The forgotten tragedy

By David Meier 

Some weeks ago, the UN rang the alarm on the threat of starvation of millions of people in Yemen due to a blockade of any Yemeni land, sea and air ports imposed by a Saudi Arabian – led military coalition. The incident turns the spotlight on one of the worst man-made disasters currently taking place: the war in Yemen. This conflict seems to be overshadowed by other conflicts with more severe repercussions for the West such as the wars in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. The UN’s solemn warning also shed light on the EU‘s conundrum how to address the situation in Yemen. The EU has to decide whether it prefers to maintain a rather passive approach to the conflict, in order to protect its economic and strategic interests in the region, or whether it wants to act in accordance with the values of its founding treaties by promoting and safeguarding human rights and international humanitarian law.

On 8 November, Mark Lowcock, the under-secretary general for humanitarian affairs of the United Nations Organisation (UN), warned that unless the blockade of any Yemeni land, sea and air ports imposed by a Saudi Arabian – led military coalition is lifted, ``it will be the largest famine the world has seen for many decades with millions of victims.`` According to Saudi Arabia, the embargo had been imposed in direct  response to a missile attack against the Saudi-Arabian capital Riyadh, which had been launched by the Shiite Houthi rebels on Monday 6 November, and its purpose is to prevent Iran from supplying weapons to those rebels. Due to international pressure, the ports of Aden and Mukalla were reopened last week, but humanitarian aid and aid agency workers, as well as dearly needed food and medicines supplies have been hindered from entering the country or some of its regions so far.

The origins of the ongoing war in Yemen date back to the Arab spring in 2011, when the government of president Ali Abdullah Saleh was toppled down. Three years later, in September 2014, Shiite Houthi rebels allied to the ousted former president Saleh, started to invade and occupy the north of Yemen and the country`s capital Sanaa and expelled the internationally recognized government of Saleh‘s successor president Abed-Rabbo Mansour Hadi. In March 2015, a Saudi-Arabian-led military coalition joined the Yemeni civil war in order to support and reinstate the government of president Hadi.

There is an internal and a regional dimension about the Yemeni conflict. The Shiite minority is almost as numerous as the slim Sunni majority. Yemen has only existed for 27 years. In 1990, the Yemen Arab Republic (North Yemen) and the (marxist) People‘s Democratic Republic of Yemen (south Yemen) merged to one united Yemeni state. Before, two wars had been fought between both states in the 1970s. After the unification, a civil war broke out in the middle of the 1990s. Southern Yemeni secessionists lost the civil war. The military conflict between the Yemeni government and the Houthi rebels began in July 2004 when Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi, head of the Zaidi Shia sect, started a rebellion against the government. Additionally to the Houthi rebels and the Hadi government, is a third party to the conflict comprising Sunni jihady forces associated with Al Quaida and ISIL. 

As regards the regional dimension of the conflict the war in Yemen is a proxy war between Saudi Arabia, which is a Sunni hegemony, and Iran, which envisions itself as the protecting power of all Shiites. Both regional powers struggle in Iraq as well as in Syria and in Bahrain. In Lebanon the next proxy war between both powers is looming.

In the European media the war in Yemen is not as prominent as the ones taking place in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. The underlying reason for the lack of coverage on this could be that only a very small number of Yemeni refugees have arrived in Europe, so far.

Even before the start of the war in 2014, Yemen has been the poorest of all Arab nations. The repercussions of the war on the humanitarian situation of the population of Yemen are very severe. About 10 thousand civilians have been killed and 2 million people have been displaced. According to John Ging, the UN's director of humanitarian operations, 15 million Yemeni citizens out of a total of 27 million lack proper access to clean water and health services. More than 17 million Yemenis are affected by an acute hunger crisis among them about 460,000 children who are severely malnourished. Additionally, Yemen has suffered from the worst cholera outbreak ever recorded, with more than 900,000 suspected cases and a death toll of about 2,190 people. Against this backdrop it is even more shocking that less than 45% of the country’s medical facilities are still operating.

Last October, the UN included the Saudi Arabia – led coalition on its annual black list for grave violations against children in conflict. All other warring parties in Yemen had already been listed before. The atrocities mentioned cover the recruitment of child soldiers, bombing of schools and hospitals, and the killing and maiming of children. On 29 September, the UN human rights council set up a panel with the purpose of investigating all alleged human rights violations in the realm of the war in Yemen.

Considering the devastating consequences of the conflict and the ongoing and looming famine catastrophes, the EU must mull how to address the situation. The best solution for Yemeni citizens would be a quick peace agreement between the warring parties. For that to happen a carrot and stick approach towards all parties is required. However, this means the EU would have to exert pressure on Saudi Arabia as well as on the Houthi rebels. But Saudi Arabia is a very important ally to the West in economic terms as well as in geopolitical terms; and its operations in Yemen are backed and supported with western intelligence. Thus, the EU is confronted with the ethical conundrum to chose between its economic and strategic interests and its values, such as the promotion and safeguarding of human rights and international humanitarian law, that are enshrined in the EU`s founding treaties.

One way to incentive peace talks is to impose arms embargoes on the warring parties. On 15 April 2015 the UN Security Council adopted an arms embargo on the Houthi rebels and blacklisted some of their leaders and allies freezing their assets and imposing travel bans on them. According to the latest EU arms export report at least 17 EU member states sold weapons to Saudi Arabia in 2015. Consequently, the incentive for the Saudi-Arabian-led coalition to compromise in peace negotiations with the Houthi rebels could be hampered due to the asymmetric access to arms of the conflicting parties in Yemen.    

Last October the leaders of four groups of the European Parliament send a letter to the EU‘s foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini urging her to propose an EU arms embargo on Saudi Arabia. The signatories of the letter are the leaders of the Socialists & Democrats (S&D), the Liberals (ALDE), the European United Left and the Greens. The four groups comprise 48% of all members of the European Parliament. Their main argument is that selling arms to Saudi Arabia is a violation of the EU´s Common Position 2008/944/CFSP, which defines common rules governing the control of exports of military technology and equipment.  According to article 2 of this common position there shall be no arms exports from EU member states to a third country (i.e. a country, which is not a member state of the EU) if at least one of 8 criteria listed in article 2 is met. Criterion 2 states ``Having assessed the recipient country‘s attitude towards relevant principles established by instruments of international humanitarian law, Member States shall: deny an export licence if there is a clear risk that the military technology or equipment to be exported might be used in the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law.``

On 25 February 2016, the European Parliament had already adopted a symbolic resolution asking for an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia. However as a spokeswoman for Federica Mogherini explained correctly ``The final decision whether to authorize or deny an export remains at national discretion of member states. Decisions on issuing an arms embargo lie fully with the council of (foreign ministers); deciding an arms embargo would require political agreement by unanimity within the council.”

Exerting pressure on all warring parties in Yemen could help tackling one of the worst humanitarian situations there is on earth. The EU could contribute to this challenge by imposing arms embargoes, asset freezing and travel bans on several perpetrators of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Yemen. It should do so as it is believed that it could help alleviating the grievances of a war-torn nation and thus put into practice the honorable high standards that are enshrined in its founding treaties. This way, the EU could gain credibility in its promotion of those values. Actions speak louder than words!   

Co-building an Erasmus+ made up European Union.

From 28th november to 1st dicember Europe HOpes have had the pleasure to support the direction of the project I.T.Y.I., International Training for Youth Integration, settled in Catania and funded wihin the Erasmus+ project.
Indeed, when we have co-written down this project it was astonishing thinking about the fact that many people, mostly unknown, would have travelled around Europe to a unique destination to meet each other, discuss, building theirselves, finding new friends and so many other things we couldn't imagine yet.

The state of play of the Brexit negotiations: The clock is ticking!

By David Meier

 

 

 

The Brexit talks have missed their first big deadline as the 27 Heads of State or Government of the remaining member states of the European Union (EU) have adopted the conclusion that the divorce negotiations have made insufficient progress for starting to negotiate on the future relationship between the EU and the UK. In view of the already tight timetable for the negotiations the spectre of a Brexit without an exit agreement is looming.

On 19 and 20 October 2017, a two-day‘s summit of the European Council, which consists of the 28 Heads of State or Government (in other words, the Governments of the member states of the EU), took place. In the realm of this meeting, Brexit was at the core of the discussions. Originally, the summit was meant to enable the start of the second phase of Brexit negotiations. However, the prerequisite for that to happen was the agreement of the members of the European Council that there has been enough progress in the first phase of the negotiations.

 

The decision that there shall be two negotiation phases had been taken by the European Council on 29 April, when the Heads of State and Government of the 27 remaining member states enshrined it in their guidelines for the Brexit negotiations.  According to those guidelines, the talks should focus on an orderly withdrawal of the UK from the EU during the first phase, while the focus should be on the future relationship between the UK and the EU in the second phase.     

Actually, the European Council`s judgment was no surprise to the majority of experts and observers, as Michel Barnier, the EU´s chief negotiator, had regularly complained about the slow pace of the talks with his British counterpart David Davis the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU. He warned against the threat of stalling negotiations resulting in a loss of dearly needed time.

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which regulates the exit of a member state, limits the negotiation period to two years. This already very tight timetable has been exacerbated by Theresa May`s (the British Prime Minister`s) decision to hold early elections. So although Theresa May had already triggered article 50 TEU on 29 March, the negotiations could only start on 19 June. Furthermore, any agreement between the EU and the UK can only enter into force if the UK, the European Parliament and all remaining member states ratify it according to their constitutional orders. In the end, several parliaments will have to discuss and adopt it, some referenda on the agreement could take place and it could even be challenged before the constitutional courts of some member states. Consequently, the ratification process within the EU will at least take 6 months, which means the negotiations should be finalised until October 2018 if both parties want to avoid an exit of the UK without any agreement (hard Brexit).

This option of a hard Brexit is associated with political, economic and social chaos as the remaining member states and the UK are highly intertwined. The membership in the EU is tantamount to the membership in its Customs Union and in the European Single Market.

Thanks to the Customs Union, all goods can be bought and sold duty-free within the EU; and, all 28 member states levy common customs duties on all goods entering the EU. Moreover, only the EU is entitled to conclude trade agreements with foreign trade partners for its member states.

The European Single Market guarantees the 4 freedoms for all EU citizens and businesses alike all over the territory of the EU and without any discrimination. Those freedoms cover the opportunity to sell goods (free movement of goods), the freedom to invest (free movement of capital), the right to establish a business and to provide services (Freedom to establish and provide services) and the right to migrate to other member states in order to work there (free movement of workers).      

Due to the Customs Union and the European Single Market many British companies have established affiliated companies or plants in other member states, or they have integrated suppliers from there within their production chains and vice versa. A hard Brexit would destroy those production chaines and cause economic turmoil. Consequently, a lot of jobs are at stake.  

Besides, because of the 4 freedoms 3.6 million citizens of the remaining 27 member states live in the UK and 1.2 million British citizens live in another member state.  A hard Brexit scenario would leave them in total legal uncertainty about their permission of residence, work, national insurance and social benefits etc.

Thus, the European Council has identified three priority areas for the first phase of the negotiations. The first priority area focuses on the rights (after Brexit) of EU citizens living in the UK and British citizens living in the EU. The focus of the second priority area is on the financial settlement of the committments of the UK towards the EU as Brexit will cause a lot of costs. Last but not least, the third priority area concerns the status of the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland which is part of the UK. 

In general, the UK and the EU agree that the rights of EU citizens already living in the UK and British citizens living in the EU must be preserved. Still, the EU insists that those rights have to be a part of a Brexit agreement and that citizens must be enabled to enforce their rights before the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the court of the EU. Meanwhile, the UK government prefers to guarantee those rights through domestic laws that can be enforced before British courts.   

The most complicated bone of contention between both parties is priority area two – financial settlment, as the EU wants the UK to pay an amount ranging from 60 bn euro to 100 bn euro, while Theresa May has only offered 20 bn euro by now. On 20 October, the French President Emmanuel Macron`s response to this offer was “I would say we are far from having reached the necessary financial commitments before we can open phase two. We are not halfway there.” Other Heads of State or Government such as the Maltese prime minister Joseph Muscat, the Austrian chancellor Christian Kern and the Lithuanian president Dalia Gribauskaite urged Theresa May to tackle the issue of the financial settlement as well.  The UK Prime Minister explained that her 20 bn euro offer was “not the final word” and she did not even rule out that the Brexit bill could amount to 60 bn euro.

As to the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, both parties agree that there must not be a physical border - e.g. with border control (hard border) - as the openness of this border is primordial for the peace process in the conflict-stricken Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, currently there is no agreement on how to avoid a hard border. As the UK wants to leave the Customs Union as well as the Single Market border control between Ireland and Northern Ireland is necessary to protect the integrity of the Customs Union and the Single Market. A possible solution is that Northern Ireland remains a part of the Customs Union but this is strongly rejected by the Democratic Union Party (DUP), a right-wing protestant pro British party from Northern Ireland that is part of the ruling coalition in the UK. The DUP is anxious about preventing Northern Ireland from being isolated from the other parts of the UK.   

Theresa May and the German chancellor Angela Merkel both expressed their optimism that those differences can be overcome, but Merkel added that phase two “ is undeniably going to be more complicated than the first stage”. At least the 27 Heads of State or Government have decided to start internal talks (without the UK) on the second phase of negotiations. The next opportunity for a green light for phase two will be during the European Council summit on 14-15 December. After all, the clock is ticking!   

 

 

Looking for Digital Activists and Freelancers

Europe HOpes is looking for Young freelancers and digital activists, 18-30 years old, interested to cooperate for our campaigns, blog and other social media activities. For more information write to: beready4eu@gmail.com

 

 

 

Turmoil in Germany! Stagnation in Europe?

By David Meier

German voters fundamentally changed the national power balance in last Sunday`s federal parliamentary elections. For the first time in more than 60 years right wing populists/extremists will enter the German federal parliament and for the first time three different parties with strongly conflicting views and values will probably form a coalition government with potentially dramatic repercussions for all of Europe.

 

At first glance there is nothing special about the results of the German parliamentary elections. Angela Merkel, who has been the German chancellor for 12 years, was reelected for another four year`s term. But she will only be able to govern Europe`s economic powerhouse if she succeeds in forming a coalition, which could prove more difficult than ever in the nearly 70 years of history of the Federal Republic of Germany. After a rough electoral defeat (20.5 % of the votes) Merkel`s recent coalition partner the centre-left SPD (social-democrats party of Germany) has excluded to be part of the next government.

The demise of the SPD has begun in 2009 when the last grand coalition i.e. the common government of the CDU/CSU and the SPD ended. Both are traditional catch-all parties which means that they were able to obtain at least 30 % of the votes each for decades. So it was a shock when the SPD got only 23 % of the votes in 2009, which had been its worst post war result until then. In 2013, its performance at the ballots was only slightly better with a proportion of 25.7 %.

In January 2017, the SPD nominated Martin Schulz as its frontrunner for the national parliamentary elections. Martin Schulz had been the president of the European Parliament from 2012 to 2017. During this period he somehow represented the face of the European Union to the German citizens. On the other hand he had never had a role on a national scale. His nomination blew a breath of fresh air to German democracy as a lot of citizens felt enthusiastic about him and hoped for an alternative to Merkel. This caused a spike in the polls for the SPD, a phenomenon that was called Schulz effect.  But those hopes have been blasted once and for all on Sunday.   

The delusion about the decline of the party as well as the perception of the grand coalition as a trap for the SPD are among the main reasons for its refusal of another cooperation with Merkel. However, there is another argument for an opposition role of the SPD. According to this approach grand coalitions are bad for democracy because they limit the space for controversy and the choice between alternatives, which leads to the appearance of radical views that bridge those gaps. The success of the party AFD (Alternative for Germany) in the last elections is perceived as a proof for that analysis.

 Consequently, the only coalition option on the table is a tripartite coalition between Merkel`s centre-right CDU/CSU, the libertarian FDP and the leftist and ecologist party Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. The three parties are opposed to each other due to historic hostility, conflicting interests and even partly mutually exclusive values. 

At the heart of the complex situation in the aftermath of Sunday`s national elections is the success of the AFD a right wing populist or even extremist party that ranked third in the electoral competition obtaining about 12,6 % of the votes and 94 seats in Germanys federal parliament (Bundestag). The AFD is associated with xenophobic, racist, islamophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-European, anti-American, homophobic and misogynic views and values.

Infact until Sunday Germany has been one of the last European Union member states without a radical right wing populist or extremist party being represented in its national parliament. From the „True Finns“ party in Finland to the „Golden Dawn“ party in Greece, from the British „UK Independence party“ to the Italian „Nothern League“, from Belgium`s „Vlaams Belang“ to Hungary`s Jobbik, from Marine Le Pen in Paris to Geert Wilders in The Hague, Populism and right wing Extremism are on the rise all over Europe.  Nevertheless, Germany is a special case due to two reasons: its history as well as its current role and position in the EU.

In 1933 Adolf Hitler the head of the anti-Semitic, militarist and authoritarian „NSDAP“ rose to power in the aftermath of an electoral victory. The consequences of his reign were about 60 million dead people and a devastated Europe because of World War II and an unprecedented break down of civilization exemplified by the Shoa the killing of 6 million people of Jewish origin. So it is no surprise that the return of right wing extremists to the German national parliament is a source of huge concern. The fact that a party like the AFD can even enter the parliament of modern Germany underlines the extent of Europe`s populism crisis.    

As to Germany`s nowadays position and role in the EU the country is the continents economic powerhouse, export champion and by far the member state with the highest population. Due to its economic strength, its role is to guide Europe’s path. And this strong guidance is dearly needed in a crisis ridden Europe. Crises like the Eurocrisis, the migration crisis, the (military) security crisis in the EU`s neighbourhood,  the social crisis, the aforementioned populism crisis and global challenges such as climate change, terrorism and hunger urgently need to be addressed.    

However, a tripartite coalition government of CDU/CSU, FDP and Bündnis 90/Die Grüne is highly unlikely to contribute to the solution of those crises. This is due to the conflicting and even mutually exclusive approaches of the three parties with respect to nearly all of those crises and challenges. Any compromise is capable of alienating each of the parties from their electoral basis and thus threatening their political survival.

The rise of the AFD is the underlying reason for the dilemma of the choice between no government or a weak one as its entry into the parliament has reduced the number of coalition options to one. Thus, last Sunday's election has really shaken the political landscape of Germany and could lead to stagnation in the EU at the same time as Europe needs to be as dynamic and firm as possible.  

The 60th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome

Image from Financial Review

 Author: Stefania Guzzo 

On 25 March 2017, the EU Member States have celebrated the 60th Anniversary of  Rome Treaties, the international agreement that brought to the creation of the European Economic Community that represented the starting point of the European integration process. In the frame of Rome, the “eternal city”, the 27 national leaders recalled the stages of an adventure undertaken by the six pioneering countries when on 25 March 1957, the representatives of Belgium, West Germany, Italy, Netherland, France and Luxembourg signed the Treaties of Rome also known as the Treaties of the European Community (TEC): the EEC (European Economic Community) and the EAEC (the European Atomic Energy Community, also known as Euratom).

"Today, we celebrate the perseverance and the cleverness of EU's founding fathers, which has its best proof in this crowded hall"- Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni  said in his opening speech in the very place where the Treaty of Rome was signed 60 years ago. In his speech, Gentiloni also recalled the several achievements of the European integration project, while acknowledging that EU has found itself unprepared and responded late before major recent challenges such as migration, economic crisis, and unemployment among others.

"We don't want a divided Europe!" - Gentiloni said - "Europe is united and indivisible, but we want to move forward on a common idea of Europe in areas such as defence, security. We need greater integration and we claim a global role for Europe".

The event  marks the foundations of our Europe. The celebration intends to remind to the citizens the main aim of the founding fathers: to bring peace and development in Europe after the second world war. 
The declaration of Robert Shuman - "Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity” – represents this aim.

Many steps further has been made by the EU Member States after the foundation of the European Community: the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989),