Feed aggregator

Julien Gonzalez, auteur pour la Fondation pour l’innovation politique de la note Trop d’émigrés ? Regards sur ceux qui partent de France, est intervenu le lundi 5 octobre lors du colloque « Les français à l'étranger, un atout pour la France ».

Cet article 5/10/15 : Intervention de Julien Gonzalez lors du colloque « Les français à l’étranger, un atout pour la France » organisé par Hélène Conway-Mouret, sénatrice représentant les Français établis hors de France est apparu en premier sur Fondapol.

Former Minister of State for Security and Counter Terrorism, Rt Hon Baroness Neville-Jones DCMG, will be chairing the Cyber Defence and Network Security conference in January. Ahead of the event, in an exclusive interview with Defence IQ she discusses government-level cyber security v

Not since the Cold War has the world seen such a widespread interest and effort to build (or rebuild) submarine fleets. With littoral operations attracting more military activity and discussions over anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) becoming more urgent, there appears to be a common bel

Founder and President of the International Organization for Security and Intelligence (IOSI), Johan Obdola has over 25 years of experience in security and law enforcement at both a national and international level. His experience includes time spent as an intelligence officer,

Le 8 décembre 2006, je publiais dans Libération l’article qui suit, article critiquant une tribune de Michel Onfray parue dans le même journal. Cet article était une version plus courte d’un billet publié sur mon blog. A l’époque, Onfray était encore une vache sacrée de la gauche et de la gauche de la gauche: je voulais montrer tout ce que cette pensée nourrie d’antilibéralisme et d’europhobie avait de moisie et de réactionnaire. Neuf ans plus tard, ce texte que je républie ici, à l’occasion d’une «une» de Libération consacrée à ces nouveaux réac, annonçait déjà la dérive d’un «penseur» qui, désormais, se situe bien à la droite de De Gaulle... Michel Onfray, mais aussi Jacques Sapir ou encore Eric Zemmour, font la démonstration que le souverainisme, celui du «non» à la Constitution européenne, qu’il soit de gauche ou de droite, conduit presque inéluctablement au compagnonnage avec le FN. Le naufrage d’une certaine élite intellectuelle française (qui dénonce pourtant l’élitisme...) empêtrée dans ses contradictions et ses erreurs d’analyse.

L’appel lancé lundi, dans Libération, par Michel Onfray pour que la «gauche antilibérale», celle du non à la Constitution européenne, s’unisse et ne présente qu’un seul candidat ­ et non six ! ­ à l’élection présidentielle, est l’aveu d’un échec. Autant il est facile de s’opposer, autant il est difficile de construire et de proposer une alternative crédible.

On savait déjà que le non était divers, puisqu’il agrégeait l’extrême gauche, une partie de la gauche de gouvernement, la droite souverainiste et l’extrême droite. On sait désormais que le «non de gauche» est irréductible : tous Français, tous «antilibéraux», tous à la gauche de la gauche, mais tous incapables de s’entendre. On comprend le désespoir d’Onfray. Il est en tout cas certain qu’avec de tels leaders, l’Europe, avec ce que cela suppose de compromis, parfois douloureux, ne se serait jamais construite. Car, pour parvenir à bâtir pierre par pierre cette Union de bientôt vingt-sept Etats membres, il a fallu mettre d’accord des pays qui se sont fait la guerre durant des siècles, dont l’histoire est multiséculaire, les cultures éloignées, les langues diverses et les systèmes juridiques profondément différents. Et cela fait cinquante ans que cela fonctionne. Les leaders du non ont beaucoup à apprendre de l’Europe et de sa culture du compromis.

Au-delà de cet appel au «rassemblement», le texte d’Onfray mérite une attention particulière. Sa lecture est riche d’enseignements sur les ressorts du non à la Constitution européenne. Cet article est terrifiant par ce qu’il révèle du désordre idéologique d’une partie de la gauche radicale. D’Europe, il n’est guère question : Onfray reconnaît lui-même que le non de gauche s’explique par un rejet des «couleuvres du socialisme gouvernemental». Pour lui, «la gauche se mettait en position de constituer enfin une identité nouvelle loin du libéralisme des rejetons mitterrandiens et du stalinisme des déçus de l’Est». On est très loin de l’Europe. «L’écologie, le féminisme, la République, la laïcité, la nation, les régions, les minorités, l’antiracisme, la province, le peuple»... On est là dans le seul cadre de l’Etat-nation. Pour Onfray, la gauche «qui a voté non à cette Constitution rédigée par le président Giscard d’Estaing» (c’est inexact, mais ça permet de souligner son travers «libéral»), «c’est celle que nous avons le devoir de construire». Voilà, c’est dit : le référendum n’était pas une affaire européenne, c’était une affaire nationale, un levier pour bâtir une autre gauche et, à terme, une nouvelle communauté nationale.

Ses détestations et ses préférences sont fascinantes. Mitterrand est définitivement «vichyste» et haïssable, mais le communisme lavé de ses crimes. Plus loin, il rend hommage à la Révolution française, pas à celle de 1789, à celle de 1793 et à ses «valeurs démocratiques». 1793, c’est effectivement la Constitution la plus démocratique jamais adoptée en France, mais elle ne fut jamais appliquée, Robespierre et ses amis l’ayant remisée au placard pour proclamer la Terreur. 1793, c’est aussi la nation en armes assiégée par une Europe qui rejette la Révolution française. La référence n’est pas anodine dans le débat constitutionnel. Il est vrai que la démocratie, selon Onfray, a un sens particulier. Il propose que les prétendants de la gauche radicale se réunissent autour d’une table et votent entre eux pour désigner leur porte-drapeau ! Pas question d’un vote citoyen comme l’ont osé les socialistes, mais une réunion à huis clos d’un bureau politique autoproclamé.

Plus inquiétant encore : si la gauche radicale doit s’organiser, c’est pour promouvoir ses valeurs, en particulier «restaurer le sens de l’intérêt général et du bien public». Le mot «restaurer» est important et revient quelques lignes plus loin : il faut imposer la «restauration d’un service public», dit Onfray. S’il faut restaurer et non instaurer, cela veut dire que, dans le passé, les choses ont mieux fonctionné. Il faut donc remonter dans le temps pour retrouver cet âge d’or. Onfray nous livre la clef de sa nostalgie en stigmatisant le «libéralisme que droite et gauche incarnent en se succédant au pouvoir depuis Pompidou». Donc le libéralisme a corrompu la société française à la mort de Pompidou, en 1974. Cette France aux valeurs restaurées, celle du «bien public», celle de la communauté nationale revivifiée serait donc celle des Trente Glorieuses, celle de «l’Etat UDR» triomphant, celle qui a débouché sur Mai 68 ? Le voilà donc, cet «avant», cette nostalgie qui fouaille Onfray. De Gaulle et Pompidou, c’était avant la corruption par l’Europe, cette Europe «inventée» par le libéral VGE et le «vichyste» Mitterrand, celle du Marché unique.

Cette nostalgie passéiste, cette affirmation que la communauté nationale a été corrompue par l’Europe libérale, cette pensée enfermée dans le cadre national, ces références constantes au peuple (il parle de «gens modestes») supposé plus pur que les «élites», voilà un cocktail pour le moins détonant de la part de quelqu’un qui prétend incarner un renouveau de la gauche radicale.

Although EU Regulation 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items system is in line with the main export control regimes and is seen as a model for others to follow, there are a number of ways in which the regulation could be enhanced and refined. Part One outlines the current state of play, purpose and implementation of the current regulation. In Part Two, against the backdrop of the European Commission's reform proposal, the effectiveness of the EU's dual-use export controls regime is explored further with regard to its potential contribution to international, national and human security, as well as their impact on EU economic and trade interests. The study concludes that the system’s effectiveness could be improved in a number of ways, but that this requires an effort to mobilise political will at different levels and across different institutions within the EU and its Member States, and to enhance human resources, cooperation and capacity-building. The European Parliament should also give consideration on a regular basis to issues relating to the scope and implementation of the regulation, in order to ensure that the objectives continue to be achieved.
Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Although EU Regulation 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items system is in line with the main export control regimes and is seen as a model for others to follow, there are a number of ways in which the regulation could be enhanced and refined. Part One outlines the current state of play, purpose and implementation of the current regulation. In Part Two, against the backdrop of the European Commission's reform proposal, the effectiveness of the EU's dual-use export controls regime is explored further with regard to its potential contribution to international, national and human security, as well as their impact on EU economic and trade interests. The study concludes that the system’s effectiveness could be improved in a number of ways, but that this requires an effort to mobilise political will at different levels and across different institutions within the EU and its Member States, and to enhance human resources, cooperation and capacity-building. The European Parliament should also give consideration on a regular basis to issues relating to the scope and implementation of the regulation, in order to ensure that the objectives continue to be achieved.
Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Putin has had contacts with Erdogan, Netanyahu and other leaders of the region. Now we can see the result of those meetings. He has virtually created a core in the Middle East: from Syria to Kurdistan, to Iraq and then to Iran, to China. This brilliant political combination has created a completely new role for the Russian Federation in the world

Pascal Boniface et Hubert Védrine publient leur Atlas du monde global

You can read here the article on the Greek crisis written by Professor Emeritus and Member of the Board of Trustees of ELIAMEP Theodore Couloumbis. This commentary was published on 4 October 2015 in the Sunday edition of Kathimerini. The content is available in Greek.

While migrant deaths en route to the European Union are by no means new, the level and intensity of recent tragedies is unprecedented. More than 1850 deaths were recorded January-May 2015, demanding swift action on the part of EU Member States. This project produces a timely and robust evidence base as grounds for informing policy interventions developed under emergency conditions across the Mediterranean. It does so by assessing the impact of such interventions on those that they affect most directly: migrants or refugees themselves. This project undertakes such an assessment by engaging the journeys and experiences of people migrating, asking:

• What are the impacts of policy interventions on migratory journeys and experiences across the Mediterranean?
• How do refugees or migrants negotiate complex and entwined migratory and regulatory dynamics?
• In what ways can policy be re-shaped to address migrant deaths at sea?

The project focuses on three EU island arrival points in Greece, Italy and Malta.

Qualitative interview data, both textual and visual, is produced through an interdisciplinary participatory research approach.

The project contributes: an interdisciplinary perspective on the legal and social implications of policy interventions in the region; a comparative perspective on migratory routes and methods of travel across the Mediterranean; a qualitative analysis of the journeys and experiences of refugees and migrants; and methodological insights into participatory research under emergency conditions.

The specific objectives of the project are:

1. To document and map the experiences and journeys of refugees and migrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea by boat, focusing on key EU island arrival points in Greece, Italy, and Malta.

2. To identify the impact of emergency and longer-term policy interventions on migratory experiences and journeys across each of these sites, focusing in particular on recent developments in search and rescue, anti-smuggling, and preventative mechanisms.

3. To provide up-to-date findings and analyses that intervene in academic and public debates and that inform policy developments and practitioner responses on the basis of a methodologically and ethically sound evidence base.

4. To carry out research that engages refugees and migrants as producers of knowledge, rather than as objects of analysis.

5. To produce research that is of value to wide-ranging beneficiaries (policy-makers, practitioners, civil society groups, media and cultural outlets, and researchers), through the dissemination of diverse and accessible outputs (briefings, reports, blogs, forums, reflective articles, a visual map and exhibition, as well as journal articles) and

6. To evaluate the effectiveness of the research methodologies and dissemination strategies used throughout the course of the project.

The project was awarded to the University of Warwick and PI Associate Professor Vicki Squire (PaIS, Warwick); Co-Is Dr Dallal Stevens (Law, Warwick), Professor Nick Vaughan-Williams (PaIS, Warwick), Dr.Angeliki Dimitriadi (ELIAMEP) and Dr.Maria Pisani (University of Malta). The Research Assistant for Greece is Skerlida Agoli.

Project partners:

University of Warwick

Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy

University of Malta

For more information on the project you can visit the website https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/research/clusters/irs/crossingthemed/

Or email

Angeliki Dimitriadi (angeliki@eliamep.gr)

By early September 2015, the UN announced that 7 million people had been displaced in Syria from a pre-war population of 22 million, with more than 4 million seeking safety outside Syria. Of those, 2.1 million Syrians were recorded by UNHCR in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon, and 1.9 million Syrians are estimated to have fled to Turkey according to the Turkish government. It is possible that the actual numbers, especially in Jordan and Lebanon, may be higher. Although these facts have been known for some time, the sudden increase in the influx of refugees from Syria and other conflict ridden regions (Iraq, Eritrea, Afghanistan, etc.) caught Europe by surprise. With Greece and Italy as the main gates, most asylum seekers follow the so-called Balkan corridor through the Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Hungary and Austria in an effort to reach Germany and other northern European countries. Countries of first entry, transit and final destination have been trying, rather unsuccessfully, to manage the refugee/migration flow.

The Schengen Agreement, one of Europe’s most tangible and widely recognizable achievements, is now faced with considerable, even existential challenges. The limited enthusiasm of several EU states (mainly in Eastern Europe but also on other parts of the continent), with the notable exceptions of Germany and Sweden (although the former already finds itself under tremendous pressure because of the large numbers of asylum seekers), to undertake any meaningful commitments in the context of a burden sharing agreement promoted by the European Commission, is once more testing the concept of a border free Europe, the limits of European solidarity and the idea of common European policies.

Although the migration debate should not become overtly securitized, there is an important security dimension as there is concern about radical individuals (jihadists) entering Europe disguised as refugees that complicates the situation even further at a time of increasing radicalization of societies and rising xenophobia and/or Islamophobia in many EU countries. Although the gradual integration of refugees/immigrants may have long-term beneficial consequences for several European countries facing the prospect of demographic decline (including Germany, but also Russia), the arrival of too many ‘guests’ in a relatively short period of time may be a significant challenge for social cohesion in a number of EU-member states. To make things even worse, the already high number of refugees and economic migrants is expected to increase in the not too distant future as large numbers of people, mainly in the developing world, may be forced to leave their homes as a result of climate change.

It is becoming, therefore, quite urgent that in addition to absolutely necessary migration management policies, the international community, and especially the EU, should focus its efforts on ending various conflicts as soon as possible. Syria – a failed state that threatens to destabilize neighboring countries, and especially Lebanon and Jordan, but also the wider region – is the obvious top priority. However, this will only be possible if Russia and Iran support an international initiative. The immediate objective should be the cessation of hostilities through the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force, the creation of a provisional government for national unity with the participation of the more moderate elements of the Assad regime and the opposition and the beginning of the difficult process of reconstruction and reconciliation. To achieve this, a unanimous decision by the UN Security Council would be required. Such a decision would be the result of the immediate resumption of the Geneva-II negotiating process, with the participation of all involved parties, including both Russia and Iran.

Because the US will continue to perceive Asia as their main foreign policy priority, the EU, primarily affected by both the refugee crisis but also by general instability in the eastern Mediterranean, as well as from the continuing confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, should undertake the necessary diplomatic initiatives to prepare the groundwork for an agreement on Syria.

There are two options for reaching an understanding with Russia: (A) a big bargain and (B) find a success story, based on common interests (or common threats). In the latter case, Syria fits perfectly, as the spread of Islamic extremism is essentially a domestic concern for Russia and the two sides have good reasons for cooperation (including targeted cooperation between intelligence and law enforcement agencies). However, as aggressive and unconstructive as Russia’s policy in Ukraine has been over the past two years (following a series of miscalculations by the West), we should not lose sight of the big picture and the extremely high stakes in the case of Syria. There are no guarantees, of course, that Russia will respond to such an opening by the EU, but President Putin has on several occasions proved to be pragmatic in his cost/benefit analysis. This may be his last opportunity to save a losing game in Syria and maintain a degree of Russian presence and influence in the eastern Mediterranean.

Finally, it is important to keep in mind that the additional arrivals in Europe (in comparison to 2014) have so far been “only” 230,000 people and that number has been sufficient to almost overwhelm even the most developed European country, Germany. There are several hundred thousands more Syrian refugees (in addition to people from other conflict regions) waiting to come to Europe if the circumstances allow. In addition to practical, short-term problems, the long-term consequences for social cohesion in several European countries may be difficult to imagine if the refugee flow continues unhindered.

This article was published on the website of Valdai Club.