Ioan Dascaˇlu, Bucharest

16 travelling alone in search of low-skilled temporary jobs in the European Union, such as in agriculture or construction, or seeking to join relatives in a Member State. Between the beginning of the year and the end of April, more than 22,500 Tunisian migrants were detected in the operational area of JO Hermes. However, as a consequence of the bilateral agreements between Italy and Tunisia, resulting in the strengthening of police surveillance along the Tunisian coast and the start of regular repatriations of Tunisian nationals, the intensity of the migratory flow from Tunisia has been decreasing since the end of April. Since March 2011, new migration flows from Libya, originating mainly in the sub-Saharan and Horn of Africa regions, have been targeting Lampedusa, Linosa and Pantelleria. Also, migration flows from Egypt have been targeting Sicily and Calabria.

What about prevention? However the situation develops as the weeks and months ahead unfold, Frontex will continue to support the Member States affected through situational awareness and intelligence gathering as well as, where appropriate, through ope - rational activities. But however necessary these activities are, they represent a response rather than a solution. Prevention is always better than a cure. It is for this reason that one of Frontex’s priorities with regard to the southern border is to initiate operational cooperation with Tunisia. Saving lives at sea should be a last resort; the best way to tackle the dangers of illegal migration is to prevent migrants from setting out in the first place, and this requires much more than a response. It requires forward-looking integrated border management at a policy level. Only by implementing a four-tier approach in - cor porating cooperation with countries of origin, cooperation with countries of transit, border control, and a comprehensive immigration strategy within the EU, can irregular migration be effectively tackled. Until all these elements are in place, we will always be reacting to migration rather than managing it.

News: Ethics of Border Security

On 29 April 2011, Frontex published its Study on the Ethics of Border Security. The aim of the study is to provide information on the ethical standards laid out by EU Border Guard services via an analysis of national Codes of Conduct and the ethical standards expected at the EU level. Together with the recently adopted Frontex Code of Conduct, this study is a vital part of the Frontex Fundamental Rights Strategy, which aims to embed the respect of fundamental rights and freedoms in every aspect of Frontex’s work.

The study is available via the Frontex website: > http://tinyurl.com/6h29mnb See also Frontex’ Annual Risk Analysis 2011: > http://tinyurl.com/68tcmls

The EU is facing, with the migration in its south one of it The enlargement of Schen

by Police Quaestor Ioan Dascaˇlu, Secretary of State, Head of the D

Twelve years ago, the European Treaty of Amsterdam established for the first time the objective of maintaining the EU as an area of freedom, security and justice. An area in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with adequate measures to prevent and combat crime. The challenging and evolving situation taking place these days in the Southern Mediterranean area has confirmed that common actions, shared responsability and a true sense of solidarity among Member States are more necessary than ever.

External borders are of crucial importance for the EU Also, these events have demonstrated, once again, that effec - tive and reliable control at the external borders is essential. The lifting of border control between the Schengen Member States requires in the same time to reinforce security at the Union’s external borders. Each state manages its external bor - ders not only to control access to its own national territory but also to control entry to the EU and Schengen area. It acts in the interest of all Member States and it holds responsability for all EU citizens. In the same time, the situation of these Member States that are confronted with high pressure at their external borders must be recognised and approached in full respect of the prin ciple of solidarity and in my opinion, this is what Schengen really is about. Schengen is also one of the most popular and successful achievements of the EU: an area where shared responsibility, mutual trust and confidence are the core values governing all the actions of its members.

Enlargement now enhancing EU’s credibility As several times in the past years, Schengen area is nowadays preparing for a new enlargement wave, with two EU countries - Romania and Bulgaria. Regarded in the wider context of the African events, this process may appear as not very timely.

There are voices claiming that the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, especially now, when Europe is facing one of its most important security challenges in recent years, will weaken the credibility of the Union’s ability to control the access to its territory, and undermine the mutual trust.

Romania’s efforts in border control are exemplary Not only that Romania safeguarded the external border of the Union in an exemplary manner until now, but this protection will be further strengthened by the enhancement of the technical, human and training capabilities which came with our Schengen accession preparations as well as by our already increasing involvement in FRONTEX operations and other

ts most important security challenges. Nevertheless, the enlargment has to take place gen and the new role for Romania

epartment of Public Order and Safety, Bucharest

relevant instruments for mutual cooperation in this area of expertise. Despite the fact that Romania is not yet a Schengen Member State, our country already acts as one of them. Our law enforcement institutions are already working in the logic of Schengen spirit, putting common actions and shared responsibility first. Since the beginning of the Schengen accession process, Roma - nia, with the full support of its European partners, was committed to achieve the existing standards as well as to ensure the other Member States of the rightfulness, consistency and seriousness of its efforts. These are not facts unilaterally stressed by Romania, but are also aspects pointed out by the evaluation experts in our Schengen reports, adopted in the relevant bodies at communitarian level.

Ioan Dascaˇlu Police Quaestor Ioan Dascaˇlu has been Secretary of State, Head of the Department for Public Order and Safety since 2007. He startet his Police Carreer in 1995 in Bucharest and earned his Master in Community Law and Antidrug Justice from “Vasile Goldis” (Arad) Law Faculty IoanDascalu had been trained a.o. in the U.S. (FBI) and at the Marshall Center in Garmisch-Partenkirchen. He was engaged in the Kosovo UNMIK Peacekeeping mission. His most important positions were: 2007 − 2010 Romanian Home Affairs Attaché in the EU, 2005 − 2006 Chief Inspector of Timis County Police Inspectorate, 2003 − 2005 Chief Inspector of Arad County Police Inspectorate.

Schengen accession is not a reward but an additional obligation We followed this logic of professionalism and commitment, because we are fully conscious that the Schengen accession is not a reward offered to our country, but an obligation deriving from our Accession Treaty, and also an additional responsibility regarding the security of the EU external border. We share the same interest and reso lu tion of the other Member States in achieving a high security level at the external borders of the EU as well as in countering illegal migration, trafficking in drugs and human beings. Romania contributes to the EU solidarity principle by participating in the majority of FRONTEX operations taking place at EU external borders. As a full FRONTEX contributor, we have provided a professional and swift response to any Member States’ request for assistance, in their endeavor to manage the illegal migration flows and control the external borders, as it is the case now, at the southern external border. Romania is aware of Europe’s expectations The migratory pressure at our external border is far from being at the level of other EU states’ external borders. Despite the fact that organized crime groups at the border with the Republic of Moldova, Serbia and Ukraine were not identified as ha - ving a major impact on the EU security, we are still very alert and understand that very quickly, a section of the external border considered as low risk can become subject to critical migratory pressure. Organised crime constantly adapts its methods and routes and we want to be ready to counter any possible vulnerability at our external borders. It is not an issue concerning only Romania and Romanian citizens but all the European citizens. Solidarity and reliability − the two drivers for Romania In the Schengen area, each participating state is co-responsible for exercising its responsibilities in a reliable manner. This is what we have prepared for and this is what we are currently doing. As recent events have illustrated, a weakness at the external border can undermine the credibility of the EU’s capability to control entry on its territory as well as mutual confidence between partners. We are confident that the future accession of Romania in the Schengen area will not only safeguard the area of freedom, security and justice but will also pave the way for its further and continuous development. In the light of the recent situation from the Mediterranean, I be lieve that the Schengen area should be strengthen and must rely on what Jean Monnet called “la solidarité de faits” − the ‘solidarity of facts’. Through its actions, Romania proved many times this kind of solidarity, solidarity which is now part of the way we think and act. “Schengen is also one of the most popular and successful achievements of the EU: an area where shared responsibility, mutual trust and confidence are the core values governing all the actions of its members”.

Europe and the Middle East President Obama advocated on 19 May 2011 a borders-and-security-first approach to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and articulated his view that the territorial solution should be a return to the 1967 lines, while respecting the agreed territorial swaps.

Dr. Einat Wilf MP....................................................................................... 19 Dr. Matthew Lewitt ................................................................................... 21 Michael Hancock MP.................................................................................. 22

DOCUMENT U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, 22 November 1967

Following the Six-Day War in June 1967, the UN General Assembly discussed the situation in the Middle East. A final draft for a Security Council Resolution was presented by the British Ambassador, Lord Caradon, on 22 November 1967. It was adopted on the same day. In the coming decades, Resolution 242 was to become the cornerstone of Middle East diplomatic efforts.

The Security Council, Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East, Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security, Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter, 1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: - Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; - Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; 2. Affirms further the necessity - For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area; - For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem; - For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political

independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones; 3. Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to pro

Green line Separation Barrier Route (April 2006) Jerusalem city limits unilaterally expanded by Israel 1967 Palestinian territory ( West Bank and Gaza Strip )

Areas regarded by Israel as not being part of the West Bank Proposed / Israeli High Court-demanded Barrier Route changes 1- Palestinian territory transferred to State of Israel 2- Israeli territory transferred to State of Palestine East Jerusalem areas transferred to State of Palestine

Israeli settlements to be evacuated Israeli settlements to be incorporated in State of Israeli

Territorial Land Exchange Percentages ( in terms of West Bank area ) according to Israeli methodology (left) and according to Palestinian methodology (right)

Olmert’s Final Status Map, West Bank and Gaza, October 2008

Credits: Foundation for Middle East Peace

mote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution; 4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.