European Union

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

Let me start by quoting the EU Trade and Investment Strategy approved by the EU Council on 27 November 2015: “The EU’s strategic interest remains to achieve closer economic ties with Russia. The prospects for this will, however, be determined primarily by the course of Russia’s domestic and foreign policy, which so far gives no signs of necessary changes. The developments within the Eurasian Economic Union also have to be reflected upon”. This is all that the European Commission can say at the moment regarding its trade strategy towards Russia. One can draw a logical conclusion: Russia is absent from the official economic strategy of the EU. In the meantime, though, the European Union seems to have its own view of what Russia’s domestic and foreign policy should be and how it should change – presumably, in EU’s own interests.

Meanwhile the Russia-EU trade is worth over 200, and more recently over 300 billion euros per year. One cannot ignore such an impressive figure, even for political reasons. I am absolutely sure that in spite of brevity of language of the above-mentioned Strategy, in reality the European Commission gives considerable thought to the future of our economic relations.

So, how do our trade links look at the moment? According to Eurostat data, the mutual turnover was at its maximum in 2012 – 338,5 billion euros. It started to contract in 2013 and fell to 284,6 billion euros in 2014. During 11 months of 2015 it fell additionally by more than 70 billion euros, or approximately by a third. As a result, today the trade volume has recoiled to its level of 6 to 7 years ago.

It is no secret that a significant part of our trade is accounted for by energy materials – mostly natural gas and oil. That is why the abrupt fall of world prices for oil and – as consequence – for gas produced a considerable impact. The lion’s share of the contraction of trade volumes – almost 35 billion euros last year, for example – belonged to energy trade.

But at the same time we witnessed a drastic downturn of EU exports to Russia which does not depend on oil prices. It fell during 2012-2014 by 20 billion euros in annual terms and again by almost a third last year. One can only conclude that the oil prices are only part of the story.

One should also take into consideration the fact that exports of non-fuel commodities from Russia to the EU suffered a much smaller contraction and in some cases even increased in 2015. I can assure you that our producers stay keen to continue trading with the EU.

No doubt, the fall of EU exports to considerable degree was caused by external factors, namely world economic recession and lower demand in Russia. But let’s face it: this was not the only reason, and perhaps not a decisive one. The situation visibly deteriorated after the EU introduced in 2014 unilateral economic restrictions against Russia. Russia responded by declaring a ban on a major part of agricultural imports. As a result EU agricultural exports to Russia during 10 months of last year fell by 40%. Russia embarked on a policy of import substitution and sought suppliers from third countries. According to the Commission’s estimates, as you well know, the initial damage for EU agriculture reached approximately 5 billion euros and continues to rise. Moreover, it is well known that the agricultural market is rather volatile: once you leave it, it becomes complicated to come back, and your niche rapidly gets filled by others.

The exports of technical goods from the EU have also gone down. During the same 10 months of last year they fell from 40,4 to 26,8 billion euros. It is really hard to attribute this only to weaker demand of Russian importers. There is evidence that EU companies have started feeling insecure about political and economic perspectives of trade with Russia, fearing to violate, possibly involuntarily, certain intricate aspects of the so-called sanctions, perhaps even not the EU ones but those imposed by the US. Mostly renowned, experienced partners have stayed, whose economic stakes in Russia were too high.

Summing up: deterioration of political climate has led to contraction of economic turnover at least as much as the world recession and the oil prices.

Let us now take a look at what happened in trade policy sphere.

Even before the EU introduced what we might call “material” sanctions it unilaterally froze all bilateral economic dialogues which had been established to facilitate progress towards a Common Russia-EU Economic Space – in accordance with the bilateral “Roadmap” adopted in 2005.

The only dialogues to be continued were on customs cooperation and in the science and technology field where the EU has the highest interest to interact with Russia. Now we can see a modest revival of interest on the part of the EU in the trade sphere in form of expert meetings on trade issues, the first of which took place last summer and the next one is planned in Moscow in March. The only thing is that we know pretty well that meetings of this kind are devoted to discussing mutual complaints rather than working out a positive agenda leading to an increase in trade and investments.

The EU has decided to freeze negotiations on a New Basic Agreement with Russia. It happened at the moment when the EU put forward a package of proposals containing measures to liberalise mutual market access and a number of trade mechanisms. As a consequence we missed an opportunity to ameliorate terms of trade. Who benefited? Our competitors, of course. There are many of them, in case you haven’t noticed.

In 2012 Russia acceded to the WTO. At present we already have within the WTO Dispute Settlement Body four cases against Russia put forward by the EU and three initiated by Russia. As representatives of the Commission recently admitted – one who lives in a house of glass should not throw stones. The idea is not new, but very relevant. Let me remind that it is happening against the background of the turnover of trade going down, so the spats, including at the WTO, are gradually losing sense.

During the last several years Russian producers have been increasingly complaining against EU antidumping practices. Those have become more ruthless and, they believe, less substantiated. The antidumping duties ranging from 12% to 70% are obviously many times higher than import tariffs of 3,5% to 4,0%. The Commission widely uses so-called “energy adjustments” which lead to a surge of the dumping margin and can hardly be justified from the point of view of WTO rules. The interim reviews, in our opinion, sometimes lead to unfair conclusions. One might perfectly well guess which EU industries are in crisis by simply looking at the goods subjected to antidumping investigations. The situation makes us also wonder whether there are political reasons for this.

There are no more bilateral Summits. They used to take place twice a year and often resulted in important joint undertakings. Thus we have seen no effort to implement EU’s own initiative, supported by Russia, to create a Common economic space from Lisbon to Vladivostok or – in Russian terms – from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

Please do not think that we are complaining. Russia has embarked instead on expanding cooperation with other partners – with China on the “Economic Belt of the Silk Road”, with other members of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. The Eurasian Economic Union has signed a free trade agreement with Vietnam and is engaged in similar talks with other countries. The US meanwhile has signed the Transpacific Partnership agreement with 11 countries, but not with the EU.

The bilateral “Parnership for Modernisation” initiative born in 2009 was stopped in mid-air. It is simply not being mentioned any more.

Huge energy projects between Russia and the EU are getting cancelled, including “South Stream”. Barriers are put up in advance for “Nord Stream 2”. Meanwhile last year the share of Russian gas in the EU market increased again. Instead, the EU Directorate General on Competition is targeting “Gazprom” and nobody knows how tough its decision will be and how the Russian energy giant will react.

One cannot avoid being concerned with how energy cooperation would be affected by the European Commission plans to take control over intergovernmental agreements and even business contracts between Russian and EU companies in the gas sphere. Could they not lead to destruction of the status quo with unknown, but potentially severe consequences?

A few words on trilateral negotiations between Russia, EU and Ukraine. Frankly, we haven’t remained satisfied with the Commission’s role in last year’s consultations on possible risks for Russia related to implementation of the trade and economic part of the Association agreement between the EU and Ukraine. I took part in the consultations, and I believe that the EU had a chance to prevent the unsuccessful ending which has led to a new spiral of restrictions in Russia-Ukraine trade.

Behind the haze of its “sanctions policy” the EU has still not noticed the opportunities presented by the developing Eurasian integration project. We do not yet have a clear understanding of the EU position regarding the establishment of relations with the Eurasian Economic Union, though relevant proposals have already been made by the Eurasian Economic Commission.

Finally it would be logical to raise a question: how long can this deterioration of mutual economic relations go on?

Let me not get into political details, as this is not the subject of this article. I would just repeat: this deterioration is only partly due to external reasons – the fall of oil prices and global recession. To a bigger extent it is due to man-made decisions which have caused an abrupt disruption of sustainable growth of economic turnover which we had been witnessing up to 2014. It means that amelioration also depends on decisions taken by people.

I presume everybody understands that Russia will not beg the EU to abandon sanctions. Besides, it would not even make sense as the EU is acting in unison with another well-known non-European state. Abrogation of sanctions is up to those who have devised and implemented them.

But let us try to imagine if amelioration happens later rather than sooner?

Firstly, the longer the present “sanctions” period lasts the more Russia will develop its import substitution (already quite visible, for example, in agriculture). The more it will strengthen relations with other sources of food imports – like Latin America, China and – finally – Iran that happens to be our close geographical neighbour fresh from a sanctions-lifting exercise. I would also like to remind that at the WTO Ministerial meeting in Nairobi the EU took an obligation to cancel all types of agricultural export subsidies. It means that certain advantages of EU companies on the Russian market might potentially subside.

We shall need to restore an atmosphere of confidence in mutual business relations which will also imply reestablishing frozen forms of economic dialogue and giving a new spin to the whole mechanism of intergovernmental economic and trade policy contacts to transmit to the business community again a signal of stability and sustainability for the future.

Finally, we would have to return one day to the issue of a new framework agreement – this time not in a bilateral format, but involving the Eurasian Economic Commission, whose terms of reference cover more and more spheres of relations.

To sum up – the situation remains complicated. The challenges are considerable. What we need most of all is to exercise moderation, be prudent and try not to lose a clear vision of the future. In particular, we should not forget – behind transitory and time-serving reasons – the positive experience accumulated over the decades and bear in mind how difficult it can be to restore something once lost.

 

The post The complicated Russia-EU trade relationship appeared first on New Europe.

134shares Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn+What's This?var sbFBAPPID = '457641991045477';

After marathon talks, haggling and behind-the-scenes threats and blackmail, the 28 leaders announced unanimous support for a EU-UK deal, giving Cameron practically everything he had asked for.

Never since Margaret Thatcher who hit the table with her purse, crying out loud: “I want my money back had” had the EU seen such a stubborn British prime minister.

The 28 leaders had gathered for a decisive session after a second day of tense talks with weary European Union leaders unwilling to fully meet his demands for a less intrusive EU.

An EU-wide “English breakfast” meeting to address Cameron’s concerns and hopefully clinch a deal was first delayed until lunch, then to late afternoon and then became an “English dinner”.

Most of the tensions surrounded a relatively minor change: a move to suspend or restrict benefit payments made to workers from other EU countries. Cameron had promised Britons he will exclude new European immigrants from in-work benefits for four years and cut child benefit for workers whose families remain at home.

Under the agreement unanimously accepted tonight, the benefits “emergency brake” will apply for seven years, not renewable.

The final deal also offers guarantees to the nine EU countries, including Britain, that do not use the shared euro currency, that they will not be sidelined, and makes tweaks aimed at giving national parliaments more power.

Cameron had run into unexpectedly firm resistance from France on financial regulation. French President Francois Hollande insisted Friday that Britain should not be given any “right of veto or blockage” and that all EU countries should have rules limiting speculation and avoiding new financial crises.

The 19 EU countries that share the euro currency worry that protections for Britain and the eight other non-eurozone nations would offer unfair advantage to Britain’s financial center, the City of London.

Hollande also warned that too-generous concessions to Britain could prompt other countries to seek special rules.

The post Cameron wins war of erosion: UK deal accepted unanimously appeared first on New Europe.

44shares Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn+What's This?var sbFBAPPID = '457641991045477';

The announcement that the EU leaders had come to an agreement on the UK deal that will allow Prime Minister David Cameron to go back to London and support the ‘IN’ campaign in his country’s referendum to stay in the UK came before midnight. European Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, announced the success over twitter.

UK in EU Deal done. Months of hard work with [European Council President Donald Tusk] and cooperation with the [European Parliament] paid off. Happy. Fair for UK, fair for 27 EU States

 

#UKinEU Deal done. Months of hard work w/ @eucopresident + cooperation w/ @Europarl_EN paid off. Happy. Fair for UK, fair for 27 #EU States

— Jean-Claude Juncker (@JunckerEU) February 19, 2016

The post Juncker: Fair UK deal for all achieved appeared first on New Europe.

Good evening, we have just achieved a deal which strengthens Britain's special status in the European Union. It is a legally binding and irreversible decision by all 28 leaders. The settlement addresses all of Prime Minister Cameron's concerns without compromising our fundamental values.

During our long and often heated discussions, we haggled over the smallest details of the deal. Perhaps it was not an aesthetic spectacle, and far from glamorous. What matters, however, is that the European leaders did not walk away from the negotiating table, as something much more important was at stake. We have sent out a signal that we are all willing to sacrifice part of our interests for the common good, to show our unity.

The times we live in are stormy and unpredictable, with all the crises raging around us. If you think I am over-dramatising, just look at what is happening at this very moment. The greatest migration crisis in the history of Europe. The imminent threat of borders closing on our continent. Terrorist attacks in Turkey, airstrikes in Libya, war flaring up in Syria. The growing conflict between Russia and Turkey. Unfortunately, I could go on. 

Exceptional times need exceptional words. And nobody expressed himself better than Winston Churchill. Let me quote what he said in Zurich in 1946. His words maybe sound too solemn. But it is worth recalling them, to realize that even though everything has changed over the years, in fact nothing has changed. And surely one thing that has not changed is that all Europe needs to stand united.  

"If Europe is to be saved from infinite misery, as Churchill said, and indeed from final doom, there must be this act of faith in the European family. Can the peoples of Europe rise to the heights of the soul and of the instinct and spirit of man? What is sovereign remedy? It is to recreate the European fabric, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, safety and freedom. Therefore I say to you, let Europe arise." End of quote.

I deeply believe that the United Kingdom needs Europe, and Europe needs the United Kingdom. To break the link now would be totally against our mutual interests. We have done all we could not to let that happen. But the final decision is in the hands of the British people.

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

To keep female students safe, universities in India impose strict curfews at hostels and implement draconian rules. Those who break the rules are threatened with eviction.

As reported by the Hindustan Times, students at many universities in Delhi are now starting to protest the discrimination. They are calling their campaign Pinjra Tod and say they are in these universities to study and gender discrimination can simply not be a part of the course.

Women can’t be imprisoned on the pretext of keeping them safe, women cannot be held at ransom by moth-eaten rules, reports the Hindustan Times. The campaign, which began in early August, comprises of women from DU, Jamia Millia Islamia, Ambedkar University, National Law University and Jawaharlal Nehru University.

According to the Hindustan Times, the situation at Punjab University is like this: the school asked wardens of all girls’ hostels to keep the gates closed so as to avoid “any untoward incident”. Last year, Indraprastha College’s female students found out their bathrooms do not have latches. An anonymous letter sent to the principal demanding this basic right resulted in an impromptu meeting and the diktat from the principal that the needful will be done when she deems fit.

In 2012, Daulat Ram College banned mobile phones and laptops for women hostellers. There were no latches in the hostel rooms so that wardens could hold surprise checks. Even full body searches were conducted by wardens to check for phones, according to the Hindustan Times.

The post Controversy over how India is keeping its young women safe appeared first on New Europe.

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

The ongoing discussion about the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline project is political, European Commission Vice President for the Energy Union Maroš Šefčovič told a press conference in Brussels.

“Because very often you might hear that Nord Stream 2 is seen as a commercial project. But I respond to this statement that I haven’t seen that many commercial projects which are discussed so often at such high political levels,” Šefčovič told the press conference, also broadcast on EbS, with EU Climate Action and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete on February 16.

The proposed Gazprom-led Nord Stream 2 pipeline is designed to boost Russian natural gas supplies to Europe, bypassing countries like Ukraine and Poland.

In December, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Hungary and Poland sent a letter to Šefčovič outlining possible negative impacts of extending the Nord Stream pipeline on energy security of the countries involved as well as of the entire region.

Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller said on February 13 that he is confident that Nord Stream 2 is supposed to be built by the end of 2019. “We have no doubt that the Nord Stream 2 project will be implemented strictly in accordance with the schedule, by the end of 2019,” Sputnik quoted Miller as telling reporters on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference.

Earlier on February 16, the European Commission presented an energy security package with proposals to strengthen the EU’s resilience to gas supply disruptions.

Šefčovič told the press conference on February 16 that during his participation at the Foreign Affairs Council, there were lots of doubts expressed about Nord Stream 2 and “the underlining importance of the preservation of transit through Ukraine was highlighted, including in the Foreign Affairs Council’s conclusions”.

He said the same doubts were expressed at the European Council where the debate on the issue of expanding the Nord Stream pipeline was very intense. “What I think is very important is the solutions which would be good for all member states and I think that we have the means and ways how to achieve it and that’s what we are offering from the side of the European Commission,” he said.

Gazprom has partnered with Germany’s E.ON, BASF/Wintershall, Austria’s OMV, France’s Engie and Royal Dutch Shell for Nord Stream 2.

Šefčovič told the press conference on February 16 that the Commission still does not have very precise information regarding Nord Stream 2. “We are in contact with the German regulator, we are communicating with our German partners, but we’re not sure that this project has already very precise parameter. What we can assure you is that we will make sure that the European law is fully applied,” Šefčovič said.

The Slovak Commissioner, however, noted that talks on increasing energy security do not exclude Russian gas. “I believe the best way forward would be to use our expertise, the expertise in our member states to really study what would be the best, the most cost-efficient and the most secure, ways how to supply gas to Europe, including the Russian gas to the European Union,” he said.

There will be a second Summit on EU Energy Policy, which will take place on February 23 at the Palais d’Egmont, in Brussels.

follow on twitter @energyinsider

 

The post Discussion over Russian-German pipe turns political appeared first on New Europe.

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

“We all are interested in normalizing relationship between Russia and Europe,” said Viktor Orban from Moscow on Wednesday, February 17.

all for sanctions except…

President Putin in turn announced that gas-supply contracts with Hungary were extended until 2019. Apparently, the partially state-owned Hungarian oil and gas company also secured a exploration rights in Western Siberian and the Volga-Ural regions. Based on Germany’s Nord Stream II precedent, Budapest argues, these agreements should be acceptable.

Meanwhile, it was announced that Russia’s Rosatom remains committed to developing Hungary’s €12,5bn Paks II nuclear plant, 80% of which will be funded by a Russian loan. Rosatom was granted the contracts for Paks II in 2014, sweetening the deal with a €10bn loan from Russia’s development bank. The Hungarian opposition finds the cost exorbitant.

Hungary’s Prime Minister was visiting President Putin to cultivate a relationship that both leaders call “constructive,” “amiable,” and productive. In fact, Orbán extended his “gratitude” because Russia remained committed to the Paks II investment, despite EU trade sanctions.

Meanwhile, he made clear that Hungarian pharmaceuticals and vehicle makers would continue to exploit opportunities in Russia, while criticizing EU policy for “not cooperating with everyone that could boost its economy.” It is also known that Hungary is moving towards the procurement of 30 helicopters from Russia at an estimated cost of €450 million (HUF 142 billion).

President Putin returned the favor saying that Hungarian construction companies were welcome to bid for infrastructure development projects related to the 2018 soccer World Cup in Russia.

Prime Minister Orbán did not break ranks and recently voted for the renewal of EU’s sanctions against Russia, but has since 2014 made clear he believes that Europe “shot itself in the foot” because sanctions hurt Europe’s exports more than Russia. Meanwhile, Budapest is apparently securing all kinds of exemptions from Russia’s “black list.”

The two leaders also took turns at bashing the European Commission’s asylum policy.

Meanwhile in Brussels

The Paks II project is stumbling against a European Commission probe that questions whether the contract awarded to Rosatom complies with EU competition and state aid rules. When the decision for the probe was taken in November, EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said that “Given the size and importance of the Paks project, the Commission has to carefully assess whether Hungary’s investment is indeed on market terms or whether it involves state aid. This requires a complex analysis. I think it is important that stakeholders can also submit their views.”

Budapest would suggest beginning this analysis with Nord Stream II and possibly end it there.

(MTI, Reuters, Népszabadság, BNE IntelliNews)

The post The Budapest-Moscow special relationship appeared first on New Europe.

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

“At four a.m., there were heavy bursts. Dad was running in the house and was closing everything in order to sleep and not hear it,” a young boy recalled as he addressed the camera. Darina, a seven year old girl from the Donetsk region, told viewers she “dreams about the day when children will not play with shells and will not hear the explosions.”

Last Tuesday, the Royal Museum of Natural Sciences in Brussels hosted an exhibition entitled “Peace and War Through the Eyes of Donbas Children.” Officials showed short videos introducing the exhibition’s visitors to the pain children in war-torn Ukraine experience as the conflict continues to engulf their homes. The event in Brussels was just one chapter of a long-term project being conducted throughout Ukraine and is expanding to foreign communities.  

Ukrainian community initiative Restoring Donbas organized a drawing contest for children living in the country’s eastern conflict zone last year. Young artists throughout the region submitted over 300 drawings depicting what is “in their hearts and in their minds,” according to Olena Petryaeva, head of Restoring Donbas. The competition was held throughout the summer months and those in charge of selecting a winner paid special attention to artwork coming from orphanages and temporary safety camps for Donbas children.

Olena Petryaeva, head of Restoring Donbas community initiative

“This exhibition was shown in many regions of — almost half — of Ukraine, and many people have seen it,” Petryaeva said. Restoring Donbas organized various award shows, art showcases and concerts to honor the competition’s young participants. From September of 2015 through this past January, the initiative hosted exhibitions in the Kyiv, Zhitomir, Chernivtsi, Sumy, Kharkiv, Kramatorsk and Lisichansk regions. These events aimed primarily to introduce Donbas children to other Ukrainian youths, with the hope that facilitating communication and empathy amongst the children of the country will “become the key to unity and a source of inner strength to overcome the difficulties in Ukraine today,” according to informational materials provided by Restoring Donbas. “Of course, we wanted to show it in other countries, and first of all we wanted to come [to Belgium] to show what is inside of these children,” Petryaeva said.

Tuesday’s event featured a collection of striking drawings, which lined the walls of the museum and a number of pop-up walls erected by the event officials. Visitors were invited into the space by staff and offered guidance and context for understanding the gravity of Ukraine’s strife. Several drawings featured two disparate scenes, one characterized by bright colors and pleasant scenery, which presumably represented times of peace in Ukraine. The adjacent scenes were sinister, often displaying flames, crying children and those same neighborhoods in states of wreckage. One drawing even labeled one image with the Russian word for “war,” and its counterpart with the word for “peace.”

A drawing juxtaposing times of peace with those of conflict

15 year old Sofia Sbitneva, the winner of the drawing competition, described her piece as a “stressed” picture, and said it was inspired by her own experience with living in the conflict zone.

Sbitneva emphasized the importance of displaying humanity for those affected directly by the conflict in eastern Ukraine. “People must know about this problem because [Belgium] is not so far from Ukraine, as you know, it’s only two or three thousand kilometers, and everything will happen maybe to every person in every country,” Sbitneva said.

Sofia Sbitneva, winner of Restoring Donbas drawing contest

Her goal to elicit visitors’ empathy was fulfilled, as Sbitneva expressed positive feelings with regards to the exhibition in Brussels. She said, “People came here with another mentality and they tried to understand our problem, and maybe help with some decision. And also they were talking about this problem very sincerely.” For Sbitneva, it seems the initiative’s work has provided a glimmer of hope.

Petryaeva — who maintains that it is up to adults to preserve prospects for Ukrainian children’s bright futures and, thus, the future of the nation — identified a lack of news coverage on the conflict in her home country. “First of all, we wanted to show in this exhibition the problem exists in the Donetsk region and Donbas society,” she said. “Yes, we understand that the problem in Syria also [exists], but on news, on TV sets, there is no information about situations that exist in our country.” 

Various entries to the drawing contest on display in Brussels

The Restoring Donbas initiative was spearheaded in November 2014 and serves as a network of activists who fight to revitalize the Donbas region, which withstands the ongoing effects of violent conflict and economic unrest. Over 120 thousand people are active members of the organization, which addresses the needs of primarily those remaining in the conflict zone and IDPs via several projects and online activity.

Oleksandr Klymenko, founder of Restoring Donbas, has echoed Petryaeva’s sentiments. Donbas is a region of humanitarian catastrophe and should not be forgotten by the global community, he said in informational materials provided at Tuesday’s event.
As did Sbitneva, Petryaeva underscored that showing kindness to those inhabiting war-stricken areas is a matter of tending to the universal human condition. “Every person must realize that everything can happen [to] every person, in every country, and we must be together every time. Our organization helps these children, these people who are staying now in the Donetsk region and who are living in this region, and we want to help them [in every way] we can,” she said.

The post Children of conflict: war through young Ukrainians’ eyes appeared first on New Europe.

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

Hindu couples in Pakistan will finally be allowed to register their marriage and divorce with the state. According to Germany’s international broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW), the long-stalled Hindu Marriage Bill has seen a recent burst of momentum and is now passing through the country’s legislature.

Without being able to prove they are married, Hindu couples are currently not eligible to apply for state benefits. There are also cases of married Hindu women being abducted and forced to remarry with little recourse.

According to DW, Hindus make up 2.5% of the 174 million people living in Pakistan. The majority of them, over 90%, live in Sindh, the country’s southern province. On February 8, Sindh became the first province to pass the bill.

According to DW, the country’s two largest political parties, the ruling conservative Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N) and the centre-left Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), have both courted Hindu support. This is in part due to the outsize presence Pakistan’s minorities are given in the present government, due to separate, protective representation laws.

Chaudhry Mahmood Bashir Virk, the PML-N chairman of the National Assembly (lower house of parliament) standing committee that first passed the bill to federal and province legislatures, told local media: “If 99% of the population is afraid of one percent, we need to look deep inside what we claim to be and what we are”.

Hardline Islamic politicians did have a say, however, according to DW. The bill was submitted for “sharia vetting” six months ago, and a clause was added that nullifies any marriage between Hindus if one partner converts religions. The Pakistan Hindu Council has called for the removal of this clause, worrying that this leaves this door open for forced conversions.

Meanwhile, the Agence France-Presse (AFP) quoted Nand Kumar, a Hindu member of parliament in Sindh’s assembly, praising the passage of the legislation. “This is a very welcoming act, since 1947 we have had no law governing our marriages and related issues”.

“We did not have any documentary evidence of our marriages or even separation. Now at least we can register the marriages at official forums,” Kumar told AFP.

The post A closer look at Pakistan’s new Hindu marriage bill appeared first on New Europe.

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

The renegotiation on British demands for a new relationship with the EU were being held until the late in the morning on Friday and resumed in the afternoon. At the time of writing, it is unknown how long they will last.

On Friday morning, a British diplomat summarized the negotiating agenda for the BBC to five points: i) the process of altering EU’s binding treaties to accommodate British excemptions; ii) how “any” member state – rather than Britain alone – can trigger an “emergency brake” on migrant welfare; iii) for how long could Britain impose restrictions on in-work benefits for migrants; iv) whether child benefit curbs can be applied retrospectively; v) whether Britain can be exempt from the “ever-closer” union commitment.

The Finnish and Spanish Prime Ministers, Juha Sipilä and Mariano Rajoy, stated that a deal was possible within Friday. The Dutch Mark Rutte said going through Saturday may be necessary. All three countries warmly support a deal, with Ireland joining in and Germany playing the role of the broker.

Thus far, there are three clusters of objections to Britain’s demands: the Federalists (Belgium and France), those demanding a fair welfare deal for their citizens (Visegrad), and Greece’s tactical objection to a deal, linking the issue with migration policy.

Federalist objections

Belgium’s Prime Minister, Charles Michel, made abundantly clear that if Britain were to leave the EU there would be no renegotiation. “There is no second chance. The deal with the U.K is final,” he tweeted on Friday afternoon, February 19.

A treaty change that exempts the UK from the “ever-closer union” objective and makes provisions for non-eurozone members is nearing consensus. But, this will be no obstacle to everyone else. And that was also clear both by Belgium and by France.

François Hollande spoke on Thursday evening of a take-it-or-leave-it deal, making clear that he was not going to open the door to renegotiating exceptions for every EU member state.  Hollande was especially clear that the City could not carve its own heaven in the EU while Mario Draghi was expected to broker a compromise.

Asylum crisis and Britain

Britain was not the only item on the agenda, with the Council debating the asylum crisis. Chancellor Angela Merkel proposed a summit between the EU and Turkey, on March 6. But, it was Greece that linked the two agendas. Greece made clear that it will veto any agreement with Britain unless EU peers pledged to open borders and keep them open until the EU Summit with Turkey. It is this or “no deal.”

Several EU member states have been closing their borders and Greece is worried that its territory may become a bottleneck for refugees transiting. Austria seems to succumb to the pressure following Germany’s lead.

welfare

Poland’s Europe Minister, Konrad Szymański, was reassuring that negotiations were ongoing on child benefits, but an agreement on Cameron’s demand for emergency brake was possible.

Poland appears to be leading the cluster of post-2004 EU member states, mainly from Eastern Europe, that are objecting to welfare cuts. A particularly sore point seems to be child benefits not being extended unless the child resides in the U.K. The fold back position apparently is that child benefits for children not residing in the U.K should be capped at the level appropriate to the standard of living in the member state where the child resides. Poland has said that any measure cannot in any case be applied retroactively to EU migrants already residing in Britain.

The “emergency break” will restrict in-work benefits for EU migrants in the UK, that is, mostly tax returns for those who make below a specified income benchmark. The question is of course for how long could a break be kept on to be considered “an emergency.” On Thursday evening, Cameron suggested 13 years, aggravating the Visegrad 4 (Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland), as well as Romania and Bulgaria.

(AFP, Guardian, BBC, Daily Telegraph)

The post Britain faces a take-it-or-leave deal appeared first on New Europe.

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

Croatia’s newly elected Foreign Minister, Miro Kovac, told Germany’s international broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW) that the top priority of the new government is to normalise relations with their neighbours.

Speaking about the refugee crisis and Germany’s attempts to find a solution, Kovac noted that there is no European solution, but a number of solutions at the national level. He explained: “Croatia has been very cooperative with its neighbours. At the same time, we think that if our Greek friends are unable to secure the external borders of the EU, then we will support the proposal made by Slovenian Prime Minister Miro Cerar to control the wave of refugees at the border between [FYROM] and Greece. Our current solution will not be sustainable much longer. We have to drastically reduce the numbers of refugees. I repeat: our cooperation with our neighbours can only function as long as Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and Austria continue to take in refugees. But migrants and refugees must be clearly told that they cannot all come to Europe. The EU, likewise, needs to be more active in the countries from which the refugees are coming as well as the nations at their borders”.

As regards Croatia’s foreign policy agenda, Kovac said strengthening inter-European relations is important. “We have to work on our inter-European cooperation much more intensively,” he explained. “What I mean is that, first and foremost, we need to strengthen the role of Croatia within the EU, while also strengthening our understandings within Central and Southeastern Europe. Second of all, it’s necessary to activate our cooperation with our neighbours.”

According to Kovac, Croatia needs to redefine itself and win back its image of trustworthiness. “We need to finally realise in what position we find ourselves in the EU, what our possibilities are and what we can do,” he said.

As regards the countries bordering Croatia but are not EU members, Kovac said his country has a greater responsibility and greater opportunities. “It’s also important for the Croats living in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who could redefine themselves as a motor of European Integration,” he said.

The post Miro Kovac: ‘Normalising ties with our neighbours’ appeared first on New Europe.

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

At a critical point in time, Pope Francis took a critical stand on the Zika virus epidemic, saying that birth control “isn’t an absolute evil” and is in fact “the lesser of two evils” for women.

Theologically, the Pontiff evoked the precedent of Pope Paul VI that had allowed nuns in Africa to use birth control due to the threat of rape. But, in 2010, his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI allowed condoms if these were intended to avoid HIV infection.

However, Pope Francis compared abortion to killing someone, which he called “absolute evil.”

The epidemic is spreading precisely in South America, where Pope Francis is touring. The Pope appealed for medical research to tackle the disease.

Several high ranking clergy in Brazil, El Salvador, and the United State have been making exactly the opposite claim to the Pope. They suggest that contraception is a sin “no matter what.”

However, the Catholic Church has categorically denied women with Zika the right to an abortion, even if there is a medical link between the virus and microcephaly.

The crisis

Microcephaly causes skulls to remain underdeveloped. if a pregnant woman contracts the virus, children are likely to be born with an underdeveloped head and a severe neurological disorder for which there is no known treatment (Guillain-Barre syndrome). Some women in the region are reportedly begging online for abortion pills, in countries where these are forbidden.

Zika could trigger spike of illegal abortions, putting thousands of women’s health at risk. In Guatemala, it is calculated that women resort of inadequately trained health providers in a ratio of three-to-one, especially in rural areas, fearing social stigma, cost, lack of access to doctors. In 2014, 10% of all maternal deaths in Latin America were due to unsafe abortion. The debate is on across Latin America, including Brazil that has an estimated 1,5 million cases of infected subjects, but an adequate policy response could take years.

A 2014 US study suggests that up to 56% of pregnancies in Latin America and the Caribbean region are unwanted, due to poverty and sexual violence. While the World Health Organization is warning women in Latin America against pregnancy, 24 million women in the region do not have access to modern birth control methods. Moreover, abortion is often illegal, which may trigger a spike in illegal procedures placing the lives of thousands of women at risk.

The Women-on-Web Dutch group is sending so-called morning-after abortion pills, although this is controversial because of anti-abortion laws in predominantly Catholic Latin America.

Poor women are more vulnerable.

The primary channel of spreading the disease is the Aedes aegypti mosquito, whose habitat is in the tropics. Besides Latin America, WHO experts have said that this particular mosquito is present in most of Africa, parts of southern Europe, and parts south Asia.

The second channel is human-to-human, through sexual intercourse. And this is where contraception could make a difference.

(The Independent, CNN, National Catholic Review)

The post Pope on the Zika epidemic: contraception ok, abortion evil appeared first on New Europe.

The Foreign Affairs (AFET) Committee invited Members of national parliaments to attend an interparliamentary committee meeting, which will focus on the current priorities in CFSP/CSDP and the way towards the NATO Summit in Warsaw. The meeting will include a general debate with VP/HR Mogherini, an exchange of views with Nabih Berri, Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament, a discussion with NATO Secretary Genera and with UN Special Representative for Libya.
Location : Brussels JAN 2Q2
Further information
Draft programme
List of participants
Practical information
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

38shares Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn+What's This?var sbFBAPPID = '457641991045477';

Many women and girls who had been abducted in Nigeria by the Islamist militant group Boko Haram are returning to find themselves being rejected by their family and community, according to a report released on February 16 by the United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef) and the human rights group International Alert.

As reported by TakePart, a digital news magazine, people are treating the former captives with mistrust over fears the women have become radicalised supporters of the extremists. But the suspicious behaviour of family members tends to become explicit persecution if the former captives bore children after being sexually assaulted by Boko Haram militants.

The babies may be innocent, but they are seen by locals as being infected with “bad blood” from their rapist Boko Haram fathers, according to the report. “There is a belief that, like their fathers, the children will inevitably do what hyenas do and ‘eat’ the innocent dogs around them,” wrote the report’s authors.

Rejected, many of the women are being pushed into poverty and forced to turn to prostitution in order to earn money to provide for their babies.

“These findings show a pressing need to do more to reintegrate those returning from captivity by Boko Haram,” Kimairis Toogood, International Alert’s peace-building adviser in Nigeria, said in a statement. “Many of these girls already face lasting trauma of sexual violence and being separated from their families, so we must ensure they get all the support they need when they finally return.”

Approximately 2,000 women and girls have been abducted since 2012, but international awareness was only raised in late April 2014 after Boko Haram kidnapped nearly 300 girls from a school in the town of Chibok, in northeastern Nigeria.

The post Girls abducted by Boko Haram are rejected by their family appeared first on New Europe.