Apr 20 2016

The myths that are preventing us from solving the refugee crisis

3 Comments

By Zoe Gardner

Refugees on a boat crossing the Mediterranean sea, heading from Turkish coast to the northeastern Greek island of Lesbos, 29 January 2016.

The preventable deaths of another 400 people in the Mediterranean on Monday morning must be a wake-­up call. The British and European approach to the migrant and refugee humanitarian crisis simply isn’t working.

For all of the outcry we’ve seen in the past six months over the plight of refugees desperately attempting to cross to Europe, for all of the high-­level summits and meetings between European leaders, and for all of the billions that have been thrown into border control operations, no credible solution has yet been found to prevent the ongoing tragic deaths at sea.

In a smaller version of what is going on in the Mediterranean, we in the UK regularly hear horrific reports of the corpses of migrants and refugees being discovered frozen in refrigerated trucks or suffocated in lorries in Kent. Human beings who may have survived an initial Mediterranean crossing, dying in their attempts to cross to England from their squalid camps in Calais.

So why have the attempted solutions – expensive and politically wrought border control agreements, aimed at saving human lives by preventing and discouraging these dangerous journeys – so comprehensively failed? Continue reading

Posted by: Posted on by Eurocrisis in the Press Tagged with: , , , , ,

Apr 13 2016

From Hybrid Peace to Human Security: Rethinking EU Strategy towards Conflict

Leave a comment

ReportCoverA recent publication of likely interest to Euro Crisis in the Press readers is the The Berlin Report of the Human Security Study Group. Entitled ‘From Hybrid Peace to Human Security: Rethinking EU Strategy towards Conflict’, it was presented to the European External Action Service in Brussels earlier this year.

Study Group convenors: Mary Kaldor and Javier Solana
Coordinator: Iavor Rangelov

The report proposes that the European Union adopts a second generation human security approach to conflicts, as an alternative to Geo-Politics or the War on Terror. Second generation human security takes forward the principles of human security and adapts them to 21st century realities. Continue reading

Posted by: Posted on by Eurocrisis in the Press Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Apr 5 2016

The EU, a Fair-Weather Ship Between Scylla and Charybdis 

Leave a comment

By Max Hänska

The EU faces debilitation by multiple crises: economic malaise and high unemployment, an influx of refugee and mounting security concerns. They all lay bare that resilience was not build into the EU’s architecture, it lacks the institutional capacities to respond to external shocks. Either its members create the capacities needed to respond resolutely to such shocks, or it heads for sclerotic decline.

The EU, and the Eurozone, have been grappling with the consequences of an incomplete monetary union since Greece first required assistance from other Eurozone countries in 2010. Sharing a currency, unable to devalue, and without mechanisms that allow for intra-Eurozone transfers, the Greek economy has been on life-support ever since. The latest bailout review has been extended, but it seems increasingly unlikely that a happy outcome is on the cards (see here and here). The Eurozone may well find itself back on the threshold of a Grexit just around the time when the UK votes on Brexit. The upshot is that the EU has failed to ensure economic security, and opportunities for many of its citizens. The underlying problem, a shared monetary system, without collective fiscal capacities, has not been redressed. Fiscally the Eurozone needs to become more like a state if it wants to avert decline and fragmentation. Continue reading

Posted by: Posted on by Eurocrisis in the Press Tagged with: , , , ,

Mar 28 2016

The political ‘migration crisis’ and the military-humanitarian response

1 Comment

By Pierluigi Musarò

20151030_Syrians_and_Iraq_refugees_arrive_at_Skala_Sykamias_Lesvos_Greece_2‘We need more than a humanitarian response […] We need political leadership and action,’ Filippo Grandi, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, said on 8 March 2016. Referring to the fact that ‘Europe is now seeing record numbers of refugees, and migrants, arriving on its shores’, Grandi stressed that ‘this emergency does not have to be a crisis, it can be managed’. Grandi, who was speaking to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, did not mention to what extent, in recent years, the militarisation of migration and border controls has been explicitly bound with notions of humanitarianism. Nevertheless, I guess he is aware that the current focus on both the humanitarian and security-related aspects of the phenomenon suggests a more complex logic of threat and benevolence that allows for a security-humanitarian response.

Unfortunately Grandi’s concern is not new. The problematic relationship between humanitarianism and politics was clearly described 17 years ago by James Orbinski of Médecins Sans Frontières, on the occasion of his Nobel Lecture: ‘Humanitarianism is not a tool to end war or to create peace. It is a citizen’s response to political failure. It is an immediate, short term act that cannot erase the long term necessity of political responsibility.’ The novelty is that Orbinski was criticising those interventions called ‘military-humanitarian’, while Grandi is referring to the ongoing migration management, too often framed as a humanitarian emergency.

A quick look at how the moral discourses typically associated with the humanitarian aid organisations are today gaining importance in the context of border control makes clear what types of political and epistemological implications this discursive dislocation has. Consider, for example, the news, images and video produced by the Italian Navy during the operation Mare Nostrum – the military-humanitarian operation in the Mediterranean targeted at both rescuing migrants and arresting smugglers. Let me note that Mare Nostrum (our sea) was the Roman name for the Mediterranean Sea, hijacked by Mussolini to frame fascist propaganda about the ‘Italian lake’. As the same (ambivalent) name indicates, the possessive ‘our’ projects the Mediterranean as a European space of care and control, while it ambiguously refers to both Italy and Europe.

Continue reading

Posted by: Posted on by Eurocrisis in the Press Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

Mar 21 2016

Europe’s Human Rights Crisis

2 Comments

By Natasha Saunders

thFidelity to one’s principles is measured by how they are honoured in times of crisis. Hannah Arendt – a refugee who fled Nazi Germany and became one of the most influential political thinkers of the twentieth century – showed us how European states, supposedly built upon a foundation of human rights, deserted their principles with disastrous effects when faced with an influx of rightless refugees in the 1930s. Her insights, published the same year as the UN Refugee Convention was opened for signature, are eerily prescient. This week the EU and Turkey finalised a deal that would see blanket returns of irregular migrants to Turkey, and a resettlement programme for Syrians – but not Iraqis, Afghans, or Eritreans – who stay in Turkey and do not try to cross into Europe, implemented on the basis of a “1-Out-1-In” mechanism. In exchange for acting as Europe’s migration policeman, Turkey will receive €3 billion in aid, the possibility of visa-free Schengen-zone travel by June, and “reenergised” EU-Accession talks. Following the serious concerns expressed by rights groups when the possibility of such a deal was first announced, EU leaders claim to have inserted safeguards into the deal that will ensure that it complies with international and EU law. But rights groups and UNHCR are unconvinced.

The problem with EU professions of fidelity to human rights and international obligations in this particular area is that Europe has a long history of trying to get out of its obligations under the Refugee Convention, and an equally long history of, to all intents and purposes, criminalising the seeking of asylum – an act which is not a crime but a basic human right enshrined in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The EU-Turkey deal should not be seen as exceptional episode but, rather, as the latest policy in a long-running series of attempts to reduce the numbers of asylum seekers and irregular migrants reaching European territory. These policies began in earnest in the 1980s once international travel became cheaper and travel routes opened to people fleeing wars and rights abuses in Africa and Asia. European asylum systems, which were not designed to deal in an efficient manner with large volumes of applications, quickly became backlogged and costs spiralled. But rather than attempting to reform the structure of asylum systems, European states decided instead to conflate asylum with irregular economic migration, and implement restrictive policies designed to prevent, reverse, and deter arrival.

Continue reading

Posted by: Posted on by Eurocrisis in the Press Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

Mar 16 2016

The EU’s olive oil diplomacy: Italian fears and prospects for Tunisia

2 Comments

By Stefano M. Torelli

thumb_58534_article_bigOn 10 March, the European Parliament voted in favor of a measure allowing Tunisia to export yearly 35,000 tons of olive oil tax-free in the European Union, for two years. That is, Tunisia will be allowed to export to the EU 70,000 tons of olive oil between 2016 and 2017 with no further duties. The decision has attracted much criticism from associations of local farmers, especially in Italy. The Italian Minister of Agricultural Policies, Maurizio Martina, spoke against the decision, because it would damage the Italian olive oil sector. The controversy prompts us to reflect on the policy options the European Union has towards the Southern Mediterranean countries. Furthermore, it shows how much gap there exists at national level between political slogans – even the most populist ones – and concrete action(s).

The Tunisian olive oil affair should be framed in a wider context that takes into consideration the Mediterranean environment. Here, we confront three intertwined macro-issues: the difficult political transition of the countries that have experienced the so-called Arab Spring; the unprecedented flow of immigrants coming to Europe in the last two years; and the spread of Islamic terrorism in North Africa. What do these factors have in common and what is their relation with the olive oil affair? In fact, many things. The primary reason why the EU has decided to adopt this measure lies in the political will to support the Tunisian economy in one of the most delicate moments of its recent history. To date, Tunisia is the only country that offer some hopes for real democratic change. Unlike Egypt, Libya, Syria and Yemen, it has undergone a process of democratisation that led to the adoption of a new constitution and to the holding of free and fair elections. This does not mean that there are still no big obstacles. Among them, the most relevant – sometimes connected to each other – is the economic crisis that has deteriorated since 2011, and the spread of jihadism. This became evident with the attacks on the Bardo Museum in Tunis (18 March 2015) and on in Sousse (26 June 2015), in which dozens of Western tourists (among them 30 British) have lost their lives. These two attacks have dealt a blow to one of the most important sectors of the Tunisian economy: tourism. This sector accounts for about 14% of the total national GDP. About 15% of the labor force is employed in tourism. After the attacks of 2015, foreign visitors have dropped by one million, threatening the Tunisian economy with collapse. Against this background, terrorism has continued to expand and it now puts at serious risk the Tunisian transition process, partly as a result of the security crisis in neighboring Libya too. Following the Bardo and Sousse attacks, European governments and public opinion have been active in proclamations and promises of aid. For a few days, as was the case for the attacks in Paris, “we were all Tunisians”.

Continue reading

Posted by: Posted on by Eurocrisis in the Press Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

Mar 10 2016

Read All About It (Or Not): The Trouble with the Turkish Press

Leave a comment

By Kate Cyr

Protest_against_2015_Koza_İpek_raid_(1)Istanbul’s 2013 Gezi Park protests unearthed muddy tales of corruption, bias, and authoritarianism that powerful conglomerates and the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) would have preferred buried indefinitely. The government received global scrutiny as anyone from students to grandmothers gathered in the streets to demonstrate against the AKP’s increasingly undemocratic actions, including silencing the press.

In the years since, the Syrian crisis, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s strong-handed foreign policy, and religious issues have dominated coverage of Turkey abroad – leaving important issues like press freedom and related human rights violations once again shrouded in silence. Yet the political biases of Turkish media deserve scrutiny by Turkish and international audiences alike. Amidst the crises of the region, misreporting and bias convolutes the information reaching the public and can have very real implications for the understanding and response to various issues. The stories of daily paper Sabah and the press treatment of the Kurdish minority both offer warnings of the damage Turkey’s biased press machinery can cause.

Sabah, a daily newspaper founded in 1985, is telling of the complex and often hidden ways in which press freedom is stifled in Turkey – and just how deeply corporate and government meddling runs in the industry. After displeasing government officials in 2007, the paper was seized over an alleged misfiling of merger and acquisition paperwork six years before. The state sold the daily to a company owned by then-Prime Minister Erdoğan’s son-in-law using state-subsidized funds, allowing the government to effectively control Sabah’s content.

Continue reading

Posted by: Posted on by Eurocrisis in the Press Tagged with: , , , ,

Mar 4 2016

Argentina debt restructuring deal – 15 years too late!

Leave a comment

By Kanad Bagchi

Argentine-flag-diveOn 28th February 2016, Argentina finally reached a settlement with the rest of its holdout creditors lead by Elliot Management in what is being hailed as ‘historic’ signalling the return of Argentina to international bond markets. While the pesky details of the settlement agreement are yet to be hammered out (at the time of writing), it is however known that in substance, Argentina has agreed to shell out a total of around $4.4 billion to the holdouts including Elliott Management, Aurelius Capital Management, Davidson Kempner and Bracebridge Capital. In sum, that represents a 25% write down of the original debt amount previously owed to the funds. While indeed, the present agreement unlocks Argentina’s financial leg room in the international capital market, thus providing a fillip to its already distressed economy, the agreement is also a manifestation of almost 15 years of desolate and futile negotiations, characterized by opportunity costs, derailed investments, scarce liquidity and immense deadweight losses leading to a general reduction in economic welfare. That apart, one wonders whether it is ethical or moral for a few set of private funds to arm-twist a sovereign into a contractual enforcement claim, that causes at best a deflection of governmental resources towards defending such claims and at worst, obstruction and hindrance in performing essential governmental functions. Moreover, in the present instance, there was every possibility that the deadlock would have continued unabated, lest for Judge Griesa’s unflinching stance towards a resolution. By indicating his disapproval for continuing with the ‘no pay-out’ injunction against Argentina, which had hitherto allowed a leverage to the holdouts in the negotiations, Judge Griesa tilted the balance in favour of Argentina, finally leading to the settlement.

Flashback to 2012 and readers will remember that Greece, during its debt restructuring phase, had similarly experienced a holdout situation characterized by a minority group of bondholders demanding for a full pay-out. It was indeed to avoid a long drawn court ligation, that Greece readily agreed to pay the holdouts in full (around €6billion), inviting criticism from various quarters for its compromising stance and for setting an undesirable precedent.

Continue reading

Posted by: Posted on by Eurocrisis in the Press Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,

Feb 25 2016

The International Politics of the Refugee Crisis

Leave a comment

By Vassilios Paipais

Refugees roaming Greece's central highways heading for the Greek borders

Refugees roaming Greece’s central highways heading for the Greek borders

Last Wednesday, Vienna hosted a meeting of Balkan countries involving Albania, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, FYROM, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia in divisive move that deliberately excluded the Greek government from decisions concerning the tackling of the mounting refugee crisis in Europe’s borders. On Monday, FYROM had already previously decided to deny entry to Afghan migrants and restricted access to Syrians and Iraqis. Greek authorities summoned the Austrian ambassador to protest against the Vienna meeting, which they described as a ‘unilateral move which is not at all friendly toward our country’. The day after the meeting, the Greek Prime Minister proclaimed that Greece will not be turned into a ‘warehouse of souls’ and just today, in an unprecedented move, he recalled the Greek ambassador in Vienna. In the meantime, the situation in Greece is rapidly spiraling out of hand. The images of desperate refugees roaming the Greek highways and heading for Greece’s northern borders are shocking suggesting that the situation might soon become unmanageable.

What Europe has witnessed the past few days on a diplomatic level is simply the first serious shocks of a long-brewing crisis that has its origins in a complicated series of diplomatic failures and mismanagement by some and deliberate war-mongering by others. Europe is paying a hard price for something she didn’t directly cause, yet nevertheless tolerated, as part of a ruthless geopolitical game that has its epicenter in the Syrian crisis and the broader Middle East antagonisms. The civil war in Syria broke out, and was portrayed as such by Western media, as a rebellion against the oppression and brutality of the Assad regime. What of course was never openly admitted (but is nevertheless a common secret) was that this is a war that some of the major players in the region -the US, Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia- not only welcomed but in varying degrees deliberately fomented in an effort to dismantle the Hezbollah-Syria-Iran axis due to which Israel paid a heavy price in the 2006 war in Lebanon. Russia’s active involvement in the conflict last October with the commencement of the bombing campaign was rightly perceived by many as an effort to tilt the balance in favour of the crumbling Assad regime. Yet, apart from restoring the internal dynamics of the conflict, it was also a move that served wider Russian objectives. The continuation of the Syrian civil war causes internal division among EU members as the flow of Syrian refugees wreaks havoc in the European borders and keeps Europe in disarray. EU’s weakening status as a diplomatic power is not a meagre gain for Russia as it finds itself less pressured on the Ukrainian front and makes Europeans more pliable to Russian demands.

Continue reading

Posted by: Posted on by Eurocrisis in the Press Tagged with: , , , , ,

Feb 23 2016

A view from Europe’s borderland: As Europe vows stricter border controls, what’s at stake at the border?

2 Comments

By Myria Georgiou

Six months is a long time in politics and this includes humanitarian politics in Europe. ‘Refugees welcome here’ (#Refugeeswelcomehere) was a catchphrase reflecting widespread sentiments and political will in Europe last summer and early autumn – a warm welcome to the first waves of arrivals from war-torn zones. Few months later 20151030 Syrians and Iraq refugees arrive at Skala Sykamias Lesvos Greece 2and with Europe’s eastern neighbourhood no less torn, refugees are still arriving at Greek shores. Yet the politics of reception is now very different. In January, Greece was officially threatened with exclusion from EU’s Schengen zone for not properly safeguarding its borders. Only days earlier, European and Greek legislation made it possible to prosecute locals and volunteers who help refugees and migrants in the water and on arrival. Some, like a group of Greek activists in Chios, and another group of Spanish lifeguards and Muslim Danes helping refugees out of a stranded dinghy in Lesvos, have already been arrested facing charges of trafficking. Is Europe’s 2015 ecstatic humanitarianism a distant memory? As Europe’s current ‘migrant crisis’ enters a new phase, many complexities and contradictions in the politics that surround it become apparent. One of them, is the significant distance between what goes on at Europe’s borderland and point of refugee arrival, on the one hand, and the heart of Europe where decisions are being made, on the other. Continue reading

Posted by: Posted on by Eurocrisis in the Press Tagged with: , ,