consequences — both for Ukraine and the bloc’s existing member states. Depending on how these consequences are managed, the implementation of these rules could strengthen democracy, and provide considerable economic benefits to both sides, or they could undermine the chances of economic stability in Ukraine. If the EU does not deal in time with its longer-term consequences, the process of rule transfer will potentially diminish the chances of sustained support for EU membership and provide ample room for Russian strategies to manipulate political developments in Kyiv, undermining whatever gains Ukraine could achieve on the military front and with it the chances of lasting peace in Europe. In the history of EU enlargements, the most recent wave stands out due to the close link between the success of integration and long-term EU security considerations . If Ukraine’s integration results in economic instability or a weakened democracy, it would represent a significant setback for Europe and a direct threat to its security. Equally important, failure to address the potential negative economic consequences of Ukraine’s integration in a timely manner may delay or block Ukraine’s membership altogether, weakening EU security and diminishing its global influence. The incoming EU Commission must revisit the enlargement strategy using the lessons of the previous “Big Bang” approach. It was this that yielded the spread of eurosceptic illiberalism and the emergence of regimes led by the likes of Viktor Orban and Jarosław Kaczyński. Industrial upgrade or de-industrialisation? Depending on how the implementation of EU economic rules is done, enlargement can yield industrial upgrading or de-industrialisation. It can improve the competitive position of Ukrainian firms or territorial units in the single market or lead to their marginalisation. The most important lesson from the previous wave of Eastern enlargement is that the way the implementation of economic chapters is governed during accession shapes the potential for nationalist, illiberal forces to emerge five to eight years after accession Rule-compliance might help the emergence of a solid middle class or result in the growth of an exploited working poor. Integration could increase domestic capacity and the space for Ukrainian actors to guide the direction of economic change, or it might increase their dependence on the strategic decisions of international private and public actors. Five years later? The most important lesson from the previous wave of Eastern enlargement is that the way the implementation of economic chapters is governed during accession shapes the potential for nationalist, illiberal forces to emerge five to eight years after accession. This was a point that was emphasised, repeatedly, during a meeting of experts and lawmakers at the 2024 Budapest Forum . During the accession process closeness to Europe is the narrative that most appeals to the electorate. However, if mishandled, the day after successful accession no party can win an election without promising to wrestle power back from Brussels. Remediating the perceived unfair treatment by the EU becomes a powerful tool for political entrepreneurs who justify their assaults on civil rights in the name of national sovereignty. The EU Commission of the 1990s and early 2000s experimented with managing some of the longer term consequences of integration. It mandated accession countries to incorporate planning in the process of implementing EU rules, anticipating some of the major negative consequences of compliance. It helped mobilise resources to manage some of the major potential challenges. Occasionally it even protected nascent industries for limited periods, and supported restructuring programmes. It also mobilised a transnational network involving several units of the commission, international financial institutions, development banks, and ministries in both member and accession states. While these steps helped to keep afloat the economies of the 10 new member states, their longer term effects were limited because they were motivated by just one objective: decreasing the potential costs of enlargement for the other member states. Much more is needed in Ukraine to create a broad-based coalition of support for the democratic institutions that have the capacity to deliver meaningful results for ordinary people. The challenges are considerable, as is the prize to be earned. In the case of Ukraine, the challenges of post-war reconstruction combine with the need for industrial advancement in a country that is struggling with a sustained deindustriali s ation and growing accumulation of debt. The valuable prize is the EU and Ukraine jointly winning the peace. One approach might be to closely couple post-war reconstruction and rule transfer. In this way, the detection of potential negative impacts takes place alongside exploration of opportunities for ambitious industrial and regional economic renewal projects. Effectively managing the longer term consequences of rule transfer could allow the Ukrainian state to serve its debts to the external funders and the Ukrainian people while promoting economic development. Sharing the governance of these processes between the EU and Ukraine might help build the developmental capacities of the Ukrainian state, as well as improving the accountability of the involved parts of EU administration. The Ukraine Facility , the EU’s €50bn support mechanism launched in March 2024, could be a step in the right direction. It will need to focus on upgrading the capacities of diverse state and non-state actors in Ukraine to align with EU rules while maximising developmental benefits. Finally, Ukraine should be included in emerging EU-wide industrial policies in ways that increase mutual gains for both Ukraine and current EU members. This would significantly improve its chances of smoothly securing the votes needed to become a member of the European Union when the time comes. Laszlo Bruszt is director of the Central European University Democracy Institute in Budapest and editor-in-chief of the Review of Democracy . Laszlo Bruszt is director of the Central European University Democracy Institute in Budapest and editor-in-chief of the
|
Review of Democracy
|
How EU economic rules are complied with in Ukraine might help the emergence of a solid middle class — or result in the growth of an exploited working poor.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-10-10T11:04:47.797Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar8fdf449a
|
Safeguarding cohesion under the new commission by working more together
|
As discussions on the next European Commission intensify, I would like to share the perspective of the European People's Party Group in the Committee of the Regions (EPP-CoR) on the importance of cohesion over the next five years. The EPP-CoR appreciates the vision outlined by European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen for the future College of Commissioners. Her focus on cohesion as a foundational element of the commission's agenda aligns with our commitment to promoting a competitive, inclusive, and united Europe. Cohesion policy has consistently enhanced the quality of life across regions. We advocate for a renewed, stronger cohesion policy that encompasses all regions, ensuring Europe remains united. It’s more than a slogan — it’s essential for driving competitiveness, growth, and well-being throughout the continent. The EPP-CoR stresses the importance of bottom-up and place-based governance as vital to this objective. A Europe that leaves no region behind — whether urban or rural, densely or sparsely populated — will be more resilient and prosperous. In our recent annual report on the state of regions and cities, we outlined our vision for maintaining cohesion policy as the EU's primary long-term investment tool. Key principles such as shared management, multilevel governance, partnerships, and place-based approaches must be upheld and reinforced. These are critical to ensuring policies remain grounded in territorial realities and continue delivering tangible benefits. As rapporteur on the ' Just and Sustainable Transition in coal and energy-intensive regions ,' I advocate embedding this transition within cohesion policy. This will help regions undergoing transformation by ensuring no one is left behind. Going towards 'one plan' per member state cannot mean less involvement of local and regional authorities. Von der Leyen’s mission letters emphasise the need for the new commission to engage more closely with regions and cities. Regular engagement with local stakeholders is crucial and aligns with the EPP-CoR's efforts through EPP Local Dialogues . Town-hall meetings These town-hall meetings allow for meaningful exchanges between citizens, commissioners, MEPs, and local/regional leaders, ensuring policy addresses the real needs of people and places. The EPP-CoR supports continued close collaboration between the commission and regional authorities. This cooperation tailors EU legislation to local realities, and we believe that territorial impact assessments should become standard practice for all new policies. Understanding regional impacts will ensure that legislation supports balanced development across the EU. Additionally, we strongly endorse von der Leyen's call for enhanced collaboration between the commission and other EU institutions. The EPP-CoR is eager to build on partnerships forged in recent years and deepen cooperation with the incoming commission. Inviting commissioners to participate in CoR plenary sessions has allowed for direct engagement with regional representatives on key issues. We aim to expand this successful model of cooperation to strengthen ties between all levels of governance. The EPP-CoR remains committed to working closely with the new commission to safeguard and enhance cohesion as a central objective. By continuing to engage with regional representatives, citizens, and EU institutions, we can build a more united, competitive, and inclusive Europe. The EPP-CoR is ready to ensure that cohesion remains a guiding principle for Europe’s future. Sari Rautio is member of the European People's Party group in the Committee of the Regions , for Hämeenlinna City Council in Finland. Sari Rautio is member of the European People's Party group in the Committee of the Regions , for
|
Hämeenlinna City Council
|
A renewed, stronger cohesion policy that encompasses all regions ensures that Europe remains united. It’s more than a slogan — it’s essential for driving competitiveness, growth, and well-being throughout the continent.
|
[] |
stakeholders
|
2024-10-09T15:18:46.492Z
|
https://euobserver.com/stakeholders/ar2126c6c5
|
The European Investment's Bank woeful 'green' track record in Nepal
|
Ahead of the European Investment Bank’s board of directors meeting next Tuesday (15 October), it’s likely the bank’s green energy push will be a key topic of discussion. In 2023, the Bank invested €49 bn in the “green transition,” and has publicly called itself a “climate bank” that plans even more ambitious investments in this space in the coming years. Before these efforts move forward however, the bank must take an honest look at its own troubling history on renewable energy projects — specifically, the projects it has funded that have harmed environments and communities, which have largely gone unaddressed. Indeed, EIB has invested in a string of problematic hydropower projects, for which it neglected to adequately identify potential negative impacts of projects before they break ground, or invest in viable solutions to problems as they arise. For instance, indigenous community members in Tanahu District in Nepal who live near the EIB-backed Tanahu hydropower project sent a complaint to the bank in 2020 raising a range of issues around the project , including its failure to provide a land for land compensation for impacted indigenous community members, lack of meaningful consultation with community members around project details, and negative impacts on cultural sites. Four years later, the mediation process has ended with no agreement and the investigation into the compliance of the project has been initiated, and the EIB has yet to provide a remedy — or even commit to doing so — for any of these issues. The EIB also has a worrying pattern of continuing to fund projects even when they are found non-compliant with its own social and environmental standards. An example of this disappointing trend – which we are familiar with through our groundwork between Accountability Counsel and Lawyers’ Association for Human Rights of Nepalese Indigenous Peoples – is the Nepal Power System Expansion which incorporates the construction of 220 kV Marsyangdi Corridor transmission line in the Lamjung district of Nepal . Underway since 2015, this project has been funded by the EIB and the Asian Development Bank and implemented by the state-owned Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA). The project has posed a range of unaddressed harms to the local and indigenous communities living along the Marsyangdi River, including violating their right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), damages to local rivers and mountain ecosystem, and driving communities displacement from their homes and ancestral land, for which they have still not received adequate compensation. The EIB Complaints Mechanism verified the harms and recommended the Bank to address non-compliance , but three years later, the affected communities continue to live with uncertainty of their future as their concerns have not yet been addressed. Though the community has finally convinced the NEA to come to the negotiating table, the EIB has been conspicuously absent from these critical discussions, despite multiple efforts to encourage the Bank to engage and allocate resources to resolve the ongoing disputes. EIB's responsibilities This is a serious issue. The EIB is responsible for addressing all non-compliance issues found in its investigation, yet is missing a prime opportunity to act. The bank must ensure the NEA, their client, upholds their policies and standards around their investments. If the bank does not take up the opportunity to right the wrongs of the past six years and ensure an ongoing dialogue between the NEA and the community reaches a constructive agreement, the bank is neglecting its obligations and commitments to provide remedies when their projects cause, contribute to, or are directly linked with human rights abuses. We support the dialogue between the NEA and community members as a viable way to address ongoing disputes and concerns around the projects. But the EIB too must be involved in these conversations so that it can properly exert its influence over its client to ensure that the NEA upholds and implements its commitments to community members impacted by the transmission line project. Failure to do so, the EIB is robbing the community’s opportunity to access to remedy and justice. Not only is there a worrying track record of EIB climate finance projects causing harm, but it’s arguably even more disturbing that the EIB historically has often not done enough to provide or facilitate remedy to local and indigenous communities who have been negatively impacted by them. If the bank wants to be more involved in the green and renewable energy solutions, it is imperative for it to course correct. If a green-focused project causes environmental and social harms — in this case to communities' livelihoods, health and safety — it arguably offsets any good that it’s trying to do in the first place. As the EIB and its board of directors talk about moving ahead on climate finance in the coming weeks, we urge them to first reflect and correct its practice. Unless the bank takes accountability for where its past renewable energy projects have missed the mark — and moves forward in a way that fully respects human rights of indigenous peoples and protects our ecosystem, which is instrumental to our survival — its future climate finance pushes have no hope of being truly successful. Sutharee Wannasiri is communities associate with Accountability Counsel . Durga Mani Rai works for Lawyers’ Association for Human Rights of Nepalese Indigenous Peoples . Sutharee Wannasiri is communities associate with Accountability Counsel . Durga Mani Rai works for
|
Lawyers’ Association for Human Rights of Nepalese Indigenous Peoples
|
Not only have the European Investment Bank's climate finance projects caused harm, it's even more disturbing that the EIB has often failed to provide remedies to negatively impacted local and indigenous communities.
|
[
"Green Economy",
"Opinion"
] |
green-economy
|
2024-10-09T10:12:41.893Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/arefc8fedb
|
AI at work: handle it with humility, yet confidence
|
In the complex landscape of algorithms, we are still seeking answers to the very basic question: how can we ensure that the integration of AI into our workplaces benefits not only employers and businesses’ efficiency and profitability but also workers’ needs and rights? Diverging interests, priorities and expectations, along with the inherent complexity of AI systems will make it challenging. For many, AI appears as the number one threat to employment. As companies swiftly adapt to new technologies, they fear that job displacement, job insecurity and precarious working conditions could become the new standard — even for the high-skilled workforce. Workers’ rights, and especially their autonomy, could be dramatically restricted by enforcing rigid decision-making, constant performance monitoring, and limiting creativity and personal judgement. And all this in an era when the world of work strives to overcome the consequences of repeated global crises. Yet, the opportunities presented by AI are immense, for the industries, but also for workers themselves. Artificial Intelligence is not only a tool to boost productivity, it is at the same time (or, more precisely, it can become) the catalyst for safer and healthier workplaces, improved work-life balance, and (why not?) a mechanism that will strengthen collective bargaining and support workers' collective action by improving communication, coordination and strategic planning. Just as railways initially faced scepticism and opposition, modern technologies naturally provoke understandable fears. AI has the potential to become a ‘monster’, but it can also serve as a crucial force driving us towards a more competitive and sustainable future. Unions must be ready The challenge lies in maximising potential benefits while minimising associated risks. Trade unions must be ready to adopt forward-thinking strategies. And, this time, their strategies should be concrete and measurable. Not easy for the trade union movement, considering its versatile role in advocating for workers with diverse needs. But today, it is more important than ever. As a pan-European trade union umbrella, with more than six million individual members, CESI is ready to set the frame for change and lead collective initiatives that will make AI a driver of progress for all. As stated in a recent CESI Resolution , the independent trade unions of Europe envision a digital future which will be human-centric and ethical, allowing for workers to thrive in protected and sustainable environments. To achieve this, we need to: - Ensure fairness, transparency, and the protection of workers' rights when implementing AI technologies. - Establish robust regulations and transparent practices to maximise AI benefits for all workers while minimising risks like job displacement and discrimination. - Advocate for continuous workers’ representation, involvement and consideration in the design and deployment of AI systems, with sector-specific AI agreements tailored to industry needs. - Promote widespread reskilling and upskilling initiatives, emphasising lifelong learning and career development for new AI-related roles. - Call for strong regulatory frameworks, such as an EU directive on the right to disconnect and fair telework, and a dedicated EU AI at Work Act, to safeguard workers’ rights and ensure ethical AI use. - Engage in dialogue and negotiation with governments, employers, and trade unions to shape a sustainable and equitable AI-driven future of work. In adapting to these new challenges, trade unions must evolve. They should be at the forefront in advocating for a fair, transparent and ethical AI that respects work and workers. And they should be ready to rethink old practices that might have the potential to hold them back. To the workers of today and tomorrow, we say: Empower yourselves and have your say in the digital transformation of work. Embracing innovation goes beyond mere adaptation; it involves actively shaping the path of progress. The future of work is being written today. Handle it with humility, yet confidence. Klaus Heeger is secretary general of the European Confederation of Independent Trade Unions (CESI), a post he held since 2012. Following his law studies in Bonn, Constance, Strasburg, Madrid and Cologne, he worked for CESI from 1996-2002, at the European Parliament from 2002-2009, and in the private construction sector in Estonia in the years 2010 and 2011. Heeger grew up in Germany, Switzerland, and the former Soviet Union. Alongside German, he speaks English, French, Spanish, Estonian and Russian. Sara Rinaudo is chairwoman of CESI's working group on The Future of Work, and a member of CESI Youth. As chairwoman,she coordinates discussions between trade union representatives and experts in various fields for the development and issue of publications as well as proposals for the protection and improvement of working conditions in the context of specific topics that catalyse change in the world of work (e.g. digital transition, innovation technology, sustainability, new organisational models etc.) Klaus Heeger is secretary general of the European Confederation of Independent Trade Unions (CESI), a post he held since 2012. Following his law studies in Bonn, Constance, Strasburg, Madrid and Cologne, he worked for CESI from 1996-2002, at the European Parliament from 2002-2009, and in the private construction sector in Estonia in the years 2010 and 2011. Heeger grew up in Germany, Switzerland, and the former Soviet Union. Alongside German, he speaks English, French, Spanish, Estonian and Russian.
|
Sara Rinaudo
|
In the complex landscape of algorithms, we are still seeking answers to the very basic question: how can we ensure that the integration of AI into our workplaces benefits not only employers and businesses’ efficiency and profitability but also workers’ needs and rights?
|
[] |
stakeholders
|
2024-10-08T13:00:45.017Z
|
https://euobserver.com/stakeholders/ar929db595
|
The EU Commission has blinked first in the face of Orbán's sovereignty law
|
On 23 December last year, Hungary adopted its third anti-NGO law since prime minister Viktor Orbán first introduced Russia-style foreign agent campaigns against civil society in 2017, using NGOs as scapegoats in his identity politics. Although the first two laws were successfully struck down by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the chilling effect they created has continued to loom over Hungarian civil society. Given this context, it comes as no surprise that Hungary's latest Sovereignty Protection Law has garnered immediate attention from the European Commission. This law grants authorities the unchecked power to surveil NGOs, media outlets, activists, and journalists without limitation, and to subject them to official investigations — at their own expense. The law’s extreme measures surpass even Russia's notorious Foreign Agent Law, its original inspiration. While the Russian law at least allows court supervision over decisions made under its purview, Hungary’s version provides no legal recourse or appeals, leaving those targeted entirely vulnerable to arbitrary state action. The commission initiated its infringement procedure against Hungary’s Sovereignty Protection Law on 7 February, and — as widely anticipated —the case was quickly referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on 3 October. While the commission will certainly portray its actions as swift and resolute, positioning itself as a guardian against Hungary’s further drift into authoritarianism, the reality tells a different story. In truth, this referral marks the end of the 'bold' phase of the commission’s enforcement policy, which had previously imposed billions in fines on the Hungarian regime in an effort to curb its autocratic tendencies. The specifics of the referral ensure that even if the court handles the case on an expedited basis, the law will likely remain in force until Hungary's 2026 elections — a timeline that aligns perfectly with prime minister Orbán’s intentions. Hungary’s previous 2017 anti-NGO law and its so-called 'Stop Soros' legislation from 2018 provide clear examples of how such laws operate. It's never a question of whether these laws violate EU regulations — they certainly do, and the court will eventually strike them down. The only uncertainty is when. Electoral spin cycle These laws are designed to create shrinking spaces for civil society through intimidation, surveillance and possible hidden blackmail over a period of time, usually before crucial elections. And then, when they meet their fate at the hands of the court, the regime creates a formally new law and the cycle starts from the beginning. Since early 2024, the commission, particularly the cabinet of vice-president Věra Jourová, responsible for values and transparency, had been in frequent discussions with Hungarian civil society representatives and legal experts about the possibility of suspending the implementation of the law through "interim measures." This legal tool would have temporarily halted the law’s enforcement while it was being reviewed by the court. To date, the commission has only requested interim measures in two high-profile cases defending the rule of law and EU values. The first was in 2018, when it successfully prevented the implementation of a law lowering the retirement age of Supreme Court judges in Poland. The second was in 2021, when the court suspended a Polish law that prohibited national courts from reviewing compliance with the EU’s requirement for an independent and impartial judiciary. Despite the gravity of the situation, the commission has never taken such decisive action against Hungary. There was a time when suspending the law through interim measure seemed poised to be the defining final act of outgoing commissioners Jourová and Didier Reynders — a legacy of standing up for rule of law in the EU like no other commissioner did. Yet, this final act of legacy building never came to fruition. Window closed Instead of setting a bold precedent with a request for interim measure, the opportunity faded, leaving Hungary’s sovereignty protection law in force and the window for meaningful action, at least for now, firmly closed. By choosing not to request interim measures, the commission has effectively given Orbán a two-year window to fully exploit the Sovereignty Protection Law as it was intended — leading up to Hungary’s 2026 elections. This was, in fact, the designed lifecycle of the law from the outset. The Hungarian regime has made no effort to conceal how it plans to use this new legislation, along with the newly established Sovereignty Protection Office (SPO). Spy appointment In September, József Horváth, a former intelligence officer, was appointed head of the Sovereignty Protection Research Institute , the intelligence and data analysis arm of the SPO. Horváth’s background is revealing: he began his career in the communist-era secret service. He was forced into early retirement in 2002 due to his overt ties to Fidesz. From 2002 to 2010, he led a security company, UD Zrt, widely seen as Fidesz’s private intelligence arm. In recent years, he has gained notoriety as a media commentator, relentlessly parroting government propaganda on issues like migration. Given Horváth’s appointment and his track record, it is clear that the regime’s core strategy will be surveillance-based intimidation aimed at weakening critical media, independent civil society, and political opposition. This approach is not subtle — it's essentially done in broad daylight, signalling the tactics the Orbán government will employ to suppress dissent in the lead-up to the next election. The commission had the opportunity to strip Hungary’s illiberal strongman of a key political tool, but it chose a different path. This decision was unlikely made solely by Jourová or Reynders; it was almost certainly a 'taken at the top' decision. As in the past, the protection of member states’ prerogatives and sovereignty appears to take precedence over defending EU values and fundamental rights. The bold momentum that characterised the past two years is now over. The European Parliament elections, with the resulting shift to the far-right, have diminished the influence of the institution's strongest advocates for holding rogue member states accountable — namely, the green and liberal groups. National elections in countries like Sweden and the Netherlands have further shifted the balance in the Council, giving more power to sovereigntist forces. The EU is now entering a new era, one in which EU values and the rule of law will face unprecedented challenges across a growing number of member states. Yet, the 'guardian of the treaties' — the European Commission — seems, once again, hesitant to act decisively. The court referral in the case of the Hungarian Sovereignty Protection Law symbolises that the heyday of democracy and rule of law protection in the EU is over. Daniel Hegedűs is regional director for central Europe at the German Marshall Fund of the United States . Daniel Hegedűs is regional director for central Europe at the
|
German Marshall Fund of the United States
|
Viktor Orbán's 'sovereignty protection law' grants authorities the unchecked power to surveil NGOs, media outlets, activists, and journalists without limitation, and to subject them to official investigations — at their own expense. The EU Commission has referred it to the Court of Justice — but that allows its implementation until Hungary’s 2026 elections.
|
[
"Rule of Law",
"EU Political",
"Opinion"
] |
rule-of-law
|
2024-10-08T10:41:54.224Z
|
https://euobserver.com/rule-of-law/ar5a7985de
|
The four faces likely to shape EU green policies for the next five years
|
Teresa Ribera (55, Socialists & Democrats, Spain) [DG COMP] Ribera has been appointed EU Commission executive vice-president for a clean, just and competitive transition. She has been Spain’s energy and environment since 2018. From 2014-2018, she was the director of the Paris-based Institute of Sustainable Development and International Relations. You can see more in her CV . Ribera will have a wide range of responsibilities, including overseeing the development of a lead market for clean tech in Europe and anti-trust enforcement, alongside the modernisation of competition policy. In her mission letter , there is a special emphasis on the need to find investment in new clean technologies, fight EU dependency on fossil fuels, develop a clean circular economy and energy poverty as part of the housing crisis. The Spanish politician, who is replacing outgoing competition chief Margrethe Vestager, is also tasked with leading the EU’s efforts to speed up the enforcement of competition rules and address challenges faced by SMEs and small midcaps. - ENVI (Environment, Public Health and Food Safety) - ECON (Economic and Monetary Affairs) - ITRE (Industry, Research and Energy) - IMCO (Internal Market and Consumer Protection) - EMPL (Employment and Social Affairs) Ribera is expected to face difficult questions about how to bring down energy prices, since one of her main responsibilities will be to rid the EU of its fossil-fuels dependency, while actively promoting the development and investment in new clean technologies such as Carbon Capture Technologies (CCT) — which are still questionable due to high costs and limited benefits. To ensure that Europe meets its climate targets for 2030 and 2050, she is also expected to be asked about reducing emissions in sectors that have proven difficult to decarbonise such as steel, power, chemical, cement and refining. In the past, Ribera has been vocal in her opposition to nuclear power, which could bring her into conflict with pro-nuclear French and eastern European lawmakers. Ribera's mission letter heavily focuses on skills but it gives less or no attention to social fairness — a broad and sensitive topic for her socialist group which is expected to challenge her on this. Meanwhile, how to tackle anti-competitive practices and what concrete measures should be put forward to help the EU stay competitive are also some of the main questions the Spanish commissioner will need to answer. In recent interviews, Ribera indicated her intention to speed up and potentially shorten investigation deadlines, while also planning reforms to European merger control policy aimed at helping European businesses scale up. To develop von der Leyen's Clean Industrial Deal in the first 100 days of the new commission mandate, Ribera is expected to work hand-in-hand with Stéphane Séjourné (executive vice-president for prosperity and industrial strategy). In the context of digital markets, and the enforcement of competition rules under the new Digital Market Act, she is expected to coordinate closely with Henna Virkkunen (executive vice-president for tech-sovereignty, security and democracy). Her mandate also includes working closely with Jessika Roswell (commissioner for water resilience and a competitive circular economy), Dan Jørgensen (commissioner for energy and housing) and Wopke Hoekstra (commissioner for climate, net zero and clean growth). Stéphane Séjourné (39, Renew Europe, France) [DG GROW] Séjourné has been appointed as the EU Commission's executive vice-president for prosperity and industrial strategy. His political career began as an adviser to Emmanuel Macron in 2014 when Macron was France’s economy and industry minister. After Macron's presidential election in 2017, Séjourné became his political advisor and was elected as an MEP in 2019. He was elected leader of the liberal group Renew Europe in 2023 before becoming France's foreign affairs minister earlier this year. You can see more in his CV . Séjourné will have many responsibilities, including presenting the Clean Industrial Deal within the first 100 days of his mandate as well as monitoring the development of an industrial decarbonisation plan. In his mission letter , an emphasis was made on the need to secure the supply of vital technologies and services such as artificial intelligence, 5G, and semiconductors. The commissioner will also need to focus on increasing investment in clean tech companies, ensuring the deepening of the EU’s single market and enabling these firms to grow and compete globally. - ITRE (Industry, Research and Energy) - IMCO (Internal Market and Consumer Protection) - ENVI (Environment, Public Health and Food Safety) - INTA (International Trade) - EMPL (Employment and Social Affairs) During the hearing, French commissioner Séjourné is expected to clearly outline his plans for the Clean Industrial Deal and the development of an industrial decarbonisation plan. For the EU to gain in prosperity and to help the development in the future of new emerging tech industries, he is also expected to be questioned about how to draw the outlines of a concrete EU prosperity plan where the focus is given to new clean energy still requiring an enormous amount of energy to be produced and the cause of unresolved waste management issues. To develop a Clean Industrial Deal, Séjourné will need to join forces with Ribera (above, executive vice-president for clean, just and competitive transition) and Wopke Hoekstra (below, commissioner for climate, net zero and clean growth). In the context of competitiveness and the development of a circular economy to answer the market demand for secondary materials especially in regard to critical raw materials, Séjourné is expected to work with Jessika Roswall (commissioner for water resilience and a competitive circular economy) Dan Jørgensen (49, Socialists & Democrats Denmark) [DG ENER] Jørgensen has been appointed as the new EU commissioner for energy and housing. Until very recently, he was the Danish minister for development cooperation and global climate policy. Previously, he was the Danish minister of climate, energy and public utilities from 2019-2022. Jørgensen also has wide experience with EU affairs since he was an MEP for almost a decade up until 2013. You can see more in his CV . As the first-ever commissioner for housing , Jørgensen will have responsibilities with high expectations. Some of the responsibilities mentioned in his mission letter include working on bringing down energy prices in Europe by also fostering more citizens’ participation in the energy transition, alongside proposing a road map to end Russian energy imports in energy. There is also a special emphasis on the need to develop a strategy to support housing demand, especially by setting up a European affordable housing plan, along with reviewing the security of the energy supply framework of the EU and adapting it to the current geopolitical context and risks due to climate change. Finally, Dan Jørgensen will also support the deployment of small molecular reactors (SMR) on European territory, with their safety advantages many companies now look into SMR in order to produce electricity. - ITRE (Industry, Research and Energy) - EMPL (Employment and Social Affairs) - ENVI (Environment, Public Health and Food Safety) - REGI (Regional Development) - IMCO (Internal Market and Consumer Protection) Danish Commissioner Jørgensen is expected to face tough questions about energy imports, particularly regarding the EU's efforts to end reliance on Russian energy. This comes at a time when several member states, such as Hungary, remain heavily-dependent on Russian energy to meet their national needs. In regards to developing a plan to get out from fossil-fuels dependency, he is also expected to be questioned on the clean energy alternatives available, for exampled the much-criticised small molecular reactors (SMR) — a nuclear energy format which resparked interest from various EU states in recent years, but are still largely considered too expansive. Nevertheless, Jørgensen should easily navigate MEPs’ questions since he served as climate and energy minister for years. When it comes to his mandate to address the housing crisis, his experience remains more limited, however, with no experience beyond energy efficiency in buildings. On this subject, MEPs will likely ask how he plans to ensure affordable housing within the EU. The Danish commissioner designate will be working under the supervision of Ribera (above, commissioner executive vice-president for clean, just and competitive transition) for the next four years. But Jørgensen is expected to work closely with Wopke Hoekstra (below, commissioner for climate, net zero and clean growth) to reduce the use of fossil fuels along with updating and simplifying the Energy Union strategy of the EU. And he will also have to coordinate with Italy’s Raffaele Fitto (executive vice-president for cohesion and reforms) when it comes to attracting investments in affordable housing. Wopke Hoekstra (48, EPP, Netherlands) [DG CLIMAT, DG TAXUD] After being commissioner for climate action since October 2023, Hoekstra has been reappointed as the next commissioner for climate, net zero and clean growth. Prior to this, Hoekstra was Dutch foreign affairs minister between January 2022 and August 2023 and finance minister from 2017 to 2022. And before his political career, Hoekstra worked for the consultancy firm McKinsey (2006-2013) and as a corporate employee at the oil conglomerate Shell (2002-2004). You can see more in his CV . As commissioner-designate for climate, net zero and clean growth, Hoekstra will have broad responsibilities, including supervising the preparation of a climate policy plan beyond 2030, alongside developing the Clean Industrial Deal in collaboration with other commissioners. In his mission letter , a focus is put upon decarbonisation. The Dutch politician will have to work on the rollout of a European net zero infrastructure, such as CO2 transportation and storage systems. He will also need to focus on the implementation of the Innovation Fund which aims to develop, deploy and commercialise low-carbon and innovative technologies such as carbon capture, alternative fuels or hydrogen. Another key point of Hoekstra’s mandate will be to track that revenues from the emissions trading system (ETS) are used in an effective way to drive decarbonisation in the sectors that need it the most. - ENVI (Environment, Public Health and Food Safety) - ITRE (Industry, Research and Energy) - ECON (Economic and Monetary Affairs) - EMPL (Employment and Social Affairs) The Dutch commissioner Hoekstra will need to answer key questions on how he plans to ensure the EU meets its climate goals beyond 2030, achieving climate neutrality by 2050. Hoekstra can expect to be questioned on how to mitigate methane emissions, specifically in the case of agriculture practices. Meanwhile, Hoekstra is also likely to face difficult questions about the EU’s future usage and reliance on carbon capture and storage technologies – which remain highly controversial, largely unproven and expensive. Hoekstra will join forces with Jørgensen (above, commissioner for energy and housing) to work on a policy to progressively phase out the use of fossil fuel within the EU. For the decarbonisation and clean technologies plans, the Dutch politician will also collaborate with Séjourné (above, commissioner executive vice-president for prosperity and industrial strategy). Séjourné and Hoekstra will also work closely on the Clean Industrial Deal. During the next four years, Hoekstra will be under the supervision and guidance of Ribera (commissioner executive vice-president for clean, just and competitive transition). What is next?
|
The full list of 26 commissioner nominees will appear in front of the designated committees in the European Parliament for a hearing, whose precise timeline is still not clear. The hearings start on 4 November and run until 12 November. But the process could be delayed should any of the commissioner's nominees be rejected.
|
The new EU commissioner nominees will appear in front of the relevant committees in the European Parliament at the beginning of November. Here are a detailed look at the four faces that will shape EU green politics for the next five years.
|
[
"EU Political"
] |
eu-political
|
2024-10-07T15:25:24.250Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/are167c788
|
In deep shit: EU's massive subsidised manure problem
|
Once a popular kayaking destination, the upstream section of the Aura River in Pöytyä, southwest Finland, has become unrecognisable. Over the past decade, rampant plant growth has overtaken the waterway; in late summer, it’s possible to walk across the mass of irises and water horsetails without getting wet. Despite decades of regulatory efforts, excess agricultural nutrients continue to flow into the river. A key culprit: manure runoff from the region's expanding pig farms. Manure plays a crucial role in agriculture, serving as a natural fertiliser when spread across fields. However, in parts of Europe, manure production has surged to unsustainable levels. In these “manure hotspots”, excessive concentrations of animal waste are found in relatively small areas. When over-fertilized farmland can no longer absorb the surplus manure, nutrients seep into the environment, causing significant environmental harm. The situation is the most severe in the Netherlands and parts of Belgium, but nutrient runoffs from intensive animal agriculture cause problems across Europe. European and UK livestock is estimated to produce more than 1.4bn tonnes of manure annually , and the overwhelming majority of this originates from a small group of Europe’s largest industrial farms . The sheer volume of manure production is no surprise: 82 percent of the European Union’s agricultural subsidies – a total of €45bn – go towards supporting animal-based foods like meat, dairy products and eggs. In Germany, one-sixth of its groundwater bodies are threatened by excessive nitrate pollution. In the Netherlands, the country with the highest nitrogen emissions in Europe — largely due to agriculture — nitrate levels are too high in dozens of groundwater protection areas. Nature reserves throughout the country are severely threatened by the excess of nutrients from livestock farming. Nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from farms in Sweden, Finland, and Denmark is contributing to the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea, causing toxic algae blooms and endangering fragile marine ecosystems. In Finland, manure management is also linked to deforestation, as farmers clear forests to create field space for spreading manure. Relying on farmers' self-regulation We attempted to trace where Europe’s manure excess ends up — and hit a wall. While the EU and many member states have set limits for how much manure farmers are allowed to apply in their fields, oversight is lacking. The system relies on farmers’ self-regulation, with inspections few and far between. The lack of data is “a big dilemma”, says Frank Hilliges, a manure expert at Germany's main environmental protection agency, Umweltbundesamt [German Federal Environment Agency]. “We have no knowledge of how much nitrogen an individual farmer applies and how much of it potentially ends up in the environment.” He adds: “The nitrogen surplus, meaning the proportion of nitrogen applied through fertilization which is not absorbed by the plants, is the central control variable in the system. It is like carrying out a tax audit without knowing income and expenditure.” Some governments are trying to close the data gap, while others are backing away. We have no knowledge of how much nitrogen an individual farmer applies and how much of it potentially ends up in the environment Germany has been working on a new fertiliser law which would require farmers to report data on manure use in the future. (Currently, farmers need to make notes of how much fertiliser they are using but don’t need to report it.) Through close monitoring, it is hoped that those farms that significantly contribute to nitrate pollution will be held more accountable. The idea behind the law is a 'polluter-pays principle', said Germany’s agriculture minister Cem Özdemir. However, the law was rejected by the Bundesrat, the upper house of Germany's parliament, in July. Farmers are already “massively overburdened by bureaucracy”, a statement by the Bundesrat said . Finnish researchers have proposed a national database for researchers and environmental authorities to track fertiliser use across the country’s fields. Farmers already record this data, so the proposal focuses on increasing transparency and centralising existing information. However, some farmers have opposed the proposal, saying the phosphorus status of fields is private information owned by farms. Researcher Helena Valve from the Finnish Environment Institute says there are no legal grounds for this claim. “This is critical environmental information needed for regulatory control and for determining what steps are necessary to reduce nutrient runoffs.” The Finnish government has yet to take up the idea. In Sweden, the government has recently proposed that farmers be required to report phosphorus levels to authorities, in addition to nitrogen. “Agriculture is the single largest source of eutrophication, and phosphorus is the single nutrient that has the greatest impact”, says Romina Pourmokhtari, Sweden’s climate and environmental minister. “The authorities need to have more knowledge on how phosphorus is managed by our farmers.” The EU and national governments have set limits for how much manure farmers are allowed to spread on any given field. However, without proper data, it is hard to monitor exactly what happens. “There is no red light that flips on when somewhere someone doesn’t comply with environmental laws,” says Jeroen Candel, associate professor in food & agricultural policy at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. “The commission is regarded as guardian of the treaties, but they are limited in their possibilities to act as such.” Nitrogen as 'national asset'? Manure has emerged as a contentious topic in many European countries, and governments appear reluctant to accept tighter regulations. In the Netherlands, the situation escalated into a national crisis following a landmark court ruling in favour of the environmental organisation Mobilisation for the Environment in 2019, which held the government accountable for failing to adhere to European environmental regulations. Nitrogen emissions and the agricultural sector’s impact on natural environments have taken centre stage in the political debate for the past few years, particularly since the announcement last year that the country’s exemption from EU nitrogen regulations will come to an end. Ireland is currently still exempt from tighter EU pollution limits. Last month, Irish prime minister Simon Harris defended the nitrate derogation, saying it was “a national asset” and “an important part of our farming infrastructure”, reported DeSmog . In Germany, rather than changing national fertiliser legislation and risking the anger of farmers, the government risked millions of euros in fines from the European Union for violating the EU nitrates directives. After a decade-long back-and-forth with Brussels, Berlin introduced a series of new regulations in 2023, and the EU Commission decided to drop the court case. The nutrients in animal manure could, at least in theory, help reduce Europe’s reliance on fossil-based fertilisers, a substantial amount of which are imported from Russia. According to the a draft directive from the EU Commission , the use of manure-based fertilisers “could reduce farmers’ exposure to volatile mineral fertilizer prices and close nutrient cycles.” However, experts warn that without strong political backing and massive investments in technology, transport, and processing infrastructure, a functioning market capable of managing the vast quantities of manure produced in Europe's livestock hubs is unlikely to materialise. “Ultimately, we cannot avoid reducing livestock numbers in high-pollution regions,” says Hilliges from Germany Umweltbundesamt. He proposes to tie livestock numbers to available land. This means that farms should only keep enough animals to produce enough manure to fertilize the local fields. For her part, Elin Röös, a researcher at the Swedish University of Agriculture, also believes that livestock numbers need to be better balanced with farm size. She proposes a makeover of the EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP). “It is not the farmers' fault but a system error that forces farmers to have giant facilities with animals,” she says. Marieke Rotman is a staff writer at Investico, a Dutch platform for investigative journalism based in Amsterdam. A large part of her work focuses on agriculture and food systems. Hanna Nikkanen is the environment editor at Long Play, a Finnish platform for longform and investigative journalism. She lives in Finland’s southwest archipelago. Lotta Närhi is a Helsinki-based investigative journalist at Long Play. Her work covers environmental issues, with a particular focus on land use policy and forests. Kristin Karlsson is a freelance journalist based by lake Mälaren in Sweden. She reports mainly on environmental issues and agriculture. Katharina Wecker is a freelance journalist based in Bonn, Germany. She reports about the climate crisis and agriculture. Marieke Rotman is a staff writer at Investico, a Dutch platform for investigative journalism based in Amsterdam. A large part of her work focuses on agriculture and food systems. Hanna Nikkanen is the environment editor at Long Play, a Finnish platform for longform and investigative journalism. She lives in Finland’s southwest archipelago. Lotta Närhi is a Helsinki-based investigative journalist at Long Play. Her work covers environmental issues, with a particular focus on land use policy and forests. Kristin Karlsson is a freelance journalist based by lake Mälaren in Sweden. She reports mainly on environmental issues and agriculture.
|
Katharina Wecker
|
Manure is a major contributor to environmental challenges, yet 82 percent of EU agricultural subsidies still go toward supporting livestock farming. This creates a paradox — striving to tackle the problem while still funding its source.
|
[
"Investigations",
"Green Economy"
] |
green-economy
|
2024-10-07T05:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/arf526a816
|
Israel’s war on Gaza is fuelling online hate
|
Israel’s year-long war on Gaza has inflicted such existential destruction that it sometimes feels trivial to focus on the collateral damage. The Strip’s schools, hospitals, mosques, vital utilities, libraries, monuments and civil spaces have been so degraded that it is hard to imagine its society ever recovering. But our own societies have also been degraded by an acceptance of this “new normal” and one of the clearest symptoms is the hate we see reflected, when we turn on our computer screens. Alarming results have emerged from a new report of online hate speech against Jews during the war, commissioned by the Media Diversity Institute (MDI) . The research team used an AI advanced monitoring and sentiment analysis tool created by Meltwater to track global and large volumes of posts about Israel/Palestine – 449 million in the war’s first three months from 1st October till 31 December 2023 – across online platforms including X, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Twitch and Reddit. It found a 359 percent increase in online antisemitic keywords over this period, amounting to just under five million. Around 60 percent of these keywords were pejorative, abusive or downright hateful terms and phrases. Some caveats are needed. The negative speech still represents less than one percent of all online discourse on Israel and Palestine, the uptick was in line with an overall rise in digital debate about Israel of 3,972 percent as the assault on Gaza began. Notably though, the volume of online hate speech grew with the tempo of the war, swelling after atrocities such as the Flour massacre , the Al Ahli hospital bombing , the murder of Hind Rajab and the invasion of Rafah . It subsided in periods of “calm” – although these spells still saw over 200 UN workers and at least 127 journalists killed. Put simply, Israel’s rampage through Gaza has been cataclysmic for Palestinians; but it has not brought all the hostages back, and it has endangered Jews in the diaspora too. It has made us all feel more vulnerable, not least because Israel’s government insists that it is acting on our behalf. In March, Israel Katz , Israel’s far-right foreign minister called for a global advocacy front uniting diaspora Jews and Israel to defend national causes such as “the eradication of Hamas,” because “all of Israel are responsible for one another.” Tweeting threats Katz did this two months after one of his tweets was cited by judges in the Hague to support their assessment that Palestinians faced a plausible threat of genocide. His tweet had warned that Gaza’s civilians “will not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world.” The minister alone should bear responsibility for his words – not the diaspora. Katz’s repeated attempts to hide behind false accusations of Jew hatred when Israel’s behaviour is questioned are a cynical ruse that imperils Jews further. We are not human shields for Israel. When Israel’s defence minister Yoav Gallant was cited by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) judges for describing Gazans as “human animals,” he also played the antisemitism card , and it coincided with a 41 percent spike in antisemitic speech online, compared to the previous day. The MDI survey found that the spike was “directly related” to Gallant’s description of South Africa’s case at The Hague as “antisemitic”. But antisemitism is not a state-to-state issue, regardless of what proponents of the so-called New Antisemitism say. It is discrimination, hatred, violence and abuse directed against Jews for being Jews. The ICJ held Israel to the exact same standard of care expected of every nation in the world No harm was done to Jews by the judges’ ruling that Israel was obliged under the Genocide Convention to take all due measures not to kill Palestinians, cause them serious harm, prevent their birth, or inflict conditions calculated to bring about their physical destruction. In fact, it held Israel to the exact same standard of care expected of every nation in the world, especially as it is an occupying power . In the occupied territory of Gaza, 90 percent of people are displaced, 68 percent of roads and crop land have been severely degraded, most buildings have been destroyed and half a million people are facing catastrophic levels of food insecurity, according to the UN . More than 41,000 are known to have died – one quarter of them children – and if that count were extended to include those buried under rubble, missing presumed dead, and dead from hunger or disease, it could rise to 335,000 by the end of the year. This is why when partisan figures that hold leadership positions in the diaspora – like the British chief rabbi Ephraim Mirvis , the French Nazi hunter Serge Klarsfeld or even Bernard Henri Lévy - use their political capital to defend the Gaza war, often in defiance of their communities’ wishes , they do us Jews a grave disservice. As the MDI report shows, we urgently need to disentangle ourselves from Israel’s actions – not warp our identities even more. The European Commission and its member states can help, by showing more vigilance towards social media platforms, using robust legislation to impel industry accountability and support educational initiatives that challenge online hate speech. Equally though, we — and the commission — need to try to turn down the flames of this latest outbreak of antisemitism, by forcing Israel to accept an immediate ceasefire that ends the war in exchange for a return of all hostages. Diaspora Jews have far more in common with supporters of this position than with those who would wash Gaza in blood, or inanely cheer on war crimes committed in their names. Simone Süsskind is a member of the Belgian Socialist Party, and a former president of the Jewish Secular Community Centre in Brussels. She is now the executive director and founder of Actions in the Mediterranean , an NGO that run programmes promoting better understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A peace activist for many years, Simone was made a Baroness by the King in 2012 for her work in promoting dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians. With sister organisations in London, Brussels, Belgrade, Yerevan and Gloucester (US), the Media Diversity Institute (MDI) works internationally to promote accurate and nuanced reporting on issues of race, religion, ethnicity, class, disability, gender and sexual identity in media landscapes around the world. While MDI’s work is grounded in the principles of freedom of expression and the values of diversity and inclusion, our day-to-day focus is on cultivating practical skills to combat negative stereotypes and disinformation, and to improve media and information literacy. Simone Süsskind is a member of the Belgian Socialist Party, and a former president of the Jewish Secular Community Centre in Brussels. She is now the executive director and founder of Actions in the Mediterranean , an NGO that run programmes promoting better understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A peace activist for many years, Simone was made a Baroness by the King in 2012 for her work in promoting dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians. With sister organisations in London, Brussels, Belgrade, Yerevan and Gloucester (US), the
|
Media Diversity Institute
|
Notably, the volume of online hate speech grew with the tempo of the war, swelling after atrocities such as the Flour massacre, the Al Ahli hospital bombing, the murder of Hind Rajab and the invasion of Rafah. It subsided in periods of “calm” – although these spells still saw over 200 UN workers and at least 127 journalists killed.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-10-04T08:13:12.141Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar03ac4ac5
|
EU delays landmark deforestation law by year following backlash
|
The European Commission on Wednesday (2 October) quietly announced a 12-month delay in the implementation of its EU deforestation regulation – in the wake of immense pressure from the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP), industries, and countries affected. The move, which the commission says will allow it to assist firms and countries to ensure that there is smooth implementation of the law, also follows requests made by international partners during last week’s UN general assembly held in New York. The regulation which was supposed to enter into force at the end of this year , has faced a series backlash from a range of sectors, third countries and the EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen political group in recent weeks. The law aims to limit deforestation by requiring companies importing products such as coffee, cocoa, palm oil, rubber, soya and wood to prove that their products have not led to deforestation at any stage of their supply chain. It also covers the leather, chocolate, charcoal and printing industry. In a public letter addressed to the commission in September, German EPP MEPs Herbert Dorfmann and Peter Liese described the law as a “bureaucratic monster” that should be postponed. The Brazilian government also fiercely criticised the EU’s plan, calling it a “unilateral and punitive instrument” . Earlier last month, German chancellor Olaf Scholz raised concerns about the deforestation law and its implications for the newspaper and publishers’ association in Germany, as the rules also apply to printed paper too. In response to these concerns, the EU commission has extended financial support to a number of nations and industries, most notably the coffee and cocoa markets, which depend on millions of smallholder farmers in South America and sub-Saharan Africa. If approved by MEPs and EU member states, the law will now only enter into force from 30 December 2025 for the largest companies and 30 June 2026 for micro and small enterprises. Responding to the news, Green German MEP Anna Cavazzini slammed the move as "a frontal attack on the Green Deal." "We must now ensure that the postponement does not open Pandora's box and that the law is not weakened," she said in a statement.
|
Echoing similar concerns, Luciana Tellez-Chavez of the NGO Human Rights Watch accused von der Leyen of having "sabotaged the most significant environmental legislation passed during her previous term".
|
The European Commission has proposed to delay its landmark deforestation law, in the wake of immense pressure from the centre-right European People’s Party, industries, and countries affected.
|
[
"Green Economy"
] |
green-economy
|
2024-10-02T15:12:10.314Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/ar569cb529
|
The Grain from Ukraine campaign needs EU money
|
I regret there appears no end to the Russia-Ukraine conflict in sight. As we consider how we can best support Ukraine in the next phase of this conflict, the European community must recognise two important facts when considering the latest phase of this two-and-a-half-year conflict. First, ensuring Ukraine’s survival is not an act of goodwill or charity. It is not an optional or a luxury policy, as some have suggested, it is a necessity. Russian success is an existential threat to our continent and the conflict a test of our foundational values. Preserving Ukrainian democracy is in our own interests. And if they are allowed to succeed, Ukraine will make a positive contribution to our community of free nations. Secondly, repelling and defeating Russia will be a hollow victory if economic and social devastation is allowed to take hold. Air sirens and conscription may be part of their daily lives, but the Ukrainian people are showing remarkable resilience to make the best of a terrible situation they have been forced into. They remind us that Ukraine is more than just a battlefield and this conflict is about more than just supplying military means. We should share their determination to ensure there remains a society and an economy worth fighting for. For both these reasons, I signed up to be a goodwill ambassador to president Volodomyr Zelensky’s Grain from Ukraine campaign , a bold initiative founded on economic development, agricultural recovery, and global food security. The war in Ukraine has revealed the vulnerabilities in both global security and international supply chains. 'Breadbasket of Europe' Ukraine, historically known as the ‘breadbasket of Europe’, plays a pivotal role in feeding the world. However, this capability has been severely reduced by Russia’s illegal invasion and its role in pulling out of the Black Sea agreement which has sent an estimated 70 million to the brink of starvation. Getting grain production going again and ensuring it gets to those in need is an emergency. So far, a range of donor nations have helped support Grain from Ukraine, buying produce from small- and medium-sized farms which are then sent to developing countries in Africa. This initiative is a lifeline for many vulnerable communities suffering from acute food insecurity. The initiative itself has been a success – more than 230,000 tonnes of grain has so far been sent to 11 countries. Earlier this summer, grain was delivered from one war zone, in Ukraine, to another, in Gaza. It hasn’t only benefitted the recipient countries however, it’s given Ukrainian farmers who have been struggling to sell their produce their own lifeline, allowing them to continue farming their land and support their families. For the European Union, an institution which prides itself on its leadership in global development and humanitarian assistance, there is an opportunity to be proactive and create a comprehensive programme which supports the recovery and reconstruction of Ukraine while also alleviating global food security. Double the purchasing power Rather than rely on piecemeal donations of individual countries to the Grain from Ukraine Initiative, the EU could mobilise its financial capacities in development and humanitarian partnerships to drive up Ukraine’s agriculture production and delivery to the global food market. To do this, the EU commissioners for Crisis Management, International Partnerships, Neighbourhood and Enlargement and for Agriculture should ask the European Commission to pull together existing EU funds to donate at least €200m this year to the Grain from Ukraine Initiative and matching the total of all other pledges by individual countries so far. This would double the purchasing power to buy Ukraine’s grain and see many more countries dire need of food supply supported. By doing so, not only this year but in the long term, the EU would become the most important global player in Ukraine's agriculture recovery, investing in its modernisation and productivity increase, education, further alignment with EU agriculture standards and providing access to the global food market. Such an approach would not only aid Ukraine’s economic recovery but also lay the groundwork for its integration into the EU. Furthermore, this action would help mitigate existing controversies around consequences for the EU’s Common Agriculture Policy of Ukraine’s current agriculture export to the EU. In a world facing increasing geopolitical and environmental challenges, the EU's proactive stance on Ukraine’s agricultural recovery could serve as a model for how to address complex crises with vision and resolve. If the European Union seizes the moment and gets this right, Ukraine’s agricultural sector would be a beacon for global cooperation and resistance to Russian aggression. Neven Mimica is a goodwill ambassador to Ukrainian president Vlodomyr Zelensky’s Grain from Ukraine campaign . He is the former deputy prime minister of Croatia and has previously served as European Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development. Neven Mimica is a goodwill ambassador to Ukrainian president Vlodomyr Zelensky’s
|
Grain from Ukraine campaign
|
Getting Ukrainian grain production going again and ensuring it gets to those in need is an emergency,writes Neven Mimica, goodwill ambassador to Ukrainian president Vlodomyr Zelensky’s Grain from Ukraine campaign and former EU commissioner for international cooperation and development.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-10-01T10:59:44.353Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar42566257
|
Moldova's EU referendum is facing Russian destabilisation
|
On 20 October, Moldovans will vote in a referendum on future membership of the European Union. A ‘yes’ vote will change Moldova’s constitution, but this referendum is about something much deeper. It’s a moment for the people of Moldova to decide whether they see their country as part of the European family. The legitimacy of Moldova’s European journey will rest on this decision, making this vote a critical point in the nation’s history. This referendum is not happening in a vacuum. The context in which it takes place makes it especially significant. Across Europe, faith in the European project is wavering. Germany’s recent state elections are an example of how extremist voices have gained ground in many countries, raising questions about the future of European unity. At the same time, Moldova remains a battleground for the Russian manipulation machine, with efforts aimed at undermining democratic values and weakening Moldova’s ties to Europe. In such a tense environment, a ‘yes’ vote in this referendum would send a powerful message - a signal that the values of democracy, freedom, and unity are still alive. It would show that, despite external pressures, Moldova stands firm in its commitment to Europe. One of the key challenges Moldova faces as it approaches polling day is the threat of foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI). At the Center for Strategic Communication , we recognise that disinformation is just one part of a broader strategy used by Russia to destabilise Moldova’s European ambitions. This strategy goes beyond fake news to a range of tactics designed to erode trust in Moldova’s European future — sowing doubt, presenting half-truths and manipulatin g facts. Weaken social cohesion This foreign interference is not just about influencing the referendum itself. The goal is to weaken the social cohesion needed to navigate the complex process of European integration. Moldova’s journey toward Europe won’t end with this vote - European integration requires years of hard work, tough decisions and significant changes. The country will need strong social unity to stay on course. That’s why foreign interference is so dangerous — it undermines the very foundation on which Moldova’s future rests. The fight against FIMI is part of a broader, ongoing battle to protect democracy. In an age of instant communication and digital warfare, the threats to democracy have evolved. It’s no longer just about obvious propaganda; it’s about subtle manipulations aimed at weakening the bonds that hold societies together. This makes defending democracy a never-ending challenge, one that requires constant adaptation. One of the key innovations in our fight against FIMI has been the strengthening of communication and cooperation between the state, independent media, and civil society . We call this a “whole-of-society” approach. The state alone cannot counter subtle manipulation and disinformation effectively; it needs the help of other credible voices. The media and civil society play crucial roles in shaping public opinion and building trust. Without their involvement, our efforts would be limited. This collaboration is essential because trust in government has eroded over time. The state can provide the facts, but it’s the media and civil society that can help those facts resonate with the public. It’s about creating a unified front to counter the divisive forces of disinformation. Even with the best communication strategy, building trust in Moldova’s democratic institutions will be a long and difficult journey. The answers aren’t new — they’re the same principles that have always underpinned democracy: transparency, honesty, and a strong justice system. Moldova’s referendum is more than just a vote on European integration. It’s a test of the country’s resilience and unity in the face of external pressures. It’s a chance for the people of Moldova to show the world that they are committed to the values of democracy, freedom, and European unity. The road ahead will be difficult, but Moldova can overcome the challenges and secure its place in Europe. Ana Revenco is a former minister of interior affairs in Moldova, and head of the Center for Strategic Communication and Combating Disinformation . Ana Revenco is a former minister of interior affairs in Moldova, and head of the
|
Center for Strategic Communication and Combating Disinformation
|
On 20 October, Moldovans will vote in a referendum on future membership of the European Union. This referendum is not happening in a vacuum — Moldova remains a battleground for the Russian manipulation machine, writes the country's former interior affairs minister.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-09-30T10:48:17.800Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arb9f6f25f
|
Five questions for the new EU financial services commissioner
|
Since EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen unveiled her picks for the next commissioners , all eyes are on the commissioner-candidate for financial services and the savings and investments union, Maria Luís Albuquerque . Europe is grappling with a climate and social crisis. From deadly wildfires, extreme floods and unprecedented heatwaves disrupting businesses and ecosystems to increasing cost-of-living pressures and social inequalities, Albuquerque steps into a role laden with responsibility and opportunity. Her actions will shape the future of EU financial regulation and, by extension, the continent's trajectory towards sustainability and prosperity While Albuquerque's track record in finance is undeniable – having served as Portugal's finance minister and worked for Morgan Stanley – the parliamentary vetting will reveal if she has the sustainability expertise needed to address these challenges. Von der Leyen has set sustainable finance as a top priority. ShareAction believes these are the key areas where the new commissioner must take decisive action: Put the climate and social crises at the forefront Raising temperatures and food insecurity are not future threats, they're happening now. Millions of Europeans struggle with affordable energy and housing. These crises must be central to the new Commissioner's agenda. Albuquerque must champion the European Green Deal, building on the progress made and strengthening the financial sector's crucial role in addressing these challenges. Environmental and social considerations must guide every financial policy decision, and not be sidelined by industrial and competitive interests. This is the only way to accelerate the transition to a sustainable economy, while improving its long-term resilience and prosperity. Don't fall into the simplification trap Making sustainability rules clearer and easier to follow is important for achieving real-world outcomes. But the desire to make legislation simpler must not become an excuse to lower the EU’s ambition and backtrack on essential sustainability standards. As new commissioner responsible for financial services and in cooperation with the new commissioner for implementation and simplification, Albuquerque must ensure simplification enhances the effectiveness of the sustainable finance framework and does not result in dangerous deregulation that sacrifices the well-being of people and the planet, in the name of competitiveness. Sustainability measures should not be viewed as "burdensome", but as necessary for fostering transparency, enabling the green transition, and supporting businesses’ competitiveness globally. Don’t tolerate greenwashing Greenwashing is a growing threat to Europe’s sustainability goals. It misleads consumers and investors and distorts the market by allowing unsustainable practices to masquerade as green initiatives. Albuquerque must take a firm stance against it. Investors and companies need to be held accountable for misleading claims about their environmental and social credentials and impacts. This means tightening the rules. The upcoming review of the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation is an opportunity to close loopholes and push for stricter criteria to distinguish sustainable from unsustainable investments. By doing so, financial regulation will enable greater investment into activities that positively contribute to Europe's goals and push companies to change their attitude towards sustainability and go beyond mere compliance. Recognise link between sustainability and financial stability Climate change is an existential risk to economic stability. From rising sea levels threatening coastal cities to droughts impacting food supply chains, the impacts of climate change could send shockwaves through the European and global economy. Yet, the financial sector continues to pour billions into fossil fuels and other high-risk activities that undermine both environmental and financial stability. The new commissioner must make it clear that sustainable finance is a foundation for long-term financial stability. This means integrating environmental and social criteria into all aspects of financial regulation, including supervision. It’s about ensuring that those who invest in unsustainable activities are held accountable for the risks they are taking, not just to their balance sheets, but to society at large. Don’t work in a silo The commissioner for financial services cannot operate in isolation. To make real progress, she must work closely with their counterparts, particularly the commissioner for democracy, justice and the rule of law and the one for economy and productivity, implementation and simplification. Together, they need to address gaps in current legislation, like the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, to ensure that financial institutions are fully integrated into Europe’s sustainability framework. Their collaboration should also strengthen investor engagement, improve shareholder rights, and enhance transparency in financial markets. Finally, they should work closely to make the sustainable finance framework easier to navigate and implement, while protecting its spirit and ambition. By taking these actions, Albuquerque can play a transformative role in guiding Europe towards a truly sustainable and fair economy. ShareAction calls on the new commissioner to show strong commitment and innovative leadership in tackling these urgent challenges. The stakes are high, and the path forward demands decisive and forward-thinking action. Maria van der Heide is the head of EU policy at ShareAction . Maria van der Heide is the head of EU policy at
|
ShareAction
|
While Maria Luís Albuquerque's track record in finance is undeniable – having served as Portugal's finance minister and worked for Morgan Stanley – the parliamentary vetting will reveal if she has the sustainability expertise needed to address these challenges.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2024-09-30T04:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar52620921
|
Meet the new fossil-fuel EU Commission — same as the old one
|
In the wake of last week's announcement of the new EU Commissioners , civil society organisations have exposed the shocking extent of the fossil-fuel industry's influence on the European Commission. As the commissioner hearings kick off next month at the European Parliament, we call on our fellow MEPs to heed the public's concerns and demand a better commission. We must acknowledge the scale of the fossil-fuel industry’s influence on EU decision making. In the previous mandate, the commissioners and their cabinets held nearly 900 meetings with representatives of the fossil fuel industry. That is almost one meeting for every work day. With a network of over 50 declared organisations and a budget of €64m , the world's seven largest fossil fuel companies leverage their financial resources and organisational structures to amplify their lobbying in the EU, and continue to exploit resources and develop projects that are damaging to our environment and societies. Lobby meetings with the EU Commission are not their only tools of influence either. The lack of regulation on things like ‘conflicts of interest’ and ‘revolving doors’ provide the fossil fuel industry with ample opportunity to influence policy as well. The recent appointment of a commissioner, Wopke Hoekstra, who formerly worked for Shell and McKinsey is a case in point, and it will be difficult to ensure this person will not influenced by their background or give undue preference when regulating this sector. It is unacceptable that harmful lobbyists are given so much space in meetings and various official bodies, that they can influence policymaking. There is a clear lack of transparency and control of this influence, resulting into European law proposals that protect companies rather than the planet and its people. It's hard to believe, but we actually hand over our fossil gas infrastructure planning to gas operators . On top of that, the non-renewable hydrogen industry – the fossil fuel industry in disguise – has spent more than €75m a year lobbying European institutions, and is now considered one of the main pillars of the energy transition. Would you ask Marlboro or Camel for advice on how to keep your lungs healthy? Obviously not. The same goes for the fossil fuel industry and energy policies. For a start, we need to stop investing in fossil fuels, force the industry to invest in energy efficiency and renewables, and hold fossil fuel companies accountable for causing environmental damage, by making them pay. Those with the greatest financial windfalls from the destruction of the planet can and must, make the necessary efforts to preserve a liveable planet. Fossil-fuels are our tobacco We depend on fossil fuels, just like smokers depend on nicotine. We must take action against the fossil industry like we did against the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry is currently subject to a higher level of regulation after being caught red-handed with several conflicts of interest . This can be applied to the fossil fuel industry as well by revoking their access to European decision-making processes, removing them from consultative or expert bodies, ending ‘revolving doors’, and improving the transparency on lobby-Commissioner relationships. We know the fossil fuel industry is purely driven by its own survival and profits and is not concerned with issues such as sustainability or social justice. So, it would be unwise to leave the EU's climate and energy policy in their hands. It is crucial for citizens to regain confidence in their decision-makers, so they must adhere to democratic mandates that are free from external influence. During the run-up to the Commissioner hearings, we call on MEPs to fulfil their responsibilities. It is imperative that potential conflicts of interest are rigorously scrutinised, without room for ambiguity. We have five years to monitor the European Commission's performance and demand a robust and transparent framework for fossil fuel lobbying. These companies have long been aware of climate change and decided to cover up the facts , distract decision-makers from climate action, promote false solutions, and continue their harmful activities . The interests of the fossil fuel industry do not align with the EU’s climate goals and they should not be allowed to advise on it. European citizens deserve better and we must hold decision makers accountable. Marie Toussaint is a Green French MEP. She has is has co-written this piece with Friends of the Earth Europe's Fossil Free Politics campaign. Marie Toussaint is a Green French MEP. She has is has co-written this piece with Friends of the Earth Europe's
|
Fossil Free Politics
|
We must first acknowledge the scale of the fossil-fuel industry’s influence on EU decision making. In the previous mandate, the commissioners and their cabinets held nearly 900 meetings with representatives of the fossil-fuel industry.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Green Economy",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2024-09-26T13:43:43.086Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/arb193467b
|
Could America's ‘Safe Mobility Offices’ work for Europe’s migration challenges?
|
European nations continue to struggle with irregular migration along land and sea routes. Despite reforms such as the EU Migration and Asylum Pact, the debate on migration remains contentious and central in political campaigns. Extreme policies aimed at curbing migration are becoming more prevalent, and the EU’s agreements with transit countries often lack adequate human rights protections. At the same time, persistent drivers of migration, combined with a demand for irregular migrant labour in destination countries, push many to embark on dangerous journeys, benefiting smugglers. The call for "safe and legal routes" has emerged as a key demand from progressive voices. Yet, while this approach has been included in various global and regional agreements, there has been little progress in turning it into a viable solution, and this somewhat simplistic call fails to seriously address some of the complexities of creating such routes . In 2023, the US introduced the concept of 'Safe Mobility Offices' (SMOs) as a way to address irregular migration, with the aim of offering refugees and vulnerable migrants legal pathways and protection from smugglers. Given the much larger migration challenge faced by the US at its southern border compared to Europe, could this model work in the European context? What are SMOs? The SMOs, established in Colombia, Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Guatemala, offer access to refugee resettlement and provide information on legal migration pathways, including humanitarian parole, family reunification, and labour migration. While primarily targeting a limited number of eligible nationalities, these offices have also facilitated migration to countries like Canada and Spain. A study by the Mixed Migration Centre examined whether this model could be adapted to the context of mixed migration towards Europe. The conclusion: yes, SMOs could be a promising approach for Europe, but only with significant adjustments. The concept of SMOs demonstrates that with sufficient resources and political will, resettlement and migration pathways can be made accessible. However, several key lessons must be learned from the American example if the model is to work for Europe. Six lessons for Europe First, the SMOs show that a well-resourced system can support expedited and accessible refugee resettlement. The US effort highlights the potential for responsibility-sharing in the global context of forced migration. A similar system in Europe, could offer an important complement to the existing asylum system. Second, the limitations of SMOs in the Americas highlight challenges that would need to be addressed in Europe. Most notably, the eligibility criteria have been restrictive, meaning many of the migrants most in need of assistance, and most likely to be in transit, engage in dangerous onward movement and rely on smugglers, are excluded. Moreover, the SMOs primarily facilitate refugee resettlement and do not adequately provide access to other forms of legal migration. A European SMO model would need to expand its scope to include more accessible pathways, especially for labour migration, which could help reduce the reliance on smugglers and the risks associated with irregular journeys. With the high demand for migrant labour across Europe’s ageing societies this could be feasible. Third, the SMO initiative requires careful collaboration between various stakeholders, including governments and international organizations like UNHCR and International Organization for Migration (IOM). In Europe, such cooperation would also be crucial, but would likely be more challenging, given the often transactional nature of the EU’s relationships with transit countries. Europe’s past migration deals have focused more on paying countries to prevent migration than on forming genuine partnerships. Establishing a European SMO system would require a shift towards a more equitable approach, potentially building on frameworks like the Joint Valetta Action Plan. Fourth, civil society should play an important role in a future European SMO initiative, both in raising awareness and holding governments accountable. In the American SMO model, civil society engagement has been limited, leaving many frustrated by a lack of inclusion. Fifth, safeguarding access to asylum is fundamental. SMOs should not be seen as a replacement for domestic asylum systems. While they can offer safe migration options, they must not serve as a cover for restricting access to asylum cat Europe’s borders. Finally, any European adaptation of the SMO model would need to use technology wisely to ensure inclusivity. The American SMOs allow for self-referral through online systems, which reduces the need for gatekeepers. However, this reliance on technology risks excluding the most vulnerable migrants who lack access to the internet or do not speak the required languages. In conclusion, while the SMO model offers a promising approach to managing irregular migration, its replication in Europe would require significant modifications. It would need political will, a broader scope of migration pathways beyond resettlement, and a commitment to maintaining access to asylum. If these challenges can be addressed, the SMO model could help provide orderly migration options for those in need, while reducing dangerous irregular journeys and the reliance on smugglers. However, it should not be seen as a silver bullet; it must be accompanied by other measures such as faster asylum processing, fair distribution of refugees among European countries, and a better-functioning return system. Bram Frouws is the director of the Mixed Migration Centre , an NGO providing independent data, research, analysis & expertise on migration. Bram Frouws is the director of the
|
Mixed Migration Centre
|
Given the much larger migration challenge faced by the US at its southern border compared to Europe, could their model of 'safe mobility offices' work in the European context? And what are they?
|
[
"Migration",
"Opinion"
] |
migration
|
2024-09-26T08:13:28.680Z
|
https://euobserver.com/migration/ar9c4b01e5
|
EU brushes off report it funds Tunisian forces accused of mass rape
|
The European Commission has brushed aside allegations it funds Tunisian security forces, who stand accused of mass rape of sub-Saharan African women in an investigation by the Guardian newspaper. On Tuesday (24 September), a commission spokesperson told reporters that EU funding for migration programmes are instead channeled into international organisations, EU member states and NGOs that are present on the ground. The response came following the Guardian report, citing witness testimony, of young migrant women repeatedly raped by Tunisian national guards at a base near the Algerian border. The paper says the EU is funding the same guards, a charge the commission denies. But authorities in Tunisia are also routinely rounding up sub-Saharan Africans and dumping them in the deserts near Libya and Algeria, reportedly by the Tunisian national guard. An internal EU document obtained and published by Statewatch says plans are under way to build and equip a command-and-control centre for the Tunisian national guard at the border with Libya and to enhance cross border cooperation with Libya. The commission is listed as the lead "actor" on the project, along with member states. It also includes a line on ensuring the safeguarding of human rights of migrants. And a separate investigation in May by a consortium of media outlets found that vehicles used in desert dumps match tenders financed by European funds. The Guardian also says the Tunisian national guard is in fact working alongside people smugglers. Similar allegations were made to EUobserver by a Libyan police officer , who said the Libyan Coast Guard sells motors to smugglers after first removing them once boats of migrants are apprehended at sea. In Libya, the commission has hired a third-party contractor to ensure its funds do not violate its 'Do No Harm' principle. And in public, it cites the report as claiming its funds have caused no harm. But when pressed, the commission refuses to name the contractor and won't release any substantial details of the report. It now wants to hire outside contractors in Tunisia to do the same sometime this year, posing accountability questions for a commission that declines public scrutiny. Last year July, the European Commission along with the prime ministers of Italy and the Netherlands signed a pact with Tunisia's president Kais Saied . The deal promised Tunisia €150m in annual budget support, some €450m of infrastructure spending, an initial €105m for migration management, and an estimated €900m in macro-financial assistance over a number of years. Much of the money came with conditions that Tunisia agrees to IMF-led reforms, a prospect baulked by Saied who had led a crackdown on against opposition, media and civil society. Meanwhile, over 97,000 people were recorded arriving in Italy from Tunisia by boats in 2023, over three times more than in 2022. Most of them were sub-Saharan Africans and were driven to take the boats partly due to the worsening conditions for migrants within Tunisia, according to the European Council on Foreign Relations.
|
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 European Commission has brushed aside allegations it funds Tunisian security forces, which stand accused of mass rape of sub-Saharan African women in an investigation by the Guardian newspaper.
|
[
"Migration",
"Africa"
] |
migration
|
2024-09-24T13:51:12.645Z
|
https://euobserver.com/migration/ar21c52e67
|
Becoming adults: quarter of young Europeans face housing problems
|
With affordable housing getting harder-and-harder to find and the cost of living hitting hard young people, Gen Z and millennials are struggling to leave their parents' homes, or are moving into overcrowded households. Over a quarter of young people were living in overcrowded houses in 2023, according to new figures published by the EU's statistical office, Eurostat, on Thursday (19 September). When it comes to the general EU population, the proportion of people living in overcrowded households stands at 17 percent — a gap that reflects the worsening housing crisis faced by younger generations. As affordable living has become increasingly a problem across Europe, the European Commission has designated the first-ever EU commissioner with direct responsibility for housing. “We urgently need to address the housing crisis facing millions of families and young people,” EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said in her political guidelines before being reelected by MEPs in July. According to Sina Riz à Porta, a campaigner from the European Youth Forum, the newly-appointed Danish EU commissioner for housing Dan Jørgensen “must consider setting a minimum quota of at least 30 percent for social and affordable housing in every member state by 2030.” “While also making sure that rental markets are fair and in line with the cost-of-living,” she told EUobserver. Riz also said that efforts should focus on boosting the supply of and access to affordable housing, and highlighted that implementing a minimum income would establish a financial safety net across the EU, “supporting young people with greater financial autonomy in their daily lives." New data also shows that the situation for young people varies. In Malta, only around four-percent of young people lived in overcrowded households last year, while the rate rises to about 60 percent in Romania. Likewise, more than half of young people also lived in overcrowded households in Bulgaria and Latvia and more than a third of the EU youth population in Greece, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia. Meanwhile, figures also show that young people from southern Europe generally face even greater difficulties when it comes to leaving the parental household. In most of northern and western Europe, young adults often move out of their parents' house in their early to mid-20s. Denmark, Finland, and Sweden have the lowest scores. In contrast, the average ages in southern and eastern countries like Greece, Italy, and Croatia are in the late 20s or early 30s.
|
What is the reason for this? A more precarious labour market with even higher unemployment rates than in northern Europe and wages that do not guarantee a decent standard of living, Riz à Porta told EUobserver, arguing that “a weaker social safety net further deny young people the financial independence to leave the parental home”.
|
With affordable housing getting harder and harder to find and the cost of living hitting hard young people, Gen Z and millennials are struggling to leave their parents' homes — and are moving into overcrowded households.
|
[
"Health & Society"
] |
health-and-society
|
2024-09-20T10:16:40.102Z
|
https://euobserver.com/health-and-society/ar8b08937c
|
Why is Serbia buying French Rafale fighter jets?
|
When French president Emmanuel Macron had his two-day visit to Serbia in August, he brought back home a contract worth €2.7bn as Serbia inked a deal to buy 12 French-made Rafale fighter jets from French defence manufacturer Dassault Aviation. For Macron, the transaction was a chance for a brief display of what was left of European leadership in the Balkans. However, Serbian motives are more multifaceted, and they involve defence policy, diplomatic manoeuvring and domestic politics. French motivation is pretty straightforward. Macron had a chance to secure a commercial contract for the French company. Moreover, as he faced challenges to his political leadership in France , Macron needed to have at least some display of leadership. The Balkans appeared as a long-hanging fruit. On occasion, Macron expressed rhetorical support for Serbian accession to the EU , while the French press qualified the sale of Rafale jets as an attempt by Paris to get Belgrade to sever its link with Moscow—dubious chances of success on both counts. For Belgrade, the calculus is more nuanced. Serbia and the rest of the Balkans are in the process of replacing and modernising their outdated weapons arsenals that originate from the days of former Yugoslavia. In the Serbian case, special attention is dedicated to the control of national airspace. The past historical experiences, particularly the Nazi bombing of Belgrade in 1941 and Nato intervention during the 1999 Kosovo war, where in both cases, Serbia faced a superior air force, makes airpower a source of fascination. In that context, Serbia also acquired Mistral , a French infrared man-portable air-defence system and the GM-400 long-range surveillance radar from France’s Thales. Russian rapid-fire Pantsir S1 anti-aircraft missile system, Chinese CH-92A drones and China’s FK-3 air defence systems are already part of Belgrade’s arsenal. The kamikaze drones from the UAE are also on their way. Purchasing Rafale was also a necessity for Belgrade as Russian MiG-29s used by the Serbian airforce are set to become obsolete, and the closure of European territory and airspace for Russian transport after Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine prevents Belgrade from reaching a new deal with Moscow. Serbia can flash out the Rafales both in the context of controlling its airspace and in the context of the quasi-arms race Serbia has been engaged with its neighbour Croatia since 2015, and in which Croatia already got Rafale jets from France. Hedging bets, pitting rivals Arms procurement is also part of Serbian foreign policy, where Belgrade loves to hedge bets and pit rival powers against each other. Serbian leadership believes that by buying weaponry from certain countries, they buy their political friendship along the way. In the past year, the Serbian government has faced one major domestic crisis after another, including the ongoing nationwide protests against Anglo-Australian mining multinational Rio Tinto and its lithium mining project in Serbia, followed by heavy pressures exercised by the government against the project critics in the media and civil society. Vulnerable at home, Vučić and his government need to buy the friendship of Western governments, and in the case of France, the purchase of Rafale jets helps. There are other domestic factors at play as well. According to public opinion polls , the military is the most trusted national institution in Serbia, followed by religious institutions. By buying weaponry , leaders project the image of leaders taking good care of one of the nation’s most cherished institutions, and score domestic points. It is also a diversion from domestic troubles. High-profile arms purchases are frequently a way to conceal from the public the ugly reality that the greatest problem of the Serbian military is the massive departure of military professionals who cite unsatisfactory conditions and lack of respect as the main reasons for their departure. Russia, China, Croatia, Nato Where does this lead us in the end? War is unlikely to break out in the Balkans since the region is firmly embedded in Nato and Western security structures . Even Serbia has powerful cooperation with Nato, particularly the US, with which defence collaboration has flourished in the past two years. Still, there is no doubt that the old practice of tabloid-style militant sensationalism will persevere. The price of €2.7bn also appears staggering for Serbia’s middle-income economy . The deal already involved a guarantee that Serbia would not share Rafale technology with Russia. The question remains how to integrate French and Chinese hardware into the same system. The deal might involve the French dispatching an inspection to Serbia every several months to inspect whether their technology might be susceptible to Chinese technology extracting data. Similarly, given that it is not a Nato member state, the Rafale jets will not have access to all the technical applications as in the case of the jets supplied to Croatia, which is in Nato. It is equally questionable who will be piloting these jets given the described problem of military cadre departures and how prepared those pilots that piloted MiGs to shift to a Nato-standard jet. It may turn out that the Rafale sale is not that much of a game-changer but a display of how the game is played in the Balkans these days. Vuk Vuksanovic is an associate at LSE IDEAS , a foreign policy think tank within the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), and a senior researcher at the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy (BCSP). Vuk Vuksanovic is an associate at LSE IDEAS , a foreign policy think tank within the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), and a senior researcher at the
|
Belgrade Centre for Security Policy
|
For Emmanuel Macron, the transaction was a chance for a brief display of what was left of European leadership in the Balkans. However, Serbian motives are more multifaceted, and they involve defence policy, diplomatic manoeuvring and domestic politics.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2024-09-20T09:58:35.491Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arbfbbf2e8
|
Mpox is now a litmus test for EU's health-crisis management
|
As mpox continues to quickly spread across sub-Saharan Africa, the EU’s response to the mpox outbreak is a litmus test for the EU’s leadership in responding to present and future health emergencies. Europe finds itself in a position of relative security. Due in no small part to the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention’s proactive monitoring and preparedness, the outbreak risk of the mpox virus remains low among EU member states. However, as many countries in central Africa are grappling with Mpox, especially the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), some uncertainties remain over the extent and type of EU support in tackling the disease. The response to the mpox outbreak was one of the topics on the agenda at the European Parliament plenary on Wednesday (18 September), highlighting “the need for continuous action” to tackle the contagious disease. But what is the role that the EU could play in addressing Mpox? And why could it be seen as a litmus test for the EU’s management of health crises? 'Disease fatigue' in DR Congo In eastern DRC, where the outbreak is currently most intense, the combination of conflict, displacement, widespread poverty, and limited healthcare access has created a poly-crisis. Residents, long besieged by infectious diseases like malaria, ebola, and Covid-19, are now battling mpox with health systems not yet equipped to handle this emergency alone. World Vision’s teams on the ground found overwhelmed communities unable to invest new energy into another disease outbreak. This fatigue complicates efforts around vaccination, community mobilisation, and behaviour change communication — actions essential to slowing the spread. It is true that the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) are working tirelessly to organise a continental response . Yet, the challenge lies in the underfunded health systems at the primary care level. Surveillance, diagnosis, and contact tracing are limited, and isolation facilities are scarce. Making vaccines quickly available at scale must be a priority. The EU’s recent commitment of 566,500 mpox vaccine doses to Africa is commendable. As it is the news of Spain’s commitment to a donation of 500,000 doses . However, this falls far short of the DRC’s request for 3.5 million doses and the Africa CDC’s projection of 10 million doses needed . Gavi’s planned global stockpile will eventually help close this gap, but it will take time and financial backing. Widespread vaccine donations are key, but the EU and its member states can play a key role also in other areas. Not just vaccines — community leaders World Vision’s experience during the ebola outbreak in West Africa showed that ministries of health often struggle to manage risk communication and community mobilisation without local partners. It is essential to engage local health workers, faith leaders, and community influencers — barbers, kiosk owners, and others. These individuals build the trust needed to bridge the gap between misinformation and positive health behaviours. Coordination between stakeholders is another critical component. In Africa, outbreak control is an “all hands on deck” situation. Effective coordination among governments, health ministries, WHO response clusters, UNICEF, EU delegations and other local actors is pivotal—but coordination requires investment. These local partners often bring significant resources to the table, but with basic catalytic funding, their efforts can be significantly amplified. Moreover, children are disproportionately affected by this outbreak, accounting for a majority of the cases in the DRC. As of now, only one vaccine (LC16) is approved for use in children —and only in Japan. Without more trials targeting children and other vulnerable groups, we cannot ethically recommend Mpox vaccines for those most at risk. The EU can play a pivotal role in ensuring children’s access to vaccination, also by urging manufacturers to prioritise these trials. The world simply cannot afford to leave children behind in their response efforts. As the outbreak continues to spread, the need for coordinated action has never been clearer. World Vision is mobilising through its Emergency mpox Response, or Empox response , which focuses on protecting the most vulnerable, particularly children in low and middle-income countries with challenging health systems. As we stand at a crossroads, I believe Europe can lead by example. Beyond sharing vaccines, the EU must continue to support local vaccine manufacturing capacity across Africa. This will help address both the current outbreak and future health crises. In the immediate term, leveraging existing development programmes and humanitarian efforts to bolster communication, mobilisation, and vaccine distribution is key. The EU and member states must recognise that preventing further spread of this and future outbreaks is not just an act of solidarity, but an investment in global health security. Choosing to provide targeted support for impacted health systems and ramp up our vaccine distribution means that the EU and its member states can be uniquely positioned to help avert further global crises. By taking these steps now, the EU can lay the groundwork for a more agile and prepared response to future health challenges, turning lessons learned into a healthier and safer future for all. Dan Irvine is the global director of health and nutrition at World Vision International , a global humanitarian aid organisation active in 100 countries. Prior to joining World Vision, he lived and worked in Africa for 15 years, with stints in DR Congo and Zambia. Dan Irvine is the global director of health and nutrition at
|
World Vision International
|
The EU and member states must recognise that preventing further spread of this and future outbreaks is not just an act of solidarity, but an investment in global health security. European vaccine donations are key, but It is essential to engage local health workers, faith leaders, and community influencers — from barbers to kiosk owners.
|
[
"Africa",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
*
|
2024-09-19T09:34:42.029Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/ar842d4051
|
Last chance: why EU cannot afford to be silent ahead of Tunisian election
|
When I started as a researcher with Amnesty International in 2017, I had just moved to Tunisia, a country that had inspired and given hope to millions of people across the Middle East and North Africa for its transformation after the Arab Spring protests. Tunisia’s story contrasted sharply to Egypt, where I witnessed firsthand how rule of law backsliding under a repressive government devastates almost every aspect of life. The authorities have been supported in their campaign of repression by billions of euros in aid and loans from the EU, funds that have been handed over without any insistence that Egypt abide by the EU’s standards on human rights. Unless it changes course, the EU is about to make the same mistakes in Tunisia that it made in Egypt. In July 2021, Tunisian president Kaies Saied suspended parliament , dismissed the entire government, including the prime minister, and took executive control of the country. Since then, he has dismantled most independent institutions , adopted repressive decrees, severely undermined judicial independence and the rule of law, arbitrarily arrested opponents and critics, rewritten the constitution, and restricted media freedom and the work of civil society organisations. Unless it changes course, the EU is about to make the same mistakes in Tunisia that it made in Egypt He has labelled opponents as traitors and foreign-funded agents and launched a wave of racist violent attacks against black migrants and refugees in the country. These campaigns have left hundreds of victims behind bars and left others, as in the case of some refugees, to die at the borders in Libya. EU complicity The EU is aware of these facts, as a leaked document has confirmed . Initially alarmed by these measures, the EU nevertheless made a border externalization pact with the Tunisian government following pressure from Italian p rime minister Georgia Meloni. Signing a memorandum of understanding in July 2023, the EU promised up to €1bn in loans and aid to the Tunisian authorities, primarily to stop migrants and refugees from reaching European shores. The deal, shrouded in secrecy, was widely criticised by the media, the European Parliament and civil society for the risks it poses to human rights , for bypassing parliamentary scrutiny and for the lack of consultation with civil society members in Tunisia and Europe. The EU Ombudsman also opened a case in view of the European Commission’s failure to conduct prior human rights risk assessments. Emboldened nevertheless, president Saied expanded the crackdown on human rights and rule of law ahead of the presidential election scheduled to be held in October to ensure his victory. The Tunisian elections commission (ISIE), now reshaped at the president’s will, lost its independence and given free rein, ignored two clear and final court orders to reinstate three presidential contenders. 6 October election crackdown The ISIE sent warning notes to private media and refused to allow the main Tunisian independent observation organisations to monitor the elections, citing ‘suspicious foreign funding’. Tunisian security forces also arrested one of the only two candidates, besides president Saied, allowed to run for elections. When a judge ordered his release, security forces rearrested him and took him to another prosecutor over new charges and he was put under additional detention orders. Meanwhile, the EU has remained largely silent, over concerns that Tunisia may drift towards China and Russia or halt migration cooperation. This logic is inherently flawed for two reasons. Firstly, president Saied has made it abundantly clear that the Tunisian government will continue to draw closer to both China and Russia , with or without the EU’s support. Secondly, in deepening cooperation with Tunisia in the first place, the EU has bargained quite some leverage by giving president Saied control over migration cooperation. What to do? European leaders should be aware of the leverage they have on the Tunisian government and use it to ensure respect for human rights and rule of law in line with the principles set out in the EU-Tunisia strategic partnership agreement. They can do this by firstly, reevaluating their extensive cooperation with Tunisia to press for guarantees that it does not lead to human rights violations. Secondly, president Saied is aware that presidential elections are vital for international and national legitimacy. The repressive environment in the country has led many to voice concern over the situation of human rights in the country ahead of the elections including by taking to the streets. The EU’s scrutiny of those concerns would give pause to his government’s clampdown on human rights. The EU must learn from the mistakes of its approach to Egypt where it has contributed to an endless loop of economic failures and bailouts. All the while, the space for the people in Egypt to exercise their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association continues to shrivel. Both what EU leaders need to do in Tunisia and the consequences of failing to do so are clear. The EU must use its leverage to ensure that the Tunisian authorities uphold the country’s commitment under the EU-Tunisia association agreement including to ensure the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, association, media freedom, and respect for rule of law in the lead up to the elections. Concretely this means the EU making it clear to president Saied that the ISIE must implement the administrative court’s decision to reinstate political contenders. NGOs must be allowed to monitor the elections and political opponents must be able to freely speak to the media without repercussions. Without those three elements, the EU should be prepared to ultimately re-consider its cooperation with Tunisia. Hussein Baoumi is foreign policy advocate at Amnesty International 's European institutions office. Hussein Baoumi is foreign policy advocate at
|
Amnesty International
|
Unless it changes course, the EU is about to make the same mistakes in Tunisia that it made in Egypt, writes Amnesty International. On 6 October, Tunisian president Kaies Saied faces re-election — he has already suspended parliament, dismissed the government, taken control of the country, arrested opponents, rewritten the constitution, and restricted media and NGOs.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Migration",
"Africa",
"Opinion"
] |
*
|
2024-09-18T09:26:38.498Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/arbc1ed8c0
|
Housing gets its due, with a first-ever EU commissioner — what next?
|
Today, the European Commission made a promising move by nominating Dan Jørgensen as its first ever commissioner to work on housing. This new role marks a significant step in prioritising housing at EU level. With over 895,000 people experiencing homelessness across Europe, and many more struggling to find decent, affordable housing , it is crucial that the new commissioner reinforces the social value of housing and makes sure that marginalised communities are not left behind. Red Cross staff and volunteers across Europe see how having a home significantly improves people's physical and mental well-being, as well as strengthening social cohesion within communities. Without stable housing, people are locked out from essential aspects of socio-economic inclusion, such as securing employment, enrolling children in school and registering with a doctor. Housing insecurity also takes a serious toll on mental health, especially for children . However, housing is predominantly treated as a commodity – an asset to buy and sell, invest in and profit from, rather than an ‘essential social good’ that is crucial for people and societies to flourish. This approach coupled with the lack of long-term investments in inclusive and sustainable quality housing has fed a chronic housing crisis in Europe. We work with people directly impacted by this crisis every day and everyone is not affected in the same way. Through our work with marginalised people, we see how low-income households, single parents, persons with disabilities and migrants disproportionately live in inadequate housing or cannot secure a place they can call home. We also see that these groups are more at risk of being impacted by energy poverty and increasing prices. High stakes So the stakes are high for Jørgensen as commissioner-designate for energy and housing. While the Union does not have direct authority over national housing policy, it has the tools to play a decisive role in pushing for a way out of the housing crisis. Embracing a new housing paradigm that acknowledges the social value of housing and meaningfully involves the social economy sector in policy discussions is the best place to start. Europe’s first commissioner responsible for housing should support a vision that restores housing to its fundamental role as a cornerstone of social inclusion and integral to the fabric of Europe. The Liège Declaration signed by EU ministers in March 2024, offers a clear path forward, recognising housing as a foundational pillar against poverty and social exclusion and calling for substantial public investment in affordable and social housing. Moving in this direction is a vital shift towards achieving the EU's goal to eradicate homelessness by 2030. We also encourage the commissioner to consider the experiences of migrants in their portfolio. Public discourse must stop using migrants as scapegoats for the housing crisis. The reality is that migrants face an increased risk of becoming homeless, while encountering various barriers to accessing autonomous housing. Red Cross first responders witness how newcomers often spend far too long in emergency shelters, refugee camps and other accommodations designed for short-term stays, highlighting a pressing need for more permanent solutions. To build an inclusive Europe where no one is left living on the streets, in precarious housing, or at risk of losing their home, EU approaches must prioritise the autonomy of all people. This vision does not only uphold people's dignity but also enables them to access socio-economic rights to actively take part in and contribute to society. What works We have found that when newcomers can live within the community, their chances for successful inclusion significantly improve. Community-driven approaches that prioritise independent housing create opportunities for meaningful encounters and connections. To make this possible, the availability of inclusive and affordable housing must be expanded. Once the new European Commission is in place, it should support and channel more EU funds towards public, social, cooperative and community-led housing initiatives, ensuring equal access. These types of housing solutions allow everyone to lead dignified lives in Europe and foster more inclusive communities. New policies, such as the proposed EU Affordable Housing Plan , need to be developed together with social economy actors to ensure they address the actual needs of people. If endorsed, Jørgensen will need to show bold leadership by embracing change, valuing the pivotal role of the social economy sector and proposing structural solutions that make the right to adequate, affordable and sustainable housing a reality for everybody. Until the EU recognises housing as a ‘social good’ and a non-negotiable factor to living a safe, stable and autonomous life, more and more people will continue to be pushed to the margins. Embracing a humane approach to housing is not just an ethical imperative, it is a crucial step towards a fairer and more functional society. Mette Petersen is the director of the Red Cross/Red Crescent EU office. Mette Petersen is the director of the
|
Red Cross/Red Crescent
|
Today, the European Commission made a promising move by nominating Dan Jørgensen as its first ever commissioner to work on housing. This new role marks a significant step in prioritising housing at EU level.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2024-09-17T10:36:11.831Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar0c7f03b3
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.