Die Wirtschaftskrise in der EU und die Maßnahmen zur Konsolidierung der nationalen Haushalte haben erhebliche soziale Folgen – zunehmende Armut, hohe Arbeitslosigkeit und insbesondere Jugendarbeitslosigkeit. Die Rufe nach Solidarität innerhalb der EU werden lauter, das Streben nach einem sozialen Europa rückt auf der europapolitischen Agenda weiter in den Vordergrund. Dabei ist die Forderung nach einer sozialen Dimension des europäischen Integrationsprozesses so alt wie dieser Prozess selbst. Soziale Belange sind seit jeher wesentlicher Bestandteil der europäischen Einigung.
Umstritten und unbefriedigend bleiben jedoch bis heute die Antworten darauf, wie ein soziales Europa aussehen sollte und welcher Weg zu diesem Ziel führen könnte. Welche Instrumente braucht eine EU-Sozialpolitik? In welchem Verhältnis sollen die Sozialpolitiken der Mitgliedstaaten und jene der EU stehen? Wäre eine verstärkte soziale Dimension primär für die Eurozone nötig, um die restriktiven nationalen Budgetpolitiken auszugleichen, oder sollte sie das Leitprinzip sein für alle 28 Mitgliedstaaten der EU?
Die Studie bietet einen Überblick über den derzeitigen Bestand des sozialpolitischen Acquis und diskutiert verschiedene Vorschläge, wie die EU ihre soziale Dimension stärken könnte. Generell gilt, dass die vielleicht wichtigste politische Funktion der europäischen Sozialpolitik darin besteht, die Legitimität des Integrationsprozesses zu stärken und das Zusammengehörigkeitsgefühl in Europa zu festigen. Solidarität ist in der Regel die Folge einer gewachsenen Identität in und mit einer politischen Gemeinschaft. Die EU muss den umgekehrten Weg gehen – durch die Institutionalisierung einer europäischen Solidarität, die für die Unionsbürger sichtbar ist, kann eine gemeinsame Identität wachsen.
Pour la deuxième fois cette année, la France est frappée en plein cœur par le terrorisme. A l'heure où ces lignes sont écrites, 129 personnes sont décédées dans les attaques qui ont touché la capitale française et la ville de Saint-Denis, plus de 300 personnes ont été blessées, dont une centaine est dans un état grave.
Cette fois-ci les terroristes ont visé plus large. A la différence des attentats de mars 2012 et de janvier 2015 ce n'est pas une communauté particulière qui est ici visée , ni un groupe d'individus particulier , ce ne sont pas des agents symboles de l'Etat qui ont été attaqués , mais bien le peuple de France dans son ensemble, sans distinction d'âge, de couleur de peau ni de religion.
Le terrorisme vise à détruire la capacité de résistance et de résilience d'une société, soit en frappant
en aveugle, ainsi des attentats de 1986 ou de 1995, en France, soit en s'attaquant à des cibles
choisies et emblématiques, comme ce fut le cas en janvier 2015 et comme c'est le cas aujourd'hui.
Il faut cependant distinguer les événements de janvier 2015 de ceux de novembre 2015. En janvier
2015, ce sont des catégories précises et ciblées de la société française qui sont visées : journalistes,
policiers, Juifs. La liberté d'expression, l'ordre et la loi, la société française dans sa diversité. En
novembre 2015, ce sont les modes de vie de tous qui sont attaqués : sortir pour assister à un match
de foot, sortir pour assister à un concert, sortir à la terrasse d'un café :
c'est le quotidien de tous les Français qui devient la cible. Il y a là un changement non seulement de
"mode opératoire" mais aussi un changement d'orientation dans les buts des terroristes. La menace
devient indistincte, à l'intérieur et à l'extérieur de nos frontières. Elle frappe indistinctement tous les
Français, à l'intérieur et à l'extérieur de nos frontières. La réponse doit ainsi être effectivement
collective. (...)
L'idée que, face à des circonstances exceptionnelles, il faille écarter les règles qui régissent le fonctionnement des institutions pour les temps « normaux » est, pour le dire trivialement, presqu'aussi vieille que le monde.
L'expression « état d'exception » est extrêmement polysémique et utilisée à des fins très différentes par différentes branches des sciences humaines et différents auteurs. Pour simplifier, on précisera qu'il faut comprendre ici l'état d'exception comme un régime juridique qui permet de s'affranchir de certaines règles (relatives à la dévolution des pouvoirs ou au régime des droits et libertés) en cas de circonstances exceptionnelles. (...)
Lire la suite ici
ddjQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-mqgyvy").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-mqgyvy").fadeIn(1000);});});
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres told an IPI audience that as millions of refugees flee war and persecution, the multilateral system has failed to mobilize the resources necessary to move them to safety in a dignified and efficient way.
“The humanitarian response system is today financially broke,” the High Commissioner said. “We are no longer able to provide the minimum needed for both core protection and lifesaving assistance.”
The uncoordinated responses of development and humanitarian actors are inadequate for a crisis of this magnitude, he emphasized. The “business model is to a certain extent exhausted,” he said. “We have been essentially on a care and maintenance model, with solutions dwindling, and with the possibility to ensure the suffering of refugees severely limited,” he said.
Humanitarians and development agencies not only need more funding, but also have to engage with one another from the outset of a crisis.
“For me, what is absolutely crucial is to understand that it no longer makes sense to talk about the gap between humanitarian aid and development cooperation, with this idea that first humanitarians address the crisis, and then the development actors come, to guarantee the sustainability of the solutions,” he said. “Now we came to a situation in which humanitarians and development actors need to be acting together since the very beginning of a crisis.”
The November 20th event, “Leadership and Global Partnerships in the Face of Today’s Refugee Crisis,” aimed to contribute to the development of proposals to more effectively help refugees through multilateral cooperation.
IPI Vice President Walter Kemp, the conversation’s moderator, noted concrete steps to help save refugees which had been suggested in the Salzburg Declaration on the Refugee Crisis, drafted by high-level participants at an IPI seminar.
Olof Skoog, Permanent Representative of Sweden to the UN, made opening remarks in which he highlighted his country’s commitment to welcoming refugees. Together with Germany, Sweden has born the brunt of resettlement in the EU. Sweden received the most asylum-seekers per capita in the EU, equal to 2% of the country’s population, he said.
Of Sweden’s priorities for the future, he said, “We strive to ensure that every one of those people receive a dignified [treatment,], and have rights fulfilled and implemented on arrival in Sweden,” he said. “But it is also true that the system has put a lot of strain on our capacity, so another priority is to ensure there is a genuine partnership within the EU and globally to jointly handle migration flows, while safeguarding of course the right to asylum.”
Sweden has been a model in this regard, but many other refugee-hosting countries struggle to provide services for the new arrivals, given the nature of their economies. New kinds of partnerships will be necessary to improve refugee lives in middle-income countries, as well as offer benefits for these states, Mr. Guterres said.
He proposed offering economic support to neighboring countries that have received a total of more than 3 million Syrians—Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey—in exchange for policy changes that could make refugees more self-reliant, such as allowing them to participate in the labor market, and access educational and other public services. These changes are necessary “in order to avoid this current maintenance model that is not only unsustainable from the financial point of view,” but also militates against “the dignity and hope for the future of the refugee community,” he said.
He praised one such agreement between Jordan, the United Kingdom, and the World Bank, which will create industrial zones inside Jordan that will be a source of employment for both Syrians and Jordanians. “This is the kind of formula that is necessary—humanitarian actors, development actors, and the countries—acting together in order to create this kind of win-win situation to ensure that refugees can have a dignified life in the countries of first asylum,” he said.
Many of the top refugee-hosting countries, like Lebanon, Jordan, Kenya, Ethiopia, Niger, and Chad, are important to their regions, Mr. Guterres said. It is essential to ensure these nations have the resources to remain bulwarks against global terrorism. “Unfortunately many of these countries are not a priority in development cooperation, and so, a fundamental review is required,” he emphasized.
The lofty goals of the just agreed to UN Sustainable Development Agenda cannot be achieved without basic security first, he said. “A large part of the poor in today’s world are in conflict areas, and that number is growing, and we cannot have a development strategy at the global level if we do not take seriously into account the problems of global security, and the multiplication of conflicts we are witnessing in today’s world,” he said.
Since 2011, 3.9 million people have fled the Syrian civil war, and 7.6 million have been internally displaced. The High Commissioner described the situation as “the most dramatic of the crises we face.”
In July 2015, as hundreds of thousands risked their lives to leave their war-torn and poverty-stricken countries for Europe, a new crisis emerged. A number of factors influenced this mass migration wave, but “the trigger in my opinion was the reduction of international assistance in 2015,” which had devastating results for the quality of life in Syria and for refugees in neighboring countries, Mr. Guterres said.
He offered three suggestions on Syria, moving forward. Firstly, he said it was essential to establish humanitarian aid at adequate levels inside Syria. Secondly, living conditions would need to improve in neighboring Middle Eastern states serving as countries of first asylum. Finally, illicit smuggling and trafficking networks, operating largely in the open, must be shut down. “This will require cooperation between the EU and Turkey, and this cooperation, I hope, will be established in the near future,” he said.
Mr. Guterres also noted that the journey of refugees to resettlement in Europe would only become more trying as temperatures drop. “I’m afraid that we will have difficult moments on the western Balkan route this winter,” he said.
The High Commissioner said the failure of European institutions to manage this migration flow in an organized way has fostered xenophobia on the continent. He emphasized the power of images in raising fear for host country populations. “The perception from looking at the television day after day after day was that Europe was being invaded by a flow of people, and all of a sudden my village is going to be completely overwhelmed, and government was not in control.”
To manage the influx properly, Europe needs to receive and screen people at the point of entry, he said.
Mr. Guterres refuted any connection between the arrival of refugees and the coming of terrorism to Europe. “Those fleeing the Syrian and Iraqi conflicts, or the Afghan conflict, are overwhelmingly victims of terror, so to say that this flow of refugees is responsible for terrorist acts is absurd, ” he said.
“For Daesh, it is very important to stimulate in Europe anti-Muslim sentiments, because anti-Muslim European societies are the best instrument they have for their propaganda and recruitment,” he said. “So, I think that a simplistic approach in trying to link refugees and terrorism need to be clearly denounced, because the security problems Europe faces at the moment are more complex and need a much more effective and comprehensive response.”
Summarizing his wide-ranging recommendations, the High Commissioner said it would be essential to redesign development cooperation around crisis prevention, and to invest in the improvement of refugee living conditions so that they “are more in line with the normal aspirations of anyone, anywhere—and that is the right to work, the right to property, for children at school, access to health systems.”
He suggested that the May 2016 World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul would offer a prime opportunity to bring the development and humanitarian communities closer. “If we could establish in the World Humanitarian Summit a new plan of action to bring together the development actors, and the development money, to humanitarian actors, I think the World Humanitarian Summit would do a fantastic thing,” he said. “Another important aspect will be to make the humanitarian system universal. The system is still very much Western conceived, to bring other actors into the system and give it a clear universal approach, that will increase its capacity to respond.”
The event was held as part of IPI’s “Global Leaders Series,” and was co-hosted with the Permanent Mission of Sweden to the UN.
Walter Kemp, IPI Vice President, moderated the conversation.
Watch event:
La aceleración tecnológica de los últimos años necesita de una rápida respuesta institucional que cambie el marco normativo en el que los europeos nos relacionamos y comerciamos digitalmente.
The most comprehensive assessment of UN peace operations since the Brahimi Report of 2000 was completed this year, when the High-Level Independent Panel on UN Peace Operations (HIPPO) issued more than 100 recommendations to make UN peace operations “fit for purpose.” It was followed by the UN secretary-general’s report, outlining key actions to move the panel’s recommendations forward between now and the end of 2016. To support this agenda, how can the UN Secretariat and member states build and sustain the political momentum for the implementation of the recommendations of the UN secretary-general and HIPPO, as well as build on synergies with other global reviews—on the peacebuilding architecture, and on women, peace, and security?
This meeting note outlines key aspects of the agenda for improving UN peace operations and sketches a way forward for maintaining the political momentum for implementation. Focusing on political settlements, the protection of civilians, tailored and context-sensitive responses, and global-regional partnerships, it offers ideas to support ongoing initiatives to build and sustain momentum for change in UN peace operations.
The report stems from an expert meeting in Seoul on October 22, 2015, organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea and the International Peace Institute (IPI).
The following are among the recommendations that emerged from the meeting’s discussions:
On November 18th, The Independent Commission on Multilateralism hosted its third Public Consultation on its Discussion Paper on “Terrorism including issues related to Ideology, Identity Politics, and Organized Crime.”
Click here to view the event video on YouTube>>
Threats posed by terrorism and violent extremism continue to metastasize, stemming from a constellation of fault lines and imbalances caused by exclusionary, unaccountable, and ideologically based governance; identity politics; inequitable distribution of resources; and new and emerging forms of geopolitical power rivalries. While the nexus of terrorism and organized crime has posed various challenges, the latter constitutes its own threat to global peace and security. Given that these challenges are increasingly multifaceted with global, national, and local dimensions, it is essential to synergize strategies at all levels and bolster the United Nations’ role as a convener and mobilizer.
This Public Consultation focused on the findings and recommendations of the Discussion Paper. We are seeking additional feedback from you – members of civil society organizations, academics, member states, and the private sector. A link to the full ICM paper, its executive summary, and the comments section can be found by clicking here.
Discussants:
Dr. James Cockayne, Head, United Nations University, New York
H.E Raimonda Murmokaitė, Chair, United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee, and Permanent Representative of the Republic of Lithuania to the United Nations
Moderator:
H.E. Hardeep Singh Puri, Secretary-General, Independent Commission on Multilateralism
On November 18th, the Independent Commission on Multilateralism hosted its second Public Consultation on its Discussion Paper on “Social Inclusion, Political Participation, and Effective Governance in Challenging Environments.”
Click here to view the event video on YouTube>>
Governance systems globally are facing a growing crisis of legitimacy vis-à-vis their constituents at state and multilateral levels. Local challenges confronting national leaders have become transnational in origin and effect. The multilateral system cannot be reformed if the foundation upon which it rests—the state—remains under such stress. States have a responsibility to promote inclusive societies; the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Goal 16 make this clear.
In moving towards a holistic definition of governance, participation, and inclusion, this ICM Discussion Paper addresses the crisis of legitimacy and offers a series of four frameworks: Leadership, Inclusivity, Efficiency and Effectiveness, and Partnerships.
A link to the full ICM paper, executive summary, and comments section can be found by clicking here.
Discussants:
Mr. Andrew Tomlinson, Director and Representative, Quaker United Nations Office
Dr. Ilze Brands Kehris, Director, Office of the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities
Mr. Omar El Okdah, Senior Policy Analyst, International Peace Institute
Moderator:
H.E. Mr. Hardeep Singh Puri, Secretary-General, Independent Commission on Multilateralism
Sechs Jahre lang wurde unter der Klimarahmenkonvention UNFCCC verhandelt, nachdem 2009 in Kopenhagen der erste Anlauf zu einem langfristigen Klimaregime jenseits des Kyoto-Protokolls gescheitert war. Auf dem Pariser Klimagipfel 2015 sollen nun die 195 UNFCCC-Vertragsstaaten die Weichen für ein neues Regime stellen, indem sie sich darüber einigen, wie sie ab 2020 mit dem Klimaschutz, der Anpassung an den Klimawandel, möglichen Verlusten und Schäden, dem Technologietransfer und der Klimafinanzierung verfahren wollen.
Für einen Erfolg in Paris sind zwei Bausteine wichtig.
Erstens muss es gelingen, die gemeldeten Klimaziele (INDCs – Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) in einer verbindlichen Form zu fixieren und regelmäßig zu überprüfen. Damit würde die „firewall“ zwischen den Industrie- und den Entwicklungsländern unter der UNFCCC aufgehoben, die bislang dafür gesorgt hat, dass sich die Schwellenländer für den Klimaschutz nicht zuständig fühlten. Zweitens muss das neue Regime Staaten zu einem umfassenden und nachhaltigen Klimarisikomanagement befähigen. Dazu gehören mehr Anstrengungen bei der Anpassung an den Klimawandel und die entsprechende finanzielle Unterstützung auch nach 2020. Nur wenn das Pariser Abkommen eine Balance zwischen diesen Bausteinen herstellt, wird ein Konsens möglich sein, auf dessen Basis 2016 weitere Details geklärt werden können.
Die Studie zeigt auf, warum trotz der hohen Ansprüche die Chance groß ist, dass bei der 21. Vertragsstaatenkonferenz (COP21, Conference of the Parties) in der französischen Hauptstadt ein Abkommen verabschiedet wird, welche Rolle die großen Player USA, China, Indien und die EU dabei spielen und wie Deutschland 2016 weiterhin dazu beitragen kann, dass das neue Regime ab 2020 funktioniert.