European Union

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn+var sbFBAPPID = '457641991045477';

Syrian Kurds declared a de-facto federal region in Kurdish-controlled areas of northern Syria, after the end of a two-day conference in the town of Rmeilan in the Syrian province of Hassakeh on Thursday.

Representatives of the Kurdish, Arab, Assyrian communities and other ethnic groups participated in the conference and commonly decided to bring the three Kurdish-led autonomous areas (Jazira, Kobani and Afrin) under the umbrella of one federal region, called Rojava. According to the statement released after the conference, the federal region will be a part of Syria and an autonomous state.

“At least 200 representatives have met in Rmeilan to put forward this decision. We expect to hold several other meetings to discuss how the administration of this region will be organized… a federal and democratic Syria is a guarantee of coexistence and brotherly relations,” the statement reads.

The announcement was not welcomed by the Syrian government, as the Syrian Foreign Ministry said that “any such announcement has no legal value and will not have any legal, political, social or economic impact as long as it does not reflect the will of the entire Syrian people.” One of the main enemies of the Syrian regime, the Syrian National Coalition, also rejected the Syrian Kurds declaration and warned of any attempt to form autonomous regions that “confiscate the will of the Syrian people.”

According to Reuters, Washington, which supports Rojava forces in their battle against the Islamic State, also said that it would not recognize the new federation. “We don’t support self-ruled, semi-autonomous zones inside Syria. We just don’t,” said State Department spokesman John Kirby and added. “What we want to see is a unified, whole Syria that has in place a government that is not led by Bashar al-Assad, that is responsive to the Syrian people. Whole, unified, nonsectarian Syria, that’s the goal.”

On the other hand, according to the Associated Press (AP), Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov this week said that a federal system in Syria, is one possible option if the Syrian people agree to it.

Turkey, which is on war with the Syrian Kurds, also rejected the establishment of the federal region. A Turkish official told Reuters: “Syria must remain as one without being weakened and the Syrian people must decide on its future in agreement and with a constitution. Every unilateral initiative will harm Syria’s unity.”

However, the move most probably angered the Turkish government which fears that the growing Kurdish power in Syria will cause separatism movements in Southern Eastern Turkey, where most of the Turkish Kurds live. The Turkish government has already started military operations against the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) in Northern Syria and against the outlawed Kurdistan’s Worker’s Party (PKK) in Southern Eastern Turkey.

Syrian peace talks

Meanwhile, the UN envoy for Syria emerged from the fourth day of peace talks in Geneva to tell reporters that significant gaps remain between the two sides.

Staffan de Mistura said he’d host both sides separately on Friday to accelerate the process. He also said there were “no discussions about federalism” — a reference to the Syrian Kurdish declaration. De Mistura has said though that the Syrian Kurds deserve a spot at the negotiating table in Geneva.

Even though the Syrian Kurds are the most effective ground forces in the war against the Islamic State (IS) in Syria the PYD was left out of from the peace talks. The exclusion of the Syria Kurds, was in line with the demand of the Turkish government, which sees the Syrian party as a terrorist group which co-operates with PKK and threats the Turkish interests equally as the IS.

However, the rest of the international community doesn’t see PYD as a terrorist group and Moscow, strongly insisted that the Kurds should have been invited to the upcoming peace talks, suggesting that leaving them out could endanger Syria’s territorial integrity.

Rodi Osman, the head of Syrian Kurdistan’s office in Moscow, told Russian news agency, RIA Novosti, that the exclusion of the Syrian Kurds from the peace talks was a definite factor for the Rojava declaration.

“The second round of inter-Syrian talks is underway in Geneva, but Syrian Kurds were not invited. It means that the future of Syria and its society is decided without Kurds. In fact, we are pushed back into a conservative, old-fashioned system which does not fit well with us,” Osman said and added. “In light of this, we see only one solution which is to declare the creation of [Kurdish] federation. It will serve the interests of the Kurds, but also those of Arabs, Turks, Assyrians, Chechens and Turkomans – all parts of Syria’s multinational society. Given the complicated situation in Syria, we would become an example of a system that may resolve the Syrian crisis.”

The post Syrian Kurds declare de-facto federal region in Northern Syria despite criticism appeared first on New Europe.

36shares Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn+What's This?var sbFBAPPID = '457641991045477';

European Union leaders will try to convince Turkey’s prime minister Ahmet Davutoglu on Friday to accept a common plan to help end Europe’s migration crisis in return for financial and political concessions but they remain unsure if Friday’s Brussels summit can clinch a deal.

“Tomorrow’s negotiations with Turkey won’t be very easy,” said German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who devised the outlines of the plan with Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, after EU leaders agreed a common stance on Thursday.

At late night talks in Brussels on Thursday, leaders arrived at a common for negotiations with Turkey that they said would not result in mass deportations and some differences were bridged over sweeteners to give Turkey in exchange for its help.

But Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said that reaching an agreement had not been easy.

“There too, it is a complicated process,” he said. “I think we can get a deal out of this, we have to get a deal out of this. But the race is not really finished yet.”

A senior Turkish official told Reuters that Davutoglu would press the EU to open up new areas of negotiation on its long-stalled bid to join the bloc, despite a veto threat by Cyprus.

“We’re on the right track but we’re not there yet,” French President Francois Hollande told reporters after the first day of talks in Brussels. “I can’t guarantee you a happy ending.”

Even if they can overcome possible Turkish objections, Thursday’s EU discussions revealed considerable doubts among the Europeans themselves over whether a deal could be made either legal in international law, or workable.

Desperate to ease the pressure placed on Europe’s borders by the arrival of more than 1 million migrants in a year, the EU has turned to Turkey hoping to stem the flow of refugees into overburdened Greece.

The plan would essentially outsource Europe’s biggest refugee emergency in decades to Turkey, despite concerns about its sub-par asylum system and human rights abuses.

Under it, the EU would pay to send new migrants arriving in Greece who don’t qualify for asylum back to Turkey. For every migrant returned, the EU would accept one Syrian refugee, for a total of 72,000 people to be distributed among European states.

In exchange for the help of Turkey — home to 2.7 million Syrian refugees — the EU will offer up to 6 billion euros in aid, an easing of visa restrictions for Turkish citizens and faster EU membership talks.

The summit chairman, EU Council President Donald Tusk, and Rutte are scheduled to present Europe’s terms for an agreement to Davutoglu on Friday for his endorsement.

If Davutoglu objects, the heads of state and government of the 28 EU nations will meet again to reconsider their position.

But Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel warned that Turkey must not expect a free ride: “We’d rather have no agreement than a bad agreement.”

Human rights groups and leading EU legislators have decried the plan as a cynical cave-in, sacrificing universal rights to pander to a restless electorate fed up with hosting people who are fleeing war and poverty.

Even some leaders acknowledged the EU was walking a tightrope.

“It is on the edge of international law,” Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite said before leaders signed off on the tentative deal.

The post EU reaches common position on proposals for Turkey, but deal far from sure appeared first on New Europe.

78shares Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn+What's This?var sbFBAPPID = '457641991045477';

As the 28 EU heads of state and government went to dinner, they discussed economic issues with the European Central Bank (ECB) president Mario Draghi. “We need reforms and investments”, suggested an EU source, referring the to Jean-Claude Juncker investment plan of €72 billion.

Regarding the discussions that took place during the first part of the EU summit, the UK appears to have raised objections over VAT issues.

Concerning the migration issue, “atmospheric indications from EPP and S&D pre-Summit sessions were moving into a direction of the two political sides showing “understanding”. “Europe is facing a dilemma, either Idomeni, or Turkey”, an EU source insisted, talking about an agreement where Turkey would have a “processing role”. “None of the member states opposed” this, the EU source confirmed, while continuing to say that there would be a tripartite meeting between Turkish prime minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, European Council president Donald Tusk and European Commission president taking place either on Thursday late at night or on Friday morning.

On issues that remain open – like the Turkey agreement, the source pointed out that the EU’s determination remains intact, as there is a struggle in finding the correct wording on the five or six chapters in the negotiation of the country’s accession to the EU that appear to be “frozen”, due to Turkey’s refusal to implement the Ankara agreement on Cyprus. There is a common initiative on behalf of France and Cyprus concerning Turkey’s rejection of free circulation within Cyprus.

The 28 leaders are working at the moment in order to find a formula that secures Cyprus’ interests, but that will also provide acceptable wording for Turkey, “even in visual terms”. However, there is a second “objective difficulty”, if a deal between EU and Turkey is to be reached, as the plan has to be worked out in logistics terms, bearing a huge weight not only for Greece but for the EU as a whole. “Greece will then become a de facto outer border of Europe”.

New Europe has earlier presented the detailed plan that the European Commission was to present to the EU leaders tonight. “The alternative to this plan is not one, but many Idomeni-like situations”, the EU source concluded.

As far the visa liberalisation process is concerned, Turkey still has to fulfil the requirements of about half of 72 criteria by the end of April 2016, so that the EU can recommend to the member states the lifting of visa obligations for Turks on brief trips by the end of June.

The remaining problems consist of the French government’s opposing the visa liberalisation for Turks, partly on security grounds, due to popular fears that this would mean even more immigration, because modern, biometric passports would not be issued immediately. Cyprus also seeks for its citizens to be treated like all other EU citizens, something Turkey rejects since it does not recognise Cyprus as a state.

The post 28 EU leaders show ‘understanding’ while issues over Turkey and Cyprus remain open appeared first on New Europe.

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/62cfd496-6d9f-11e5-92fb-bc764e08d9b2_48.88_thumb_169_1458036453_1458036453_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU heads of state or government meet on 17 March 2016 in Brussels to focus on migration and economic issues.

Download this video here.

Today, we have finally reached an agreement between the EU and Turkey. An agreement aimed at stopping the flow of irregular migration via Turkey to Europe.

Let me mention key elements that allowed us to reach this agreement in the last days and hours: 

First, we needed to ensure that each and every migrant arriving in Europe will be treated individually. In other words that our agreement complies with all EU and international laws. This includes the respect for the principle of non-refoulement and it excludes any kind of collective expulsions. The EU agencies and the UNHCR will be invited to participate in this process. As for the legality of this agreement I want to express my thanks to Jean-Claude and the Commission for their work and contribution. 

Second, I made it clear that this deal needs to be acceptable for all EU member states, regardless of their size. Today we have a balanced proposal that takes on board Cypriot concerns. When it comes to accession talks with Turkey, we agreed to open Chapter 33 during the Dutch presidency based on the Commission's proposal to be presented in April.

Finally, on timing. We agreed that all irregular migrants coming from Turkey into Greek islands as from 20 March, this Sunday, will be returned to Turkey. The implementation will be phased-in gradually and based on the so-called one-for-one principle.

On a more general note, some may think this agreement is a silver bullet. But reality is more complex. It is just one pillar of the European Union's comprehensive strategy and can work only if the other pillars are also implemented. This includes: strengthening the EU's external borders, keeping the Western Balkans' route closed and getting back to Schengen, amongst other elements.

Leaders called for strengthening of our cooperation with the Western Balkan countries in tackling the migration crisis. Yesterday I spoke with President Ivanov about it and reassured him of our support. 

Last night, we also discussed the economic situation in the presence of the ECB President Mario Draghi and endorsed recommendations on re-launching investment, implementing reforms and ensuring sound public finances. 

On climate, we tasked legislators to put in place everything necessary to enable the ratification of the Paris agreement as soon as possible. Leaders also decided that our plans to achieve energy security should be stepped up, in line with the Energy Union strategy. 

Last but not least, let me finish by saying that yesterday I discussed with President Petro Poroshenko, among others,  the case of Nadiya Savchenko, who is illegally detained in Russia. We also discussed this issue among leaders and I was asked to express the EU position that calls for the immediate release of Nadiya Savchenko along with Oleh Sentsov and all other Ukrainian citizens held in illegal detention. Thank you.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn+var sbFBAPPID = '457641991045477';

EU leaders seem to be arriving at an agreement concerning their plan to send back to Turkey tens of thousands of would-be asylum seekers who set out by boat for the Greek islands, in exchange for concessions that would reward Ankara with billions of dollars in aid, unprecedented visa access to Europe and promises of faster European Union membership talks.

Leaders will meet on Friday with Turkish prime minister Ahmet Davutoglu.

Earlier today, Belgium’s Prime Minister Charles Michel said that he would rather have no agreement than a bad one. “We are going to defend European interests.”

“Turkey is really asking for a lot. I refuse to accept negotiations that sometimes resemble a form of blackmail,” said Charles Michel.

Human rights groups and leading EU legislators decried the plan as a cynical move, sacrificing universal rights to reward a restless electorate fed up with hosting people who are fleeing war and poverty.

Even some leaders acknowledged the EU was walking a tightrope.

“It is on the edge of international law,” Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite said of the outline deal that the 28-nation bloc hopes to sign off on before putting it up for approval to Turkey on Friday.

Some also criticized Turkey, which hosts 2.7 million refugees, complaining it was cynically trying to exploit the situation to win concessions well beyond its reach under normal circumstances.

Desperate to plug a yawning border hole that has seen more than 1 million people arrive in Europe in search of sanctuary or jobs, EU leaders have been increasingly looking to outsource management of the influx to Turkey.

They see the deal with Turkey as a way to halt the flow by land and sea, especially as the weather turns warmer, and prevent people from turning to unscrupulous smugglers.

Under the plan, set to be finalized Friday in the presence of Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, the EU would resettle one Syrian refugee currently in Turkey to the EU, in exchange for each person that Turkey takes back to Greece.

Other issues of trust have surfaced. The EU will provide Turkey with 3 billion euros to help Syrian refugees, but will only increase that fund by up to another 3 billion euros more if Ankara uses the money appropriately.

Guy Verhofstadt, leader of the Liberal ALDE group in the European Parliament, said that “it cannot be the Turks who decide who enters the EU as a refugee. We have to keep the keys to Europe in our own hands.”

Spain also opposes any blanket return of migrants, even though the EU’s executive Commission insists that every migrant will have an individual interview and the right to appeal.

Cyprus is threatening to veto one of the sweeteners meant to win Turkey’s backing; faster EU membership talks. Turkey does not recognize the Mediterranean island’s Greek-Cypriot government.

“Every candidate country should fulfill its obligations, and it’s obvious that unfortunately, until now, Turkey hasn’t,” President Nicos Anastasiades said today.

The post EU leaders are nearing an agreement on Turkey, refugees appeared first on New Europe.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn+var sbFBAPPID = '457641991045477';

Privacy Shield is a transatlantic framework agreement that will “limit” and “regulate” how US firms handle European citizens’ data.

The agreement was concluded by the European Commission on February 2nd. But, the European Parliament feels the agreement is neither limiting nor regulating enough. And in any case, it is unlikely to survive legal scrutiny.

The digital transatlantic partnership

On Thursday, March 17, Members of the European Parliament were holding a hearing trying to scrutinize a transatlantic partnership worth billions of Euros and Dollars, but one that has received much less media attention. That is the so-called “Privacy Shield.”

Privacy Shield was the fruit of a negotiation that started in November 2015 to be concluded within three months, that is, a record by any measure. The Members of the “Citizens’ Rights, Justice and Home Affairs Committee” are scrutinizing an agreement that technology firms are quite eager to see ratified as soon as possible.

4,000 US-based tech-corporations operating in Europe, from Facebook and Google to Twitter and LinkedIn do not have a legal framework that regulates how the data they mine from individual citizens can be stored, used, and shared.

For an industry whose bread and butter is data that is quite consequential.

An industry on thin air

On October 6 2015, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that permitting US public authorities “access on a generalized basis” to the content of electronic communications “must be regarded as compromising the essence of the fundamental right to respect for private life,” that is, article seven of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In effect, the ECJ obliterated the Safe Harbour agreement concluded by the Prodi Commission in 2000.

This was of course the result of a battle initiated by the Austrian litigation-activist, Max Shrems. Since Edward Snowden revealed the US intelligence operation “PRISM,” through which US authorities drew personal data from Facebook, Twitter, and Google, Schrems sought to find out whether his own data were protected. The Austrian law graduate began his litigation battle in Ireland – Facebook’s tax heaven of operations – and moved on to the ECJ.

Following the ECJ ruling in October 2015, the whole tech-sector in Europe was standing on regulatory thin air. A working group of 28 data protection regulators in the EU gave the European Commission a January deadline to come up with an agreement. Meanwhile, US-based technology firms were asked to limit Europeans’ personal data transfer to the United States.

For the industry, the clock was clearly ticking.

But, politics requires time

Today, the European Commission contends that Privacy Shield improves data protection standards. New standards include a US-based dedicated ombudsman to allow Europeans to raise concerns or complaints.

European Commission Vice-President Andrus Ansip, says that “personal data is fully protected.” Vĕra Jourová added that “the United States has given the EU binding assurances that public authority access for national security purposes will be subject to clear limitations, safeguards and oversight mechanisms.”

The EPP spokesperson, Axel Voss, moved to support the European Commission suggesting that the agreement is “of paramount importance to our digital economy” calling the new framework “clear” and “reasonable.”

Others are less convinced.

The Socialists and Democrats spokesperson, Birgit Sippel, said that the agreement does nopt seem “to rectify the problems with the previous system,” which means “it is unlikely to stand up in court.” ALDE group First Vice-President Sophie in ‘t Veld  also doubted “an ombudsman will have sufficient powers to oversee US intelligence services.” GUE/NGL accused the Commission of “merrily letting data transfers to the US continue” despite the ECJ ruling. The Greens/EFA group MEP Jan Albrecht called the “Privacy Shield” a reheating of the “Safe Harbour.”

The post Privacy Shield: a transatlantic partnership with many opponents appeared first on New Europe.

74shares Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn+What's This?var sbFBAPPID = '457641991045477';

An extraordinary assistance programme to Greece is being drafted by the EU in order to achieve the fast implementation of the new asylum scheme, as well as the already approved relocation and readmission plan for refugees.

An EU source stated that in order to transfer migrants and refugees from the Greek islands to the mainland, and to implement the 1/1 scheme between Greece and Turkey, solid further assistance will be needed.

Greece will need 200 supplementary border control officers who will register the incoming migrants and refugees as supervisors of the whole procedure. Athens will also need 400 asylum handlers from the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), 50 repatriation specialists through the FRONTEX mechanism, 40 judges and other specialists in asylum law, 150 translators and further technical assistance.

EU sources confirm that the EU Commission’s plan has not yet been presented to any member state, not even to Greece.

At the moment, the heads of states and governments are taking a 20 minutes break, after dinner, in order to resume their negotiations surrounding the draft reports on migration that are on the table.

The post European Commission presents plan on human capital and technical assistance to Greece appeared first on New Europe.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn+var sbFBAPPID = '457641991045477';

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and non-OPEC members will meet on April 17 in Doha in a bid to stabilise falling crude prices, Qatar’s Energy Minister Mohammed Bin Saleh Al-Sada reportedly said on March 16.

The Qatari minister, who is also the current OPEC president, said in a statement that 15 OPEC and non-OPEC members accounting for some 73% of global oil output supported the initiative, including the world’s top exporter Saudi Arabia, and Russia.

Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak also said some 15 countries were expected to take part in the meeting. “We talked with ministers of different countries today and discussed the date of the relevant meeting and consultations between OPEC and non-OPEC countries. We agree such meeting will take place on April 17 in Doha,” TASS quoted Novak as saying, adding that documents for the meeting will be prepared during the remaining time.

“This is most likely to be a resolution or a joint declaration setting forth intentions of the parties to freeze oil production at the level not higher than in January 2016,” Novak added.

Brent crude was trading just under $39 a barrel on March 16, up from a 12-year low of $27.10 reached in January.

Iraq, the biggest source of OPEC supply growth in 2015, reportedly said on March 14 that the freeze initiative was acceptable.

“Measures to monitor arrangements will be discussed, he said. “Qatar, the chairing country in the OPEC, will now send invitations to all countries, both OPEC and non-OPEC members. About fifteen countries confirmed participation within the consultations framework,” Novak said.

Iran is ready to take part in the meeting, Novak said. The meeting will also discuss proposals on measures if production stabilisation arrangements are breached, he added.

Meanwhile, RT quoted Novak as saying that Tehran needs an individual approach in an oil production freeze, as the Islamic Republic’s production is at its lowest.

Konstantin Simonov, the general director of Russia’s National Energy Security Fund, told New Europe on March 17 that even without Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, “all of them together, produce some 26-27 million barrels per day so it will be enough. But, of course, there are a lot of obstacles in this story because first of all you can avoid Iran if you are speaking about the real amount of production. But if you are speaking about psychological aspect you can’t avoid Iran”. Simonov added that Iran is a member of OPEC and without the Islamic country “psychologically you cannot have the full deal”.

“But it is not only the Iran problem. This triangle Russia-Iran-Saudi Arabia is a very problematic. Saudi Arabia is one of the most serious political enemies of Russia. At least now we have a common threat – low oil prices,” he said.

“We can say this common threat can unite us and we can have common position on this issue but in reality we’re still enemies and it’s also the question what will be the result of this Syrian story, withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria because for Iran it was a very bad surprise. Iran was disappointed by this decision of [Russian President Vladimir] Putin but we were disappointed by the policy of Iran in Syria because the idea was very simple: Russia will give air force but Iran will give ground operations and Iran was not involved in this war,” Simonov said.

The post Oil producers want to prop up prices appeared first on New Europe.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn+var sbFBAPPID = '457641991045477';

The Presidential election that is taking place in the Republic of Congo will tell us much about the progress of democracy in the country, as well as our own western attitudes towards African democracy.

The pundits are confident that Angela Merkel will next year enter a fourth term as leader of one of the world’s great democracies. Shortly after that, David Cameron will voluntarily hand over his role as UK prime minister to whoever the UK Conservative Party – as opposed to the UK public – chooses. Two of Cameron’s three immediate predecessors served three terms. And, indeed, Lynton Crosby, the strategist credited with Cameron’s election successes, carried out exactly the same role for four-term Australian premier John Howard.

In Europe, the question of term limits for national leaders is never mentioned by voters. Where it is referred to at all, it is the stuff of rarefied discourse in academic common rooms. The priorities for electors are, as ever, the economy, public safety and security, healthcare, education and other staples.

In broad terms, the priorities of African voters are no different: why would they be? So when these voters are told by people in developed nations, often their former colonial masters, that they should not re-elect the same person more than once – regardless of any perceived public benefit that person or party may bring – this makes so little sense to them and appears so nakedly hypocritical that they suspect ulterior motives.

The democratic period was proceeded by a Marxist one-party state and civil war, and began early this century. It has been one of consistent economic growth, increasingly successful healthcare, literacy rates that rank amongst Africa’s highest, and a tax-to-GDP ratio at the EU average. The Republic’s main cities, Brazzaville and Pointe Noire, are safe and public security is significantly better than in most neighbouring states.

The nation works constructively with the Bretton Woods institutions, has an inflation rate of around 2% and a declining unemployment rate. It is an exemplary member of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), the leading world body that works to assure transparency in the extractives sectors. The country is presently being punished as much as any other economy reliant on oil revenue, yet it is working hard to diversify.

It is far from perfect, of course.  In terms of social policy and development, there is much work to do. The Congolese understand this. In their streets, bars, homes and workplaces people talk keenly about priorities and hopes; and about their aspirations for their children (the average age in the Congo is a fraction under 20).

In many ways, though, Congolese people want more of the same – only better. They do not seem blinkered or downtrodden. They are as quick with criticism of government and politicians as citizens across Europe – an evening spent watching television brings this home quite forcibly. The fundamental difference is that they understand how bad things could be. Only last week, they saw on their televisions the terrorist murders in neighbouring Cote d’Ivoire and gaze daily across the great Congo river at the much less well-off and unstable Democratic Republic of Congo. They believe that things will continue to progress in their own country, and for the largest part believe that the president who has delivered all of this change remains preferable to the unknown.

I prefer to think, however, that it is goodwill, and not hypocrisy that has led to this ‘third-term’ disconnect. Many Europeans are passionate in wanting the best for those African states that we harmed at birth or later through neglect and brutal interventionism. In the 21st century, some of that passion translates into postcolonial guilt. But it is no less real for all that.

Yet here in Brazzaville, it feels very much like the European insistence on a two-term maximum ought to be a suggestion rather than a demand disguised as a moral imperative. If we truly wish to assist these proud sovereign states, Africans should never be expected to interpret our advice as orders.

The 2015 constitutional change that allowed Sassou Nguesso to stand again also brought in shorter presidencies, and passed to parliament the important power to appoint the re-instated post of prime minister. It reformed and gave significant new powers to the constitutional court. Additionally, it gave official status to the opposition, created a series of new national consultative bodies, beefed up human rights guarantees and introduced significant electoral reforms. It abolished the death penalty: no small feat. Yet these measures have been largely overlooked whilst we in the west remain fixated on the “third-term”.

It may be true that political term-limits foster strong institutions that act to check and balance governments and to prevent poor practice. Yet we in Europe have not reached consensus on that question ourselves, and therefore can hardly place it as the over-riding requirement of a nation’s progress. Moreover, Congo-B is a good example of a democratic African country whose people choose their leader freely but only for one more term, and even then on a strict basis of social and economic ‘deliverables’.

In this new, and dare one say even optimistic, era of African democracy the same laws of physics and politics seem likely to apply eventually. So, for now, Denis Sassou Nguessou is as popular as the Congo’s progress under his leadership would seem to justify. And perhaps for now we should accept African third-termers as a historical conclusion of the lifetimes’ work of the actual individuals who brought their nations through the tough times we ourselves created in the early 1960s.

Given a choice between a hopelessly split, ineffectual and often self-serving opposition against a capable operator and leader who won his political spurs in the toughest of ways and is committed to building on the solid foundations that he has created, the people of the people of the Republic of Congo look set to chose Denis Sassou Nguesso. That seems fair enough.

 

The post Republic of Congo: the power of democracy in Africa appeared first on New Europe.

General : Talks with Turkey on dealing with the refugee crisis should not be linked to the country’s efforts to join the EU, warned Martin Schulz. The EP President addressed European heads of state and government at the start of the EU summit on 17-18 March dedicated to the migration crisis and economic priorities. “Turkey won’t get any discounts on media freedom and minority protection, the separation of powers or the rule of law,” he said, calling them “non-negotiable issues”.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : Talks with Turkey on dealing with the refugee crisis should not be linked to the country’s efforts to join the EU, warned Martin Schulz. The EP President addressed European heads of state and government at the start of the EU summit on 17-18 March dedicated to the migration crisis and economic priorities. “Turkey won’t get any discounts on media freedom and minority protection, the separation of powers or the rule of law,” he said, calling them “non-negotiable issues”.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : The conflict in Syria, which started five years ago this month, has led to the world's largest humanitarian disaster since World War II. Last month two groups of MEPs visited Turkey to see for themselves the living conditions of some of the 2.5 million Syrian refugees there. They were led by EP Vice-President Sylvie Guillaume and budgets committee chair Jean Arthuis. In a chat with EP's Facebook followers this week the two MEPs spoke of the importance of solidarity in tackling the influx.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : The conflict in Syria, which started five years ago this month, has led to the world's largest humanitarian disaster since World War II. Last month two groups of MEPs visited Turkey to see for themselves the living conditions of some of the 2.5 million Syrian refugees there. They were led by EP Vice-President Sylvie Guillaume and budgets committee chair Jean Arthuis. In a chat with EP's Facebook followers this week the two MEPs spoke of the importance of solidarity in tackling the influx.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn+var sbFBAPPID = '457641991045477';

Spending in Presidential races is breaking one record after another, but money alone does not buy power.

Since July 2010, when a US federal court decision allowed for the creation of “independent” expenditure committees that can raise unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, associations, and individuals, spending in US politics has been spiraling out of control. In 2016 alone, according to a lobbying industry monitor, nearly $260 million have been spent. That is a third of what was spent in 2012 for the Presidential campaign as a whole.

Of course, those so called Super-PACs cannot donate money directly to a political candidate and cannot coordinate their spending with campaign manager, but they can spend to support the candidates of their liking independently. However, money alone does not seem to buy public “love.”

The proof is that the most successful in money raising was Jeb Bush, who nonetheless was forced to drop out of the race in February, failing to win even a single primary. One Super Pac standing behind him named “Right to Rise USA” had amassed $118,685,876 for a candidate that did not make it even to the top three of the race. His campaign raised $157,6 million, but only had the time to spend $30,7.

Up to now, donors have spent $200 million on candidates dropping out of the race, with money buying little more than this air, unless seen of course as a long term investment.

Through polarizing, violent, and politically incorrect language, Donald Trump has secured thousands of hours’ worth of media coverage completely free. That was also better quality coverage, since political advertising is thrown into audience with “saturated” attention spans, who may be trained to bounce off political messaging during dense campaigns with a multitude of candidates. As a self-pronounced “anti-establishment” choice, Trump renounced seper PACS and is paying a lot out of his own pocket.

Still, money does talk.

Hillary Clinton’s primary super PAC has raised $51 million, which may not be needed in the primaries. In addition, her campaign has raised $188 million, has spent $97,5 and she has $32 million cash in hand.

That is approximately double the money Bernie Sanders has raised. His campaign boasts 5 million unique contributors, and has raised $96,3 million, but has spent already $81,6. And he has no Super PAC money.

No one can enter a race without serious money. Money is in-itself part of the campaign and is counted as much as endorsements. It is power. But, votes are not a commodity and there are many ways to getting media attention.

(Yahoo Finance, New York Times)

The post US Primaries: money alone can’t buy love appeared first on New Europe.

General : The European Parliament will once again mark "Earth Hour" by switching off lights in all its buildings on Saturday 19 March from 20.30h to 21.30h. "Earth Hour" is a global environmental initiative, begun in Sydney in 2007, to raise awareness of the need to act to fight climate change.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : The European Parliament will once again mark "Earth Hour" by switching off lights in all its buildings on Saturday 19 March from 20.30h to 21.30h. "Earth Hour" is a global environmental initiative, begun in Sydney in 2007, to raise awareness of the need to act to fight climate change.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP