‘O drama multicultural‘ da Holanda: resultados eleitorais mostram uma crescente polarização da sociedade holandesa

In politics, things can turn on a euro cent. Just six month ago Wouter Bos was celebrated for the way he dealt with the financial crisis. The Dutch Labour party leader and finance minister soared in the opinion polls. But all that was forgotten when people went to vote on Thursday, and dealt Bos' party a devastating blow: Labour lost four of its seven seats in the European parliament.

The Christian democrats, the other major coalition partner, also took a severe beating: it went from seven to five seats. That didn't keep prime minister and party leader Jan Peter Balkenende from claiming victory: "We said we wanted to remain the biggest party and that's what happened," Balkenende said, adding nevertheless that his coalition government will have to work hard to regain the public's confidence.

The big winner of Thursday's election was undoubtedly Geert Wilders, whose Party for Freedom (PVV) went from zero to four seats, making it the second biggest Dutch party in the Brussels parliament in its first European election.

Low turnout

The mainstream parties had silently hoped that the traditional low turnout for European elections would prevent a PVV breakthrough, going on the assumption that Wilders supporters are not that interested in Europe and wouldn't bother to vote. That turned out to be wrong. Despite a record low turnout - 36.5 percent, 2.5 points less than in 2004 - the PVV was able to attract 16.9 percent of all voters. According to research by public broadcaster NOS, many PVV voters were men and/or over fifty.

At a party meeting on Monday, Wilders had correctly predicted that the PVV would become bigger than his old party, the right-wing liberal VVD, which he broke away from in 2004. Still, VVD party leader Mark Rutte was not entirely unhappy with his party's three seats - down from four. Opinion polls had predicted a bigger loss. Just ahead of the election, Rutte had caused a controversy by proposing to broaden the definition of freedom of speech to include Holocaust denial. No matter how hard he tried to explain what exactly he meant, Rutte was ruthlessly attacked by political friends and foes alike. "This is a good result, " Rutte said on Thursday night.

But even Wilders had not expected his party to become bigger than Labour. "This the day the PVV finally made its breakthrough," he said. "People have had enough of the Balkenende and Bos cabinet." Wilders will not be going to Brussels himself; preferring to concentrate on national politics. Instead, an aide, Barry Madlener, will lead the PVV's four-man delegation to the European parliament, an institution it would like to see abolished.

'No real answers'

Just two months ago, the other parties said they were thrilled that the PVV had decided to take part in the European elections. Finally, they would get a chance to prove that the PVV had no real answers to European problems, was the thinking. The mainstream parties would have no trouble at all convincing the electorate that Europe was in the end a good thing for the Netherlands, or so they thought.

But the PVV's Barry Madlener, a former real estate agent, ran a better campaign than expected. His message was clear and simple: Brussels should have less power, and Turkey will never ever join the European Union. The mainstream parties, by contrast, had a much fuzzier stand on Europe, as Madlener never failed to point out.

In fact, the only other party to do well in these elections was at the other end of the political spectrum. The left-wing liberal party D66, which went to the polls with an outspoken pro-European stance, won over 10 percent of the voters and went from one to three seats in the European parliament.

The Netherlands is a more polarised country since Thursday's election. The political landscape has splintered. Stable government coalitions made up of two major parties and a sometimes a smaller third party may be a thing of the past. If national elections were held today with the same outcome, it could take months of negotiations to form a government. And any government coalition would probably require four parties, since most parties have already ruled out governing with the PVV. (The Christian democrats are on the fence about sharing power with Wilders.)

Penalised by voters

All this makes it easy to forget that this election was really about Europe. So what does the Dutch result say about the position of the Netherlands in Europe? The Netherlands was a founding member of the European Union. Does the PVV victory, on top of the Dutch 'no' in the 2005 referendum about the European constitution, mean that the Netherlands is now firmly in the eurosceptic camp?

Not quite. The electoral gains of the eurosceptic PVV are offset by the success of the pro-European D66. Another eurosceptical party, the Socialist Party, gained slightly compared to the 2004 election but lost big-time compared to the 2006 national election. The pro-European Green party held its own.

By contrast, parties like Labour, the Christian democrats and the right-wing liberal party VVD, who tried to be pro-European and eurosceptic at the same time, were penalised by the voters. In the European context too, the Netherlands is now a polarised country.

http://www.nrc.nl/international/Features/article2262197.ece/The_Netherlands_is_now_a_polarised_country
JPTF 2009/06/06

A (im)previsível bomba nuclear da Coreia do Norte

Paradoxos da Europa: primeiro partido criado como movimento europeu é... ‘eurocéptico‘ ?!

Não sabe em quem votar nas eleições europeias? Escolha um partido como um produto no mercado no EU profiler

O regresso do passado otomano à Grécia? ‘Emigrantes muçulmanos confrontam-se com a polícia em Atenas‘ in Kathimerini

A Muslim immigrant shouts in front of a row of riot policemen during a rally in central Athens yesterday. Hundreds of Muslims marched through the center to protest the alleged defacement of a copy of the Quran by a Greek policeman.

Police clashed with hundreds of Muslim immigrants in central Athens for a second day yesterday in an escalating protest at reports that a policeman had defaced a copy of the Quran during a routine inspection earlier this week.

An estimated 1,500 demonstrators, mostly immigrants from Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan, hurled sticks and stones at police officers in full riot gear who had been stationed outside Parliament yesterday afternoon. Police responded with tear gas and stun grenades. In the escalating unrest, which saw several store facades smashed, parked cars overturned and traffic lights vandalized, one officer and four protesters were said to have sustained minor injuries. More than 15 protesters were arrested. The demonstration followed a less violent protest that broke out near Omonia Square on Thursday in the wake of reports that a policeman had torn up a copy of the Quran and then stamped on it during a routine inspection conducted on four Syrian migrants in the city center. After word spread about the alleged incident, local migrant groups organized the protest. Later on Thursday an Afghan national was arrested in the run-down Athens district of Aghios Panteleimonas after allegedly throwing a firebomb at a police station, causing limited damage but serious injury to himself.

The Muslim Union of Greece, which represents thousands of immigrants in the capital, said that it had taken legal action against the unidentified policeman alleged to have defaced the Syrian’s copy of Islam’s holy book. Police said an internal investigation had been launched.

Meanwhile, in a related development, Athens Mayor Nikitas Kaklamanis welcomed a proposal by Athens Prefect Yiannis Sgouros to purchase the building of the old Athens appeals court in the city center where hundreds of illegal immigrants have been squatting for the past six months.

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_100003_23/05/2009_107438
JPTF 2009/05/23

‘Elites governantes sob fogo nas eleições europeias‘ in EU Observer

Ruling parties in some of the EU's biggest member states are coming under heavy fire in EU election campaigns, giving eurosceptic groups a chance to grab attention.

Italian leader Silvio Berlusconi, whose right-wing PDL party is polled to scoop up to 40 percent of the country's EU vote, faced calls to resign on Wednesday (20 May) over alleged links to a corporate bribery scandal.

A court in Milan has ruled that a Berlusconi proxy paid British-born lawyer David Mills €435,000 to act as a "false witness" for the premier in a series of fraud trials which implicated the media tycoon. The PM's spokesman said the resignation calls were "politically timed" to damage Mr Berlusconi, who heads his party list.

British eurosceptic party UKIP is to spend €2.3 million in the next two weeks to woo unhappy Labour voters in the wake of the parliament expenses scandal.

"Of the recent inquiries we have had from our first-time buyers [new supporters], around 60 percent of them have come from Labour," UKIP leader Nigel Farrage said, the Times reports. UKIP and Labour are both polling at around 16 percent, compared to UKIP's 6 percent at the start of May.

The anti-Lisbon treaty Libertas party has targeted the Conservative opposition party, which currently leads UK polls, with a video clip making fun of Tory leader David Cameron's apology for the expenses problem. Libertas says the clip has had over 1 million hits.

France's ruling UMP party has fended off a legal challenge against its promotional video, with the audiovisual regulator, the CSA, on Wednesday ruling the clip was not "propaganda."

The centre-right Civic Platform government in Poland has seen its approval ratings dip for the fourth month in a row, according to CBOS surveys. Approval dipped from 44 percent to 42 percent in May. Prime Minister Donald Tusk's personal rating fell three points to 48 percent.

Eurosceptic opposition Law and Justice party leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski on Wednesday said Poland faces an "infernal [economic] crisis," urging Poles to give Civic Platform "a warning" in the EU vote.

Laziest MEPs shamed

The Polish political elite in general has come under fire in articles detailing the laziest MEPs and euro-deputies' lavish lifestyles. Tabloid Fakt said Civic Platform MEP Krzysztof Holowczyc was absent for 65 percent of EU parliament sessions. Daily broadsheet Rzeczpospolita wrote that from June, MEPs are to fly around Europe in business class and have in the past sipped cocktails on African beaches at symposia on poverty.

In Germany , a joint campaign by the ruling CDU and CSU parties is trying to appeal to the most conservative end of the spectrum of centre-right voters.

The campaign focuses on religious issues, such as making a reference to God in future EU treaties, keeping Turkey out of the EU and strengthening the role of the German language in the European Union. The parties also pledge to see if European competences can be clawed back to the national level.

Greek opposition socialist party Pasok has attacked the governing New Democracy faction for dissolving parliament early in what it sees as an attempt to run away from a series of corruption scandals. "Pasok is linking the European elections with national elections," socialist leader George Papandreou said on Wednesday. "We want citizens to ...change the direction of the country."

The Czech left-wing opposition party, the CSSD, is planning to pump up to €2.6 million into its EU election battle against the conservative ODS faction. CSSD chairman Jiri Paroubek said the recent ODS government managed to draw less than 1 percent of EU funds for the country available up to 2013.

Fears over voter apathy are being confirmed in Ireland and Romania , where people appear to be more interested in local by-elections and upcoming presidential elections, respectively, than the EU vote.

Election posters cause annoyance

Irish people have begun to complain about plastic EU election posters obscuring important road signs. In a letter to the Irish Times on Thursday, an academic from the Catholic University of Louvain informs Irish readers that the Belgian government erects temporary structures offering a designated space for a limited amount of recyclable paper posters instead.

Sweden is bucking the trend, however. In Gothenburg, pre-voting in the EU election at the major Nordstan polling station shows that 900 people cast ballots on Wednesday compared to just 278 at the same stage in the general election two years back.

Austrian Greens are doing their bit to kindle EU sympathies, with street theatre in Vienna on Wednesday designed to dispel cliches, such as the notion that Brussels spends all its time regulating on bendy bananas.

Meanwhile, the Spanish government has put forward a legal proposal to EU member states, which would allow the EU parliament to increase the number of MEPs from 736 to 754 as soon as the Lisbon treaty is ratified (potentially in early 2010) instead of in 2014 (as currently envisaged).

The move, reported by the Irish Times, is to be considered at the June EU summit. Spain, France, Sweden, Austria, Britain, Poland, Portugal, the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Latvia, Slovenia and Malta stand to benefit from the extra seats if it goes through.

http://euobserver.com/9/28172?print=1
JPTF 2009/05/22

‘Da Fatwa à Jihad: o caso Rushdie e o seu legado‘, de Kenan Malik

‘With images of Geert Wilders being turned back at Heathrow fresh in our minds, seldom can a book have had a more searing relevance to contemporary events. Seldom has a book offered a more revealing portrait of both a religion and a nation's frail carapace and intellectual and moral failings. And seldom do we see so clearly that one of the lessons of history is that no one learns the lessons of history.
The government's shameful and self-defeating ban on Wilders, continuing a policy of appeasement in the face of extremist threat, makes Malik's case for him: that the Rushdie affair continues to cast a long, baleful shadow over the British cultural landscape.
Malik, an Indian-born, Manchester-raised writer and broadcaster, is perhaps best known as an acute commentator on race and a staunch critic of multiculturalism, a case he has refined in his previous books The Meaning of Race (1996) and Strange Fruit: Why Both Sides Are Wrong in The Race Debate (2008). This book is both a social and intellectual history and a personal journey, since the Rushdie affair stands as a decisive turning point in his own relationship with the left, where, as a member of the Socialist Workers' Party in the 1980s, he cut his political teeth [...]‘. (Extracto da recensão do livro feita por Lindsay Johns para o New Humanist).

JPTF 2009/05/21

A investida chinesa em África, cartoon de Springs para o Financial Times

Open Europe: informação e perspectiva crítica sobre a União Europeia

Com as eleições para o Parlamento Europeu a aproximarem-se, impõe-se aprofundar o conhecimento e a discussão sobre o rumo e as políticas da União Europeia. A Open Europe - um think tank britânico -, contrasta flagrantemente com a usual falta de informação e a visão monolítica que predomina nos media e no espectro político, onde ou se é europeísta ou então é-se eurocéptico (aparentemente, não há nada no meio...). Entre nós, instalou-se assim um absurdo consenso sobre a ‘política externa‘ (interrogação: as questões europeias não serão já política interna?), que se alimenta de fundos estruturais, despolitiza o debate e torna os cidadãos (ainda) mais alheados da Europa, pela óbvia falta de alternativas reais de escolha.

JPTF 2009/05/09

Para quem vai o dinheiro da política agrícola europeia?

A Política Agrícola Comum (PAC) é tradicionalmente a maior despesa isolada da União Europeia. Mas quem são os seus principais beneficiários, quer em termos de Estados-membros da UE, quer, sobretudo, em termos de empresas que concretamente recebem esses benefícios? Esta informação, até há pouco tempo praticamente inacessível ao público, está agora disponível nos sites da Farmsubsidy.org e da Caphealthcheck.

JPTF 2009/05/08

Itália um nicho de ‘subsídios agrícolas milionários‘ in EU Observer

Companies in Italy received the biggest single payments from the EU's farm subsidies in 2008, with 180 of them provided with more than a million euros, a study released on Thursday (7 May) showed.

Sugar producers Italia Zuccheri and Eridania Sadam were also the only two companies winning more than a €100 million each under the EU's Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), being awarded €139.8 and €125.3 million respectively, according to a study by Farmsubsidy.org – a cross-border network of journalists, reasearchers and campaigners pushing for more transparency in the EU's Common Agricultural Policy.

The only non-Italian company to rank among the top five "farm-subsidy millionaires" was Ireland's Greencore Group – a manufacturer and supplier of food and food ingredients – which came fourth, having received €83.4 million.

Some 165 companies in Spain, 47 in the Netherlands, 38 in Portugal, 22 in Belgium, 21 in the UK and 12 in both Bulgaria and Romania received more than a million euros.

In France – the top overall beneficiary of the CAP, with €10.4 out of the total €55 billion – 142 companies were granted more than a million.

The Doux Group, which sells chicken products worldwide, was the biggest single recipient in the country, with €62.8 million and coming sixth in the overall millionaire ranking.

Altogether, the 707 millionaires received between five and 10 percent of the total amount of the CAP in 2008, said Farmsubsidy.org co-founder Nils Mulvad at a press conference in Brussels. He stressed however that full data from only 18 member states had been taken into account at this stage.

Data from Cyprus, Germany, the Netherlands and Slovakia has not been included because these countries "have not yet published data on farm subsidy beneficiaries or have made it very difficult to access the data they have published," the organisation said.

It explained that information from the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland would be added to the study as soon as the conversion of the sums into euros is finalised.

Most countries breaching the rules

The research also included an evaluation of member states' transposition of the European Commission's transparency rules that oblige governments to disclose information on farm funds recipients.

Member states had until 30 April to publish information on the beneficiaries of farm subsidies for 2008, but the study found that only eight countries had fully complied with the rules.

Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Romania, Slovenia and the UK were the only countries to implement the commission's transparency law well.

Ten countries, including Spain and Ireland, but also a number of new member states such as Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia and Bulgaria, were "clearly in breach of the regulations."

Eight others – France, Greece, Hungary, Austria, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Sweden – presented "important deficiencies, likely to be in breach of the regulations."

The organisation cited Hungary, Ireland and the Netherlands as being among a number of countries "engaging in apparent deliberate obfuscation of their websites," saying that Hungary had presented its data in a "totally unstructured" PDF document of more than 13,000 pages.

Poland was also cited as "one bad example" publishing only the names of the person applying for the subsidies and not of the companies, while the Netherlands was criticised for failing to provide a total amount for each recipient, making it difficult to find out how much a particular Dutch company has received.

Germany bashed

Germany is the only member state refusing to publish its figures, arguing that it has legal constraints due to data protection laws in local districts.

But the European Commission has refused to give Berlin an extension and has said it would start infringement procedures against the country if it does not fall into line.

"All 27 agreed on [the rules] and took this obligation ... You take an obligation, you have to stick to it. It is that simple," said Kristian Schmidt, deputy head of EU anti-fraud commissioner Siim Kallas' cabinet.

He added the commission was "quite disappointed" by Germany's behaviour and its "last-minute second thoughts."

http://euobserver.com/9/2808

JPTF 2009/05/08

‘A União Europeia ainda está a digerir o alargamento de 2004‘ in EU Observer

On 1 May 2004 the EU marked its biggest ever enlargement, accepting 10 new countries and bringing the number of member states to 25. Five years later, both "old" and "new" member states are still "digesting" the move, experts say, while prospects for future expansion look increasingly grim.

The 10 new member states – Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Cyprus and Malta – brought 73 million people to the union and moved its borders considerably further east.

The European Commission says that the accession of these countries, most of them formerly part of the Eastern Bloc, has been an unquestionable success.

"EU enlargement has served as an anchor of stability and democracy and as a driver of personal freedom and economic dynamism in Europe," EU enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn said during a speech in Berlin earlier this week.

In February, the commission published a report stressing the economic benefits enlargement brought to both old and new member states and saying that trade between them almost tripled in less than 10 years.

The bloc's executive has also encouraged old member states to scrap remaining restrictions to workers from the new countries insisting that "migration flows following the 2004 and 2007 enlargements have had positive economic effects in those countries which did not restrict free movement of workers."

On Friday (1 May) Denmark and Belgium lifted those restrictions, with Copenhagen also doing so for workers from Bulgaria and Romania, which joined the bloc on 1 January 2007.

This left only Germany and Austria with barriers in place for the so-called EU-8 countries (workers from Cyprus and Malta have been exempted from the restrictions). By contrast, most old member states still have restrictions for Bulgarians and Romanians.

Institutional machinery works

The biggest enlargement in the EU's history also brought institutional changes, swelling the size of the three main EU bodies - the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council (the secretariat of EU member states).

This has not damaged the decision-making process, as some had expected, says Sara Hagemann, an EU institutional affairs analyst with the Brussels-based European Policy Centre (EPC) think-tank.

"The decision processes [in all EU institutions] ...have not slowed down. There has not been a deadlock in the system, as some observers had predicted," she told EUobserver.

"The numbers of legislation adopted each year have actually, compared to the last few years, increased. So, one can say that the machinery is working and performing and meeting the demand for policy-making."

In terms of policy making, there has been no clear division between old and new, as neither group is a coherent entity. But some areas, especially where unanimity is required – such as justice and home affairs – have suffered as a consequence of the increase, according to Ms Hagemann.

"Research has shown that the numbers are low in terms of how much and how detailed legislation is provided from the EU level compared to what could be expected," in the justice field, she said, arguing that the Lisbon Treaty is a much needed tool for improving the new model bloc's functioning.

"It is not [simply] a political statement that the Lisbon Treaty has to go through."

Wanted: 'centre of gravity'

The last five years have changed the EU's political identity however, analysts argue.

"It's an EU of 27 member states, the dynamics are completely different," said EU affairs analyst Piotr Kaczynski from the Brussels-based Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) think-tank.

The so-called Franco-German engine of the old EU setup is no longer "the centre of gravity" in the 27-nation bloc, he explained.

"Most of the questions between [German chancellor] Merkel and [French president] Sarkozy are now between France and Germany ...They are primarily Franco-German topics," Mr Kaczynski told this website.

"The centre of gravity has moved and we are looking for it ...This means that we have an inflation of summits – micro-summits, different groups meeting in different forms and different formulas, there are lots of government to government meetings. We have really multiplied levels of governance."

A report released earlier this week by the Open Society Institute-Sofia think-tank to which Mr Kaczynski also contributed, said that the EU agenda would look rather different from what it does today if the "new" member states were setting it alone.

The report, called Not Your Grandfather's Eastern Bloc, argues that EU expansion and economic liberalisation would be pushed further if the "new" states were the agenda-setters.

"If these countries had more clout, Europe would adopt Lisbon Treaty and grant membership to Croatia and Serbia in a matter of months, consider membership for Ukraine and Moldova, pursue more robust economic liberalisation, and take a 'Nato-first' approach toward European defence and security," it says.

"Despite the economic crisis, these countries would keep state protectionism at bay and fully liberalise labor markets."

Still digesting

The EU has not yet reached the point where the new member states can be the agenda-setters, however, both because those countries' governments are still too focused domestically and because the bloc has not yet finished "digesting" the big-bang enlargement, Mr Kaczynski says.

In this context, enthusiasm for further enlargement has cooled in several European capitals. The Lisbon treaty deadlock and the economic crisis have exasperated this trend.

And while enlargement to candidate and potential candidate countries from the western Balkans is still seen just as a matter of time, expansion beyond, to countries like Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia or even to EU candidate Turkey, is seen at the moment as unlikely in the foreseeable future.

"That [further enlargement] can only happen when digestion [of the latest enlargement] is over. When there is no long a question in the Eurobarometer 'how do you perceive the 2004 enlargement,' with the majority of western Europeans saying 'bad' and the majority of eastern Europeans saying 'good'," Mr Kaczynski said, referring to the EU's regular opinion poll service.

"As long as this is relevant, it means that digestion is not over. So, only when it's over, can you consider Ukraine and Georgia."

http://euobserver.com/9/28049
JPTF 2009/05/03

‘Vitória dos nacionalistas no Norte de Chipre obscurece esperanças de reunificação‘ in The Economist

The prospects of a united Cyprus receded when a nationalist party won the parliamentary election in the north on April 19th. The National Unity Party, led by the hawkish Dervish Eroglu, took 44% of the vote, giving it 26 of the 50 seats. The vote for the ruling Republican Turkish Party, which backs reunification, fell to 29%. This reflects voters’ disillusion over the UN-sponsored peace talks that have dragged on since Turkish troops seized the northern third of the island in 1974 after a failed attempt by ultra-nationalist Greek-Cypriots to unite with Greece.

The result will also damage Turkey’s faltering membership talks with the European Union. Turkey faces a December deadline to open air- and seaports to Greek-Cypriots. It refuses to do so until the EU eases trade restrictions on northern Cyprus. Sweden, which takes on the EU’s presidency in July, is looking for a way to avert yet another train-wreck between Turkey and the EU. One idea is for Turkey to open a symbolic port or two only (though this was also tried two years ago by the Finnish EU presidency).

Hopes of a breakthrough now hinge on talks between the Greek-Cypriot president, Demetris Christofias, and his Turkish-Cypriot counterpart, Mehmet Ali Talat. Mr Talat led the campaign to persuade Turkish-Cypriots to vote in favour of the UN’s Annan plan to reunite the island in 2004. But the Greek-Cypriots overwhelmingly rejected the plan in a separate vote, so Cyprus joined the EU as a divided island. The Greek-Cypriots have been subverting Turkey’s EU membership talks ever since.

The mood improved markedly when Mr Christofias, who like his fellow left-winger, Mr Talat, favours a settlement, was elected president in February 2008. Substantive peace talks began last year with the backing of Turkey’s government, still keen on a settlement similar to that proposed in the Annan plan. This calls for the establishment of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation between Greeks and Turks.

Mr Eroglu publicly espouses the idea of reunification, saying that talks between Mr Talat and Mr Christofias must continue. Yet many suspect he prefers the status quo, which means continued dependence on Turkey and keeping 30,000 Turkish troops. Mr Eroglu talks of sending “a representative” to the peace talks. If he sticks to his campaign pledge to scrap a commission set up under Mr Talat to return occupied properties to Greek-Cypriots, the talks may collapse altogether.

Despite all this, Mr Talat met Mr Christofias again on April 21st. In a show of support, Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, made clear that he would not tolerate mischief-making by Mr Eroglu. “We will not be supporting any steps that will weaken the hand of the president,” Mr Erdogan insisted. Some fret that Mr Erdogan may yet yield to hawks in his own party. Another worry is whether Turkey’s generals really want a deal.

What is clear is that the EU complicated matters hugely by letting a divided Cyprus join. “Had [the EU] been less rigid and cleverer, it would have lifted the sanctions long ago and thereby minimised the dependency of northern Cyprus on Ankara,” argues Yavuz Baydar, a commentator. It would also have eased Turkey’s accession to the EU. But that is just what Turkey’s detractors inside the EU do not want.

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=13527550
JPTF 2009/04/28

‘Bosnia acredita na adesão à UE em 2015‘ in EUObserver

Despite its many internal problems, Bosnia and Herzegovina could join the EU by 2015, the country's foreign minister has said, adding that he expects Nato accession to materialise even earlier.

"For Bosnia and Herzegovina it will take at least four, five years to get there [achieve EU membership] …If it's not 2013-2014, maybe 2015," Bosnian foreign minister Sven Alkalaj told a group of journalists in Sarajevo on Thursday (23 April).

"By that time the EU will have overcome the economic crisis, it will definitely overcome its internal problems," he added.

Mr Alkalaj's comments come as a certain number of EU member states, including France and Germany, are warning that no further enlargement can take place before the bloc's institutional deadlock is broken and the Lisbon treaty is ratified.

The EU has also acknowledged that the global economic crisis is likely to distract member states from the enlargement process.

Bosnia's foreign minister remained optimistic, however, stressing that Sarajevo hopes to file its application for EU membership this autumn.

"It will very much depend on us and when we are ready to join the EU. I think there won't be a reason for any further disturbances," Mr Alkalaj said.

According to him, Bosnia's membership of Nato is even closer in time than that of the EU, as "the path to Nato is very much advanced."

"We hope that in May we will present our application to the membership action plan, which is in a way a door knock to full-fledged membership of Nato, which we expect to acquire …most probably in 2011."

Bosnia's demons

Bosnia and Herzegovina – which was 14 years ago just emerging from the bloody war that followed the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia in 1992 to 1995 – has two autonomous regions, the Muslim-Croat federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Serb-inhabited Republika Srpska.

Its complicated internal functioning and constitution, as well as the animosities between the country's three leaders, have considerably slowed reforms.

At the end of last year Brussels multiplied warning signs to Sarajevo, criticising the government's lack of "a sense of urgency or responsibility to overcome the stalemate" on most issues.

Mr Alkalaj acknowledged Bosnia had serious difficulties advancing with its key constitutional reform, and added that this is unlikely to change before the next elections in the country in 2010.

The reform is currently blocked by Republika Srpska insisting on keeping a high degree of autonomy, while the federation pushes for a stronger centralised state.

But although this issue should be solved before Bosnia becomes an EU member, it should not hinder the accession process itself, the minister argued.

The international presence in the country in the form of an EU mission and international envoy with strong governing powers is not incompatible with Bosnia becoming an EU candidate either, he said.

Additionally, "the role of the Office of the High Representative (OHR) is definitely diminishing, it's a matter of months I would say for closing it. I don't see it beyond June 2010," Mr Alkalaj pointed out.

Visa deal to avoid 'brainwashing'

The minister also insisted on the need to achieve full visa liberalisation with the EU, saying this is especially important for young people in Bosnia who can be "easily brainwashed" and "lured into nationalistic views" if they are isolated and not allowed to travel freely.

Visa requirements were imposed on the western Balkan countries in the aftermath of the 1990s Yugoslav war, with the EU promising as far back as 2003 to start talks with the countries' governments to reverse this.

Brussels has indicated it could recommend lifting the requirements in the first half of this year for those countries that have carried out enough reforms.

According to its assessment, Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro are currently the most advanced in that respect, while Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina are the least prepared.

Isolation risk

But Mr Alkalaj warned that if Brussels proceeds with lifting the visa requirements for other countries of the region and not for Bosnia, this could create problems for the Muslim population of the country.

"Practically all Bosnian Croats" currently have dual citizenship and Croat passports, meaning they can already travel visa-free. If Serbia obtains a visa-free regime, Bosnian Serbs "will do the same and apply for Serbian passports."

"So, the remaining group which will be in a way ghettoised is the Bosnian Muslims, not having this opportunity …This will be a wrong political message," Mr Alkalaj said.

http://euobserver.com/9/27996?print=1
JPTF 2009/04/26

Cartoon: charme de Obama não seduz no Irão

‘Oferta de regresso voluntário apenas foi aceite por dois marroquinos‘ in Le Maroc Aujourd'hui

Les chiffres relatifs au plan de retour volontaire des immigrés résidant en Espagne sont très en dessous des chiffres qui avaient été annoncés par le ministre espagnol du Travail et de l’Immigration, Celestino Corbacho. «Jusqu’au mardi 24 mars, 3.926 demandes ont été présentées selon les chiffres du secrétariat d’Etat espagnol à l’Immigration. Les trois communautés étrangères les plus nombreuses ont été les Equatoriens (1.688 demandes) suivis des Colombiens (713) et les Argentins (393). Pour ce qui est des Marocains, aucun chiffre n’a été dévoilé. Cependant, selon les statistiques qui avaient été présentées il y a 2 mois par ce département, seulement 2 Marocains ont présenté leur demande. Ce chiffre ne fait que confirmer que les Marocains rejettent catégoriquement cette initiative», déclare à ALM Kamal Rahmouni, président de l’Association des travailleurs et immigrés marocains en Espagne (ATIME).
Et d’ajouter que «Beaucoup de Marocains voudraient retourner vivre dans leurs pays d’origine mais les conditions imposées par ce plan leur sont défavorables. Et pour cause, le bénéficiaire est condamné à renoncer à son permis de résidence et de travail. Il ne pourra retourner vivre en Espagne qu'après trois années après son départ. Quel Marocain accepterait cette condition? De plus ce plan ne concerne que les immigrés au chômage alors que bon nombre d’immigrés résidant en Espagne sont sans papiers», déplore M. Rahmouni. La veille, la secrétaire d’Etat espagnole à l’Immigration, Consuelo Rumi avait annoncé que 3.000 immigrés ont déposé des demandes pour bénéficier de ce plan de retour. Dans des déclarations à la Radio nationale espagnole (RNE), Mme Rumi a estimé à 7.000 le nombre des immigrés qui devraient adhérer à cette initiative durant les prochains mois. Le plan adopté en septembre 2008, prévoit de verser de l’argent en deux tranches à tout immigré au chômage souhaitant retourner dans son pays d’origine : 40% du total de l’indemnité de chômage lors de l’inscription, et 60% payés dans le pays d’origine, un mois plus tard. «Pour bénéficier d’une somme respectable, il faut que l’immigré ait cotisé pendant 8 ans. Cependant, le retour n’est pas une question lié à l’argent. En rentrant dans son pays d’origine, l’immigré sera contraint de laisser sa famille et ses enfants dans le pays d’accueil», souligne le président de l’ONG. Selon M. Rahmouni, il faut que le gouvernement marocain prenne des mesures pour favoriser le retour des immigrés. «Il n'y a pas de mesures concrètes. La mise en place d’un plan stratégique s’impose».
Pour rappel, le gouvernement espagnol avait décidé d’adopter ces mesures en raison du brusque coup d’arrêt économique subit par le pays. Le plan du gouvernement espagnol concerne des immigrés originaires des 19 pays avec lesquels l’Espagne a déjà souscrit des accords bilatéraux en matière de sécurité sociale, et d’autres pays qui ont des mécanismes de protection similaire. Parmi les pays concernés par ce plan, figurent notamment le Maroc et l’Équateur, gros pourvoyeurs d’immigrés en Espagne.

http://www.aujourdhui.ma/couverture-details67915.html
JPTF 3009/04/23

‘ASEAN: um gigante com pés de barro‘ in Courrier International

L'instabilité chronique dans plusieurs pays membres affaiblit l'organisation régionale pourtant ambitieuse. L'annulation du dernier sommet en Thaïlande en est la meilleure illustration.

L'ajournement du sommet de Pattaya [au sud de Bangkok] entre les dix membres de l'Association des nations de l'Asie du Sud-Est (ASEAN) et les dirigeants japonais, chinois et sud-coréens n'est pas qu'un camouflet cuisant pour le gouvernement thaïlandais. C'est aussi un terrible revers pour ceux qui espéraient que la coopération aide à juguler la crise économique mondiale en Asie. L'incident pourrait en outre servir de catalyseur et entraîner de nouveaux développements dans l'instabilité politique que traverse depuis longtemps maintenant la Thaïlande [voir CI n° 963, du 16 avril 2009].

Le fiasco thaïlandais a aussi mis fin aux espoirs de l'ASEAN de faire de ce rendez-vous, auquel sont également conviés des responsables indiens, australiens et néo-zélandais, l'événement annuel de la coopération panasiatique, sorte de G16 continental sur lequel les regards du monde entier auraient été braqués. L'ajournement vient rappeler à quel point nombre de pays d'Asie sont politiquement instables, et ce bien avant que l'impact de la récession se soit fait pleinement sentir. Si l'Indonésie a organisé, le 9 avril, des élections législatives qui se sont parfaitement déroulées – preuve des progrès remarquables accomplis par sa démocratie depuis le renversement du président Suharto il y a onze ans –, les tensions politiques en Malaisie ne sont toujours pas en voie de résolution, en dépit de la récente nomination d'un nouveau Premier ministre.

L'échec de la rencontre en Thaïlande a par ailleurs empêché que soit finalisé un accord sur la création d'un fonds de 120 milliards de dollars [94 milliards d'euros] visant à protéger les pays de la région des crises monétaires et à leur permettre de maintenir leur croissance économique sans s'inquiéter inutilement de leur balance des paiements. L'essentiel de cette somme aurait dû être versé par la Chine, la Corée du Sud et le Japon. Au bout du compte, le fonds sera très vraisemblablement créé, mais avant tout parce que les trois Etats du Nord-Est asiatique y trouvent chacun leur intérêt. Tous souhaitent en effet diminuer leur dépendance commerciale à l'égard d'un Occident affaibli et ont donc besoin de soutenir la croissance dans la région. Tous entendent utiliser leurs abondantes réserves pour s'acheter une influence politique. Tous veulent montrer que la coopération financière asiatique est une réalité dont le reste du monde doit prendre acte. Et la Corée, qui accueillera le prochain sommet du G20 [en accédant à la présidence du groupe en 2010], souhaite utiliser l'ASEAN comme plate-forme pour promouvoir sa propre influence dans le monde.

Voilà qui en dit plus sur les intérêts de ces trois pays que sur la véritable capacité de coopération de l'organisation panasiatique. Quoi que laissent penser les accords de libre-échange et autres textes ronflants, l'ASEAN n'a plus l'influence de l'époque où elle pouvait compter sur certains acteurs clés, des poids lourds tels l'Indonésien Suharto, le Singapourien Lee Kwan Yew et le Malaisien Mahathir Mohamad. L'actuel président de l'Indonésie Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono jouit sans doute de quelques bonnes références pour assumer un rôle moteur, mais cela n'est ni dans son caractère consensuel, ni dans l'intérêt d'une Indonésie essentiellement préoccupée par des enjeux intérieurs et peu désireuse de jouer un rôle sur la scène internationale. Du côté des autres pays membres, les Philippines sont pour l'heure relativement stables, mais souvent considérées comme un protagoniste en marge. Singapour a perdu de sa superbe tandis que le Vietnam a gagné une certaine ampleur, mais part de très loin.

Cette incapacité à coopérer est criante et s'est même traduite par une absence de front commun face à la Chine à propos des rivalités territoriales en mer de Chine méridionale [voir CI n° 961, du 1er avril 2009]. Ces derniers temps, les Philippines, le Vietnam et la Malaisie ont tous irrité Pékin avec leurs propres revendications territoriales, mais n'ont fait aucun effort pour résoudre les différends qui les opposent les uns aux autres. Les Philippines ont même signé avec la Chine un contrat d'exploration pétrolière enfreignant un accord de l'ASEAN.Les pays d'Asie du Sud-Est ont abordé la crise économique mondiale en position de force, avec de vastes réserves de devises étrangères et sans avoir créé de bulle spéculative majeure. Ces économies très ouvertes sur l'extérieur demeurent toutefois vulnérables face à une récession prolongée. Elles risquent en effet de souffrir de la chute du prix des matières premières et du ralentissement des transferts de fonds de leurs ressortissants travaillant à l'étranger. A présent, il leur est donc indispensable de rassembler le maximum de ressources additionnelles possibles. Par chance, les principaux détenteurs de devises étrangères se trouvent être leurs voisins. Toutefois, l'accès à ces fonds pourrait s'avérer improductif si l'instabilité politique décourageait l'investissement privé, minait la confiance des consommateurs et paralysait les processus décisionnels.

La Thaïlande, qui s'appuie pourtant sur une économie diversifiée, a déjà pâti des récentes luttes de pouvoirs. La situation pourrait encore s'aggraver alors que les "chemises rouges" pro-Thaksin entendent poursuivre leur mouvement, paralysant ainsi l'actuel gouvernement d'Abhisit Vejjajiva ainsi que l'avaient fait les "chemises jaunes" (anti-Thaksin) avec le gouvernement précédent. En Malaisie, le nouveau Premier ministre a pris ses fonctions avec une cote de popularité encore plus faible que son prédécesseur, tandis que le parti au pouvoir, discrédité par les soupçons de corruption, de meurtre et de ventes d'armes, essuyait une sévère défaite à des élections partielles [le 7 avril]. Dans ces deux pays, les questions fondamentales de gouvernance restent très disputées. Même s'il n'existe aucun risque de voir se répéter le scénario de la crise asiatique de 1997-1998, le fiasco du sommet de l'ASEAN de Pattaya montre clairement que les problèmes politiques de l'Asie du Sud-Est ne concernent pas seulement la région.

http://www.courrierinternational.com/imprimer.asp?obj_id=96773
JPTF 2009/04/18

‘A candidatura turca divide Barack Obama e Nicolas Sarkozy‘ in France 24h

Le président Nicolas Sarkozy a réaffirmé dimanche sur TF1 son hostilité à une entrée de la Turquie dans l'Union européenne, après le soutien apporté par le président américain Barack Obama à une telle adhésion.

"Je travaille main dans la main avec le président Obama, mais s'agissant de l'Union européenne, c'est aux pays membres de l'Union européenne de décider", a déclaré M. Sarkozy, interrogé sur la déclaration de son homologue, en duplex depuis Prague où il participe au sommet UE-Etats-Unis.

"J'ai toujours été opposé à cette entrée et je le reste. Je crois pouvoir dire qu'une immense majorité des Etats membres (de l'UE) est sur la position de la France", a-t-il ajouté.

"La Turquie, c'est un très grand pays allié de l'Europe et allié des Etats-Unis. Elle doit rester un partenaire privilégié, ma position n'a pas changé", a déclaré le chef de l'Etat.

M. Obama avait estimé un peu plus tôt devant les dirigeants de l'UE à Prague que l'entrée de la Turquie dans l'Union européenne "constituerait un signal important" envoyé à ce pays musulman.

Les pourparlers d'adhésion de la Turquie au bloc européen, entamés en octobre 2005, marquent actuellement le pas. Certains pays comme la France ou l'Allemagne sont opposés à la perspective de voir ce pays entrer dans l'UE et privilégient une association étroite avec lui.

Les Etats-Unis et le Royaume-Uni, en revanche, militent depuis longtemps pour une adhésion.

Vendredi et samedi, au sommet de l'Otan à Strasbourg/Kehl/Baden Baden, la Turquie s'était opposée à la nomination du Premier ministre danois, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, au poste de secrétaire général de l'Alliance avant de s'y ranger. Le Premier ministre turc, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, avait indiqué samedi que ce revirement suivait le fait que le président Obama se fût porté "garant" d'un certain nombre d'engagements, qu'il n'a pas précisés.

La désignation de M. Rasmussen, "posait des problèmes à nos amis turcs, parce qu'il y avait l'histoire des terroristes kurdes avec le PKK et puis l'histoire des caricatures (de Mahomet NDLR). Mais nous nous étions déterminés à ne pas céder parce que M. Rasmussen est un homme démocratique, un homme de grande qualité", a dit M. Sarkozy.

Interrogé sur d'éventuelles concessions, il a répondu qu'il "a fallu convaincre nos amis turcs de notre fermeté. Le président Obama a joué un rôle considérable, s'est montré comme un vrai leader, et à la sortie, à l'unanimité, on a décidé que ce serait Rasmussen".

La Turquie reprochait au candidat son soutien à un journal danois qui avait publié des caricatures de Mahomet en 2005 et son refus de fermer la chaîne de télévision Roj TV, considérée par Ankara comme porte-voix des rebelles kurdes du Parti des travailleurs du Kurdistan (PKK).

Selon plusieurs journaux turcs, Ankara a obtenu l'assurance que Roj TV sera prochainement interdite d'émettre depuis le Danemark, que M. Rasmussen allait adresser "un message positif" sur l'affaire des caricatures, ainsi que la désignation de responsable turcs à des postes clés de l'Otan.

http://www.france24.com/fr/20090405-turquie-adhesion-union-europeenne-barack-obama-nicolas-sarkozy-opposition-hostilite-tf1-discours
JPTF 2009/04/14

A cimeira da NATO: cartoon de Marquard Otzen no jornal Politiken.dk

‘O significado da liberdade‘ in The Economist

At first glance, the resolution on “religious defamation” adopted by the UN’s Human Rights Council on March 26th, mainly at the behest of Islamic countries, reads like another piece of harmless verbiage churned out by a toothless international bureaucracy. What is wrong with saying, as the resolution does, that some Muslims faced prejudice in the aftermath of September 2001? But a closer look at the resolution’s language, and the context in which it was adopted (with an unholy trio of Pakistan, Belarus and Venezuela acting as sponsors), makes clear that bigger issues are at stake.

The resolution says “defamation of religions” is a “serious affront to human dignity” which can “restrict the freedom” of those who are defamed, and may also lead to the incitement of violence. But there is an insidious blurring of categories here, which becomes plain when you compare this resolution with the more rigorous language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 in a spirit of revulsion over the evils of fascism. This asserts the right of human beings in ways that are now entrenched in the theory and (most of the time) the practice of liberal democracy. It upholds the right of people to live in freedom from persecution and arbitrary arrest; to hold any faith or none; to change religion; and to enjoy freedom of expression, which by any fair definition includes freedom to agree or disagree with the tenets of any religion.

In other words, it protects individuals—not religions, or any other set of beliefs. And this is a vital distinction. For it is not possible systematically to protect religions or their followers from offence without infringing the right of individuals.

What exactly is it the drafters of the council resolution are trying to outlaw? To judge from what happens in the countries that lobbied for the vote—like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan—they use the word “defamation” to mean something close to the crime of blasphemy, which is in turn defined as voicing dissent from the official reading of Islam. In many of the 56 member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which has led the drive to outlaw “defamation”, both non-Muslims and Muslims who voice dissent (even in technical matters of Koranic interpretation) are often victims of just the sort of persecution the 1948 declaration sought to outlaw. That is a real human-rights problem. And in the spirit of fairness, laws against blasphemy that remain on the statute books of some Western countries should also be struck off; only real, not imaginary, incitement of violence should be outlawed.

Good manners, please; not censorship

In much of the Muslim world, the West’s reaction to the attacks of September 2001, including the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, has been misread as an attack on Islam itself. This is more than regrettable; it is dangerous. Western governments, and decent people everywhere, should try to ensure that the things they say do not entrench religious prejudice or incite acts of violence; being free to give offence does not mean you are wise to give offence. But no state, and certainly no body that calls itself a Human Rights Council, should trample on the right to free speech enshrined in the Universal Declaration. And in the end, given that all faiths have undergone persecution at some time, few people have more to gain from the protection of free speech than sincere religious believers.

The United States, with its tradition of combining strong religious beliefs and religious freedom, is well placed to make that case. Having taken a politically risky decision (see article) to re-engage with the Human Rights Council and seek election as one of its 47 members, America should now make the defence of real religious liberty one of its highest priorities.

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13413974&source=most_commented

JPTF 2009/04/08