The blog has moved , visit the new blogsite

This blog has been reshaped. In order to follow it please click on the following link to the EurActive website. 

"November, Dayton and Europe"

"Never before in Europe have so many people been linked together by so many ties and interdependencies. And yet, the more European countries become similar to one another in economic and technical terms, the more it's inhabitants feel endangered as far as their cultural identity is concerned, and want to be different from others."

The above text was written by academic Urs Altermatt and published in the EuroDialogue magazine in the beginning of 1997. Altermatt based much of his opinions and scientific proofs about nationalism, identity and intolerance on what happened during the wars in Ex-Yugoslavia. He presented the destruction and siege of Sarajevo as a case that was not isolated or new in Europe's history filled with tensions and hatred based on extreme nationalism.

While the European Community politicians were preparing for the implementation of the internal market and further integration of Europe many politicians in Yugoslavia did the opposite. Instead of integration they openly or closely propagated for disintegration. During the time of economic and political hardships they promoted myths,intolerance and fear. Also many expressed their anti-European stands. Croatian nationalist leader Franjo Tudjman considered European Union, just as Yugoslavia, to be a "liberal experiment" doomed to fail and something Croatia should not be a part of. In Serbia during the regime of Slobodan Milosevic being labeled as "European" was equally to be labeled as traitor or spy. Such politicians promised to their voters that better future and quality of life only could be found behind the national boarders.

Altermatts words can be regarded as much up-to-date for today's situation in the EU. The economic, social and institutional crisis since the 2008 have contributed to rise of nationalism, racism, anti-democratic and other intolerant attitudes which grew fast in combination with unemployment, social dissatisfaction and uncertainty for the future. This has also resulted in lower support for further integration and union-building. Many responses towards the crisis have often been based on promoting national ideas and pride. “Orbanism” in Hungary and right- or left-wing populism as in Greece or United Kingdom are clear examples.

The situation within the union is not easy at the moment being challenged by the unemployment, lack of growth, Russia's aggression against Ukraine, migration crisis, Brexit, etc. Integration of Western Balkans is another issue where the European institutions are struggling. Among the biggest challenges is Bosnia and Herzegovina, a state which for many functions as "three states in one".

It has been 20 years since Dayton agreement was signed and today many would say that Dayton stopped the war in the trenches but the war is still going on, in politics and without blood. For many citizens in Bosnia the membership in the union is seen as a possibility and potential to improve things within the the society, everything from economy and finances to institutional framework, regional peace and education.

Despite being a democratic society the system in BiH is still mainly based and functioning across the ethnic lines. The country is affected by problems such as corruption in politics, lack of federal power structure and lack of civic society. For BiH there is much to learn from Europe when it comes to organizing democratic society based on individuals rights and freedoms, rule of law and interdependent institutions. At the same time I want to argue that for Europe there are some things to learn from BiH and Ex-Yugoslavia.

November is also a month when the last Yugoslav prime minister Ante Markovic died in 2011. In the time of crisis Markovic was ambitious into transforming Yugoslavia into a democratic society and market economy. During his reform period he was supported by the Bush administration and Delores commission. However his actions was sabotaged by nationalistic elites in the republics, especially in Serbia, Slovenia and Croatia who did not wanted reforms for having a more open, inclusive and free society.

Markovics conclusion was that improving economy was not enough to reform and preserve Yugoslavia. He realized that democratic transformation was about shaping democracy based on multi-level governance from the federal- to local level. The political movement started by him , the liberal reform alliance , aimed for gathering support based on civic and not nationalistic rhetoric. Despite the electoral defeat and also the collapse of the state he managed to prove that it was possible to influence politics by gaining support from individuals who in the first place did not cared about their ethnic or national identities but about the civic based ideology.

Many reforms are needed if our union is going to be able to function and get improved in the future. However it is not only about the further integration of the single market and the "renatioanlziation" as David Cameron is advocating. There is a need for more developed European democracy when it comes to demos, citizenship and identity. Instead of a union where people are influencing power as Swedes, Latvians or Greeks, especially when it comes to decision-making within Council of ministers, there is a need an union where individuals can influence power as citizens.

BiH is a clear example of how fear, myths and hat can create divisions and distrust between people who often have more in common that is usually thought. That is why the European Union needs to transform into a union of citizens, for citizens and by the citizens. Also it is important to make it easier for individual to understand, legitimize and influence political power. And as Altermatt wrote in 1997 "in the sphere of economy and consumption, Europeans are adaptable in regard to one another, whereas in the area of culture there exists a peculiar type of rebellion against globalism.Citizens of different countries, afraid of losing their identity, isolate themselves from each other".

Improving the economy in the union is not going to be enough for the future. The real issues is about giving EU-citizens a sense of community and belonging in world's only supranational democracy. After 20 years of globalization and europeanization many challenges are supranational for the whole union and need to be addressed at the EU-level. As long the EU-citizens are limited to influence and legitimize political power at the union level it is going to make things harder for the union to function in the globalized world that we are living in.

In order to solve the migration crisis there is a need for a more democratic, responsible and inclusive Union

Within the Union there is much political resistance at the national level when it comes to accepting asylum seekers, refugees and displaced persons for humanitarian reasons. Much of the resistance is based on fear that outcome will be improved support for the nationalistic, populist and even racist parties. Among the other main reasons is the lack of political and institutional experience in several member states. Regarding the ”United in Diversity” principle, when it comes to values, experiences and mentality, there are differences. Sweden and Germany have a several decade long history of dealing with humanitarian migration while Poland or Estonia have little or almost none experience at all.

Since “the migration challenge” is global, there is a need for a future more effective and influential decision-making process at the EU-level. The Union must be able to stand for and act in accordance with the required values such as basic human rights, in order to function in a global world. Within the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe we have for a long time advocated a common and central migration system which could replace the current Dublin system. A reform is necessary as Mediterranean is after all the Union’s southern border as well as the need to act in the spirit of the UN. The UN migration experts have after all requested from the EU to help to solve the migration crisis by accepting about 1 million refugees during the years to come.

Today the majority of the EU-citizens are primarily claiming responsibility among the national politicians and institutions regarding migration. In order to really be able to solve the crisis there is a need for the more voices to reach Brussels. For that reason ALDE has worked out the following proposals:

1.    Replacement of the Dublin system with a common EU-system by establishing The European Asylum Support Office. Economic resources should be distributed from EU-level to national level regarding the administration processes for integration. This would also lead to the creation of legal ways to the Union for those who are justified to search asylum or refugee status.

2.    More effective implementation of a “EU-blue card” similar to USA`s green card. Primarily for highly educated migrants and qualified workers who will shortly after arrival be able to join the labour market.

3.    To provide more resources for Frontex in order to conduct more effective search and rescue operations and actions against the human smugglers.

This kind of system would make the EU as a political union more effective in the area of migration policy since allocation would mean a more fair distribution between the member states regarding responsibility, sovereignty and humanitarian solidarity. However, in order for the system to work there is a bigger need for achieving democratic legitimacy. The EU-citizens should have the possibilities to be more politically aware and also have a greater influence on migration politics at EU-level. 

At times of political and socioeconomic crisis across the Union it is obvious that national institutions are not performing effective when it comes to resolving the migration challenges. A common system would lead to interplay between national and EU-institutions. The integration of new-coming individuals to the Union should be based on values that newcomers are able to establish themselves. The risk is otherwise that EU-citizens would be isolated from the supranational challenges. A clear and absurd example is the decision made by the government of Hungary regarding the establishment of the border fence and public billboards written on Hungarian that migrants should not take ”jobs from Hungarians”.

With a more common policy the Union could be a contributor to a better world regarding supranational challenges and among the best actors regarding humanitarian migration. The way to achieve that is making migration polices less national and more about interplay with the EU-level of decision-making. This would be vital for the future changes for the Union such as the ageing population and in order to enhance the values for the EU-citizenship by creating more including, open and tolerant societies. Those who today flee from violent, tragic and horrible circumstances seeking shelter in Europe should be able to become full citizens of the Union with the rights, freedoms and responsibilities shared by the other EU-citizens, so they can contribute to a better and common future of the Union. 

Liberal Fight for LGBT Rights - Personal Views

The fight for a more equal and fair society is not over until the homophobia has ended up at the dustbin of history. It is sadly but true that in today’s world individuals are still being prosecuted, murdered and jailed for being what they are since the birth. Being a LGBT person is still not considered as a fact and a common sense even within the modern societies. Even if it should be widely known that not being heterosexual does not mean that one is sick or has some type of damage. In many parts of the world many people are still relaying on myths Instead of relying on science and reason.

Somebody said that homophobia is a choice but homosexuality is not. For many individuals the myths about LGBT persons being sick, perverted or crazy can be satisfying. It can give someone more simplified and easier way to understand the world around oneself. Or better said the myths can provide one with the chance (risk) to not understand the world around oneself and to make mistakes. For other individuals the myths can be devastating. One can end up being harmed, killed or behind bars because somebody else has an unrealistic, unscientific and irrational understanding of the human reality.

The roots of homophobic myths are not only found in rreligious books or on the Internet. Or in what is being said at the dinner table between parents and children or among the football hooligans on stadiums. The roots of today’s homophobia have much to do with the politics. The answer for making the society less homophobic and more useful for the individual is by changing the political rhetoric.

Globally seen the good news is that since a couple of years ago even the UN has started to promote a message on equal rights for LGBT and non-LGBT population. But in many states around the world such as Uganda and Russian Federation the homophobic rhetoric from the political stage is sending wrong and in many cases dreadful signals to the public. Political values are after all affecting the hearts and minds of the citizens. It is iimportant to aspire for wiping out the homophobic rhetoric that is being used by politicians.

Within the EU there are still political parties, even in governments, that either are openly homophobic or do not completely recognize the needs for more LGBT-related human rights. Developments like these are not benefiting the individual. Also EU is not being as tolerant, modern and open as many of its citizens would like it to be. Despite that today being LGBT in the EU is easier than 20 or 30 years ago the fight is still continuing.

Thankfully in many member states around the EU there are laws which are guaranteeing strong rights for the LGBT population and there are societies where the tolerant, modern and humanist values are well represented. And despite achievements it still important to organize manifestations such as the pride parades and to campaign for the rights of the LGBT population. Even if one can hear comments such as ”why do they need to be special” or ”why do they need to make the parades”. The answer should not be simple, it rather should be more developed. For me both the parades and legislation regarding LGBT population is going to be needed until their function is not needed anymore. The ideal should be that is worth fighting for a society where the pride parades are would not be necessary since the full equality would be ensured.

The fight for a more fair society is even important not only for the individuals but also for the families. Today many family across the EU are finding it difficult to be accepted as the members of the society since the family is consisting of two fathers or two mothers. There is much talk about the right or wrong sexual orientation. But is it an orientation at all? Is even the word orientation the right term in this context? In my opinion it is not. Being heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual and intersexual is not the orientation. It is not even about the choice. It is just about being natural and human.

On other side homophobia is a choice. Some individuals are not able to control hate or anger due psychological or biological reasons. But most of us are able to make a choice. To hate or fear somebody and basing it on ignorance, myths or lies instead of knowledge, rationality and inclusiveness is after all a choice. For that reason in order to fight against homophobia from a liberal perspective, the message should be provided what is choice and what is not a choice in a fight for a society that includes more equality, tolerance and individualism.  

From Dayton to Brussel – Only the post-Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina can be an European member state

The EU: s decision to approve Bosnia and Herzegovina to sign the pact for Stability and Association is a step in the right direction. However, without changes in the Bosnian state administration the future membership in the EU is completely unrealistic. In order to join the EU there is need for Bosnia and Herzegovina to first achieve the stability and association within its own borders.

Already during the begging of 2000's there was a lot of political rhetoric regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina becoming member of EU by the half of 2010. This includes the periods after the war and before the latest crisis within the EU. The current Commission has stated that there would be no enlargement before 2020. This means that BiH has a new opportunity to really aspire for the future membership.

But the main challenges for BiH towards the membership are not in Brussel. The main obstacles are internal and BiH needs to leave Dayton behind  step by step. The main purpose of the Dayton agreement was to stop the war and establish the peace. Dayton was not supposed to be practised today and to be a part of obstacles which are preventing BiH from becoming a more functional state.

Today’s Bosnia and Herzegovina is a state with a weak central power which in many cases is not to be accountable for its citizens. As state and society BiH is facing many challenges which could be solved by making reforms for joining the EU as by being the part of the Internal Market, future Energy Union and Schengen Area. And also by sharing European values as democracy, rule of law and civil rights.

Catholique church, ortodox church and mosque in the same area in the city of Bosanska Krupa. Religion in Bosnia is used by many politicians in order to make divergence between people based on ideas of ethno-nationalism. 

Except the strong lack of a civic-society, human rights and the rule of law in BiH, the country is also facing challenges regarding the inter-ethnic hate and the nationalistic rhetoric. For these reasons BiH would benefit in many ways by implementing European values and principles instead of being trapped in nationalistic myths from the 90’s.  Bosnia and Herzegovina needs to be able to exercise an authentic foreign, social or economic policy and to have stronger central governance.

For becoming a European member state Bosnia and Herzegovina needs its citizens, democratic and open society instead of constitutent peoples which reminds of the sectarian situation in Lebanon. The Dayton Bosnia is after all not a model or inspiration to other states or societies. Regrettable, BiH represents an anti-modern statehood by being based on war-crimes as genocide, ethnic cleansing and systematic rapes. Regarding important society aspects as the freedom of media, human rights and business atmosphere BiH is often being presented at the bottom of the lists.

Citizens are being promised the new border-line drawings by nationalist politicians instead of focusing on improvement on the quality of life. This rhetoric is totally against EU: s enlargement but also against the peace and the security in Europe.  By changing the administration in Bosnia and Herzegovina, for example on the basis of the Swiss canton-model or the Belgian federal order, would send a strong signal to Brussel that BiH is able to proceed with the reforms.

Being a member of EU today is not only important for having a stronger economy. In the time of globalization, the importance also lays in area regarding energy, environment and education. In a more and more globalized world membership in the EU is something that BiH highly needs in order to develop as a state and society.  Also the shared values such as democracy, rule of law and civil rights would be preferable for Bosnia and Herzegovina as a young state with the tragic past.  That would offer a chance for Bosnia and Herzegovina and its citizens for really aspiring for a better future instead of empty promises of a better past. 

Post-crisis EU needs more solidarity and polices for a common social policy

At the current moment EU stands for around 6 percent of the world’s population, 20 percent of the world’s economy and, as the former Swedish minister of foreign affairs Carl Bildt once tweeted, EU stands for around 50 percent of the world’s welfare. Rhetorically it sounds positive and astonishing however in reality the 6 percent of world’s population is still not covered or included by the 50 percent of world’s welfare. Welfare politics are still national issues and a significant socio-political integration process at the European level has not taken place despite the visions of Treaty of Rome in 1957 of economic and social integration going hand in hand. If the EU is supposed to stand for around half of the world’s welfare resources then there is need for a real and effective welfare policy at the European level.

At pace with the social, economic and political crisis in EU during the recent years, the new developments have taken place, which are reminding of the old dark periods from the 30’s. Austerity measures, massive social unrest and high numbers of unemployment. There is also growing support across the Union for parties which are categorized as nationalistic, anti-democratic or racist. The intolerance is also spreading between EU-citizens where UK is one primary example regarding the immigration debate which is highly infected by myths rather than being based on facts. Many of the current discussions are about how to prevent the EU citizens from other states access to welfare benefits and ”our own resources”.

At time of crisis it should be important to be reminded that the aim of the welfare states is after all, not only to produce the welfare, but also to shape a solidarity between the citizens, the society and the state. Since the EU is the world biggest economy it also means that the citizens are economically depending on each other. After all, ”our own resources” are also depending both on how economy is performing oat the global level and within the single market. When young people in Greece, Spain and Italy but also in Sweden, UK and France are unemployed it also turns to be an European issue and not only a national one.

For the reasons mentioned above it is a high time for the economic and social integration to complete each other in order to deal more effective with the current social challenges in the Union. Current crisis have resulted in worsening of the quality of life, which can be illustrated by the story about the ”lost generation” – the young EU-citizens who are unemployed, in education or labour training. Union cannot afford to have large numbers of, not only of the unemployed young people, but also the unemployed of other ages. There are enormous needs for investments in the human capital in order to create opportunities for the new tax payers who can be more attractive in the labour market. For example Spain and Portugal have higher percentage of citizens who only have primary school education compared to the wealthier member states as Germany and Sweden.

There is also another important reason for having more active social policy at the European level that can exist side by side with the national social policies. More citizens could be connected to Brussels which would make the EU more countable for its citizens. It could improve the situation regarding so called ”democratic deficit” and provide more political competition at the European level.  Also there should not be any contradictions between higher social spending and economic growth in EU in general since historically seen several member states have managed that, like for example Sweden, Denmark and Finland.

As previously mentioned, a European welfare policy would not mean that member states would lose their own welfare policy. Instead, the EU would be able to provide welfare as extra support where it could be needed, especially in the case if the issues cannot be solved at the national level. In case of the UK or Netherlands where the governments are complaining about the “social tourism” and the strains of welfare because of higher numbers of migrating EU-citizens, the Union could act by having its own welfare funds in order to provide support to the national governments.  

The formation of the EU with its roots in beginning of the 50’s has after all been based on creating a prosperity and fighting against a poverty and not fighting against the poor or neglecting the needed convergence between the member states. By having its own social policy Commission, Council and the European Parliament could be engaged in achieving the following:

1)   Increasing the labour force mobility by providing salary benefits. Migration within the Union is important in order to have more tax payers and educational development. In USA the percentage of the labour mobility between the states is around 10 percent comparing to the 3-4 percent in the EU. One challenge lies in how to increase the labour mobility from member states where quality of life is higher to the member state where it is lower. Latvia for example is one of the fastest growing economies in EU but still struggles to attract more high-skilled labour. The salary benefit for mobile work force could be provided by the Commission and be based on 50 percent of the respective member states medium wage during 6, 9,12 months depending on the type of work. 

2)   There are needs for investing in the human capital in order to shape more attractive individuals for the labour market but also to increase the social convergence between the member states. The so called ”youth guarantee” program is a good start but the EU could be able to provide more to the national governments in order to deal with poverty reduction through the competence developing actions. High amounts of EU-citizens in the working-age are with only primary education or with lack of knowledge in foreign languages is not appropriate either for the needs of the single market or the knowledge-based economies within and outside the Europe.

3)   At present, the problem of beggary leads to many discussions and arouse strong feelings. Also it is a problem that is hard to solve on the national level since prohibiting the poverty means prohibiting the problem but not solving it. People who are desperate in order to satisfy the basic needs as housing, food and water do not care of a prohibition at the first place.  The EU has,  during the latest years,  provided funds for actions targeting  improving the quality of life for Roma minorities to some member states as for example to Romania. However, in many cases such actions have been obstructed because of the unwillingness of local or national politicians. Standing up for the rights of the Roma population in Romania can result in losing the popular support from voters. In practice it means that taking actions that are necessary for the basic human and citizen rights is regarded as a political suicide since many voters are influenced by a strong anti-cyganism. For those reasons the Commission should be able to provide the necessary funds directly to NGO:s, local activists or voluntary organizations which are working with helping the Romas if the national governments are not able or not willing to perform their responsibility.

When the social crisis occur and the quality of life becomes worse it usually leads to people having negative experiences which can affect the future decision-making process and trust in the state institutions. In EU many citizens already have that kind of negative experience.  Since these experiences are not only based on decisions taken on national level it also means that the solutions for citizens welfare and quality of life in the future should be provided at the European level. The lessons-learned from the time of crisis should result in form of the efficient social-policy and welfare solidarity across EU. 

Five proposals for actions against terrorism

In connection with the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Copenhagen many citizens around the Union are experiencing fear for new attacks. At the moment there is a need to discuss about how new attacks can be prevented through more effective methods against terrorism while at same time having high respect for citizens personal integrities, freedoms and dignities.

The actions against terrorism need to be based on rule of law principles such as juridical liability and proportionality. Except of developing actions ad methods against terrorism on European or national level, it is also important to establish a working procedure which would mean that the eventual violation of personal integrity, human rights and civil liberties from the side of law enforcement   are not unjustified, unnecessary and unproportioned.

One of the main challenges regarding terrorism is that terrorism often is border crossing. Technically seen a terrorist act can be planned in one member state, financed from another and performed in a third. Within the Union there have been many discussions about ”sharing and pooling” information and stronger cooperation between national security agencies. But now is the time to go from words into actions.

The member states are still going to have the most of responsibility regarding terrorism prevention on national level. At the same time the recent developments are showing that there is a need to make it clear  how actions against terrorism can be performed on European level. Democracy, rule of law and actions against terrorism need to go hand in hand. For that reason we in ALDE are proposing the following five proosals  for a more secure Union by dynamic actions against terrorism which at the same time can satisfy the opinions of many citizens regarding the demands for respect of personal freedoms and integrity:

1.    The establishment of a fully-fledged European Intelligence Service called EurIntel;

2.    Strengthening of Europol including a European Counter Terrorism Centre

3.    Strengthening of Eurojust in parallel with the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office that covers terrorism

4.    Integrate counter terrorism policy in the European External Action Service

5.    Better coordination of national prevention strategies.  

Comments regarding a new concept for Unions battle groups

At the moment Sweden is for the third time leading one of the Unions battle groups. The so called Nordic Battle Group is probably not going to be deployed outside of Europe this time either. And for the third time critical and disappointing questions are going to be raised regarding why the EUBG was not used in a mission? If the Union is going to fulfill its vision and perform as a global security actor then the concept with EUBG needs to be changed.

The current concept with the EUBG is based on the legacy from the Solana administration which was working with establishment of CFSP and CSDP. The concept is old fashioned and outdated since EUBG:s are to small in size in order to really make a difference. Another legacy for shaping the CSDP are the wars in former Yugoslavia , a catastrophic scenario for which EU was criticized for not being able to respond effectively towards the crisis that was taking place  Europe. By changing the concept with the battle groups EU could establish a rapid reaction force with permanent command, more personnel and continues operational preparedness in order to be able to conduct peacekeeping and responsibility to protect missions around the globe.

Regarding peacekeeping and peace enforcement, for a long time there have been talks about more European common voice and engagement within United Nations. These opinions are regarding the security challenges in today’s world, opinions that are shared also within the UN. Especially in a time when UN is facing organizational problems, not at least regarding the Security Council and area of Peace and Security, Union could provide a stronger impact for a safer and peaceful world. For example at the moment Commission is one of the biggest donors of humanitarian aid and EU-28 are together biggest in the world.

With the another model of EUBG concept  the Union could do more to perform as a global actor for dealing with crisis, wars and conflicts around the world. A new kind of battle group could always be at disposal for UN to call upon when problems occur. Especially this could be usable in a scenario such as it was in Mali or Central African Republic. This however depends much on political will both at European and national level. Also it represents the chance for the Union to really become a global actor and to implement the visions rooted in experiences from the bloody wars on Balkans during the 90’s.