European Union

Only days after his inauguration as President of the United States, Donald Trump stated that he would not shy away from “fighting fire with fire” when it comes to combating terrorist organizations, such as the self-styled ‘Islamic State’ (or Daesh) and al-Qaeda.

The newly-elected President publicly contemplated the reintroduction of ‘enhanced interrogation’ methods such as waterboarding, opposing international law and conventions. Two days later the new administration’s counter-terrorism strategy turned into reality as Trump signed an executive order to restrict immigration to the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries.

Although the measure was condemned by many, it also received acclaim, especially from a chorus of populist politicians in Europe. Marine Le Pen, Frauke Petry and Geert Wilders all cheered; all advocate similar measures to reduce Muslim immigration and all call for the repeal of the Schengen agreement.

While it is impossible to predict the exact number of future attacks that may be prevented by this measure, we can gain insight by looking at past acts of terror.

Take the most recent attacks in the United States: neither the 2015 San Bernardino attack nor the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting would have been prevented by the travel ban, as the perpetrators were either born in the United States or in Pakistan, which is not among the listed countries.

“The desire to close borders overlooks the notion that today’s terrorists are mostly homegrown”

Looking at Western Europe it seems unlikely that such travel restrictions would have made our societies much safer. The most violent attacks in recent years (the January 2015 Charlie Hebdo shooting, the November 2015 Paris attacks, the March 2016 Brussels bombings, the July 2016 Nice attack and the December 2016 Berlin Christmas market attack) are unlikely to have been prevented. The perpetrators were either EU nationals, came from countries whose nationals do not face restrictions, or entered Europe using fake passports as part of the refugee flow. Rather than counterfeiting a Syrian or Libyan passport, they can simply opt for another nationality that would not be subject to a ban.

The desire to close borders overlooks the notion that today’s terrorists are mostly homegrown.

The approximately 5,000 to 6,000 EU nationals that travelled to Syria and Iraq since 2012 – not to mention the thousands more that were unable to make the journey – indicate that the current threat is not purely exogenous. Instead it finds its roots, to a significant degree, in our own society. Restricting immigration will not end the underlying grievances; it may even exacerbate them.

Organisations like Daesh and al-Qaeda are actively trying to drive a wedge between the Islamic and Western worlds by creating a narrative that emphasises the oppression of the former by the latter. Discriminatory policies such as this travel ban only feed the jihadist propaganda machine; it seemingly confirms their notion that the West is at war with Islam. Trump’s decree has made the jihadists’ job much easier.

“Counterterrorism efforts should be rooted in Western values and focus on inclusion, rather than exclusion”

As a direct result of the ban the Trump administration also risks affronting its Arab allies, whose support is crucial to effectively fight Daesh and its underlying ideology. American and European forces fight side-by-side and rely on Muslim forces in their attempts to oust Daesh.

That regional actors such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey are involved in the US-led operation targeting Daesh is already a delicate subject, prompting them to maintain a low profile. Trump’s provocation might force these regional actors to distance themselves, shattering the unified front, and further diminishing the prospects of stability in the region.

Counterterrorism efforts should be rooted in Western values and focus on inclusion, rather than exclusion – both nationally and internationally. Terrorism can be tackled effectively only through a consistent and coherent approach that respects fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy and the freedom of religion, thought, and expression. Any strategy that neglects the rule of law would merely be grist to the mill of jihadist organisations and further bolster their propaganda and recruitment efforts.

Rather than fighting fire with fire, it is imperative that we base our strategy on Western, liberal values.

President Trump may have been right when he noted that the battle with Daesh is not played on an even field. However, as Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the European Commission, recently remarked during the Future Force Conference, we should avoid getting into a mud fight with a pig, as the pig will love it, while we would look awful. As Timmermans said, “only an open society can truly protect us from the challenges of modernity”.

IMAGE CREDIT: CC/Flickr – Masha George

The post Trump’s travel ban does more harm than good appeared first on Europe’s World.

Taking Tony Judt’s A Grand Illusion? out of the shelf again.

Revisiting a book on the general state and mid-term prospects of the European Union that was only written twenty years ago may turn out to be a very useful exercise. It puts into perspective the achievements and failures of what is a slow and long integration process. And it sheds an interesting, different, light on the present.

Tony Judt’s book A Grand Illusion?, published by Penguin, is a wonderful case in point. It’s a short, but dense essay of 130 pages, based on a series of lectures given in the mid-1990s by this renowned historian, a British citizen living and working in the United States.

Right at the beginning the author lists the three questions he wants to address in his book: ‘What are the prospects for the European Union? If they are not wholly rosy, why is that? And how much does it, in any event, matter whether a united Europe may or may not come about? (p. vii).

In his elaborate response to these questions, Tony Judt takes great care to draw the distinction between what may be considered the desirable outcome of the EU’s development and the possibility of it coming about. The least you can say is that there is a significant gap between the two. Judt remains more than doubtful with regard to the capacity of the Europe of 15 to realise its proclaimed objectives.

This book is written by a ‘Eurosceptic’ in the noblest sense of the word, before it was hi-jacked by the worst representatives of narrow-minded and populist nationalism. Judt sees no contradiction whatsoever in declaring himself at the same time ‘enthusiastically European’ and a ‘Euro-pessimist’. And the two are indeed not mutually exclusive: at the French referendum on the constitutional treaty in 2005, many citizens spoke about their deep disappointment when comparing their ideal of a united Europe with the prospects of the existing EU they were summoned to approve.

And like every self-respecting pessimist, Judt attributes the successes and achievements that European integration had nevertheless known simply to ‘good fortune’, an expression that is recurrent throughout the book and that translates a certain difficulty to explain why on earth Jean Monnet was so successful in his ground-breaking initiative, against all odds, and against the logic of ‘realism’. According to Judt, it is well ‘good fortune’, this ‘midwife of mid-twentieth-century Western European prosperity’ (p. 33), brought in by unique circumstances, that ‘fueled the vehicle of European unity’. Much more so in any case than ‘coal, labor, and dollars’ (p. 41).

As a result, to Judt, the ‘foundation myth of modern Europe  – that the European Community was and remains the kernel of a greater, pan-European prospect’ (p. 41), and the promise that this Europe would be ‘no mere neo-mercantilistic partnership of the rich and famous’ (p. 42) – is just that: a myth, and an empty promise. And he finds it difficult to have trust in this poorly identified object, born of a fortunate geopolitical configuration and both pushed and dominated by ‘separate and distinctive electoral concerns’ in the countries that made it up. (p. 23).

Tony Judt (1948-2010)

Tony Judt’s scepticism – which is always coloured with a good dose of melancholy perhaps due to his family roots in the heart of Mitteleuropa where he also drafted is book – does not allow him in 1995/96 to envisage that the European Union might actually be up to its historical task and overcome the old divisions of the continent. Quite the contrary: since ‘Western Europeans came to have a strong and growing interest in keeping Europe divided’ (p. 43), it seemed clear to him that they would perpetuate the exclusion of the poor cousins to the East. Not only for economic reasons, far from that: Judt sees an entire conceptual fault line running through the continent, when it comes to interpret what ‘Europe’ actually means, a ‘great gulf of uninterest and misunderstanding that separates east and west’ (p. 58).

On this point, as we know in hindsight, his profound scepticism misled him. The EU did integrate Central and Eastern Europe, sometimes even against the economic imperatives and despite serious shortcomings with regard to the rights of minorities or corruption. Where Judt is however more than clear-sighted is in his premonitions of the inevitable decline of the European Welfare State, which in his entire work he never ceased to praise as Europe’s greatest civilizational achievement. His concerns about the increased pressure he saw at work on social solidarity and cohesion all across the continent have been confirmed over the last two decades. And his analysis of both the predictable deepening of social inequality and the effects of demographic change and mass immigration, which he thought would inevitably lead to the resurgence of a reactionary and rancid nationalism, read today like an anticipation of populism triumphant in 2016.

At the end the author wonders whether the European Union had not better admit to itself that the famous ‘ever closer union’ simply is ‘impossible in practice, and (…) therefore perhaps imprudent to promise’ (p. 129). And he ends up a spokesman of neo-protectionist and sovereigntist voices when he concludes that it might well be possible that ‘the old-fashioned nation-state is a better form in which to secure collective loyalties, protect the disadvantaged, enforce a fairer distribution of resources, and compensate for disruptive transnational economic patterns’ (p. 130).

With such a conclusion, the reader is entitled to wonder why the title of the book actually carries a question mark. But even if Tony Judt’s elegant prose constitutes no doubt Europessimism’s finest clothes, it may not be as ‘realistic’ as it wants (and claims) to be.

To start with, it suffers, as Stanley Hoffman pointed out in his review in Foreign Affairs (No. 76, Janvier 1997, p. 139-145), of ‘exaggerations, contradictions and omissions’ that are characteristic to this type of Euroscepticism. According to him, Tony Judt’s book is certainly a remarkable essay, but at the same time a ‘jeremiad too fond of gloom and doom’.

I couldn’t agree more with this friendly criticism. The greatest shortcoming of A Grand Illusion? is no doubt the total lack of consideration for any kind of idealistic motivations in the setting up of the European community. These have, however, never been entirely absent in the difficult process of European integration. To reduce the historical miracle of genuine and deep-reaching reconciliation between France and Germany to a kind of pragmatic negotiation and bargaining, falls a little short of the truth. And reveals quite a bit about the perception the author has not only of international relations in general, but also of human nature. This perception is of course perfectly legitimate, but it only tells half the story.

A fascinating second reading for a book that, twenty years on, makes the reader aware that the coughing engine of the European bus actually still progresses on the bumpy road of integration (even if some passengers prefer to get off). A ride which is certainly never satisfying for Euro-enthusiasts, but a lot smoother than predicted by the Euro-pessimists.

The French version of this post kicked off
the ‘relecture’ series on the Alliance Europa blog.

 

The post Europessimism’s finest clothes appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Plenary sessions : Until the UK leaves the EU, it must obey EU laws on free movement, said a majority of MEPs in a plenary debate with the EU Commission on Wednesday. The EU Commission must ensure that the free movement rights of EU citizens living in the UK are respected, they added. Many speakers also underlined that EU citizens should not be used as ”bargaining chips” in the Brexit negotiations.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Plenary sessions : Until the UK leaves the EU, it must obey EU laws on free movement, said a majority of MEPs in a plenary debate with the EU Commission on Wednesday. The EU Commission must ensure that the free movement rights of EU citizens living in the UK are respected, they added. Many speakers also underlined that EU citizens should not be used as ”bargaining chips” in the Brexit negotiations.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Plenary sessions : MEPs called for safe environments for unaccompanied refugee children, including immediate appointment of guardians, hotlines and increased cross-border cooperation, in Wednesday’s debate with Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos on the disappearance of migrant children in Europe.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Plenary sessions : MEPs called for safe environments for unaccompanied refugee children, including immediate appointment of guardians, hotlines and increased cross-border cooperation, in Wednesday’s debate with Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos on the disappearance of migrant children in Europe.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Plenary sessions : MEPs led a debate with Commission representatives and the Maltese presidency of the Council on Wednesday afternoon regarding the upcoming European Council of 9-10 March. Many stressed the need to continue focussing on an ambitious EU, whereas some decried the EU’s current direction and track record.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Plenary sessions : MEPs led a debate with Commission representatives and the Maltese presidency of the Council on Wednesday afternoon regarding the upcoming European Council of 9-10 March. Many stressed the need to continue focussing on an ambitious EU, whereas some decried the EU’s current direction and track record.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

AMENDMENTS 4 - 8 - Draft opinion Guarantee Fund for external actions
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Plenary sessions : Lead MEPs from Parliament’s political groups reacted on Wednesday to the Commission’s Future of Europe White Paper, presented by its President Jean-Claude Juncker to the full House. Some MEPs welcomed the Commission’s decision to outline five possible paths for the EU to take in the coming years, while others criticized it for not picking a clear preferred path or providing concrete examples.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Plenary sessions : Lead MEPs from Parliament’s political groups reacted on Wednesday to the Commission’s Future of Europe White Paper, presented by its President Jean-Claude Juncker to the full House. Some MEPs welcomed the Commission’s decision to outline five possible paths for the EU to take in the coming years, while others criticized it for not picking a clear preferred path or providing concrete examples.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

On 2 March 2017, the Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper) agreed on a negotiating mandate to start negotiations with the European Parliament on a proposal for an entry-exit system. This system will register entry, exit and refusal of entry information of third country nationals crossing the external borders of the Schengen area.

The entry-exit system will help:

• reduce border check delays and improve the quality of border checks by automatically calculating the authorised stay of each traveller
• ensure systematic and reliable identification of overstayers and those who no longer fulfil the conditions for entry
• strengthen internal security and the fight against terrorism by allowing law enforcement authorities access to a travel history records

"Bringing our border controls up to date will help us manage the increasing flow of travellers. It is also a basic tool for managing migration better, in particular cases of overstay, as well as for improving our response to the current terrorist threat."

Carmelo Abela, Maltese Minister for Home Affairs and National Security

Coreper also agreed on a mandate for negotiations on a regulation amending the Schengen borders code in view of the entry-exit system.

On the basis of these mandates, the Maltese Presidency will start negotiations with the European Parliament.

The Council's position envisages several important elements, including the following.

Information stored

The entry-exit system will apply to third country nationals, both those requiring a visa and those visa-exempt, admitted for a short stay of 90 days in any 180 day period. It will register their entry, exit and refusal of entry.

It will also store information on their identity and travel documents as well as biometric data (four fingerprints and the facial image).

The draft regulation also provides for interoperability between the entry exit system and the visa information system (VIS) for those third country nationals who require a visa to cross the EU external border. Checking information against the VIS will ensure rapidity and efficiency at the border checks.

The entry-exit system consists of a central database, where the information is stored, connected to national uniform interfaces.

Data related to third country nationals will be kept for a period of five years for border management purposes.

Access to the information

The information stored in the entry-exit system will be accessible to border authorities, visa authorities and the authorities within the member states competent to check if a third country national fulfils the conditions of entry or stay.

Data in the entry-exit system will also be available to the designated law enforcement authorities and Europol, to prevent, detect and investigate terrorist offences or other serious crimes, according to conditions as set out in the Council position.

Any access and processing of the information contained in the entry-exit system should be proportionate and necessary for the performance of tasks of the competent authorities.

Background

The proposed regulation is a revised version of a legislative package presented by the Commission in February 2013. After the co-legislators voiced technical, financial and operation concerns on certain aspects of the 2013 package, the Commission carried out a technical study, followed by a pilot project entrusted to eu-LISA, the EU agency for the operational management of large scale IT systems. On the basis of the results of this preparatory phase, the Commission presented a revised proposal on 6 April 2016.

On 2 March 2017, EU ambassadors confirmed, on behalf of the Council, the informal agreement reached on 28 February 2017 between the Maltese Presidency and the European Parliament on visa liberalisation for Ukrainians. 

The agreement provides for visa-free travel for Ukrainian citizens when travelling to the EU for a period of stay of 90 days in any 180-day period. 

We have demonstrated our strong commitment to visa-free travel for Ukrainian citizens, now that Ukraine has met the necessary conditions for a visa free regime. The reform of the suspension mechanism adopted on 27 February enabled us to finalise this agreement.

Carmelo Abela, Maltese Minister for Home Affairs and National Security Next steps 

Now that the agreement has been confirmed by EU ambassadors, on behalf of the Council, the regulation will be submitted to the European Parliament for a vote at first reading, and subsequently to the Council for adoption.

Background 

In December 2015 the Commission found that Ukraine had met all the benchmarks of the visa liberalisation plan and was therefore ready for the exemption of the visa requirement. On 20 April 2016 the Commission published the proposal for visa liberalisation for holders of Ukrainian passports. 

Once the new visa regime for Ukraine is formally adopted, it will  move the country from Annex I of Regulation 539/2001 (countries whose nationals need a visa to enter the Schengen area) to Annex II of the same regulation (visa free countries). 

In the context of the current migratory and security situation in the European Union, and taking into account its proposals on visa liberalisation for Georgia, Ukraine, Turkey and Kosovo, the Commission decided in May 2016 to present a proposal for a regulation revising the current suspension mechanism. The revised suspension mechanism allows, in specific circumstances, for the suspension of the visa waiver for the nationals of a specific country. 

In its negotiating position on visa liberalisation for Ukrainian citizens, agreed on 17 November 2016, Coreper took the view that the instrument should not enter into force before the entry into force of the revised suspension mechanism. The Council adopted the regulation on the suspension mechanism on 27 February 2017.

Ireland and the United Kingdom will not be subject to the application of these measures, in accordance with the protocols annexed to the EU treaties. The visa regime of these member states remains subject to their national legislation.

Statement by the AFET Chair David McAllister/AFET Rapporteur on Ukraine Jacek Saryusz-Wolski and the Chair of the Delegation-EU-Ukraine PAC Dariusz Rosati: “We warmly welcome the political agreement reached between the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission on 28 February 2017 on the granting of a visa-free regime for Ukrainian citizens, which has been advocated for years by the European Parliament....."
Further information
Read the complete statement here
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Plenary sessions : A statement on the EU Commission’s “Future of Europe” White Paper, by its President Jean-Claude Juncker, was added as the first item on the agenda.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Plenary sessions : A statement on the EU Commission’s “Future of Europe” White Paper, by its President Jean-Claude Juncker, was added as the first item on the agenda.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Place:
Europa building, Brussels

Chair:
Roderick Galdes, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Animal Rights

All times are approximate and subject to change

+/- 08.00
Arrivals
VIP entrance, Europa building 

+/- 08.45
Doorstep by Roderick Galdes 

+/- 10.00
Beginning of the meeting (Roundtable TV/Photo opportunity)
Adoption of the agenda
Adoption of non-legislative A items 

+/- 10.10
Multi-annual plan for small pelagic species in the Adriatic Sea (live streaming)

+/- 11.10
Any other business
- Our Oceans 2017
- Animal welfare platform
- Lumpy skin disease
- Dual quality of foodstuffs

+/- 12.45
Lunch break

+/- 14.15
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) post-2020 (Roundtable TV/Photo opportunity)

+/- 16.30
Any other business
- Better functioning of the food supply chain
- G20 agriculture ministers' conference
- EU Solidarity Corps
- Market difficulties in the Polish fruit sector
- Voluntary coupled support
- Forum on EU rice sector

+/- 18.05
Press conference in Justus Lipsius building (live streaming)

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Plenary session and committee meetings, Brussels

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP