The Israeli-Palestinian Movement “Combatants for Peace”

مقاتلون من اجل السلام / לוחמים לשלום

An open dialogue, cultural initiatives and exchanges between Palestinians and Israelis are rare and difficult to obtain. The ongoing military conflict, fixed prejudices and imaginaries, and a lack of openness in the region are hindering are joint dialogue for mutual understanding. However, there are a few civil movements who try to break down these collective barriers and raise the consciousness in both societies in regard to this bloody conflict.

The non-violent resistance group “Combatants for Peace” is the very best example that a jointly movement for a better relationship is possible. It is a civil movement jointly established by former Palestinian militants and Israeli soldiers in order to promote a peaceful solution of two states (according to the Oslo Treaty) through dialogue and non-violent means. The bi-national movement “Combatants for Peace” leads a pacifist struggle against the occupation, fights for peace and justice in various joint actions. The activist’s goal is to enhance trust and solidarity between Palestinians and Israelis and, in the end, lead their societies out of the vicious cycle of conflict.

“Combatants for Peace” was formed in 2005 by a group of 12 Israeli soldiers from the Israeli army (IDF) and four former Palestinian fighters, mostly from the Fatah movement. Both sides took an active role in the violent struggle in the region and decided together to drop their arms. They become convinced that a military solution to the conflict is impossible and motivated to talk to each other” "Initially we were full of fear, but we learned that we're all human and can talk together,” said Palestinian Fatah fighter Sulaiman al-Hamri to the Jewish Journal. After a series of meetings, the group of Israelis and Palestinians jointly expressed the desire to fight peacefully for a solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and formed the “Combatants for Peace on Pessah” in 2006.

Today the movement consists of more than 250 activists involving also non ex-military participants who gather in weekly group dialogue meetings. But dialogue is not the end in itself, but rather a starting point for a number of concrete actions and real change in the area. For instance, the movement engages to help Palestinian farmers who have limited access to their fields due to military presence or who face harassment from settlers. The Combatants remove road blockages that tears the Palestinian villages apart, assist in the re-building of demolished houses and provide cultural and social activities such as tours of east Jerusalem, lectures and nonviolent demonstrations.

In a press release Raed Hadar and Avner Wishnitzer, Palestinian and Israeli coordinators of the movement emphasise: “We believe that only by joining forces, will we be able to end the cycle of violence, the bloodshed and the occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people. We no longer believe that it is possible to resolve the conflict between the two peoples through violent means; therefore we declare that we refuse to take part any more in the mutual bloodletting

Recently, the efforts of the “Combatants for Peace” were honoured with the 4th Euro-Med Award for Dialogue between Cultures 2009. The award, an initiative of the Anna Lindh Foundation and its partner Fondazione Mediterraneo, promotes the dialogue between cultures shared by the 43 countries of the Union for the Mediterranean. The official Ceremony was held in Stockholm, on 21st of September 2009, the International Day of Peace.

Links:
Please visit: www.combatantsforpeace.org
Jewish Journal: Former Israeli and Palestinian fighters push for peace—together
Anna Lindh Euro Mediterranean Foundation: www.euromedalex.org

Italy and Recent Developments in the Area of Asylum

Lampedusa, Sicily or Sardinia... when you hear about these Italian islands in the Mediterranean you won’t automatically associate these spots with beaches and holidays nowadays but rather with floods of refugees, reception centres and human rights abuses. The Italian policy of intercepting migrants and refugees without giving them a chance to request asylum has aroused sharp criticism, as many legitimate refugees and asylum seekers are forced to get back to places where their lives are threatened. This rough immigration practices are also strongly criticised by the European Union, although the Union’s own incapacity to carry out a European solution is highly related with the problems in the Mediterranean Sea.

The European Union has so far failed to enforce a common European treatment of asylum claims and until there are not adequate systems to offer safety to asylum seekers and refugees who need it across Europe, the story will continue. Ten years after the establishment of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), the achievements in the area of Asylum have been plain-spoken modest. The security discourses have taken precedence on the European agenda and the priorities have shifted towards issues relating to external frontiers and undocumented immigration, which has conjured up images of a “Fortress Europe”.

In 2008, there were nearly 240,000 asylum applications lodged in the EU and just 13% of applicants were granted refugee status. 193 690 first instance decisions were made on asylum applicants. There were 73% rejections, 13% applicants were granted refugee status, 10% subsidiary protection and 5% authorisation to stay for humanitarian reasons. (Eurostat, 2009) The Hague Program called for an improved asylum regulation, common procedure and uniform status for asylum seekers as the so-called Dublin Regulation, defining that the first EU member state that a migrant enters examines the asylum application, has been unsatisfactory. Various approaches, such as the Asylum Procedures Directive, Reception Conditions Directive, or the Qualification Directive should harmonize the conditions, procedures, and the rights conferred on the status of refugees or asylum applicants in the different EU countries.

However, the level of harmonization is still relatively low and the national authorities and courts do not always correctly apply the EU’s directives. The situation is particularly critical for rejected asylum seekers who are often times forced to work in substandard conditions, exploited, or taken into trafficking networks. The EU’s measures to protect these victims of exploitation and trafficking are inadequate. The recent Employers’ Sanctions Directive proposal on Third country nationals (TCNs) working illegally and the proposal for a “Return Directive” illustrate the predominant trend to focus on illegal residence and working, and repressive security measures rather than on protecting the migrants’ rights.

Nevertheless, the Commission is pushing for standardization and, in December 2008, it presented an asylum package that should change the European legislation by setting minimal standards for asylum seekers at the point of their arrival - Measures to improve the asylum system and strengthening asylum seekers' rights specific standards must be guaranteed in terms of “housing, food, clothing, health care, financial benefits, and freedom of movement and access to work.” (European Parliament, 2009) Furthermore, the creation of a European Asylum Support Office and a “solidarity” clause to unburden greatly affected EU members such as Malta, Italy, and Greece is foreseen. On May 7, 2009, the package was adopted by the European Parliament which called for a binding mechanism to be set up before 2012.

In the meantime, it is feared that unilaterally national initiatives will further gain ground and violate international law, as the case of Italy demonstrates. In May 2009, Italy started its highly controversial return policy with joint naval patrols in Libyan territorial waters and a bilateral agreement with Tripoli. In order to combat illegal immigration, Italy rejects every boat approaching the Italian coastal borders and the Italian coast guard sent all migrants back to so-called reception centres in Libya. A new Human Rights Watch (HRW) report illustrates the bad treatment and inhuman conditions in this Libyan centres to which all of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees are sent regardless their official status in international law. Libya has not ratified the international convention on refugees and treats all returned people as illegal immigrants, regardless of their legal status. Many of them are refugees and asylum seekers from conflict zones such as Somalia or Darfur who would have a right to international protection. The Human Rights Watch Report stresses that 2008 about 75 percent of the people coming to Lampedusa were asylum seekers. As a consequence, the irregular boat migrants to Sicily, Lampedusa and Sardinia fell by 55 percent in the first six months of 2009 compared to the same period the previous year according to the HRW. Frontex statistics show a 31% decrease in the number of migrants detected heading towards Italy and Malta in the first half of this year compared to the same period last year.

On 21 September 2009, a Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting was held in Brussels to discuss actions in the area of irregular migration, joint EU Resettlement Programme, asylum issues, unaccompanied minors and a report from the European Commission as a follow-up on the European Council conclusions of 18/19 June 2009. The Italian case was not high on the agenda despite of UN critics that fundamental human rights standards of refugees have to be respected. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, recently called the current European asylum policy “dysfunctional” and urged EU Member States to help refugees who are fleeing from conflicts in their countries.



Links:
Human Rights Watch: Pushed Back, Pushed Around Eurostat: Data in Focus, 8/2009, Asylum applicants and decisions on asylum applications in Q4 2008 European Parliament: Press Release: 07.05.2009 Council of the EU: European Council conclusions of 18/19 June 2009
Council of the EU: JHA Council conclusions 21 September 2009

Europa Jaratouna - أوروبا جارتنا على

A new communication project of the European Commission, Eurojar, is officially being launched in Beirut on 24 June 2009. The project’s name “Eurojar” stands for Europa Jaratouna (Europe our neighbour) and aims to maximize the visibility of the European Neighbourhood Policy. The website eurojar.org, launched in May this year, has already published a series of articles on Euro-Mediterranean relations and the European Neighbourhood Policy. Articles, information, reactions and opinions are available on the website.

Eurojar is one of 13 projects funded by the Commission’s EuropeAid Regional Information and Communication Programme. The Eurojar budget amounts 1.5 million Euros and will last for at least one year. Europa Jaratouna seeks to increase awareness and understanding about the EU’s policies among the citizens of eight Arab countries, which are Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestinian Territories, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria.

A consortium of media networks is realizing the multimedia project:
The leader of the consortium is the Lebanese daily paper L’Orient Le Jour. Every Monday, the newspaper publishes an article or an analysis about EU-Mediterranean cooperation. So far, the articles of L’Orient Le Jour have dealt with the prospects for a Euro-Mediterranean free trade area, the European Neighbourhood Policy, and the Euromed Audiovisual programme.
Furthermore, the pan-Arab press company Al-Hayat group will publish 52 articles over a period of one year. The French-Lebanese Le Commerce du Levant will present once every month an analysis or an economic or socio-economic report on one of the aspects of Euro-med relations. Last but not least, a group of Lebanese and Arab TV channels, the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (LBC), will broadcast 32 TV episodes on LBCI and LBCsat.

Web Links:
Eurojar: www.eurojar.org/
L’Orient Le Jour: www.lorientlejour.com
Al-Hayat: www.daralhayat.com
LBC: www.lbcgroup.tv
Le Commerce du Levant: www.lecommercedulevant.com

Hibernation, Celebration and Revitalisation

The next 13^th of July will mark the first anniversary of the Union for the Mediterranean. However, there is not an occasion to celebrate. Despite of the structural reforms with the establishment of the general secretariat in Barcelona and the Mediterranean University in Slovenia, the outcomes of this new framework are rather limited not only because the escalating conflict in the Middle East at the end of 2008 has slowed down any progress.

After six months of standstill there is some hope that the Union for the Mediterranean have come out of hibernation. Under French initiative, the delegations from the 43 members met in Paris on 25 June to discuss a set of priority development projects in the field of sustainable development. The ministerial meeting addressed the main themes in the framework of the UfM, namely water and environment, transport, energy and urban development. A new impetus to regional cooperation is required to tackle drinking water shortages, pollution of the Mediterranean Sea, natural habitats and agricultural areas in the coastal areas which remain serious problems for the southern Mediterranean states.

The challenges in the Mediterranean region are today more demanding then ever. The proceeding of these transnational projects and an intensification of cooperation between Europe, North Africa and the Middle East is needed after the cooperation itself on the working level were put on ice and came to a near standstill for months. Since November 2008 no formal meetings among the heads of state and government have taken place. In contrary to the technical meetings of experts and civil servants in the framework of the Barcelona Process, the UfM framework foresees high level meetings. In the consequence, the meetings might have on the one hand a stronger political impact but can be on the other hand easier hindered by political events.

Although the member states have agreed to resume formal meetings, the financial crisis is now challenging the success of the planned projects. The financial crisis is hitting the real economy and businesses in the Southern Mediterranean are suffering from the recession. The gross domestic product growth for the Middle East is projected to decline from 6 percent in 2008 to 3.1 percent in 2009. Access to bank financing is increasingly difficult and investors hesitate to finance projects. The current EU budget for Mediterranean policy (16 billion euro from 2007 to 2013) is limited and many envisaged projects need further private loans and additional funding to be realized. Exceptions are projects in the field of energy as the expectations from the European side for an energy partnership are high. On initiative of Germany and France a solar plan was included into the list of projects of the UfM. The Southern Mediterranean countries are considered as a perfect source for solar energy due to abundance of sunshine. At least from solar power projects some results might be achieved if they bear fruit in the near future but this solely prospect is somewhat disappointing taking into account the high expectations in the UfM.

Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere

Copyright (C) Bruce Etling, John Kelly, Rob Faris, John Palfrey; 2009

The Internet and Democracy project at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society has produced a map of the Arabic blogosphere. In the report approximately 35,000 active Arabic language blogs were identified which are mainly organized around countries. According to the analysis the Egyptian blogsphere is the biggest which consists primarily of political opposition organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
This study gives an assessment about how issues of politics, media, religion, culture, and international affairs are discussed in the Arabic blogosphere.

Download the full report here: Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere: Politics, Culture and Dissent

Obama offers a New Beginning

US President Barack Obama's speech at Cairo University marks an important step toward a new American policy in the Middle East.

Obama extended a hand to world Islam by emphasizing that a two-state solution is the only viable solution and that Israel will have to cease settlements. The message received different and contradicting reactions in the Arabic world. While many praised his speech others are demanding concrete actions to prove the credibility of his words and his supposed good intentions.

Trust is needed to build up cooperation between the United States and the Muslim world. This can not be achieved in one well-intended speech. Therefore, Obama's speech could just be a historic turning point when his words are followed with deeds.

Shared Euro-Mediterranean news –a shared destiny?

On 15 April, the European Commission launched a new media project to foster co-operation and dialogue with the Middle East and North African neighbours. The new television channel EuroMed-News aims to promote the EU’s neighbourhood policy and boost the visibility of EU-funded projects in the region. EuroMed-News is a 1-year project supported by the European Commission with €2.16m with a possible option for extension.

The cultural and political ties between the EU and its southern neighbours have not significantly improved since the Barcelona process and the launch of a Union for the Mediterranean last year. The new television channel EuroMed-News aims to strengthen the intercultural dialogue with the neighbour partners in the south and promote cultural diversity and gender equality. According to EU's external relations Commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, "little by little, using these images, we can help these societies become more open."
In addition, the EuroMed-News seeks to increase the coverage of EU issues in the media and to raise the public opinion awareness regarding EU’s policies. The EU-funded project guarantees some media attention to improve the image of the Union in the neighbour countries. Thus, one of the central policies of the new channel is to foster the awareness among the local populations by providing information about European policies and actions supported by the European Union which benefit the countries in the neighbouring region.

The EuroMed-News project is jointly produced by the Arab States Broadcasting Union, Euro-Mediterranean media association COPEAM and the European Broadcasting Union under the leadership of France Télévisions. Furthermore, it gathers broadcasters and national TV stations from Jordan, Morocco, Lebanon, Libya und Algeria to reach a broad coverage. EuroMed-News will produce news topics, magazines and documentaries about North African society and the economy. The programmes will be broadcast on public television across the southern Mediterranean States and is available via the Internet.

It remains open whether the EuroMed-News can really create better cultural and social ties between Europe and the Southern Mediterranean States. Sure is, that both regions have much more in common than just the Mediterranean Sea. The executive producer Lyes Belaribi is hopefully right when he states on the website: "The Mediterranean plan, a shared destiny".


Visit the website: http://www.euromed-news.org/

European Neighbourhood Policy– Catalyst or Impediment?

Recently, the EU saw itself confronted with several conflicts in the neighbourhood – from the war in Georgia over the gas conflict in Ukraine to the Gaza war. In all conflicts the EU was not capable to coordinate a coherent policy approach and just monitored the status quo. The current neighbourhood policy of the European Union has several shortcomings due to the Union’s misguided perspective on how it should interact with its neighbours.
To be a strong international political entity and a key actor in the neighbourhood the EU needs to reassess its neighbourhood policy. The enlargement of 2004 expanded the Union’s area of geopolitical influence and put the EU into direct contact with new areas of strategic interest which would face the Union with new challenges that can not be answered with integration policy. Without an appropriate institutional set up to work out its relations with the neighbourhood its political reputation will be further undermined.

Neighbours becoming Members
The former EU’s neighbourhood integration strategy aimed to prepare candidate states for membership in the Union. In 1993 the European Council laid down specific rules and obligations for countries wanting to join the Community. The so-called Copenhagen criteria requires that an applicant nation adopt the acquis communitaire, have a functioning market economy and have stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. During the EU’s eastward enlargement, the EU used conditionality to secure compliance from the candidates on a broad range of political, economic, and legal matters. The conditionality tool had powerful effects in the negotiation and reform processes and deeply impacted the public policies of applicant states. As the former external relations Commissioner Chris Patten stated, “…over the past decade, the Union’s most successful foreign policy instrument has undeniably been the promise of EU membership”. (European Commission, News European Neighbourhood Policy, 2003)

Copyright (C) CSS Analysen zur Sicherheitspolitik Nr. 10, März 2007

Prior to the last accession of new member states in 2004 and 2007, enlargement was one of the EU’s most powerful foreign policy tools. The “golden carrot” of membership was the most effective instrument for influencing neighbouring countries’ policies and for promoting peace, prosperity, and stability. As the EU’s borders advanced and neighbours became members during the eastward expansion, previously distant countries then became direct neighbours. These neighbouring countries are unlikely to be admitted to the Community in the short-term what forced the Union to change its concept of neighbourhood. The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) is the response to the shifting political climate between the EU and its surrounding nations.

The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP)
The European Neighbourhood Policy was introduced by the European Commission in 2003 (Wider Europe) and further developed in the “Strategy Paper on the European Neighbourhood Policy” published in May 2004. Initially established with the purpose of providing its new eastern European neighbours a credible alternative to membership, the EU decided later to offer the same type of structured relationship to its southern neighbours (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Occupied Palestinian Territory, Syria and Tunisia). The objective of this new policy is to extend the reform stimulus of enlargement to the new neighbours and to prevent the emergence of new dividing lines between the enlarged EU and its neighbours. The ENP is directed toward the countries bordering the EU but it lacks the prospect of membership that was inherent in the former accession policy.
The ENP has ambitious goals for bringing security and stability to those countries and regions. The new foreign policy tool should handle the neighbours’ problems such as organised crime, trafficking, and illegal migration, which may have indirect and direct implications for the EU. The ENP framework is a combination of bilateral dialogue and cooperation. The bilateral relations are based on Association Agreements and jointly agreed Action Plans in which the EU and the partner states define a set of priorities covering a number of key areas for specific action. The result is that the EU may follow up on certain issues, particularly on those pertaining to good governance, human rights, and political reform in partner countries.

The ENP and the Mediterranean Partner States
Since the former policy towards the Mediterranean neighbourhood, the EMP (Euro-Mediterranean Partnership), had neither bilateral agreements nor effective use of conditionality, the ENP was seen as an advanced tool. In individual action plans described by the ENP, the principles of conditionality and joint ownership should be applied. In return for implementing policy reforms, the EU offers an increased participation in programmes, aid flows, and a stake in the EU’s internal market with the possibility of having a free trade area. However, the access to the European Internal Market is restricted in certain areas like the Common Agricultural Policy and the Free Movement of People which are of particular interest for the southern partner states.
The Mediterranean case shows that the ENP strategy of encouraging further reforms has been largely unsuccessful. The ENP has largely failed to meet the high expectations. In the view of the Mediterranean partners, the policy framework is mostly designed to pursue EU’s interests. Without the prospect of membership, the incentives for southern governments to adopt EU standards and to undertake political, economic and institutional reforms are insufficient. Especially if there is a risk of losing political power and popularity by implementing economic reforms or legislative reform is high. In addition, the EU has not used conditionality to push for political and economic reform, thus far, as it might create instability. As the EU preferred objective in the regions are stability and security, autocratic leaders were backed and a move to a free market democracy prevented. Thus, Europe is far away from a coherent policy because it does not know what it wants from the countries; stability and security or free markets democracy.
Without offering partner countries sufficient incentives for closer cooperation in various fields the consistency and effectiveness of EU conditionality on policy change is low. Economic incentives and increased partnership are not enough to encourage the level of political and economic change required by the EU.

Conclusion
The prospect of membership in the Union has promoted countries to undergo fundamental changes voluntarily in order to prepare for the accession. While conditionality during the enlargement process was a powerful instrument for dealing with candidate nations, the strategy of offering incentives in return for the will to undertake reform has not been successful with the new neighbours.
The EU’s neighbourhood policy was initially seen as a complement to enlargement. However, the ENP is not an adequate alternative to the enlargement instrument, as the primary objectives are not clearly defined and hardly realistic in some cases. Incentives of closer ties, a (nearly) free-trade zone and temporary agreements can not replace the “carrot” of membership for ENP partner countries. To date, the Union has no other carrots, but it has no sticks either.

Proposal for the establishment of European Asylum Support Office

On 18 February, the European Commission proposed a Regulation to establish a European Asylum Support Office (EASO) which could be running by 2010. The establishment of a new agency is in line with the Policy Plan on Asylum adopted by the Commission in June 2008 which proposed an extension of European legislation on asylum. The EU’s objectives are to build up administrative cooperation between the Member States and to abolish the differences in the national asylum policies.

With the increasing numbers of asylum seekers in Europe, the mayor tasks of the EASO will be to support Member States in their efforts to implement a more consistent and fairer asylum policy. The agency will support practical cooperation on asylum, assist Member States under particular pressure through possibly deploying asylum support teams and contribute to the implementation of the Common European Asylum System.

This regulatory agency will take the form of an independent European body without decision-making powers.
The Office's structure will consist of a management board, an executive director, an executive committee and a consultative forum. The management board will be composed of representatives of the Member States and the Commission. UNHCR will be present on the board, although without voting rights. NGO influence is only possible through the consultative body.

EU Press Release: Setting up of European Asylum Support Office proposed by the Commission

Obama meets Al-Arabiya

On his first day in office, US President Barack Obama put an end to the controversial U.S foreign policy towards the Middle East during the Bush administration. Bush's "war against terrorism" should be replaced by a new diplomatic strategy of dialog and cooperation with the whole region including Syria and Iran.
The reactions in the Middle East were divided: some expressed pessimism about the capacity of the Obama administration to bring about real change in the region, others were optimistic that Barack Obama is able to devise a more balanced role in the region.

In Obama's first interview since taking office, the new president said that the U.S. are not the enemy of the Muslim world and that Israel and the Palestinians should resume peace negotiations. US President Obama offered to the Islamic world a "new partnership in mutual respect". In his "greater Middle East" strategy Obama will use credible and active diplomacy that employs "all instruments of US power".
The crucial question will be whether Obama will succeed in translating his words into direct actions for the benefit of the region.

The Middle East experts Amr Hamzawy and Marina Ottaway conclude in a publication of Carnegie Endowment:

"Obama’s election was a public diplomacy triumph for the United States, the first real success the United States has won in the Arab world in a long time, and probably the most important one since President Eisenhower backed Egypt’s efforts to regain control of the Suez Canal in 1956. Yet the success could prove short-lived: Arabs were reacting to concrete change, not to words, and are likely to revert to the old hostility unless Obama’s words are backed by concrete changes in U.S. Middle East policies."


Check out Obama's first interview with the Arab satellite station Al Arabiya:

Iran: An Unpredictable Variable

Iran’s aggressive foreign policy, coupled with its incipient nuclear program, is a serious concern and currently one of the most pressing problems in international politics and diplomacy. This article focuses briefly on Iran’s international standing and the origins of the tension between this country and the western world. In the end, it gives some personal remarks on how the conflict might be solved.
Iran is a country of special geostrategic importance due to its central location in Eurasia. In addition, the country has large reserves of petroleum and natural gas. Despite the advantages gleaned from its location and energy stores, Iran faces difficult internal problems (e.g. a high unemployment rate and inflation) and enormous diplomatic conflicts with the western world. Even though political relations between the West and Iran have been tense since Iran’s Islamic revolution in 1979, these relations have significantly worsened in recent years. One cause of the increased tension is the renewal of a Shiite radicalism in Iran under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Iranian leader is developing intermediate range missiles that have the ability to strike Israel, and he is a strong proponent of the nuclear program. Ahmadinejad continues to call for Israel’s destruction, proclaiming that a nuclear war with Israel will bring the return of the last Shiite Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, to earth. Teheran is sharply critical of the US invasion of Iran’s former chief rival, Iraq, as the state is worried about US hegemony in the region.

Iran’s Nuclear Program
Iran has moved ahead rapidly with its nuclear program. The Persian nation has been steadily increasing the number of centrifuges at its uranium enrichment plants, which according to Teheran officials, will solely be used for peaceful purposes. Iran is insisting on its inalienable right to enrich uranium and build centrifuges for peaceful power generation. In opposition to this declaration, the West is accusing Teheran of seeking to enrich uranium to levels high enough for use in nuclear weapons. In particular, Israel sees the nuclear ambitions of Iran as a threat to their existence and fear that Teheran’s program could drive other states in the Middle East to pursue nuclear power for armament and weapons.
Various diplomatic incentives have failed to halt Iran’s nuclear program, which is currently under surveillance by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). However, the means of the IAEA have shown to be inadequate for detecting countries that have clandestine enrichment programs, such as Algeria, Libya and Syria.

Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Equally ineffective are the sanctions by the United Nations Security Council. Recently, a United Nations Security Council resolution imposed a series of sanctions on Iran after the state declined an international offer that would require the suspension of its nuclear activity in exchange. Russia’s role is important here because this country has veto power in the UN Security Council, where sanctions need to be approved unanimously by the five permanent members. Oftentimes, Russia has threatened to boycott the decision due to recent tensions with the United States. Russia is a nuclear supplier and it supports Tehran's nuclear program for constructing the Bushehr reactor and selling its nuclear expertise. Furthermore, Moscow sees Iran as a strategic partner against an American presence in the Middle East, and is supportive of like-minded forces such as Hamas, Shiite Hezbollah, and Syria. If Russia is further willing to deepen ties with Iran, ( e.g. within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO); a military alliance, seen as a counterbalance to NATO, between Russia, China, and several Central Asian former Soviet states in which Iran has observer status) there could be a dangerous redistribution of power in international politics.

How to Deal with Iran?
What are the options for dealing with Iran? Should we accept a nuclear-armed Iran and live in a more insecure world where Israel’s existence is endangered? Should we bomb the country and have a “second Iraq”? There are different suggestions about how to react to Iran’s aggressive foreign policy. Israel is willing to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. The Bush administration oftentimes discussed using force to stop the rapidly expanding Iranian nuclear program, but there is hope that Barack Obama will attempt to solve the crisis diplomatically. Obama is generally inclined towards a worldwide nuclear disarmament.
Admittedly, diplomatic activities with Iran have not been a great success, thus far. However, military action should not be the preferred means of dealing with Iran. The western world has to pull out all the stops to prevent an armed conflict or even another invasion in the region. The European Union (EU) should strengthen its “soft power” agenda in the case of Iran. The EU could be effective because of its good reputation for international diplomacy and its good relationship with Russia. A security community that involves the EU, US, and Russia as equal partners could be the key solution to the current friction. With the committed support of the European states, Obama could be empowered to reinitiate direct diplomatic policy with the Persian state. A common strategy of a mix of “carrots and sticks” is most appropriate. Offering economic incentive packages and permitting a nuclear program under control of the international society could persuade Tehran to suspend its uranium enrichment program. If direct talks and “carrots” will not halt Iran obtaining nuclear material, Europe and the US must act in concert to put international pressure on the Iranian economy to prevent Ahmadinejad’s next win in the polls; Ahmadinejad will most likely win the 2009 Iranian presidential election, mainly because of the support of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The western states have to make it clear to the Iranian people that a moderate policy towards Israel and the rest of the world is necessary and more beneficial for themselves. Another victory of Ahmadinejad would make productive policy changes regarding Iran’s nuclear program nearly impossible.

Immigration and the European Union – Reflections on the New Pact

On October 15, EU heads of state endorsed the 'European Pact on Immigration and Asylum'. The Immigration Pact, one of the centerpieces of the French EU presidency, mandates common approaches for handling future European immigration and provides a roadmap for implementing these policies. It sets out five priorities for action: legal immigration and integration, a European asylum system, control of illegal immigration, effective border controls and development. The EU will introduce a 'Blue Card' for the purpose of attracting highly-skilled migrants from developing countries. This new work visa, which is based on the US Green Card, will come into force by mid-2010.

Since October 2007, when the Blue Card plan was first tabled, difficult bargaining was needed to reach an agreement. The member states have very diverse requirements concerning immigration. Despite the member states’ differences regarding various policy details and frameworks, there were also converging viewpoints. All member states have to tackle the demographic change, need to be competitive in the global market and most importantly have a common interest in maintaining strong external Community borders. Furthermore, Europe’s ongoing integration in many fields such as the labour market, has created the situation where member states affect one another. Europe has a mutual solidarity, and the states understand that immigration is a pan-European issue that must not be handled simply as a domestic matter.

However, the asylum policy questions this "solidarity" within the member states. While, for example, the number of asylum seekers to Central Europe is low and declining every year, hundreds of asylums are arriving at the coasts of southern Greece, southern Spain, and Malta every day. Nevertheless, the EU does not want to introduce a quota to distribute the asylum seekers in Europe, so those countries taking in large numbers of asylum-seekers will just receive money to solve this problem. On November 7, the European Commission adopted the multi-year program under the European Refugee Fund to give Malta 4.8 million Euros in assistance between 2008 and 2013. But it is unclear whether the financial solidarity will be enough.

Finally, the EU states agreed on adopting a balanced pact between regulating illegal immigrants/asylum-seekers and welcoming skilled workers. The Blue Card allows an immigrant to work just in one EU country, without having the right to move to another country for work purposes. The immigrant can not move freely within the EU, as this worker must apply for a new Blue Card when moving to another EU country. This restriction on labor mobility will make the scheme less attractive. Therefore, the Blue Card is not the right scheme to compete, for instance, with the US market for the best minds. In the US, similar market restrictions are not posed on any states, and also, there is not the disadvantage of having many different languages, as is the case in the EU.

The immigration pact is both a legitimate means of discouraging illegal immigration and enabling Europe to become more dynamic in its welcoming of highly qualified immigrants. It foresees stricter rules on the unification of immigrants' families, and also aims to make returning home easier. It will be harder for member states to grant mass amnesties for illegal migrants, like Spain did this for around 600,000 illegal immigrants in 2005.
Thus, the new immigration pact is both selective and also more controlled, with more returns of illegal immigration. So, some experts are wrong for assuming that the period of security minded policies of the European Union is over. The more than 100,000 illegal immigrants who reach the EU member states every year from the southern Mediterranean states can not easily controlled by this measure. The entire northern Mediterranean shore is a transit point for thousands of Africans refugees and migrants who are fleeing war or poverty in the Horn of Africa. Most of them arrive in Libya, where trafficking gangs transport help them for many dollars to reach Europe's coast. And all the thousands of people who reach Europe's Mediterranean shores, dead or dying of thirst, will not stop either with this EU Pact. Not to forget that immigration is not just an economic issue but also has a moral obligation. The EU can not just pick the best educated minds in order to fill a gap in the employment market and then send them home after a couple of years. This selective immigration is not only too unattractive for highly skilled people but also creates a brain drain on human resources in the developing states.
The EU pact on immigration and asylum is not a turning point in a common strategy. The "European fortress" is not only still alive, it is now the "Europe of the 27 fortresses".

• Council of the European Union: European Pact on Immigration and Asylum
• European Commission: European Refugee Fund 2008-2013 - Malta

Further information on the Blue Card Watch Eurinfo

"Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean" -First ministerial conference

Flag of the Union for the Mediterranean

The first Ministerial Conference of the "Barcelona Process: Union for Mediterranean" was held in Marseilles on November 3rd and 4th. The conference brought co-chaired by the French and Egyptian foreign affairs ministers, Bernard Kouchner and Ahmed Aboul Gheitheld, brought together the ministers of foreign affairs of the 43 member countries.The work programme of the Union for the Mediterranean for the year 2009 was adopted which foresees the implementation of specific, regional projects in the following six areas:

Civil Protection

De-pollution of the Mediterranean

Alternative Energies and Mediterranean Solar Plan

Higher Education and Research – Euro-Mediterranean University

Supporting Business

Maritime and Land Highways

Apart from the adoption of the Paris summit work programme, just few outcomes will become visible from the first Ministerial Conference. Barcelona was officially presented as the headquarters of the Secretariat of the Union and the post of secretary-general should go to a southern member. In addition, the Ministers decided that the League of Arab States should participate in all meetings of the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean.
Wait up! There is indeed one important decision taken. In exchange for the seat of the headquarters in Barcelona, Spain agreed that the “Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean’’
may now just be called “Union for the Mediterranean”. In the name of all journalists, bloggers and readers: Thank you, really!

Barcelona's Candidature for the UfM Secretariat Seat

Barcelona, which hosted the birth of the Process in 1995, could become the central reference in the creation of a space for dialogue between the northern and the southern rim of the Mediterranean. The city was elected as appropriate candidate for the seat of the secretariat of the new Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean(UfM). The Spanish and Catalan governments and Barcelona City Council have initiated the promotion of Barcelona’s nomination.

At the Paris Summit for the Mediterranean (13 July 2008), the heads of state decided to create a Secretariat for the Union for the Mediterranean.
The Government of Spain presents Barcelona’s candidature on a new website. There you can find the main arguments in favour of this candidature. Barcelona is characterized as ideal site for the Secretariat because of its open, multicultural and cosmopolitan being and its geographical location. Barcelona "shares with the peoples of the Mediterranean basin a long history of influences, dialogue and cooperation" and "boasts a vibrant, participative civil society that believes in peace, democracy and human rights".

On the website created by the IEMed institution based in Barcelona, you will find a presentation of the buildings, where the Secretariat would be located and further information (Opinions, news and reference documents) about its candidature.

The odds are in favour of Barcelona as Valetta has not got enough support for its candidacy. The other competitor Tunis has withdrown already its candidacy to host the UM's headquarters.

Visit the website:
www.barcelona-candidata-euromed.com

Middle East Quartet Criticized

Acoording to a report by leading humanitarian and human rights organisations published on 25 September, the Middle East Quartet (EU, Russia, UN, USA) fails to make progress towards improving the lives of Palestinians nor improving the prospects for peace. The report, using data gathered by the humanitarian and human rights organisations that work on the ground, is questioning if the the Middle East Quartet is further required in future when they can not improve their outcome.

The report focuses on 10 political issues in the region which are considered to be of vital importance for the broader peace process. The Quartet failed to improve the situation in five of the ten Quartet’s objectives. In the cessation of violence in Gaza, the agreement on reinvigoration of the private sector, the fulfilment of donor pledges, and Palestinian security sector reform and increasing fuel to Gaza there has not been a significant progress or an actual deterioration in the situation.
This report provides recommendations to Quartet members on how best to respond to ensure urgently needed progress.

Middle East Quartet is failing, warn aid agencies

EuroMed Info Centre

The EuroMed Info Centre is a project on the European and Mediterranean partnership. The project was initiated by the European Commission and is financed by the MEDA Regional Information and Communication programme.

Its main aim is to make the MEDA Regional Programme and the EU's partnership with the Mediterranean more visible to the general public and opinion leaders (political, institutional, business, industrial, in civil society and the media) in all areas covered by the partnership. EUROMed presents the advantages that the European Union’s genuine partnership with the countries in our neighbourhood brings. They deal with requests from EC Delegations, support Mediterranean journalists and help MEDA-funded civil society campaign managers seeking to disseminate information on their work.

With the launch of its newly designed website, anyone interested in the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, in regional and bilateral projects, or in the European Neighbourhood Policy can get a great package of information in three languages – including Arabic.

Visit the Website: http://www.euromedinfo.eu/

Institute of the Mediterranean

The Institute of the Mediterranean (IEMed) based in Barcelona calls itself a "think tank specialised in the Euro-Med Relations" and an actor in the dialogue between the EU and the other Mediterranean countries.
On the website you can find in four languages (CAT,ESP,ENG, FR) various information and links in the sectors Politics, Economy, Migrations, Society and Cultural dialogue. To each section, the IEMed does provide academic lectures, seminars or cultural activities, which take place predominantly in Spain.

The journal "Quaderns de la Mediterrània" belongs to the series of projects of IEMed. It is aiming to be a forum of debate between the two shores of the Mediterranean Sea and aims to force the dialogue. The research project concerns topics such as migration and sociological, economic and political processes of the peoples in the Mediterranean area.
In the current issue the key subject is the intercultural dialogue. With articles on current events, cultural, anthropological and sociological aspects and a book review section it aims to contribute to the intercultural understanding between Europe and the Mediterranean.

Visit the website, it is worth http://www.iemed.org/

The launch of the Union- Concepts and Contents

The French EU presidency launched the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) on Sunday July 13, in a pompous event in Paris' Grand Palais. For France, the launch of the Union is one of the centerpieces of their agenda.
Nevertheless, there are fears that after the extravaganza is over, the Union will center its attention on more symbolic policies than on substance. The new UfM must prove that it is more than a symbolic draft without soul and principles. The launch confirmed the previous doubts that the Union is ineffective, as it was rather a symbolic show than a decision-making meeting.

We should not forget that the original purpose, as designed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, was substantially changed. Originally, the Union was intended to be restricted to countries on the Mediterranean Basin, which, despite having fewer members, would have created a stronger coalition. Sarkozy's proposal was watered down by the EU and it became incorporated into the already existing Barcelona Process. The Bloc's leaders agreed to include 44 countries, including the EU's 27 members, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Mauritania, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Monaco, Montenegro, and Albania.



The UfM is set up to handle specific regional projects, including water and waste management, as well as a joint program for managing immigration and cultural exchanges. The Union aims to work on a series of practical projects such as tackling pollution problems in the Mediterranean Sea, improving infrastructure, and launching a solar energy program. Although the goals sound ambitious, the EU's budget for the Union during 2007 to 2013 would not surpass 7.5 billion Euros. However, as the Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB) presented, the "de-pollution" projects would already cost about 2.1 billion Euros. For other projects like improving the use of solar energy, building land and sea motorways, enhancing cooperation on civil protection, and founding the Euromed University, billions more Euros would be needed. Compared to the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership’s (EMP) budget of 5,350 billion Euros between 2000 and 2006, the projected increase will be slight.
José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission President, has warned that little should be expected from the EU –budget, considering the amount of money that would be needed to complete the projects. In addition to the aforementioned programs, the UfM should work also as a tool for improving diplomatic relations.
Therefore, the UfM needs to attract private funds to provide a solid foundation for these projects. However, it is not yet clear who will finance the projects. Dorothée Schmid, a specialist of Euro-Mediterranean relations at the French Institute for International Relations (IFRI) in Paris, said in an interview to Euractiv, "Regarding private funds, we don't know yet who will get involved. It is not easy to attract the private sector on long term projects, which, by nature, tend to rather mobilise public funds."

Already, there has been some tension about what the summit can and should achieve. One point of contention is the forced cooperation in the Union between Arab states and Israel, which Arab leaders fear because it could "normalize" the ties with Israel. Another issue concerns Turkey, which worries that its membership in the Mediterranean Union could block it from gaining entry into the EU. Finally, yet importantly, there is tension with Libyan leader Gaddafi because he appeals to the Arabic states that do not to support the weak and Western orientated project.
It is evident that programs related to controversial issues, such as immigration and terrorism, have been predominantly omitted. Maybe the new setup tries to avoid the failures of the Barcelona Process, which has been terminated due to political apathy.

Scepticism about the strength and quality of the UfM can be understood by taking into account that very few concrete decisions were made at the launch. For example, France and Egypt will serve as the Union's first co-chairs, which will manage the summits and annual foreign affairs ministerial meetings; this is in accordance with the requirement that there be representation from one northern and one southern nation. The heads of states and governments will meet every two years and a permanent joint secretariat will be established to promote and follow up the projects. This joint secretariat is, according to Schmid, another controversial subject as the "French government would like the secretariat to play a more political role but the Commission would like to limit it to a more technical role." The Union's institutional architecture cannot be overestimated. The Union needs is own powerful institutions to push its policies in a dynamic but not too administrative way.

Inside Story - Mediterranean Union - 13 July

AlJazeeraEnglish asks if the Union for the Mediterranean will work...

Assad's Comback on International Stage

Ahead of the launch of the Mediterranean Union Summit, French President Nicolas Sarkozy hold talks with key Mideast leaders in Paris. The meetings marked the beginning of a weekend of intense diplomatic efforts for the French president. After a meeting with Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak on July 12, Sarkozy met later in the day Syria's President Bashar al-Assad and the new Lebanese president Michel Suleimann.
The reception of the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the meeting in Paris marks his comeback to the international stage and Syria's break from diplomatic isolation. Syria is suspected of being behind the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005, and has long been accused by the international community of interfering in Lebanese politics. France and many other western countries have shunned Syria in recent years, accusing Assad of destabilizing neighbouring Lebanon and fomenting unrest across its borders with Iraq.

Sarkozy used the meeting to improve the tense relations between Damascus and Beirut, following the forced withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon in mid-2005. The talks may have been effective considering thatLebanon's President Suleimann and Assad have agreed to open embassies in each other's capitals after talks with Sarkozy. Lebanon and Syria broke off diplomatic ties after former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri was assassinated in 2005. Beirut accused Syria of being involved.

Sarkozy also discussed other issues with his counterparts from Syria and Lebanon during talks in the Elysee Palace, such as Iran's nuclear programme and peace efforts between Syria and Israel. French officials said it is important to re-establish high-level ties with Syria and declared that its recent decision to restart indirect peace talks with Israel shows that attitudes are changing in Damascus. Although the conditions were not yet right for direct Syria-Israel talks, this meeting can be seen as a diplomatic victory for Sarkozy. The French president booked his first success when Syria and Lebanon agreed to relax their often stressed relations. "We can say that Lebanon has moved from being a zone of turbulence, a war zone, to a more pacified zone where the Lebanese, and only the Lebanese, have the right to determine their own future," said Assad after the meeting with Suleimann.

We all know that the French president is keen to push the Middle East high up in the EU's agenda, but to mark a major shift in policy towards Syria might have surprised some French and other Europeans.
Assad's reception in Paris and his invitation to attend Monday's Bastille Day military parade have been criticized by human rights activists. Critics say it is too much of a reward when there are still serious question concerning human rights in Syria and its alleged role in the killing of Mr Hariri. Even French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner stated that this does not make him "especially comfortable."