Feed aggregator

A hétvégén tartották meg a sorrendben 26.

A Sziriza magabiztos győzelmével zárultak a vasárnapi rendkívüli görög választások. Alekszisz Ciprasz pártja újra a jobboldali radikális Független Görögök pártjával lép koalícióra.

By Ghazi Salahuddin Atabani*

President Omer Hassan al-Bashir made extravagant promises while addressing the nation on January 2014. His speech came to be known as the " leap" speech. He overused the newfangled word "leap", denoting reform, change, or transformation.

Despite the enigma shrouding the speech, making it open to different interpretations, we all embraced the message calling it constructive and timely. What happened in the next twenty months was an anticlimax.

A unique opportunity presented itself on 5 September 2014, when delegates from government parties, opposition, and armed groups signed an accord in Addis Ababa, under the auspices of the African Union High Level Implementation Panel AUHIP. The ball was in the penalty area waiting for the striker, but the latter had other plans.

Twenty months after the enigmatic speech, the situation is worse. The four crises besetting the nation -the war, economy, foreign relations, constitutional reform- show no sign of abating. The government has decided to throw its own National Congress Party (NCP). Following its trademark technique, it decided to have its own national dialogue. The idea is to maintain intellectual discipline and keep control over the proceedings.

The talk of the town is of Kenana-2. In Kenana-1, not less than 600 dignitaries from all walks of life gathered at the posh resort of Kenana Sugar Factory to discuss Darfur. No one cared to send a decent invitation to the armed groups to attend. The result: an impressive gathering and a comprehensive final report. In the next few days hardly anyone remembered a thing of what the Kenana Conference produced, least of all the armed groups who were conspicuous by their absence. It was a classic case of the dog barking up the wrong tree.

Dr. Ghazi Salahuddin Atabani, is the chairman of the opposition Reform Now Movement (RNM)

2015. szeptember 15-én, 21 óra után kevéssel Venezuela észak-nyugati részén, a kolumbiai határ mentén végrehajtott légi őrjáratozás közben lezuhant a Venezuelai Légierő egy Szu-30 vadászbombázó repülőgépe. A védelmi minisztérium közleménye szerint a gép személyzetének sorsa egyelőre nem ismert. A repülőkatasztrófa vizsgálata megkezdődött.

Les médiateurs ont proposé dimanche soir un "projet d'accord politique de sortie de crise" au Burkina Faso, prévoyant de restaurer le président Kafando, renversé jeudi par un coup d'État militaire, et d'amnistier les putschistes.

Troisième français consécutif à être nommé SACT, le général Denis Mercier confie demain les clés
Plus d'infos »

Législatives anticipées en Grèce : Syriza et les jeunes, le divorce
Grèce : pour Syriza, « la guerre ne fait que commencer »
Grèce : Alexis Tsipras démissionne, élections anticipées le 20 septembre
Grèce : après le choc de l'accord, les bouches s'ouvrent
Grèce : une liquidation à l'européenne ?
Victoire du non : « une leçon pour la Grèce, pour le monde entier »
Grèce : Alexis Tsipras démissionne, élections anticipées le 20 septembre
Grèce : le ministre des Finances Yanis Varoufakis démissionne

/ Grèce, Courrier des Balkans, Syriza, Politique intérieure

Szahalin - Oroszország, amit látnod kell (videó)

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Törökország elnöke szeptember 23-án Moszkvába utazik - írja a Komszomolszkaja Pravda. Erről Dmitrij Peszkov, az orosz elnök sajtószóvivője értesítette az újságírókat.

Oroszország a rubel devalvációja miatt kétszer több pénzt kapott vissza a Misztrál hajókért, mint amit fizetett - írja a RIA Novosztyi. Erről Denisz Manturov, ipar és kereskedelmi miniszter nyilatkozott.

Le Parlement européen a considéré comme un impératif politique d’apporter, en l’espace de quelques jours et à deux reprises, son soutien à la Commission européenne, un soutien qui a son prix après l’échec lamentable du Conseil des ministres sur le plan migratoire proposé par la Commission. Une première fois le 10 septembre elle a appuyé la Commission, un appui sans surprise et massif, puis une deuxième fois le 17 septembre par un vote en urgence (fait exceptionnel) le Parlement a renouvelé sa pression sur les ministres. « L’hiver est là » avait averti Jean-Claude Juncker dans son discours sur l’Etat de l’Union et il avait rappelé : « tout cela nous le savions » !

La partie s’est déroulée en deux mi-temps ! Mais on jouera certainement des prolongations, sans oublier les temps additionnels .

Première mi-temps

Au lendemain de la présentation d’un paquet de nouvelles mesures pour répondre au défi migratoire et à l’afflux de réfugiés, le Parlement a sans surprises soutenu l’action de la Commission européenne dans une résolution adoptée à une large majorité (432 pour, 142 contre, et 57 abstentions. Les députés ont ainsi apporté leur plein appui au mécanisme de répartition obligatoire des demandeurs d’asile et du même coup ils se prononçaient en faveur de la modification du système de Dublin et ils appelaient les Etats membres à se doter de systèmes obligatoires de réinstallation des réfugiés.

La veille le Parlement avait donné son accord à la proposition faite en mai de relocaliser 40 000 personnes depuis la Grèce et l’Italie. Le 11 septembre il a renouvelé son appui au mécanisme pour 120 000 personnes concernant cette fois l’Italie, la Grèce et la Hongrie.

La résolution est commune aux groupes PPE, S&D, Verts/ALE, ADLE (seuls les Eurosceptiques et Europhobes sont restés en dehors du consensus et aussi ce qu’il faut regretter la GUE).La résolution salue « les initiatives de la Commission sur la répartition et la réinstallation, ainsi que la nouvelle proposition de répartition d’urgence d’un nombre accru de demandeurs d’asile ayant besoin d’une protection qui couvre la Grèce, l’Italie et la Hongrie ». Elle appuie « l’annonce par la Commission d’un mécanisme permanent de répartition, qui sera activé en cas d’urgence et tiendrait compte du nombre de réfugiés présents dans l’Etat membre, lequel s’appuie sur l’article 78, paragraphe 2 du Traité sur le fonctionnement de l’UE ».

Les eurodéputés ont assuré à la Commission qu’ils étaient prêts « à examiner le nouveau régime de répartition d’urgence au moyen d’une procédure accélérée » le Parlement européen étant simplement consulté sur ce dispositif. Ils ont également fait part «  de leur intention de faire progresser en parallèle, toutes les autres mesures proposées par la Commission de manière à ce que les Etats membres ne retardent pas la mise en œuvre du mécanisme permanent de répartition ».

La Parlement réitère également son souhait d’un mécanisme de répartition obligatoire qui, » dans la mesure du possible, tienne compte des préférences des réfugiés » et « de dispositions communes plus spécifiques sur les visas humanitaires ». Le Parlement demande aux Etats membres à nouveau « de faire en sorte qu’il soit possible de demander asile auprès de leurs ambassades et consulats »La veille dans son discours sur l’Etat de l’Union, Jean-Claude Juncker avait annoncé un paquet sur la migration légale en 2016, notamment sur l’immigration de travail.

Le reste de la résolution soutient la liste des pays sûrs, présentée elle aussi le e 9 septembre par la Commission . Le Parlement e tenu à rappeler fermement que l’établissement d’une telle liste « ne doit pas menacer le principe de non refoulement, ni le droit d’asile de chacun ». Les députés réitèrent leur soutien à l’acquis de Schengen sur la libre circulation des personnes, iles appellent les Etats membres à se saisir de la question « des causes profondes des migrations »lors du sommet de la Valette les 11 et 12 novembre.

Ce soutien des principales familles du Parlement européen aux nouvelles propositions de la Commission n’a pas empêché que s’expriment des divergences entre les groupes, voire au sein des groupes. Eva Joly (Verts/Ale française) a déploré dans un communiqué que le PPE n’ait pas soutenu son amendement permettant d’ouvrir le droit aux demandeurs d’asile de travailler dès qu’ils arrivent : « pourquoi maintenir les demandeurs d’asile dans un statut d’assistanat social quand ils souhaiteraient participer pleinement à la vie du pays qui les accueille ? »

Au sein du PPE des réserves assez fortes ont été exprimées sur le caractère obligatoire du mécanisme, notamment de la part de la délégation française, réserves qui s’étaient déjà exprimées lors du vote de Sa Keller sur le premier outil de relocalisation des 40 000 réfugiés. Cette opposition a été plus particulièrement exprimée par Brice Hortefeux qui s’oppose aux modalités qui ne font qu’entretenir les activités des passeurs et encouragent les mouvements migratoires. Tous les députés du PPE ont toutefois approuvé la résolution à l’exception de Nadine Morano et des députés hongrois du PPE.

Deuxième mi-temps : le Parlement vote en urgence une deuxième résolution pour accentuer sa pression sur le Conseil des ministres !

La proposition d’urgence pour relocaliser 120 000 demandeurs d’asile a été soutenu par le Parlement en un temps record : 370 voix pour, 134 contre, 52 abstentions (372 voix pour, 124 contre et 54 abstentions pour la proposition législative) un soutien obtenu en un temps record, mais au prix de fortes tensions et au prix de la perte d’une soixantaine de voix en faveur de la proposition de la Commission entre les deux votes. Suggéré par le président du Parlement européen, Martin Schulz, le principe du vote a été adopté à main levée : « la crise des réfugiés exige que l’on trouve une solution rapidement » a-t-il justifié avec emportement.

Satisfaction sur le plan du résultat, mais inquiétudes pour l’avenir, le débat, médiocre et plein d’arrières pensées, n’a pas totalement rassuré. Le débat n’a pas été à la hauteur de l’enjeu. Pouvait-on attendre autre chose à partir du moment où l’on s’en remet, comme d’habitude, à la prise de parole par 70 intervenant qui se succèdent toutes les minutes trente secondes à un rythme infernal ? Tenons nous en aux chefs de file des groupes politiques « Pour nous c’est une proposition réaliste, qui respecte la dignité et l’égalité de traitement et qui permet l’exercice de la solidarité entre tous les Etats membres ; c’est une proposition qui nous aide à construire l’Europe et le monde dans lequel nous croyons » a justifié le député PPE Esteban Gonzales Pons. Le chef de file du S&D, Gianni Pitella a aussi estimé qu’il est temps « d’aller de l’avant », en insistant aussi sur les mesures de gestion des frontières extérieures et d’aide à la création des « hotspots », ces centres d’identification des arrivants à défaut d’être des centres d’accueil. Guy Verhofstadt, le leader libéral de l’ADLE a plaidé, une fois de plus, pour un sommet européen qui se pencherait sur une approche plus large, globale de la crise. D’autre familles politique comme CRE ont redit leur refus des quotas et aux extrêmes, les eurosceptiques et europhobes, comme Marine le Pen ont redit leur refus de cette politique de « l’appel d’air »  et de la subversion de l’Europe par les islamistes et les terroristes et cela sous le couvert de bons sentiments .

L’idée d’un Sommet européen n’a pas été plébiscité ni par les parlementaires, ni par la présidence luxembourgeoise, ni par la Commission, tous peu convaincus que ce soit la meilleure des choses . La présidence veut avant tout éviter un vote à la majorité qualifiée qui marquerait et soulignerait une rupture entre l’Europe de l’ouest et l’Europe de l’est dont les pays de Visegrad sont parmi les plus réfractaires. Finalement le sommet aura lieu et il ne devrait évoquer que les grands enjeux : la Syrie, les moyens pour faire fonctionner Frontex, l’espace Schengen, les pays dits sûrs, le développement …. Les réunions se multiplient pour trouver des pistes de compromis. La piste des sanctions contre les récalcitrants, à ce stade, n’a pas été retenue. La menace brandie par le ministre de l’intérieur allemand, Thomas de Maizière, a fait long feux, mais elle a marqué les esprits comme la déclaration de la France indiquant qu’elle était prête, elle aussi, à rétablir des contrôles à ses frontières si la situation l’exigeait.

Evaluations d’étape

Optimisme prudent : le 22 septembre vont se réunir à nouveau, l’échec du 14 septembre sera-t-il lavé? Ce sera sans l’aval de la Hongrie . Le soutien des pays de Visegrad n’est pas assuré malgré les efforts de la présidence luxembourgeoise  pour les convaincre, un par un. Peut-on considérer la Pologne comme désormais dans le camp de ceux qui soutiennent les propositions de la Commission après les gestes d’ouverture du Premier Ministre Ewa Kopacz ? Les nouvelles routes migratoires posent avec une acuité grandissante le problème des Balkans occidentaux (cf .conférence de presse de Johannes Hahn dans un autre article). Que dire de la Slovénie et de la Croatie, jusqu’ici épargnées mais qui, à leur tour, entre nt dans la tourmente ? La Turquie sera-t-elle incluse dans la liste des pays sûrs ? Quel est l’état réel d’avancement sur le plan opérationnel des Hotspots ? Le système classique de Dublin est-il encore d’application et même de façon temporaire et pour qui ? Bien d’autres questions surgissent dés qu’on s’attarde un peu. C’es t le besoin de clarification qui l’emporte sur bien des considérations , plus que des décisions engageant l’avenir, car difficiles à obtenir dans l’immédiat.

En résumé : un appel vibrant à la solidarité, une critique sévère sur les résultats de la réunion du Conseil, une invitation ferme à prendre des mesures urgentes et à mettre au point un système européen d’asile et de migration qui fonctionnera à long terme. Avant le vote, le Président Schulz a annoncé qu’il allait envoyer une lettre à l’actuel président du Conseil, Xavier Bettel, demandant au nom du Parlement le déblocage de fonds de l’UE pour aider les pays d’accueil se partageant la plus grande partie des réfugiés syriens : le Liban, la Turquie, la Jordanie. Les verts ont insisté pour qu’au cas où le Conseil s’éloignerait de ce qui a été mis sur la table par la Commission, le Parlement serait à nouveau consulté. Cet avertissement figure dans la résolution. Sommes-nous à un tournant dans le rapport de forces entre les Institutions. La semaine qui vient est crucial et pas seulement pour les réfugiés

Pour savoir plus :

     -. Résolution législative sur la proposition de décision du Conseil instituant des mesures provisoires en matière de protection internationale au profit de l’Italie, de la Grèce et de la Hongrie (FR) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2015-0324+0+DOC+XML+V0//FR&language=FR (EN) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2015-0324+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

     -. Résolution du Parlement européen du 10 septembre 2015 sur les migrations et les réfugiés en Europe (FR) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2015-0317+0+DOC+XML+V0//FR&language=FR (EN) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2015-0317+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

     -. Agenda européen en matière de migration (FR) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0240 (EN) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0240&from=FR

     -. Proposition de décision du Conseil instituant des mesures provisoires en matière de protection internationale au profit de l’Italie, de la Grèce et de la Hongrie (EN) http://www.ipex.eu/IPEXL-WEB/dossier/document/COM20150451.do (FR)nhttp://www.ipex.eu/IPEXL-WEB/dossier/document/COM20150451.do

     -. Proposition de Règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil établissant un mécanisme de relocalisation en cas de crise (EN) http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation-package/docs/proposal_for_regulation_of_ep_and_council_establishing_a_crisis_relocation_mechanism_en.pdf (FR) http://www.ipex.eu/IPEXL-WEB/dossier/document/COM20150450.do

 

 

 

        

 

 

 

 

Classé dans:Uncategorized

For the second weekend in a row, ambassadors from across the EU are spending their Sunday behind closed doors, trying to reach a deal on sharing out 120,000 refugees across bloc for the crunch interior ministers’ meeting on Tuesday, ahead of a make-or-break migration summit on Wednesday.

At the heart of the plan, which has become a flagship policy for the Juncker commission, is the “distribution key”.

Member states would take a number of refugees based on how big they are, how rich they are, how many asylum seekers they already have, and the country’s unemployment rate. Or as the Commission put it:

But now, it seems, the distribution key is dead – for this scheme, at least. The latest version of the draft agreement seen by Brussels Blog has all mention of distribution keys taken out. Even the percentage breakdown for each member state has been removed.

Read more

« Epique » : récital de piano par Red Radoja, le 20 septembre à 19h30
Les rendez-vous d'ailleurs, 109 rue des Hayes 75020 Paris
« Épique » est un concert récital autour des compositions de Red Radoja, que l'on peut retrouver sur son album « Épique ».
« Épique », parce que le compositeur et pianiste vous invite à un voyage au coeur des traditions de l'Albanie, son pays natal, avec ses chansons de gestes, ses preux et ses personnages mythiques.
Au programme :
La force du preux, (Fuqia e Mujit)
Chassant (...)

20.09.2015 par Jean-Dominique Merchet - (Article précédemment paru dans l'Opinion) Dans l’ombre, les deux services s’affrontent sur leur rôle respectif dans les opérations militaires Les services de renseignement sont « une petite oasis d’abondance »....

photo Marine Nationale September 18, 2015 by Think Defence A submarine may be subject to enemy action, mechanical failure, accidental damage or collision that results in it being immobilised. In these circumstances the crew will need to escape or be rescued...

20.09.2015 lemonde.fr Les Etats-Unis et la Chine seraient en pleine négociation en vue de ce qui pourrait devenir le premier accord de non-agression dans le cyberespace, selon le New York Times . Une annonce est problable en fin de semaine prochaine,...

20 septembre 2015 Romandie.com (AFP) Sanaa - Les rebelles chiites Houthis au Yémen ont libéré dimanche trois Américains, deux Saoudiens et un Britannique qui étaient détenus depuis environ six mois, a déclaré un responsable rebelle et une source des services...

MQ-9 Reaper-ER photo General Atomics 20.09.2015 par Philippe Chapleau - Lignes de Défense Le 15 septembre, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems a annoncé le premier déploiement opérationnel de son Reaper Extended Range (Reaper ER). Un appareil qui peut...

This summer Europe witnessed unprecedented events as thousands of migrants embarked on dangerous journeys from the Middle East and further afield to reach the shores of Europe. The growing instability in the Middle East, most of all in Syria which has descended into a state of permanent internal civil war, has resulted in an unprecedented flow of migration towards Europe. As with the other major recent crises the EU is ill prepared to respond swiftly and collectively. The response – or the lack of it- towards the escalating migrant crisis resembles how the EU reacted to the sovereign debt crisis which followed the global financial crisis and externally to the standoff with Russia over Ukraine. All these events illustrate that the EU profoundly lacks a spirit of collective responsibility. It is most noticeable in the failure of the big six (Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Spain and Poland) to lead the EU towards effective supranational institutions and policies which are fit to address the various internal and external challenges. For too long national governments in the EU have retreated towards the minimum consensus on policy cooperation. Keen to ensure that they maintain a substantial degree of autonomy on sovereign political decision-making, EU leaders have neglected to determine binding common solutions to crucial areas such as economic and fiscal policy, defence and security as well as justice and home affairs.

The eurozone crisis resulted predominantly from systemic weaknesses in the original design of the stability and growth pact. Before the crisis the SGP operated like a gentleman’s agreement between member state governments and the European Commission. Greece and Italy were permitted to join the eurozone in spite of running a permanent and growing structural deficit of more than 100 per cent of their GDP. France and Germany started breaking the annual borrowing limit of maximum three per cent in relation to the GDP in 2002, the year the euro had come into operation as a hard currency. Both countries also started exceed the 60 per cent structural deficit limit[1]. After a period of political disarray and indecision, eurozone governments were ultimately driven to take action by events. When major credit rating agencies started to downgrade individual eurozone economies there was the risk that this would eventually spill over into a substantial loss of financial market confidence in the euro. As Germany and France became increasingly concerned about the risk of a total collapse of the single European currency, Merkel and Sarkozy embarked on a frantic spree of implementing new coordinative policy mechanisms. These policy mechanisms have blurred the distinction between national and EU-level decision-making even more than had already been the case under the existing arrangements. Moreover, as they are predominantly orientated towards elite-level consultations and decision-making, they have worsened the lack of democratic accountability in the EU. Since the onset of the economic crisis the level of public disillusionment with the ability to influence political decisions in the EU consequently has steadily grown. The lowest point of public confidence in the EU occurred in the autumn of 2014 when only 31 per cent of citizens across the EU-28 expressed trust in the Union’s institutions. At the same time the number of those who disagreed with the notion that their voice would count in the EU had also increased substantially, from 53 per cent in 2003 to 66 per cent in the autumn of 2013. In the first half of 2015 the public levels of trust in the EU’s institutions improved slightly towards 40 per cent.

A smaller percentage of people also expressed the opinion that their voice would not count in the EU (50 per cent)[2]. This can be explained by the new Spitzenkandidaten system for the position of European Commission president which was introduced during the campaign for the May 2014 European parliament elections. The nomination of leading candidates for the post by parliamentary groups in the EP gave the impression that citizens would have a direct influence on the appointment of the new Commission president, although the final decision on the appointment still rests with EU leaders in the Council. Although it was obvious that the EU had emerged from the financial crisis with a legitimacy crisis, there were signs that the public was nevertheless willing to give the EU the benefit of the doubt. The latest Eurobarometer research conducted in May this year actually shows that in spite of widespread reservations about the EU’s democratic accountability, the European public nevertheless expressed support for the deepening of political cooperation on the EU level: 69 per cent of citizens were in favour of directly electing the president of the European Commission and 58 per cent favoured the creation of an EU justice ministry. A majority of citizens also expressed support for transferring the decision-making on major policy areas towards the EU level: Environmental issues (72 per cent), combating unemployment (62 per cent), immigration (59 per cent), health and social security (50 per cent)[3].

The public trust in the joint problem-solving capacity of the EU has however not been matched by the reality of the EU’s response to the migrant crisis. The crisis has made it brutally obvious that EU leaders have for too long concentrated on the internal management of the eurozone sovereign debt crisis. External affairs have consequently been neglected the management. This was already shown during the Ukraine crisis during the past two years, where the EU’s institutional level played practically no role. The EU High Representative and the External Action Service, which the Lisbon Treaty created to support the EU’s external activities, were almost completely sidelined by a joint intergovernmental diplomatic leadership initiative of France, Germany and Poland. The three countries intervened early to try to negotiate the peaceful handover of powers from disgraced president Yanukovych. When the situation escalated into a quasi civil war between the Ukrainian government and pro-Russian rebels over the control of the Eastern provinces of the country, Germany and France once again became active in trying to negotiate a ceasefire. The resulting Minsk agreement between Ukraine and Russia, which came into effect in February this year has so far managed to prevent further major violent clashes within Ukraine. This can nevertheless not conceal the fact that the EU once again repeated the pattern of behaviour it had previously shown over Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Member states remained divided on each of these external challenges member states and failed to uniformly support a common position. In spite of the gradual institutionalisation of the EU external relations since the newly created EU had created a dedicated Common Foreign and Security Pillar in the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, foreign, defence and security policy remains firmly in the hands of national governments.

The same applies to asylum and migration policy, where the EU has practically failed to achieve any substantial institutionalisation. The consensus in the EU in this area has for decades centred on maintaining national regulations. This occurred in spite of the fact that migration has over the years become an increasing burden for the countries who form the Southern borders of the EU. Italy, Greece and Spain have for many years called for greater collective EU support in their struggle to manage the mounting levels of migration from the African continent through the Mediterranean. As in so many other policy areas EU member states were unable to move beyond a lowest denominator consensus which in effect leaves asylum and migration firmly in the hands of national governments. The EU has been working on developing a common asylum system since the late 1990s, which has since developed into a Commission asylum policy plan that member states have now adopted. The plan essentially determines common asylum standards and the need for enhanced cooperation between national authorities on handling asylum applications[4]. In practice the centrepiece of the plan remains the Dublin regulation, which the EU adopted in 1990 in response to an increase in asylum applications. It has been revised twice since with the latest Dublin III regulation having taken effect in January 2013. The core of Dublin is the principle that the member state where an asylum application is first registered remains responsible for administering the case[5]. This provision has shifted the burden of responsibility for dealing with refugees and migrants to the member states at the external borders of the EU. This has been in the interest of the larger member states Germany, France and the UK who were the drivers behind the original directive. The principle of responsibility in the country of first registration has helped to substantially lower the number of asylum applications in the rest of the EU, while the countries at the external Southern border of the EU have had to deal with a flood of new applications. The EU’s policy plan on asylum aspired to put in place as system of ‘well supported and practical cooperation’[6]. In reality the Southern European countries Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Cyprus have expressed their dismay at the lack of collective EU support for dealing with the constant and more recently escalating influx of migrants who started arriving by boat from Libya via the Mediterranean. Italian prime minister Matteo Renzi warned the EU in June this year that it was facing a ‘Mediterranean migrant emergency’. Renzi put the finger in the wound of the EU’s lack of collective solidarity under the Dublin regulation:

“Whoever has the right to asylum must be welcome in Europe, not just in Italy,  despite the EU’s Dublin regime. But it is inconceivable that one country should  tackle the entirety of this problem on its own. Responsibility and solidarity are concepts that go hand in hand (…) We are at a crossroads and we need to decide if events in the Mediterranean are everyone’s problem, or only that of the countries in the region[7].”

 Renzi’s appeal reflected the obvious failure of the Dublin regime to instil a spirit of collective responsibility for asylum and migration matters amongst EU member states. Even more importantly his intervention pointed towards the EU suffering from a profound leadership problem which has been evident for some considerable time. It is the result of increasingly diverging national interests between the former leadership duo France and Germany, combined with the failure of the other larger member states to offer alternatives. Italy and Spain continue to be preoccupied by their internal economic and political problems. Poland has been active in pushing towards progress in a number of policy areas, such as the Eastern partnership under the European neighbourhood policy, as well as on defence and security issues. Polish influence nevertheless remains limited due to the fact that the country is still considered as a transition country, who has yet to master the crucial hurdle of eurozone entry.  The United Kingdom under the leadership of Conservative prime minister David Cameron has increasingly retreated to the sidelines. Since he came to power in 2010, Cameron has chosen not to engage in any substantial EU policy debate except on those issues where he would like to see the renegotiation of the UK’s membership terms. These include the possibility to permanently opt out from the freedom of movement and from a federal political union which may eventually emerge in the eurozone in the future.

France has been reluctantly following what is essentially German unilateral part-time leadership or ‘reluctant hegemony’[8] under chancellor Angela Merkel’s reign. This semi-leadership is characterised by hesitation, short-term and last minute policy decisions and more recently by a lack of willingness to engage in multilateral consultations. Merkel’s leadership style in essence stems from her professional background as a natural scientist. She has shown a tendency to avoid seeking visionary and long-term strategies for the future of the EU. Instead her leadership style has been markedly passive and mechanical and she frequently micro manages EU affairs like a clinical trial in a laboratory. During the eurozone crisis Merkel was clearly driven by events and struggled to take an active role in shaping them. After months of inaction and hesitation she only became active on the EU level late in 2009 when it had become obvious that the loss of market confidence in the future of the euro had become substantial.  What followed was a political approach which presented the focus on budgetary and macroeconomic supervision and rigidity as being ‘without alternative’. The implementation of multiple layers of binding policy coordination under the ‘Six Pack’ mechanisms have substantially strengthened unelected supranational bodies at expense of the policy autonomy of national governments and parliaments. This raises serious questions about the EU’s democratic accountability and ultimately its legitimacy. The approach is most evident in the way the troika (European Commission, European Central Bank and IMF), including the newly created European Stability Mechanism (ESM), conducts itself as an illegitimate semi-government in eurozone sovereign debt countries, most of all in Greece. Concerns about the impact of these mechanisms on national sovereignty and the possibility that they could be extended further by transforming the European Commission into an executive government for the EU were voiced by a number of countries, most prominently by the UK, the Czech Republic and Hungary. Concerns about the federalisation of the EU were the main reason for the decision of the British government to demand the renegotiation of the UK’s membership terms and to let the British public decide on the future of the membership in a referendum. David Cameron hence demanded safeguards against what he called a ‘one size fits all approach which implies that all countries want the same level of integration’[9].

Merkel has also persistently ignored the wider political and social context of the crisis and rejected the repeated Greek calls for a more comprehensive long-term strategy to ensure that the budgetary consolidation process in the crisis countries would not have lasting detrimental social and political effects. The drama surrounding the deepening sovereign debt crisis in Greece has hence turned into a seemingly endless standoff between Germany as the leading creditor and an Greece as increasingly dependent debtor country. This has inflicted serious damage to the EU’s internal political cohesion. Merkel nevertheless shows little concern for the perception that the eurozone and the wider EU has increasingly fallen under a German dictate.

This pattern is replicated in the current migrant crisis, where Merkel surprised the rest of the EU when she reacted to the sudden vast influx of migrants into Greece with the announcement that Germany’s borders would be open to all refugees. On August 19th the German government had announced that it expected around 800,000 refugees to come to Germany in 2015. On August 31st chancellor Merkel publicly stated that German would manage this (‘Wir schaffen das’)[10]. On September 10th Merkel followed this up during a visit to an asylum camp in Berlin where she announced that Germany would not determine an upper limit when considering asylum applications amongst the current migrant wave[11]. Already on September 8th Merkel’s Social Democratic vice chancellor Sigmar Gabriel expressed the view that Germany could accept around 500,000 refugees per year in an interview with the German public TV station ZDF[12]. None of these announcements were previously discussed with Germany’s EU partners, not even with those who are most affected by the increasing influx of migrants via the Balkan route.  After thousands of migrants started to make their way towards Germany via Hungary and Austria on a daily basis the German government again acted unilaterally and announced the temporary suspension of the Schengen agreement by reinstating border controls on September 14th, only a week after Merkel’s and Gabriel’s original statements. At the same time the German government asked the European Commission to develop concrete proposals for the introduction of a refugee distribution quota amongst the EU-28.

The demand for quota are opposed by a number of EU countries, most of all by the United Kingdom and the Central and Eastern European countries. Since their accession to the EU the CEE countries have mostly been compliant policy-takers who did not try to fundamentally challenge the EU’s policy status quo. Many of the CEEs also have close partnerships with Germany which date back to the Cold War era. They have therefore tended to defend Germany’s leadership during the euro crisis against criticism from other member states. The former Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski publicly supported Germany’s leading role in 2011 when he stated that he feared German inaction in the EU more than its leadership[13]. Slovak foreign minister Lajcak supported this sentiment when he spoke of his country being relaxed about being part of a ‘greater Germany’[14]. The German government is in danger of destroying this good will towards their leadership because of the patronising way it tries to force the rest of the EU to follow its response to the migrant crisis.  Berlin would probably not have to worry too much if it was only the subject of criticism on the part of the Hungarian government led by populist prime minister Viktor Orban. The fact is however that governments across Central and Eastern Europe are alienated by what they perceive as an uncoordinated and patronising approach to the crisis. The Visegrad 4 countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) have collectively rejected the plans for an EU refugee quota. The V4 are especially affronted by the suggestions which emerged from the German government that countries within the EU who oppose the compulsory quotas may face financial penalties. Slovak prime minister Robert Fico publicly declared his intention to vigorously oppose the plan, even if this may mean blocking progress at the upcoming EU leaders’ summit:

“Never before in the EU did it happen that somebody was punished for their  own opinion. We are a sovereign country, we have the right to name things and have different view to tackle the crisis with migrants.”[15]

The Financial Times reports that CEE diplomats have expressed their anger and astonishment at what they perceive as being shut out of the EU’s diplomacy by Berlin as part of an approach of ‘ “passive aggressive bullying” ‘[16]. Berlin’s conduct is all the more astonishing as the German government should be well aware of the fact that the CEE member states in the EU are still in the process of economic transformation. In most cases they have made substantial progress since the fall of the iron curtain but they nevertheless remain between 20 and 40 per cent below the EU-28′s average GDP per capita[17]. The CEE region remains a low-income region with substantially higher levels of material poverty than the EU average. This explains why public and elite level opposition towards an increase in inward migration from outside the EU remains substantial. Germany’s demands for the acceptance of a refugee distribution quota therefore risk overstretching the CEE region and to feed an already underlying potential for a surge in political support for populist and extremist anti-EU and anti-immigration political parties. The same applies to the EU’s Southern European members, where economically and financially weak countries start to feel overstretched under the double burden of sustained austerity and the resource impact of the migrant crisis[18]. The migrant crisis has already played a substantial role in the campaign for upcoming Greek national election, where the neofascist Golden Dawn party currently polls in third place[19].

The at least temporary collapse of the EU’s Schengen system and the now almost daily blame game between member states on their handling of the migration flow shows that EU is dazed and confused by the speed and severity of events. Without swift and determined collective action the EU risks being slowly sucked into the downward spiral of a credibility crisis, which could eventually turn into an irreversible maelstrom that destroys the European project. The crisis has managed to damage intergovernmental relations between member states and the EU’s external reputation quite significantly. As Germany is clearly incapable of leading the EU out of this crisis it is therefore high time for other members and the Commission to step in to ensure that a lasting collective agreement on migration and asylum policies can be established. Especially the Commission has to tread carefully with this and avoid become the advocate of one country’s (i.e. Germany’s) interests.

A refugee quota system may be part of the immediate solution to events but it is definitely not the answer to resolving the crisis. Instead the EU needs to determine an unambiguous joint system of registering and processing asylum applications. This can only be done effectively if the countries at the EU’s external borders receive substantial financial and logistic support from the EU budget.  Collective budgetary resources will be needed to establish collective fast track asylum registration centres in Greece, Italy, Spain, Cyprus and possibly also in Hungary to ensure that asylum applications are processed quickly and a clear disctinction can be made between genuine refugees and economic migrants. The latter may still be able to obtain permanent residence in an EU member state if national governments unambiguously determine the rules of their domestic immigration policies. Here especially Germany will need to move towards the introduction of a immigration law to ease the burden on its already overstretched asylum system. The EU also needs to make sustained efforts to secure its external borders and to combat human trafficking.  In addition to the planned military missions which are aimed at detaining human traffickers in the Mediterranean, the EU’s border management agency FRONTEXT needs to take a more active role in supporting Southern European countries in the policing of the EU’s external borders.

If the EU fails in this momentous task the current practice of reverting to exclusive national solutions will eventually result in the demise of Schengen, which is a cornerstone of the EU’s internal market. Just as with the euro the collapse of a major integration project like Schengen could be the beginning of the end of what the EU has achieved in its more than sixty years long history. The German weekly DER SPIEGEL correctly pointed this out in this week’s leading editorial: ‘Schengen is not any law in the EU’s dense network of regulations. Whoever touches Schengen, the dream of a borderless Europe, touches the Union’s core.’[20] Merkel, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the EU-28 leaders need to keep this in mind. They must stop dithering and realise what is at stake.

[1] Eurostat, Government Deficit and Debt, available at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/government-finance-statistics/data/main-tables

[2] European Commission (2015) Standard Eurobarometer 83, available at http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/PublicOpinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/66896

[3] Standard Eurobarometer 83.

[4] European Commission (2008) Policy Plan on Asylum: An integrated approach to protection across the EU, COM(2008) 360 final, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0360:FIN:EN:PDF

[5] European Union (2013) Regulation No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 26 June, chapter III, article 3, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R0604&from=EN

[6] European Union, Common European Asylum System, available at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum/index_en.htm

[7] Matteo Renzi (2015), ‘The Mediterranean migrant emergency is not Italy’s. It is Europe’s', The Guardian, 23 June, available at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/23/mediterranean-migrant-crisis-not-italy-but-europe

[8] William E. Paterson (2013) ‘The Reluctant Hegemon? Germany moves centre stage in the European Union’, Journal of Common Market Studies 49 (Annual Review): 57-75.

[9] Prime minister David Cameron’s EU speech at Bloomberg, 23 January 2013, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-speech-at-bloomberg.

[10] Chancellor Angela Merkel summer press conference, 31 August 2015, available at http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Mitschrift/Pressekonferenzen/2015/08/2015-08-31-pk-merkel.html

[11] Süddeutsche Zeitung, ‘Das Grundrecht auf Asyl kennt keine Obergrenze’, 10 September 2015, available at http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/bundeskanzlerin-merkel-das-grundrecht-auf-asyl-kennt-keine-obergrenze-1.2643260

[12] Der Spiegel (2015) ‘Gabriel hät 500.000 Flüchtlinge pro Jahr für verkraftbar’, 8 September 2015, available at http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/fluechtlinge-gabriel-haelt-500-000-pro-jahr-fuer-verkraftbar-a-1051862.html

[13] Sikorski, Radoslaw (2011) ‘Poland and the future of the European Union’, Address at the German Council of Foreign Relations, Berlin, 28 November. Available at http://www.mfa.gov.pl/resource/33ce6061-ec12-4da1-a145-01e2995c6302:JCR. Accessed 14 January 2014.

[14] Kristina Mikulova (2013) ‘Central Europe’s Pivot to Germany: What does the U.S. stand to gain’,Huffington Post 1 May, available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristina-mikulova/central-   europes-pivot-to-_b_3194342.html

[15] Slovakian prime minister Robert Fico statement on official Facebook page, 15 September 2015.

[16] Duncan Robinson and Henry Foy (2015) ‘Migrant crisis sets Germany at odds with neighbours to the east’, Financial Times, 17 September, available at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/09ffbc28-5d46-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fbrussels%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz3m0s05AvV

[17] High Level Reflection Group (2014), Central Europe fit for the future: Visegrad Group ten years after EU accession,  p. 12.

[18] Ekatimerine (2015) ‘Migrant crisis overwhelms Greek government’, 7 August 2015, available at http://www.ekathimerini.com/200333/article/ekathimerini/news/migrant-crisis-overwhelms-greek-government;

[19] Henry Foy (2015) ‘Greek far right party rides wave of xenophobia’, 17 September 2015, available at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d88eab00-5d30-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html#axzz3mCPbbckp

[20] Peter Müller (2015) ‘Der alte Kontinent: In der Flüchtlingskrise ist die EU in Gefahr. Um sie zu bewahren, braucht es Druck und Verständnis’, Der Spiegel 39, 19 September p. 8.

The post The EU’s flawed response to the migrant crisis: Disorientated into the maelstrom appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Rabat et Paris se sont mis d'accord sur une déclaration commune relative à la coopération sur la formation d'imams. L'Union des mosquées de France se réjouit d'une telle décision qui permettra "de promouvoir un islam du juste milieu".