Jornal Mundus X

VERSÃO DIGITAL EDIÇÃO REVISTA

Objectivos de Desenvolvimento do Milénio, que caminho até 2015?

“Os ODM são recomendações que têm sido incorporadas por todos os países e organizações internacionais nas suas políticas de apoio ao desenvolvimento. Ainda assim, os ODM não são objectivos vinculativos. Se algum país não atingir os valores estipulados até 2015 não haverá repercussões, no sentido de penalizações internacionais.” Paula Duarte Lopes, Pág. 3

Entrevista ao Director Nacional da ActionAid International Francisco Sarmento

“Já ninguém acredita nos ODM. São objectivos politicamente fixados em determinados contextos e que têm que ser revistos”. Pág. 6 e 7 Alterações Climáticas

Direitos Humanos

“A grande vitória da liderança

Corrigir os erros: a importância dos direitos humanos nos processos de reconstrução pós-conflito armado. Daniela Nascimento, Pág. 9

europeia

na

Cimeira

de

Copenhaga seria os EUA as-

sumirem o comando do combate às alterações climáticas.”

Samuel Vilela, Pág. 10

20 anos da Queda do Muro de Berlim

“A queda do muro de Berlim em 9 de

Novembro de 1989 torna irreversível a ideia da unidade alemã. Após a queda

do muro o assunto alemão voltou a ser

o assunto mais urgente a ser tratado nas relações internacionais”. Denise Silva, Pág. 12

INTERNACIONAL

PÁGINA 15 Em relação à duração do predomínio norteamericano, as respostas também são significativas. Para Nye o prolongamento da hegemonia dos EUA depende das estratégias utilizadas pelo país no plano internacional, nomeadamente a gestão do hard e do soft power de maneira favorável aos interesses nacionais (Smart Power). Chomsky, ao

contrário, aponta para a emergência de formas de resistência e de movimentos contrahegemónicos que podem erodir o domínio norteamericano, tais como a opinião pública global e a sociedade civil organizada, dentro e fora dos EUA, aproximando-se da leitura de Robert Cox (1993), quando este último

defende o papel de uma “sociedade civil global” na tessitura de contra-hegemonias.

Por fim, devemos referir que a literatura

aponta vários actores e dinámicas que podem, a médio ou longo prazo, erodir a hegemonia dos EUA, tais como a UE, a China, a Índia, o G-8, o G-20, e potências e coalizões regionais, bem como os mecanismos de “soft balancing”, que envolve o uso da diplomacia e o papel das direito interna-

cional e das instituiçõe em conter e deslegitimar a hegemonia norteamericana (Layne, 2006).

“Our Europe” in 2009

continue to question the relationship between the European institutions and their citizens.

Students of International Relations fre-

quently hear about the so-called “democratic deficit” of the European Union, which is, from my point of view, an undeniable reality, that can only be overcome when our European leaders realize that most of the nearly 500 million citizens living on EU member states are not really acquainted with the procedures

taken within its institutional framework. This is actually one of the main reasons why rates of participation in the elections of the Euro-

have some knowledge on the Union and to be aware of its significance for European

elections were generally under 50%, the average being 45.6% (according to the data available on the website of European Parliament) and in this year’s election we reached

stacles, have been a reality, and will probably be consolidated in the future.

Nevertheless, challenges are in-

pean Parliament are often low. Except for some countries (like Belgium, Italy and Luxembourg), the voting rates in 2004 European

even lower rates, as previously reported.

This situation reflects the lack of inter

2009 has been a year plenty of activity (and may we say progress?) for the European Union and for European citizens (or so it should have been). We had European Parliament elections – with a global rate of par-

ticipation of only 43%, despite all the efforts that were made in terms of campaigning – and, more recently, the completion of Lisbon Treaty’s ratification process by all member

countries, allowing it to finally come into force. Since the ceremony took place on the 1st of December – few days after the European leaders had chosen the two new “top figures” of the European Union – it is now time to reflect on the current situation, and to

evitable, like the “institutional crisis” that the EU has faced for several years, and that was

est showed by the electors, who don’t usually recognize, or can’t fully understand the practical effects of the policies of the Union in their daily lives. This is also one of the fundamen-

emphasized by the failure of the “Constitutional Treaty” (to which contributed, along with other factors, the victories of the “no” on the French and Dutch referendums). What I

the Union’s objectives, the purposes of the actions undertaken and, most importantly, the real role they can play in the process. The very notion on the minds of most people is

izens, was soon forgotten, and another proposal came in to replace the former one. The “Treaty of Lisbon”, signed on the 13th December 2007, was expected to be the solu-

tal problems affecting the relationship between the EU and the European citizens, since these are not properly informed about

that it is not worth wasting their time, since we elect a group of people who will then forget about our interests and needs, and will most probably act as they please, for political purposes which do not correspond to people’s concerns. Not only is this a widely spread idea among older people (who are in-

Ana Catarina Silva Estudante da Licenciatura em Relações Internacionais Faculdade de Economia da Universidade de Coimbra

countries, since only being united can they play a more defining role in the international system. The enlargement and the deepening of the European Union, regardless of all ob-

deed a considerable portion of the population in some EU countries) but also in the groups of younger people, who will be the electors of the future.

This last group in particular has access to virtually all sources of information, and so, according to the idea of an European

knowledge society (expressed in the “Lisbon Strategy”), we should assume straight away that the problem with these people is not the lack of information, considering there are several websites explaining everything that concerns the building and working of the European Union. However, the leaders can-

not simply presume that youngsters, or even adult people, will be interested in learning about the EU if they are not encouraged by

someone to do so. For students of International Relations it is of utmost importance to

think would have been a great opportunity for European leaders to reconsider their options, and understand the message sent by the cit-

tion to the institutional crisis. There were, however, several voices raising against the fact the ratification was made by parliamentary vote, instead of the “referendum” that had been promised by some Governments.

It appears obvious to every ordinary citizen that this was a political move, aimed at avoiding new barriers imposed by people’s choice on the implementation of the Treaty, and that idea was certainly reinforced by the “no” dictated by the Irish people, who were the only

ones given the chance to vote, because of a provision of their national Constitution .

Those reported above are only some of the

events and ideas which support the argument that the EU is too distant from its citizens, that distance leading to a progressively smaller interest for the “European project” and causing

the “European conscience” to fade out even further. It is up to us to try to change this pattern and turn the European Union into “our” European Union, corresponding to our will and to our wishes, so that we can show the world that “another world is possible”.