Bullseye No. 45 "It's ecology, Stupid"

September’11 50th year / No. 45 / ISSN 2033-7809

BullsEye The newsmagazine of European Democrat Students

It’s ecology, Stupid! 13 10 years after 9/11 8

Greece - A look from the inside 12

editorial

Sandra Falkowska, Editor-in-chief

Andraž Kastelic, EDS Vice Chairman

Content

Passion for writing is for everybody starting in a different way. For me, it started as I always liked to play with words. Changing all meaning of something just because one word or even a letter has been altered. Inspiring by moving everything around. Putting in a small irony and waiting to see if it will be found.

This issue of BullsEye was prepared with a new editorial team. I would like to welcome them here and wish them that they never lose their passion for writing. Amélie, Ann-Sofie, Henry, Kristóf, Matej, Natalia, Vladimir and Tamar – I hope you will stay with us a bit longer and feel good working for BE. I am also very happy that some people who already worked with us, decided to stay on in the editorial team – Annika, Jakov and Matija, thank you for being here.

Matt, David and Ben – without you, we would some way off being good. Also I would like to say welcome to an old-new friend, who is currently Vice-Chairman in charge of publications – Andraž, it is a special joy to work with you.

Preparing this BE I had in my hand the issue from November 2001, with the World Trade Centre’s Twin Towers on its cover page. EDS stood together with the USA in those days and also now, during the 10th anniversary, we could not forget to write about 9/11. The threat to democracy which started that Tuesday, dramatically changed our calm societies. Then and today, it is just as important to defend our values against attacks from wherever they may come.

Enjoy reading!

It’s a first. First BullsEye for a new, green EDS Bureau. And its all about green.

Even though I, as a young political organization’s bureau member, am expected to write you a pagefull of meaningless sentences, please allow me to be a bit of nonconformist and to add my piece of the BullsEye’s topic puzzle.

Sad events in Fukushima earlier this year forced us to sit in our comfy sofas and to rethink our policies on energy sources. I don’t know whether the Germans were bold or scared but they made an important decision. Even though I am afraid the Germans will have to change their mind before 2022 about closing down all of the nuclear power plants and replacing the electricity shortage with green wind energy, one cannot say it was an unexpected decision. Knowing that the Germans were leaning towards this decision for quite some time, all they needed was a push. Not only that, research shows German officials believe the global market for renewable energy will become increasingly lucrative, a thought that must have been an important factor in the decision. Despite the fact that I am a part of the 1986 generation, born after the Chernobyl disaster I myself believe nuclear energy is the past, present and future of Europe. At this very moment, we just don’t have a decent substitute for it. But if Germany pulls it off, Europe will be green. With envy. Besides, who knows what will happen with European energy sources over the next decade.

The EU most surely does have a few aces up its sleeve, namely shale gas, biodiesel fuel and last but not least a Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor which promises surplus in energy input versus output ratio.

Whatever the ratio will be, if Germany is using nuclear power or not, EDS will still be here in 2022. Alive and kicking.

Flip the page and enjoy!

Chairman’s letter

Garrick Club 04 The International Garrick Club

Freedom fighters 05 Helmut Kohl

Actualities 06 South Sudan 07 Croatia and EU

Bullseye on 08 10 years after 9/11

Reports 10 Georgia 11 Moldova 12 Financial crisis - why it is Greece

Theme 13 It’s ecology, stupid!

14 Global warming - real threat 15 How green is green energy 16 Nuclear power 18 Small things matter

Events 19 First Bureau meeting 20 Summer University in Vienna

University 22 Jagiellonian University

23

Bullseye The newsmagazine of European Democrat Students 2

Bureau

ISSN: Print: 2033-7809, Online: 2033-7817 Editor-in-chief: Sandra Falkowska Editorial team: Tamar Bagshvili, Jakov Devcic, Henry Hill, Andraz Kastelic, Krisfof Kovacs, Matija Magerl, Vladimir Maryska, Ann-Sofie Pauwelyn, Amelie Pommier, Natalia Rencic, Anika Sonnenberg, Matej Travnicek Contributions from: Juraj Antal, Bence Bauer, Marc-Michael Blum, Andrzej Dabrowski, Sylwia Gora, Samuli Kauranne, Gintare Narkeviciute, Alexandros Politis, Ghenadie Virtos Photos: Balázs Szecsődi, Gintare Narkeviciute, European Commision archives, KAS archives Publisher: European Democrat Students, B-1000 Brussels, Rue du Commerce 10 Tel: +32 2 2854-150, Fax: +32 2 2854-141 Email: eds@epp.eu Website: edsnet.eu Publication supported by: European Youth Foundation of the Council of Europe

Dear EDS members, friends!

Seasons change, autumn follows summer, and a new bureau replaced an outgoing one. With the new team, secretariat, and energy to move this organization forward, do we meet for the 1st Council meeting of the working year 2011/2012, in Prague. Organised by our friends from the Young Conservatives (Mladí Konzervativci), supported by the Council of Europe and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, we are happy to meet for a four working day event entitled “Twenty Years of Democracy and Sustainable Development” during which we will be discussing the key topic of sustainable development in Europe; a united Europe we believe in.

Sustainable development is to a large extent about energy security but is not limited solely to that. Waste management, water treatment, erosion of arable land, desertification, food security, and the need to deal with CO2 emissions are also topics that touch us all. After the accident in Japan’s Fukushima power plant, the German government decision to phase out nuclear power in Germany and its increased purchases of natural gas to complement the shortages of electricity will give this event a geopolitical touch.

Looking back at the great summer university, where we finished celebrations of the 50 year anniversary, we are delighted to have brought on board, aside from a new Chairman, Sec Gen and bureau, three new member organisations. EDS witnessed the largest number of voting members in it history at the annual meeting. Here the list of historical firsts does not stop. EDS with the acceptance of the three new members LDK Kosovo, TLDM Moldova and AK Parti Youth Turkey is now representing 43 organisations from 36 countries amassing 1,600,000 students and young people. This makes EDS the biggest organisation of youngsters in Europe!

With this comes a large portion of responsibility to keep on being the most visible and audible voice for student issues. It is our belief that not only our membership but also our policy suggestions and presence in EPP working groups shall make us the major and most visible player in this field in Europe.

Hand-in-hand comes our decision to streamline events in the future and create a more synergetic and focused output. Our next event in Marseille will be about immigration, organised by Met-UNI France in December, during the EPP congress, and will follow this synergy tendency.

In February our Winter University will take place in Rijeka, Croatia, organised by our colleagues form SO HSS and will bear the title “Democratisation Process in the Balkans – Promoting European Values and Human Rights”. We shall return to the capital of Europe with the April council meeting with a two city 3rd council meeting and seminar in Antwerp and Brussels, organised

by EDS, CDS and eDH, where we will look forward to meeting with President Martens and Secretary General Lopez Isturiz.

With our second bureau meeting in Jurbise, southern Belgium, we created a working plan and will be using the synergy of campaigns, policy papers, BullsEye, web page and other mediums to amplify the effect we wish to have heard in Europe. The bureau and co-chairs took the decision to spend the larger part of the year campaigning and making our members and decision makers aware of the phenomena called ‘knowledge based society’. The plans are being drawn up as you read this, however, we want to bring the campaign to a climax in Antwerp next year in April. The book of EDS history “Students on the Right Way” second edition is also planned to be presented in Brussels next April.

I wish to take a moment and thank the outgoing bureau the lead this organisation for the past two years. Your work, dedication and willingness to move forward have put this organisation where it is today and we, the new bureau have a large task to fulfil all our duties and requirements. With the help of a great team, working group co-chairs, valuable discussions in Prague and elsewhere we shall succeed.

I wish you a pleasant read of the articles in this issue specially focused on sustainable development and look forward to discussing them with you in person.

Juraj Antal, Chairman

Bullseye

3

garrick club

freedom fighters

Bence Bauer, EDS

The International Garrick Club The network of former EDS Bureau members Since European Democrat Students (EDS) was founded in Vienna, May 13, 1961 as “The International Christian-Democratic and Conservative Student Union“ (ICCS), later renamed to “European Christian Democratic and Conservative Students Union“ (ECCS), several generations of student leaders have entered, built up constantly and later left our organisation. These bureau members by virtue of their active commitment and work have acquired a large network and uncounted experiences. As ties with time passing fade away, the first generation of EDS-activists recognised the need for forming an ‘old-boys-network’.

On May 4, 1968, just seven years after the organisation was founded and simultaneously to the leftist protests in Paris, the conservative students met in London, in the Garrick Hotel, between Trafalgar Square and Leicester Square to form the network organisation of the ICCS, called the International Garrick Club – not to be confused with the Garrick Club, an organisation of Shakespeare actors and also a club in London nowadays! Dieter Ibielski was elected as the first President of the International Garrick Club in London: He was ICCS Secretary General from 1964-1966 and RCDS Chairman from 1959-1961 and played an outstanding role as one of the founders of the ICCS. Ibiel-

ski later in 2010 received the Federal Cross of Merit of the German Federal Republic and the same year was awarded the status of Honorary Member of EDS. Today, the International Garrick Club has 243 members – all of them former EDS Bureau members – and has held its bi-annual meetings since 1991 at the Villa La Collina in Cadenabbia, at Lake Como (Italy). This venue was the holiday domicile of former German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer in the period 1957-1966 and has been used since 1977 as an international conference centre by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. The venue is memorable for the history of EDS, since it was here where the first contacts were established to Polish opposition student movements in 1981, some of their representatives smuggled to the West in the trunk of a car.

Every EDS Bureau member when leaving his position automatically acquires membership in the International Garrick Club without any further registration or admittance procedure.

The club is a vital platform for former Bureau members who are mostly very interested in what happens in EDS after their own tenures.

The current EDS Chairman is always invited to attend the bi-annual Cadenabbia meeting and is put on a “hot chair” where the Garrick club

01 4

members conduct a series of interviews with him about the current policies of EDS and the Chairman’s personal stand on a lot of issues.

Not all the ‘invited’ Chairmen have been very happy with this procedure, but the last interviewed EDS Chairman enjoyed this tradition.

Independently from the loose network of the International Garrick Club, each EDS Bureau tries to maintain contacts with all former active EDS members, regardless of whether they were formally elected to any position or not.

Over the decades, several dozens of thousands of youngsters have contributed to the European Dream of EDS – an alumnus potential that is worth dealing with, via regular information, invitations and the celebration the anniversaries of EDS. The last such occasion was in 2011 where the EDS Bureau celebrated the 50th Anniversary in Brussels, February 1, 2011 and in Vienna, July 9, 2011, assembling high-ranking speakers and 260 guests in Brussels and interesting alumni panels in Vienna.

The series “International Garrick Club” in the BullsEye magazine features every three months a different club member. The next Cadenabbia meeting is scheduled for April 29 – May 2, 2012.

01 EDS Chairmen met at EDS 50th Anniversary in Brussels, February 1, 2011: Thomas Uhlen (2008-2009), Tim Arnold (1993-1994), Günther Fehlinger (1996-1998), Laura de Esteban (19911993), Jacob Lund Nielsen (2001-2003), Carl Bildt (19741976), Ukko Metsola (1999-2000), Bettina Machaczek (19881989), Peter Adler (1978-1979, Deputy Chairman), Bence Bauer (2009-2011), Tom Spencer (19721974), Per Heister (1981-1982)

Facts

Former Chairmen of European Democrat Students 1961-1962: 1962-1964: 1964-1966: 1966-1968 1968-1970: 1970-1971: 1971-1972: 1972-1974: 1974-1976: 1976-1978: 1978-1979: 1979-1981: 1981-1982: 1982-1984: 1984-1985: 1985-1986: 1986-1988: 1988-1989: 1989-1991: 1991-1993: 1993-1994: 1994-1995: 1995-1996: 1996-1998: 1998-1999: 1999-2000: 2000-2001: 2001-2003: 2003-2005: 2005-2006: 2006-2008: 2008-2009: 2009-2011: 2011-20…:

Hans-Uwe Erichsen Carl-Henrik Winquist Dieter Ibielski Reginald E. Simmerson Heiki S. von Hertzen Ian Taylor Finn Brågård Tom Spencer Carl Bildt Scott Hamilton Pierre Moinet Lars Eskeland Per Heister Knut Olav Nesse Daniel Bischof George Anagnostakos Mattias Bengtsson Bettina Machaczek Stavros Papastavrou Laura de Esteban Tim Arnold Fredrik Johansson Andrew Reid Günther Fehliner Michalis Peglis Ukko Metsola Gustaf Casparsson Jacob Lund Nielsen Alexandros Sinka Sven Henrik Häseker Ana Filipa Janine Thomas Uhlen Bence Bauer Juraj Antal

Germany (Secretary General) Sweden (Secretary General) Germany (Secretary General) United Kingdom (Secretary General) Finland (Secretary General) United Kingdom (from now on: Chairman) Denmark United Kingdom Sweden United Kingdom France Norway Sweden Norway Switzerland Greece Sweden Germany Greece Spain Germany Sweden United Kingdom Austria Greece Finland Sweden Denmark Cyprus Germany Portugal Germany Hungary Slovakia

Note: All Bureaus can be found online at: http://edsnet.eu/about-us/garrick

Jakov Devcic, EDS

Helmut Kohl A European politician Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who first served as Chancellor of West Germany from 1982 to 1990, and later as Chancellor of the reunited Germany from 1990 to 1998, was the first Chancellor of the reunified Germany. During his term as Chancellor of Germany Mr. Kohl was famous for his proEuropean views, which followed Konrad Adenauer’s vision of Europe. However he was already a strong advocate of the European idea during his time as the opposition leader in the Federal Land of Rhineland-Palatinate. Within a few years he had earned a reputation as a highly reliable partner for European integration, as it was a heartfelt wish of his. He has inspired the Christian democratic leaders from Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands to deepen European integration, long before he even became a member of their circle.

During that time he developed his network with his European partners. The friends he had made at this time became reliable colleagues during his Chancellorship and these networks enabled him to achieve diplomatic success. This farsightedness ensured Helmut Kohl political success at a European and global level.

This outstanding commitment of Kohl to Europe cannot be explained or understood without considering his childhood experiences. He belongs to a generation of people who suffered from the

Bullseye

catastrophe of the 20th century. The fact that he lost his older brother during the war and that he had to rescue mortuaries after air strikes in his hometown of Ludwigshafen, affected his entire childhood. After the end of the war, Helmut Kohl began to engage himself politically in the young age of 15 years.

From the beginning of his chancellorship, Kohl focused on strengthening the integration process of Europe. One indicator for this is the fact that on the day of his election he visited the French president Francois Mitterrand in Paris. Through this act of friendship he wanted to ensure that the FrancoGerman friendship remained indispensible prerequisite for reliable integration steps in Europe. Kohl maintained a special relationship with France, but he was politically intelligent enough to know that good relations with the neighbouring states of Germany are of high importance for Germany’s development and stability. This way of thinking, that Germany has many neighbours, which take an equally important role as France does, dominated Kohl’s foreign policy during the 16 years of his chancellorship.

When Helmut Kohl moved in into the Federal Chancellery in Bonn in 1982, the European Project was in stagnation. The European political field of the 80s has been characterized by terms such as

“Eurosclerosis” or “enlargement fatigue”, which stand for the integration policy gridlock. Kohl never deviated from his conviction of Europe. Together with the president of European Commission Jacques Delors, he started the challenging project “Europe 1992” which ended the period of “Eurosclerosis” and which led to the implementation of the single European market in 1992. Before trade barriers within the European Community could be steadily lowered, he and his European colleagues had to overcome many obstacles.

During the German presidency in the European Council under his chancellorship, he advanced the decisions which have been important and necessary to achieve the European Economic and monetary Union. Kohl wanted to make the realization of the Monetary Union in the European unification process irreversible and to ensure long term stability within the European house. This is based on the idea, that if states have a single currency they will not wage a war against each other. The groundbreaking decision for the achievement of the European Single Market, Kohl and his colleagues in the European Council brought in 1988.

Not in 1990. And not in 1991. Nevertheless, many people still believe that Kohl gave up the German Mark to the Europeans, especially to the British and to the French who remained slightly wary of German reunification for geostrategic reasons. Because of this, the achievement of a further step in the integration process of Europe cannot be linked just to German reunification.

Helmut Kohl never wavered from his demands for peace in Germany and Europe. He underlined this in many discussions with Gorbachev and Honecker, and it was always clear that he would fight for this aim with all possible means without using any violence. At the time when history prepared all necessary conditions for peaceful reunification, he was brave enough to take the initiative and to work actively towards it. And once again, he demonstrated his political intelligence in an impressive way. Fears of reunification in London, Paris and the Hague were allayed as he always asserted that the reunification of Germany was linked to the unification of Europe, which meant the accession of central and Eastern European countries.

For Helmut Kohl the reunification of Germany and the unification of the European continent were always two sides of the same coin. Europeans and especially the Germans owe Helmut Kohl more than they are aware of. Helmut Kohl is a modern patriot: he always tried to combine national interests of Germany with European interests, but never overemphasized the national interests in comparison to the European family. He has always seen Europe as a whole, and through this he united the Germans and Europeans to the mutual benefit of all

5

Actualities

Actualities Matija Magerl, EDS

Croatia And The EU The Story of a Long Journey Home Natalia Rencic, EDS

South Sudan The world’s youngest state South Sudan recently became the world’s latest independent state on July 7th, after many years of both violent and peaceful struggle. The people of South Sudan have been fighting for decades for independence from the predominantly Muslim majority in the north of the country. After a long and ‘patient’ path towards freedom, in January this year, a crushing majority of the South Sudanese people voted for a peaceful separation process from the North in a referendum which constituted part of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) signed in 2005 between the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) and the Government of Sudan. Part of the peace agreement dealth with the sharing of oil resources and the right to self-determination of the South Sudanese people.

After several years problems still exist including ongoing violence betwen the two countries, especially at the border area of Abyei, one of the important oil-rich areas. Because of its specific position, Abyei was given “Special Administrative Status” under the Abyei Protocol of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Additionally, it was planned to hold the referendum in January 2010 between the North and South – both sides population of Abyei. This plan was cancelled due to disagreement over various issues mostly concerning the voting system, such as information available to the voters, electoral observation and so on. People of that region are still suffering however; according to June

6

statistics more then 100 000 people have fled from Abyei region. According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) only around 67 000 have been registered , while the Government of Southern Sudan’s Ministry for Humanitarian Affairs gave the number of up to 150,000 internally displaced persons. Although the international community including negotiators, peacekeepers and humanitarian aid workers are doing their best to protect innocent civilians, women, children and the elderly, until now the effects of their work have not been felt in this region. Furthermore, both countries have taken advantage of the ceasefire to build up their military capabilities. It is not difficult to see who will suffer most from this.

One of the tragedies of modern times is the region of Darfur, where years of civil war have stangled economic development, killed untold numbers of people and endangered the lives of many more. Given their natural resoures, Sudan (both north and south) could be two of the most prosperous countries in Africa, with oil, gold, cotton, and arable land. As in former Yugoslavia and many other countries, the failure of the UN and other peacekeepers has been glaring. The UN accused pro-govermant militias and other violent groups of ethnic cleansing of the non-Arab population. The agony of refugees and internally displaced people is present even today and every attempt to reach a peace settlement here is welcome.

In this case even neighbouring countries such

as Chad were involved, because of the mutual accusation between those two states of cross-border incursions. Unfortunately, as we can see in many cases in Africa, domestic greed combined with external influence rarely benefits the people. Beyond these immediate crises, South Sudan faces further problems including unemployment and a lack of infrastructure, education and health which will be vital for the future development of the country.

Religion plays a central role in many of these key areas. Islam as the state religion and Arabic as the official language have dominated over Christians or the traditional native rituals for centuries.

More recently, there was an attempt to impose Islamic Sharia law, but the non-Muslim minority of the people refused this. Sudan was under Egyptian and British rule until 1956. Following independence there have been many civil wars and internal conflicts, as well ongoing ethnic clashes between the two main ethnic groups – the Arabs in the north and Africans in the south.

During these years more then two million people were killed and more then two million became refugees and IDP-S. This created the conditions for long term poverty as well as significant barriers to development. The two major political figures in Sudan and South Sudan are President Omar al-Bashir and Salva Kiir Mayardit, currently President of South Sudan. Another figure worthy of remembrance is John Garang, a South Sudanese politician and rebel leader, who died in a plane crash in 2005, in circumstances suggesting the possible involvement of “external factors”.

South Sudan has a historic opportunity to develop and prosper. The question is to what extent challenges such as corruption, unemployment, lack of structural support, etc, will hinder the early development of this young state.

Hopefully, they will not repeat the mistakes of so many other ‘new born’ independent states around the world.

On June 24, just a day before the 20th Croatian Statehood Day was celebrated, the EU Commission officially suggested finishing the accession negotiations with Croatia to the EU member states. This symbolic event came to fruition a couple of days later (June 30th) at the last intergovernmental accession negotiations conference when 27 member states of the EU determined that Croatia fulfilled all of the criteria for EU membership and invited it to become the 28th EU member state. With having 1st of July 2013 set as the provisional accession date, Croatians all around could finally start to celebrate and feel elated and optimistic proudly saying ‘we did our job!’ The Croatian dream of becoming a recognised and respected part of our common European cultural, economic, political, and historical circle was coming through; more than eight years after Croatia first submitted the application for EU membership.

But this dream lasted much longer than eight years. In 1989 the centre-right party of Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) set two primary goals in its first manifesto: independence for Croatia (as the country was still part of communist Yugoslavia back then) and making Croatia an active party in European integration processes. HDZ came to power in 1990 with an overwhelming majority, but both of its goals came to question very soon as in 1991 Croatia was pushed to a bloody war for independence which had dire social and political consequences for the country.

The war left the country in chaos. Refugees, war veterans, mines, ruined cities, industries and agriculture, war crimes, corruption, etc. all created a huge burden for a country yet to create its own political and legal system.

Before any talks of accession to some supranational entity such as the EU could ever take place Croatia had to be rebuilt, literally. It took almost ten years for Croatia to recuperate

Bullseye

from the Homeland War that ended in 1995 and to feel strong enough to face the EU. And then, in October 2005, the accession negotiations started.

Croatia had to face a negotiator who was very dubious about any new accession due to the troubled times it had previously gotten into. In 2004 EU had just absorbed the largest number of new member states in its history, some of which haven’t been showing good results. Furthermore, the EU had to deal with rejection of European Constitution in France and Netherlands and with rejection of the Lisbon treaty in Ireland. It was hampered by multiple internal reforms and institutional crisis during the negotiations with Croatia and this determined Croatian accession dynamics a great deal. Croatia had more negotiation chapters to close in the EU accession talks than any other country before - 35 in total; it was the first country to meet with the concept of having opening and closing benchmarks for each chapter; and it was the first country which didn’t receive a provisional accession date until the very end of negotiations.

On the other hand, Croatia had to deal with a closet full of skeletons of its own. Wartime legacy left many questions unanswered, especially with regards to war crimes processing and effective judiciary. Some EU states blocked the negotiations until they were certain Croatia was fulfilling its obligations towards ICTY in Hague. It was also necessary to deal with the issues that arose from simply being a fully independent country for the first time in centuries. One such issue was the border dispute with Slovenia on the border which had actually never existed between the two countries since they’ve shared a common political history. This halted the negotiations for almost a year.

Now, with yet again a centre-right government of HDZ led by PM Jadranka Kosor, Croatia has a fully opened path to the EU. Politics of zero tolerance for corruption, crucial and difficult reforms conducted in times of the biggest financial crisis we’ve faced in ages and keeping good neighbourly relations all made that final much needed push towards the finish line. Due to its long and difficult journey one can say that Croatia will be joining the EU as one of the most prepared countries for the accession ever. There is no doubt that this will make it easier for the Accession Agreement which is currently being drafted to be ratified all across the EU in due time making Croatia shine as the 28th European star on 1th of July 2013 when it will finally come home.

7

Bullseye on

Bullseye on Remember, I will still be here, As long as you hold me, in your memory

1 Josh Groban „Remember”

Remember, when your dreams have ended, Time can be transcended, Just remember me I am the one star that keeps burning, so brightly, It is the last light, to fade into the rising sun I’m with you, Whenever you tell, My story, For I am all I’ve done1

Ten years after 9/11 Andrzej Dabrowski, NZS

A day that changed the world

On an early Tuesday morning millions of Americans left their homes to work and schools, unaware that on this day they would witness the most dramatic and savage terrorist attack in modern history. An event that shaped a new era of understanding of global terrorism and which would become a milestone in western societies’ attitudes towards eastern Islamic culture. From the 11th September 2001 a new perception of political attitudes towards the world started to appear.

Earlier that day, four civilian airplanes with passengers aboard began their journey one from Newark, one from Washington and two planes from Boston. Boarding those flights among regular travelers, businessman and tourists were nineteen men who would turn out to be hijackers. Associated with AlQaeda and determined to kill as many people as possible, the hijackers began to execute a plan to take over control of the planes and direct them towards World Trade Center towers in New York, the Pentagon building and The Capitol or The White House if possible.

After getting into cockpits and terrorizing the passengers, behind the controls sat a terrorist, trained in piloting aircraft, to replace

8

the killed pilots. The hijackers knew that there was no possibility of forcing the crew to cooperate, and decided to train as pilots to reduce the risk of failing to reach planned locations. On almost every plane the situation looked very similar. The last of the flights to leave ground was the United Airlines Flight 93 from Newark. During hijacking the passengers managed to contact authorities and their families. They were told about planes crashing into the World Trade Centre (WTC) twin towers and The Pentagon. It appeared to them certain that their faith lies in their own hands, and that if they will not stand up against the terrorists more people will die in effect of crushing into offices or government buildings. An attempt to regain control over the aircraft ended with the plane crushing into an empty surface in southern Pennsylvania. What happened on board of Flight 93 became later an example of great bravery and selfless sacrifice.

On 11th September 2001 approximately three thousand people were killed and more than six thousand suffered injuries. The damage made by the hijackers was not only counted in lives they have taken away since from that

moment American society trembled in fear for its safety. It is widely known that till 9/11, the only attempt to attack the United States was taken by Japanese in 1941 during the Hawaiian Pearl Harbor bombing. From that moment Americans remained confident in their safety provided by one of the most modern army in the world, a stable economy and two oceans keeping almost everyone away from American soil. That sense of safety and distance was suddenly destroyed in a series of brutal attacks conducted from within the USA, not only against the government and its institutions but also against innocent citizens.

The power of the terrorists’ message was reinforced by the fact that millions of people around the globe were able to take part in the attacks as viewers. Television and radio stations broadcasted the tragic view of the twin towers burning and falling apart for many hours during the attacks and afterwards.

That was also a purpose to cause mass fear and sensation of being always under threat of danger; to eradicate western civilization’s confidence of domination and comfort.

Soon after the attacks United States President George W. Bush and his administration

began to seek those responsible for 9/11.

American intelligence indicated that the man behind all evil committed that day was Osama bin Laden, a Saudi-Arabian terrorist and leader of Al-Qaeda, also responsible for the 1993 bombing of the WTC and 1998 bombing of USA embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Bin Laden quickly became the most wanted terrorist in the world along with other Al-Qaeda members. To capture and bring them to justice, United States along with a coalition of countries decided to invade Afghanistan as a country strongly supporting terrorism and protecting bin Laden. In October 2001 began the invasion of US soldiers in Afghanistan which removed the Taliban regime and started a war on terrorism.

Since President Bush, in his now infamous speech, spoke an axis of evil comprising countries like Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and North Korea the so called Bush Doctrine began to take effect. Its major assumption was that the United States had the right to secure itself against countries that harbour or give aid to terrorist groups. Based on this assumption, United States forced a military operation against Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi army in march of 2003. Despite international criticism and lack of agreement for using power against Hussein, Bush administration forced through a plan to apprehend weapons of mass destruction which were supposed to be in possession of Iraqi army. Both of those conflicts are con-

Bullseye

sidered as in progress to this day. In Iraq allied forces struggle to counter numerous bomb attacks, and in Afghanistan the territory remains strongly influenced by remaining armed Taliban groups.

The events of 9/11 began the war on terrorism not only for the USA but also form many other countries for which global safety appeared as a major issue to address. This massive multinational movement towards ending the threat of terrorism also brought a strong response from the terrorists themselves. After invading Iraq and Afghanistan countries of the coalition against terror suffered vicious attacks on their own soil. First a bomb in the Madrid subway in March 2004 killed approximately two hundred innocent victims and after that several explosives planted and detonated on London buses in July 2005 killed fifty. For Spain the 2004 bombing was a reason to withdraw their forces from Iraq and it also influenced Spanish voters to cast support for left wing parties in upcoming elections. In the mean time Russia also suffered from ruthless attacks in which Chechen separatists made attempts on a Moscow theater in 2002 and a school in Beslan in North Ossetia in 2004.

Since the war on terror began, structures of international relationships towards a common policy on global threads have changed dramatically. Not only cooperation between states in that matter became a priority, but also it became obvious for citizens in most countries

that the threat of being attacked by surprise by fanatics is always near and possible. That feeling of insecurity is mostly observed in western societies like Americans or Europe. The 9/11 events caused people around the world to become increasingly concerned about their safety. In the first few years after the attacks protection measures on airports and other means of mass transport increased strongly.

Also governmental intelligence offices’ ability to track and prevent terrorist threats across the globe became professional and well organized.

The best example of a change is the fact that in May 2011 US forces managed to locate and kill Osama bin Laden, leader of Al-Qaeda and number one on every most wanted list.

All the things that the world witnessed during and since 9/11, were direct and indirect effects of the most savage and merciless attack. Following all great tragedies mankind’s social structures tend either to fail and unravel or strengthen and develop harder attitudes for overcoming even the hardest of struggles.

Although the events of 9/11 changed Americans and other nations’ perception of the globalization of terrorism and growing dangers of today’s world, it also incited societies and governments to establish a world alliance for fighting terrorist threats. And although the war on terror seems to be born out of a sense of desperation, out of this we may yet witness the birth of a completely new and unique process in the history of managing global issues.

9

reports

reports On August 26th 2008, Russia’s president Dmitry Medvedev recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The international requirement to withdraw Russian troops was ignored. The extension of the UN and OSCE missions in the conflict zones was vetoed and Russia began to strength its position by the establishment of the military bases and border guard units in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The only international peacekeeping mission is the EUMM which cannot use its legal mandate fully. The Geneva discussions co-chaired by the EU, OSCE and UN are the only platform for political dialogue.

In the conflict regions the social situation is tragic. The number of the illegal activities from the Russian side has increased. Kidnapping, imprisonment of civilians, unlawful transportation and forced ‘Passportization’ are evident examples of this. One should stress the threat of changing the mental attitude of the youth. I was shocked by one situation which occurred one month ago while talking to an 18-year-old Abkhazian girl, visiting Tbilisi. Discussing the situation in Abkhazia and she stated that: “…Everyone takes bribes, and I am going to do so, too. That is

quite normal there, why do you think it is a problem? Why are you troubled with this…?”

People are accustomed to living in society with flourishing corruption, with neither an efficient educational system nor infrastructure.

The process of russification both in Abkhazia and South Ossetia is proceeding rapidly.

One of the main problems is the socio-economic situation of the IDPs. For instance, they often complain about the insufficient subsistence allowances, as it varies between 2228 GELS per month, whereas the minimum wage is approximately 153 GEL. Resettlement of the IDPs is one of the debating issues. In spite of monetary compensation, as well as alternative accommodation mostly in the regions, the process is fraught with challenges. There are problems with the resettlement process after the 2008 August War. IDP families complain about the termination of allowances for utility payments, as well as food support. In different regions they complain of insufficient living conditions and the state’s indifference to their situation.

As regards the violation of international norms, it should be admitted that Russia was blamed for the misuse of the UN legal norm

Georgia Tamar Baghishvili, EDS

3 years after war broke

10

‘Responsibility to Protect.’ According to the report of the ‘Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect’, the ground stressed for intervention - the protection of Russian Citizens abroad - is beyond the scope of the R2P norm, the scale of the military operation went beyond the direct protection of the South Ossetia populations allegedly under threat, and there is no legal authority for an R2P based military intervention.

It should be noted that Russia’s constant provocations against the new escalation of the conflict is a challenge for both the Georgian and European Security System. In the NATO resolution adopted on the 16th November, 2010 it is stated that the assembly is deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation in the occupied territories, the assembly called on Moscow, Tskhinvali and Sukhumi to change the outcome of the conflict recognized as ethnic cleaning by the independent international fact finding mission and the other international documents.

In the last resolution adopted by the US senate on the 29th of July in 2011 is clearly stated that the United States supports the sovereignty of Georgia. The paper calls on Russia, Tskinvali and Sukhumi to enable the safe return of the IDPs and the as well as the operation of the international monitoring missions.

In the official document adopted by the EU-Georgia cooperation parliamentary committee in May 2011 in Brussels the Georgian government’s strategy on occupied territories (‘Engagement Through Cooperation’) is welcomed. The committee expresses the hope that both the local and international donors will have no obstacles in the conflict regions in working towards the trust building process. It stresses that the main issues of the Geneva discussions should be security measures and human rights protection. In the resolution the illegal presence of the Russian military in the occupied regions is condemned once again. The violation of both property rights & free movement of persons is viewed as a form of ethnic cleaning and the resolution calls for the fulfillment of the ceasefire six-point agreement by Russia.

For Georgia, sovereignty and an integrated society are the first priorities. However, western support is a milestone. For the peaceful dispute settlement the non-recognition policy by the International Community should be continued; Russia should be forced to fulfill the cease-fire agreement, and the conflict regions should be controlled by the international monitoring missions. Pressure on Russia to revoke their recognition of the occupied territories is essential.

In opposition, every political party has the illusion that reform will start the day after winning the elections. In fact, more likely than not, they will become disillusioned the day after walking through the doors of power in a coalition. What it learns is that reform is an excruciatingly painful and slow process, that most of its time and energy are consumed in give-and-take tactics with its partners and by the constant boycott of the opposition, which attempts to rebuild its legitimacy. Very soon, the risk of becoming the victim of one’s own success looms on the horizon.

This pattern of events played out in Moldova during the power transition from 2009, when the Alliance of European Integration, led by the Liberal Democratic Party (PLDM), took over from the Party of Communists after their 8 years of semi-authoritarian regime.

PLDM along with 2 other smaller democratic parties has won the elections by a small margin, large enough to form a government and have the majority in Parliament, but not sufficient for electing the President of the country, still an important institution in the Moldavian system. This led to early elections in November 2010 which produced a similar outcome – a democratic government and parliamentary majority, but 2 votes short of electing the President. Thus, for almost two years Moldova is the prisoner of the opposition Party of Communists which boycotts all attempts to elect a democrat President.

The Liberal Democratic party of Moldova

Bullseye

Ghenadie Virtos, International secretary, TLDM, Moldova

Moldova Everything was better back when everything was worse? came into power as the main carrier of hope for democratic reforms and for real progress towards European Integration, a necessary goal if Moldova is ever to achieve the status of a democratic and prosperous country. When a party achieves as high a score in elections as PLDM (29,84% in 2010) and is the leader of the governing coalition, a lot is expected of it. And indeed, Moldova has become a freer, more open and more democratic country. But beyond the sincere intentions and readiness, things get a lot more difficult, especially in a coalition and with new elections pending.

Ironically, although voters demand reforms, the implementation of these reforms is often unpopular with those same individuals.

What seems lacking is an understanding that reforms are the responsibility of both the government and society at large. Any reform or change in the status quo produces significant resistance from those affected, something the opposition is always keen to exploit. A further problem is that reforms come at a cost, and in Moldova they target various sectors including justice, health, education or local government, and are accompanied by efficiency drives and cuts in public spending aimed at reducing the oversized public sector. The costs of these reforms will be carried by the same people who voted for the change. And therein lies the main dilemma: either a government proceeds with controversial reforms and upsets a large section of voters, threatening its chances of reelection, or preserve the status quo, thereby angering its most fervent supporters who brought it to power with a mandate for reform.

It seems that governments are caught in a lose-lose dilemma, with each course of action incurring significant losses of political capital.

Moreover, following the common sense of citizens observing their immediate environment, voters’ political views are informed by immediate losses rather than longer term benefits.

In such cases, time is the stabilizing factor, as beneficial reforms start paying off at the end

of a normal 4 year term. Yet a 4 year term is exactly what the pro-European government of Moldova does not have, which makes it more likely that it is a subsequent government which will reap the rewards for reforms implemented by its predecessor.

This is the situation which the Moldavian democratic government of Vlad Filat finds itself in.

Although willing and capable to initiate comprehensive economic and structural reforms it is held back by their political consequences in forthcoming elections in the autumn of 2011.

This confirms a well-known fact - that political stability is essential for efficient government.

Even so, in only 2 years, and after 5 national electoral campaigns, the record of the government remains impressive, something acknowledged by its European partners, Moldova being the champion of democratic reforms in the Eastern Partnership.

The outcome of the local general elections in June 2011 saw a repeat of some of the above problems. Although only by a small margin, the score of the Alliance for European Integration eroded compared to the last parliamentary elections of 28th of November 2010. We see that relatively minor problems and disagreements can undermine the strength of democratic leadership to a larger extent than freedom-limiting policy and corruption scandals did to the Party of Communists regime from 2001 to 2009. Therein lies another paradox - even though societies which are characterized by freedom of speech, democracy, self-criticism and vigorous debate, as is Moldova since 2009, are clearly more dignifying and livable, they are unfortunately also the most fragile.

The risk in Moldova is that voters think that the choice is not between different visions of democracy but between democracy and paternalistic authoritarianism of the communists.

That is why the success of the present Alliance for European Integration is important not only for their own reelection but also for the future of democracy in the country.

11

reports

theme

Alexandros Politis, EDS

Financial crisis Why it is Greece To begin with, this is not the first time that Greece has faced an economic crisis; this is the fifth time since its independence. Greece became independent in 1929 following the revolution against the Ottoman Empire and the military and economical interference of the strongest, at that time, European countries. It got numerous loans in order to promote economic and social growth. Greece had lost the most ‘productive’ years of modern European history, the years of the early twentieth century Renaissance.

The fact that the Greek people were always proud of their nationality and because of their perception that Greece belonged to Europe, they felt the need to succeed with a quick development in every field. Nevertheless, the cultural decline of the preceeding years, the administrative chaos and the political inexperience became strong obstacles to the Greek development.

Because of this situation, most of the Greek governments did not succeed in maintaining a stable political system which would create the feeling of a trustworthy state that could lead the country towards sustainable development.

Greece was based on clientele relationships between the politicians and the citizens. The Greek people learned to live and work only for the present and not for the future. xcFurthermore, the Balkan Wars and the First World War economically drained the Greek State. The Second World War and the invasion of the Nazis destroyed the biggest part of the country. It is a fact that Germany has never given any compensation to Greece. The Second World War was followed by long standing interior conflicts and the icing on the cake was the dictatorship during the years 1967 – 1974.

When Greece joined the European Union, the Greek people were asking for a kind of “vindication”. Greece again lost the chance to become a wealthy country. Without planning for the future, the Greek governments enlarged the public sector and offered a lot of privileges to the people. The Community Support Frameworks

12

were not used wisely. This also caused huge political corruption and tax evasion.

Greece was fulfilling its new needs with more loans. The European Union was, obviously, aware of that. Moreover, Greece had spent a lot of time under the EU’s economical control, even during the last decade. It is true that the Greek government presented false economical data in order to join the Eurozone. Is it possible that the EU leaders did not know about it?

Now, Greece faces once more an economic crisis. Every country which supports the Greek economy wants something in return. Three simple examples are the interest rates of the loans, stronger political control in the Greek area, and much lower prices of Greek public companies and services that Greece has now to sell in order to regain its credibility.

As it seems, a large majority of young people generally blame the previous generations which were supporting and maintaining this political system. The fact that during the past decades Greek people were voting for the same politicians because of the clientele relationships between them made young people criticise even their parents. They are not ashamed that they

are Greek, but they know that their ancestors showed indifference about the country and contributed to the political corruption.

But, at the same time they feel that Greece is now more than ever isolated within the EU. It is not only that the EU presses Greece to implement even stricter economic measures.

The fact that Greece is now losing a part of its sovereignty and its political control and that their future is once more insecure makes them feel alone.

In addition, the majority of the European people blame the Greek ones for the current economic situation in Greece. If you ask the European citizens their view about the Greek people, you will even hear ironic comments. In this case the media may be responsible, as some of them publish humiliating articles and pictures about Greece. Personally, I just consider these to be harmless fun. I know that most of the people did not change their view that much.

But, the Greek people in general, who are not that familiar with the EU, do not see this the same way. Obviously, the EU has made great steps in order to protect the Greek and European economy. But, what really matters in the end are not only the political decisions. It is the fear that this reaction provoked to the Greek people and the feeling that almost nobody really wants to support their country. Instead of this criticism they were expecting European people to feel sorry about their country’s situation.

Finally, I think that we should stop searching for someone to blame. Greek people have to realize that this might be their final chance to change their country. On the other hand, the European community should honestly focus on the Greek issue without any prejudice. Greece has to change, but as a member of the so called “European family”.

Henry Hill, EDS

It’s ecology, Stupid!

Sustainable energy is vital to European conservatives’ vision of a prosperous, harmonious, independent and secure European Union.

Ever since the rise of Green politics began in the Nineties, it has been the domain of the Left. This is readily explicable: those who were the amongst the first converts to ‘green’ thinking were those who hoped that a looming environmental apocalypse could supplant Marx’s defunct theory of proletarian revolution as the stick with which they would beat an unwilling people into socialism. Thus early Green politicians tended to blend their calls for better environmental policy with attacks on globalisation, capitalism and individual freedom. Even as green issues became more mainstream, this statist, leftist tone continued to dominate the consensus around green politics.

All this led parties of the right, in Europe and elsewhere, to treat green politics with understandable suspicion. The manner in which it was presented made it deeply unattractive to parties who prioritised liberty and economic strength. In energy terms, the alternatives to oil presented economic and political difficulties: renewables were hugely expensive and inefficient, while in most European states nuclear energy languished under the long shadow of Chernobyl and – more recently – the Fukushima disaster.

However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the European right needs to urgently rethink its approach to energy policy, for a European

Bullseye

Union that continues to depend on crude oil will increasingly be one capable neither of economic vigour at home nor self-assertion abroad.

While global oil supplies can’t be said to be running out, future reserves do not offer much long term hope for advanced economies. The cost of extraction from tar sands is estimated at $23-26 per barrel, against a mere $4-5 for the cheapest OPEC supplies. As the age of cheap crude draws to a close, rising energy costs will continue to constrict oil-dependent economies, raising costs at all points in the chain of production from raw materials through manufacturing to transportation and retail.

The knock-on effect of this is that the European economy – presently the largest in the world – will find itself handicapped, with high prices rendering European goods and services increasingly uncompetitive compared with cheaper goods manufactured elsewhere. Even if rising oil prices hit the BRIC nations and other second world countries, their cheaper labour and other costs would enable them to undercut European exports. Thus a weakened internal economy risks being exacerbated by a gradual loss of market share for our exports, and if energy prices rose so high as to cause a crisis, governments might have to step in to regulate or even ration energy supplies, with all that that implies for a free economy.

Yet even if supplies of Russian and MiddleEastern oil were inexhaustible, parties aiming to create a strong and independent Europe should still be championing the pursuit of alternatives, for the European Union will be vulnerable for as long as she is dependent upon foreign oil supplies.

This vulnerability takes two forms. The first, regarding Middle Eastern oil, is due to the instability of that region. Any power dependent on Middle Eastern crude runs the long-term risk of having to intervene in the region in order to secure its own oil supply. With Russia the problem is reversed: instead of running the risk of being pulled into a power vacuum, we face the prospect of being vulnerable to power projection by our eastern neighbour. While Russia can threaten to ‘turn off the tap’ and cut oil supplies to several member states, she has an excellent way to exert influence over the EU and prevent us from protecting vulnerable neighbours, such as Georgia.

If this is the case, what steps should parties of the European right take? The first must be to wrest the language of environmentalism away from the left. The electorate must be left in no doubt that 1) the right is taking the problem seriously and that 2) it can be achieved through methods that do not entail a jarring shift in lifestyle for the majority. Alternative green doctrines such as “ecological modernisation”, which argues for the adaptation of industrial and economic development along environmentally-friendly lines, should be championed as alternatives to the prescriptive, judgemental and doom-laden Green politics presently on offer. An emphasis on long-term economic growth and energy security should be made to bring round the sceptical right-wing electorate.

Furthermore, the European right must have the courage to actively pursue long-term, forwardthinking energy policies. President Merkel’s recent abandonment of Germany’s nuclear program, based upon a desire to capitalise on rather than assuage public fear generated by Fukushima, is a big step backwards in the development of a good European energy policy, for now one of the leading member states will be more dependent than ever upon foreign oil supplies.

An ‘energy crunch’ is looming in Europe’s future, and how the EPP and the European right deal with it may define our long-term political prospects. If it hits, weakening our economy and lowering living standards, then the only beneficiaries will be the enemies of free markets and individuals, and the left will be greatly strengthened. If the right can prevent it, and secure for Europe long-term energy security and affordable power, then the benefit will be entirely ours.

13

theme

theme

Matěj Trávníček, EDS

Ann-Sofie Pauwelyn EDS in cooperation with Florian Weinberger AG Austria and Julie Vermoortel CDS Belgium

Global warming – a real threat?

How green is green energy?

Everybody knows the words global warming. Most people imagine some kind of danger. The idea in absolute simplicity is that planet Earth is ill, the illness is caused by people and we all shall fight it, to cure Earth, to preserve life and to save the world. It seems romantic, as a right cause, by which every human being should be obliged. But is it really so simple?

What do we know?

According to scientists the temperature on Earth has been rising approximately since the industrial revolution. But this is not said by all scientists and the IPCC data manipulation scandal has shown us that some data used in international research were altered. The global warming skeptical scientists are pictured as the enemies of the world or as crazy men. But constant questioning of everything is the basic pillar of every scientific work. In the past people like Copernicus, Galileo or Bruno had also been labeled as mad men or bad scientists. Indeed, the majority of contemporary scientists believed that the Sun orbited the Earth. It is also not so long, when in the late ’70s and in the ’80s the scientific mainstream was speaking about danger of global cooling, and propositions of installing nuclear devices on poles to heat up our planet were seriously discussed.

The task for politicians is to govern the country in the interests of its nation, not to blindly follow some “experts”, who no one has elected. This is a fundamental principle of democracy. If there is even the slightest possibility of solving every question of life, society or public affairs by using some sort of scientific method, we can abolish democracy and establish some kind of technocratic bureaucracy dictatorship, the scientific totality similar to Civitas Solis of Tommaso Campanella or Plato’s Politeia. The role of experts is not in governing or deciding, but in making expert studies and analysis for decision-makers.

Earth and wind or fire?

Europe is trying to decrease CO2 pollutions, but the only outcome is decreasing our ability to compete in the world market and industrial transfer into other countries for example China, Turkey or India. In the debate about climate change there is need to advance via answering 4 basic questions: 1. Does global warming really exists? 2. Is it caused by mankind? 3. Are we able to change the climate change? 4. Is trying to influence climate change the most effective way to face it?

But now, the only certain answer of every one of these question is: “We do not know.” But we are however taking actions. We shall take them only if we are sure that the answer of each one these questions are “yes”. These days it seems that, we are trying to change the climate change, perhaps the better solution is to adapt to it.

The climate is changing. Some people say that this is merely a historical process, while other people claim that the man-made environmental pollution is the cause. Whatever one’s opinions may be, more and more actors are investing in green energy. The increased use of green energy in the future is promising.

The more wind turbines and solar panels that are made, for example, the more jobs you can create. Countries that have to buy oil or gas abroad can become less dependent on foreign energy sources. Furthermore, green energy is an inexhaustible source and does not pollute like classical energy sources do. But is green energy really that environmentally safe? To answer this question, let us consider one such energy source: wind turbines.

First of all, important building materials for wind turbines are the so called Rare Earth Elements (REE). There are 17 Rare Earth Elements in the world. They hold their name because of the fact that they are very rarely found in high concentrations. The places where you can find them are limited: China, for example, produces 95 percent of all Rare Earth Elements. Producing those elements takes a very long time and is environmentally unfriendly, because it generates radioactive radiation. Depending on their environmental regulations, countries can or cannot produce these elements. In America, for example, there used to be a mine where Rare Earth Elements were produced but the government closed it down because of the high radioactivity in surrounding areas. In China the rules are less strict and as a result substantial areas are now contaminated.

Secondly, the vanes of a wind turbine are often made from polyester and polyurethane. They have a life span of approximately 20 years, and afterwards it is very difficult to recycle them and this leads to an increasing mountain of waste. But that isn’t the only thing that ends up there; despite their rarity and value, only 1 percent of the Rare Earth Elements are recycled.

14

Bullseye

Is global warming caused by people?

The fact is that people have been influencing the environment from the beginning of civilization. The roots of our civilization are lying in the times of rural revolution. Our civilization started when people started planting grain on the fields. According to ecologist interpretations civilization started with destructing and influencing the nature. The only solution therefore is to abandon civilization, return to caves and restart living as animals.

At the same time as mankind has been influencing nature throughout history, the climate has been changing, that is a law of nature. Warm and cold periods are caused by many reasons including solar cycles or sea steams. Just remember the ice age or for example that the first half of the 17th century was a “small ice age”.

Danger or opportunity?

Even if global warming is caused by people, the question is: “Is it dangerous?” And this is the most important thing. We can take it as a danger, because it is existing, it is changing the world as we know. A better approach however is to take it as a brilliant opportunity. Just imagine the possibility of inhabiting areas, which are now inhabitable like Siberia.

The level of the world ocean is increasing and the numbers, how much will it raise up in 50 or 100 years, seem terrifying, but they are first non-accurate and second we need to realize that from year to year it is only a few centimeters. The people endangered by this will accommodate quickly, easily and automatically.

The problem perhaps is planting plants, but in our time, when we are able to upgrade them via genetic modification (which is nothing other than highly developed crossing), this need not be a problem as it currently appears to be.

What is the conclusion?

Thirdly, the production of a wind turbine consumes large amounts of energy. Studies show that this energy is generated after six months by the wind turbine itself. But the energy consumption and the emissions that are caused by producing wind turbines cannot be undone.

Lastly, as is stated above, the Rare Earth Elements which are very important for the production of environmentally friendly energy generators, are almost all located in China. In the last couple of years the demand for those elements has increased considerably. That is why China currently imposes a limit on the export of Rare Earth Elements, and why the price of some elements has shot up by more than 100 percent. This means that a lot of countries are aware of climate change, which is good, but this means also that other countries as well as Europe, which uses one fifth of the world’s energy, remain dependent on foreign materials. This problem already exists with the classical ways of producing energy: Europe is dependent on foreign oil and gas. With the development of some countries in Asia, the demand for energy increases. This places Europe, as the world largest energy importer, in a very vulnerable position, because it has no materials of its own to provide (green) energy.

We should therefore question whether we make any progress in protecting the environment by using green energy. Wind turbines are not the only renewable energy source to have drawbacks (radioactive radiation, increasing mountain of waste, dependency on foreign materials) as well as advantages (inexhaustible, non-polluting power generation). Other green energy sources such as solar panels are not always as environmentally friendly as sometimes suggested. Most require Rare Earth Elements and even though they use an inexhaustible source, energy outputs can vary: wind and sun are dependent on the weather.

For this last problem, there is a green solution: pumped-storage hydroelectricity. To

generate energy, water from a lower elevation reservoir is pumped to a higher elevation reservoir. When there is a lack of energy, due to lack of wind or sun, or because of a peak in electricity consumption, the water in the higher elevation reservoir is released through the locks to a lower elevation. The falling water drives generators and so electricity is created.

Again, there are drawbacks to this solution.

The energy used for the pumps is not green although there is the possibility to drive those pumps with help of wind or sun energy. But as explained above, they are not one hundred percent green either. Another disadvantage is the space that is needed for such reservoirs: large areas of nature disappear and sometimes even villages have to stand aside.

It is impossible to rely on this kind of energy when the demand for energy in the world is increasing. As one of the biggest economic superpowers, Europe should have a leading role in researching new ways to create green sources. Green energy is very important for the future, but current techniques are far from perfect. We should not only rely on greener energy but also on classical sources of energy – and we should use it efficiently! -, if we want to cope with the increasing demand for energy.

In the meantime we should search to improve our wind turbines and solar panels and hope that the dream of true green energy will become true.

15

theme

theme Amélie Pommier, EDS

Marc-Michael Blum, currently working as a scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, USA, in 2001/2002 he has been Secretary General of EDS

A big chance I am 22, I am a future mother, a future teacher and I am pro nuclear energy.

I thought these simple words would help us to understand my responsible position on nuclear energy.

I think nuclear energy is the future for many countries. As people get better and better living conditions we will exponentially need more energy. I am sorry but this will not be possible with only some windmills and solar panels. I actually think it is good to carry on searching for other ways to provide energy but it will never be enough for people.

One of the most important points is that nuclear power plants give energy independence for countries which have them. Nowadays this is crucial in the world. This issue becomes more and more important for developing countries.

Their needs in energy are increasingly growing, as much as they want to be less and less dependent on other countries. Therefore many

developing countries are currently building nuclear plants or are planning to.

Green energies look nice and attractive with their media-friendly and positive promotion.

However we never talk about their cost. Even rich countries cannot afford 100% green energy. Nuclear energy is currently the cheapest energy and provides energy independence.

Nuclear energy is an alternative to fossil fuel energy sources which are damaging the environment and destroying lives. It is safer and cheaper than some fossil fuel extraction.

For sure we cannot say that there is no risk.

But there is a risk for any human activity.

Through the media prism nuclear power is almost only presented as a dangerous technology. We rarely talk about the advances in nuclear research. These are prodigious.

Scientists and engineers are making nuclear plants safer and safer for people and for the environment. People in charge of nuclear

History and controversy

plants have very strict rules and policies to make the place safe.

The question of radioactive waste, which is always mentioned, is now almost solved. Indeed engineers have found a way to recycle it, using it again to produce energy. It is a crucial improvement in the nuclear energy.

Nuclear activity is also creating jobs. In France, we estimate that 100 000 people work in the nuclear field. They include many people with high qualifications. So this industry is a good opportunity for both developed countries and developing countries to include their society in such an activity.

The recent accident in Japan demonstrated how technicians, engineers and authorities were able to face such a possible disaster. They assisted people to be out of danger and have started cleaning the region. This shows that in transparent democracies we are able to brave the possible accidents linked to nuclear plants.

In the end nuclear energy is a clean energy whose source will never dry up. It is one we will definitely need more and more to provide energy to people. We have to face reality.

The ability of humans to split atomic nuclei (nuclear fission) and to make use of the large amounts of energy released by this process dates back almost 75 when Otto Hahn, Fritz Strassmann and Lise Meitner conducted experiments on the bombardment of uranium with neutrons. The first man-made nuclear reactor at the University of Chicago in which a controlled chain reaction was sustained achieved criticality in December 1942 and subsequent developments during the Manhattan project lead to the first uncontrolled chain reaction during the test of the first atomic bomb in the New Mexico desert in July 1945. After the war interest in nuclear fission continued for military purposes (weapons but also naval propulsion) but gained momentum for the generation of electricity for civilian use. The first reactor generating electric energy that was connected to the power grid in the Soviet Union in1954 and the first real commercial nuclear power plant – Calder Hall in the UK – was commissioned in 1956. The station closed in 2003 with the first reactor in use for 47 years.

Even though nuclear fission generates large amounts of energy from comparably small amount of fissile material and has an inherently small CO2 footprint - important in the discussion on the emission of greenhouse gases, controversies on the use of nuclear energy persist for many years with an organized anti-nuclear movement existing in several Western countries since the 1970s.

Today concerns about the use of nuclear fission of energy generation can be divided in two sub-groups: One is related to nuclear safety, the other to nuclear security. Public opinion is mostly concerned with aspects of nuclear safety. Several severe accidents including total or partial meltdown of fuel elements and release of radioactive materials in the environment spurred these concerns.

Incidents include the major incidents in Fukushima (2011, Japan), Chernobyl (1986, Ukraine) and Three Mile Island (1979, USA) but there were also incidents with partial core meltdowns in Europe as in Lucens (1969, Switzerland) or Saint-Laurent (1969, France).

Another aspect of nuclear safety involved

safe and reliable storage of highly radioactive nuclear waste from spent fuel for extended periods of time (hundreds to even thousands of years).

Nuclear security subsumes concerns about the use of civilian nuclear technology to generate weapons grade fissile material and proliferation of weapons related technology.

An example is the Iranian nuclear program including facilities for the enrichment of uranium for fuel rods. The same facilities can also be used to generate highly enriched uranium (HEU) that can be used in nuclear weapons. On the other hand the regulation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty explicitly grant nations the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. For this reason peaceful nuclear activities are carried out under a regime of safeguards controlled by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). However several countries are suspected to have used peaceful programs as a disguise for a clandestine weapons program.

The other aspect of nuclear security includes the potential of a terrorist attack of a nuclear power plant with the aim to release substantial amounts of radioactivity or to steal fissile material for use in radiological (dirty) bombs.

Chris K

Nuclear Power: Yes or No 16

The wrong solution No issue has been more divisive and caused such heated debate in recent years as nuclear energy. Some consider it do be the long term solution to the growing energy need of the world, and also an option which satisfies the requirements of cost efficiency, sustainability and at the same time it is uniquely environmental friendly. But do nuclear supporters not overlook some vitally important points?

First and foremost, nuclear energy is not renewable and leaves waste behind. The production of energy requires uranium. That element is not available in all countries. This fact leads to the assumption, that another main argument of the proponents is definitely proven wrong: In many countries, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, politics is pushing nuclear energy forward in order to reduce the energy dependency on foreign powers, especially Russia. However, most of the above mentioned countries do not have sufficient uranium deposits on home soil.

As a result of this, the energy dependency re-

Bullseye

mains, with only the supplier country being replaced. Another burden nuclear energy is causing the environment is spent fuel rods. The fuel rods still contain radioactive materials after their life span. They should be stored in safety for the coming centuries, which may not happen due to a lack of financial resources and The proponents are desperately trying to emphasize, that nuclear energy is safe. However, past events prove otherwise. The disaster at the Fukushima power plant showed us that not even one of the most developed countries in the world can guarantee safety. A natural catastrophe may cause such damage no manmade structures can withstand it. Supporters will argue that this is the situation for other energy sources. This statement is true, however the consequences of a nuclear accident are rather more devastating. The accidents at water dams and wind parks will not destroy the life of tens of generations. Besides the risks inherent in the operation of a nuclear plant itself

and of Fukushima-style natural disasters, other external threats are likely to cause trouble.

Nuclear power plants are considered to be the number-one target of terrorist groups. If such a group wants to cause a lot of harm to its enemy in a short time with a small amount of resources, attacking a nuclear power plant would be their “best” option. Hundred percent safety and security can never be achieved in any of the energy producing industries. The difference is in the consequences of mistakes.

This makes nuclear energy the most vulnerable compared to the others.

The above mentioned characteristics of the use of nuclear energy are scientific arguments. However, these aspects raise political problems as well. Public opinion on nuclear energy is the most divisive of all. Almost all governments face fierce opposition if they want to increase the ratio of nuclear energy in the energy mix. Therefore the political obstacles are also against their use.

Proponents of a nuclear age may raise the appropriate questions; they will however definitely come up with the wrong answers. Nuclear energy is the energy source of the past, not the future.

17

theme It is easy to live one’s life without ever giving a second thought to those single-use cups we use for our morning coffee. Most of us are so concerned with paying our bills that we feel we don’t have enough time and energy to bother about the deterioration of our environment.

Still, when it comes to questions like “what can you do for your environment?”, there are hundreds of little ideas that come to mind, be it separating your waste, be it shopping in organic grocery stores. Granted, I am guilty of many things that would not be considered “best” for the environment. My guess is that most people do not always do what would be “best”, even the heads of our green political parties and environmental organisations. I am, therefore, in no position to criticize anyone for not doing enough. To my mind, it is both more effective and more justified to concentrate on improving one’s own behaviour that to criticise my neighbour for being “less green than he should be”. Thus, this article simply serves the purpose of making suggestions and of clarifying a few misperceptions about the importance of those small things that we actually can do.

Nowadays, we are frequently told by environmental activists, politicians and the media that changing a light bulb will not make the slightest difference in the fight against climate change.

Instead, they want to make us believe that everyone must make huge sacrifices in order to achieve something. This is not true. Quite the contrary: If you only feel like you can change a light bulb or buy organic apples, then please go ahead. All the government and the environmental organisations should ask the citizens to do is something small. Not everyone has the environmental enthusiasm, the time or the financial background to add a solar plant to their rooftops, to grow their own vegetables and to make a huge donation to Greenpeace. And even though nobody doubts that eating meat might not be the best thing for our planet, most people are still unwilling to become vegetarians. If people are asked to change their entire lifestyle in order to stop climate change, most will be dissuaded from doing anything, which surely does not help the environment either.

However, the fact remains that we can do quite a lot for the environment just by making little changes to our everyday routine. So let’s start with little things. But what shall we change first? I have a car because I need one, and although it might not be a Landrover, it is no Toyota Prius either. Not all my clothing is made of hemp. And despite all attempts, my cat refuses to eat the natural, organic cat food. Nevertheless, there are small things that I am able to influence. For instance, I could

18

events turn down the thermostat 2 degrees in winter and use a clothesline to dry clothing whenever possible. These two simple measures not only save energy, they also save a significant amount of money at the same time.

If you think about it, there are hundreds of small things you could do. Things that are both beneficial for the environment and good for your bank account. For example, you could turn off the water while you are soaping, shaving your legs, brushing your teeth or washing your face.

You could separate your waste and use waste paper for notes. What is more is that you could exchange some of the products on your grocery list with organic equivalents. Do the numerous trucks on highways drive you nuts?

Buy items that are produced in your region.

Think about using public transportation instead of your car more often. Moreover, when you go to work, consider sharing a car with a neighbour who is travelling in the same direction.

This solves money problems as well as parking

space issues. If you need to go short distances try using your bicycle or walk whenever possible.

This is not only good for the climate, but will also make up for the fitness sessions you missed out on last month. And did you know that even the stand-by-mode of your electric items costs you a considerable amount of energy?! Switch them off and you’ll save a few Euros each month. And, last but not least, recycle!

Start with yourself. Then spread the news.

There might be no point in trying to convince your grandparents to make changes to their lifestyle although it’s always the exception that proves the rule. Still, you might be more successful if you started encouraging your coworkers and friends. Don’t let anyone give in because media convinced them that the small things they do on a daily basis don’t matter – they most certainly do. In fact, all the small acts by millions of people add up. Keep that in mind as you do your bit. It won’t cost you much time. And best of all, it even safes money.

Small Things that Matter

Gintare Narkeviciute, EDS

New Bureau plunges into activities Immediately following successful elections the newly elected Bureau held their first meeting in Vienna which started in the late evening of July 11th and continued until the end of July 12th.

Inspired by team spirit, Bureau members started by sharing their responsibilities and at the same time deciding to expand area of Policies by including new items as Research, Strategic Planning and Think-Tanks.

As a result, a new post of Higher Education Research Officer was established and other areas were shared among Vice-chairmen and Policy director.

On the next day interviews for co-chairmen

Anika Sonnenberg, EDS

“Mosellan Catholic” and Europe-

of working groups took place. In the decision qualities including prior experience in the field, personal preferences that were expressed, chairing skills and vision of the working group’s role and significance were taken into account. The Bureau decided unanimously to nominate Juliane Ruschinzik, Florian Weinberger and Reetta Marttinen as co-chairmen of the Permanent Working Group Higher Education and Research; Anna Tamási, Stelios Georgiou and Charlotte Spurkeland; Policies for Europe Matthew Lewis, Tornike Choniashvili and Athanasios Karagiannis for Human Rights.

After brief discussion about generally positive feedback, personal qualities and prior experience of applicant’s for Editor-in-chief of EDS’ historic BullsEye magazine Sandra Falkowska was appointed to continue her activities.

The session in Vienna was closed with Honorary chairman Bence Bauer and outgoing Secretary general Ildze Kanepaja present.

By discussing final points of agenda, they shared best practices and experiences.

After a short space of two weeks the Bureau held their meeting via Skype where a

chance to keep productive communication among members was taken and the opportunity was used to talk over new experiences in areas of responsibilities.

A new working plan had been framed by the joint meeting with Permanent working groups’ Co-chairmen that took place in countryside of Belgium during the second weekend of August.

A new EDS campaign for the following year has started to develop. Drive of knowledge based society covers the message to wake up and grow up. This campaign overlaps with streamlining of future events, which will take place in Prague, Marseille, Rijeka and Antwerp/Brussels.

In the wake of discussing Bureau activities, the EPP Political Assembly, external events and other business appointments for two officers of EDS were made. Dace Spelmane has become Deputy Secretary General and Stephen Ørmen Johnsen was assigned as Higher Education Research Officer.

Accompanied by good attitude and mind for new and continuing activities EDS officers completed their session led by inspiring concluding remarks of chairman Juraj Antal.

Kristóf Kovács, EDS

ODM Summer University-Madarász 2011 –Roma Minority: Issue of Youth Politics EDS full member ODM has this year dealt with an all-European issue, which features especially on the agenda in Central and Eastern Europe; the Roma issue. ODM organized the annual Central European Youth Conference (CEYC) in June in Spisske Podhradie, Slovakia on the topic of Roma integration. Besides the international event, ODM was keen on getting its own members acquainted with the problem; therefore the topic of its annual Summer University “Madarász” was this increasingly important matter. During the event, the participants heard presentations about the history of the Roma people by Tomas Hrustic from the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and their current situation by Stanislav Daniel from the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC). Besides the lectures, the participants had the opportunity to take part in simulations and to improve their debating skills. The program included a visit to a Roma settlement in the outskirts of Banska Bystrica, where a presentation by the local leader and a cultural program helped the participants to gain a first-hand experience of the situation of the Roma people.

Matija Magerl, EDS

EDS Well Represented at the 14th SOHSS Summer Academy Newly elected Chairman Juraj Antal continued the tradition of making his first official Chairman’s visit to an EDS member organisation, one to Zadar to SOHSS’ Summer Academy. This time, the EDS Chairman brought quite a team to Zadar with him! Alongside Vice-Chairman Nenad Vajzović, Ms. Sandra Falkowska, BullsEye editor-in-chief as well as the alumni Mr. Bence Bauer (Chairman 2009-2011) and Mr. Matija Magerl (Vice-Chairman 2009 – 2011) were present.

Around 50 officials and members of SOHSS gathered at the 14th SOHSS Summer Academy held from 31st of July to 7th of August. Participants had the opportunity to hear lectures and speeches from Croatian Peasant Party (HSS) high-ranking officials such as the party Chairman and Vice-President of Government Mr. Josip Friščić; Mr. Božidar Pankretić, Minister of Regional Development, Forestry and Water Management; Mr. Krešo Beljak, the Mayor of Samobor; etc. Through workshops and lectures participants learnt how to write projects, how to conduct a parliamentary election campaign, and how to improve their political and professional careers in general (e.g. how to write a CV and behave at a job interview).

There was also an opportunity to hear a word or two about EDS when Mr. Antal took the floor to present the organisation. The EDS Chairman spoke about EDS in general, what had been done in the past, and what are the new Bureau’s ideas and expectations for the future. He especially emphasised the importance of students in EDS member organisations staying involved with EDS, participating in events and providing their home organisations as well as EDS with their own issues, ideas and viewpoints.

Bullseye

19

20

events

Vienna 8.7.-13.7.2011

EDS Summer University

Anika Sonnenberg, EDS

events

Starting on the 8th of July, around 100 delegates from 35 countries gathered in Vienna, Austria, to participate in the XXXVth EDS summer university. Organised by EPP’s official student organisation European Democrat Students (EDS) and the Austrian EDS member AktionsGemeinschaft, this summer university hosted the celebration of the 50th anniversary of EDS as well as the 41th annual meeting.

After the arrival of the participants and an introductory dinner on Friday, the official program began on Saturday with the celebration of the 50th anniversary. In the Kuppelsaal of the Technical University of Vienna, three alumni panels presented an overview of the past half century and the most important challenges EDS had to face over those five decades. EDS was founded in Vienna and was initially named the International Union of Christian Democrat and Conservative Students, ICCS. The first alumni panel “The Beginning; 1961 – 1985”, was conducted by Daniel Bischof from Switzerland and Peter Adler from Austria, moderated by EDS vice chairman Jean-Baptiste Dabezies. The second panel focused on “The Consolidation; 1985 – 1995”, with Harm Adam from Germany and Jacek Bendykowski from Poland.

The moderator was EDS vice chairman Samuli Kauranne. The third alumni panel provided an overview of “The United Europe; 1995 – 2011”.

Moderated by EDS vice chairman Juraj Antal, former EDS chairmen Günther Fehlinger from Austria and Holger Thuss from Germany gave insight into a time of transition and change that shaped EDS. Through all three panels, the participants showed old pictures, told anecdotes and shared many valuable experiences they had made. They encouraged current EDS members to speak out freely and to denounce society’s deficits. According to them, most political protagonists find themselves bound by a sticky net of obligations and mutual dependencies.

This makes it a lot harder for them to speak out freely, as they always have to take into account the possible consequences. Thus, EDS should put its influence and its integrity to good use and increase awareness of highly topical problems.

Later that day, the participants celebrated the anniversary with a Viennese Ball in the elegant ball room of the magnificent Vienna Grand Hotel.

After enjoying a delicious dinner accompanied by manifold dinner speeches given by the heads of delegations as well as the distinguished alumni, they burned the apple strudels’ calories on the dance floor.

On Sunday, the three permanent working groups of EDS convened in order to work on several motions, as well as to discuss their future areas of focus and potential new projects.

The participants were transferred to the Political Academy (POLAK) of the Austrian Peoples Party (ÖVP) where there was intense and constructive debate on the draft resolutions and motions.

Topics were: “Political Student representation in Universities across Europe while maintaining University Autonomy”, “the Eastern Partnership of the European Union” as well as, “EU relations to Russia”, “conditions and release of kidnapped EU citizen Gilad Shalit” and “advantages and

disadvantages of online university rankings”. For the topic of political student representation a joint session was held in order to ensure a broad consensus.

The work session was followed by a short walk through the sunny garden of Vienna’s famous castle Schönbrunn. Later, the delegates gathered for a fireside talk led by Christian Passin from the POLAK, Matija Magerl, EDS vice chairman from Croatia and Bence Bauer, EDS Chairman at POLAK’s Springer Schlössel about the EU-accession of Croatia, as well as the perspectives of other Balkan countries. At the subsequent barbecue, vivid discussions about the topics raised before continued.

The 41th annual meeting of EDS took place on Monday in the ceremonial hall of the Technical University. With an overwhelming majority Juraj Antal from ODM Slovakia was elected as new chairmen of the EDS, and Samuli Kauranne from TK Finland follows Ildze Kanepaja as general secretary. The newly elected vice chairmen are the following: Martin Halada from MK Czech Republic, Ingrid Hopp from HSF Norway, Andraž Kastelic from SAU Slovenia, Bernhard Krall from AG Austria, Alexandros Politis from DAP-NDFK Greece, Romain Simmarano from UNI-MET France, Nenad Vajzović from SO HSS Croatia

Bullseye

and Kalin Zahariev from MGERB Bulgaria. The newly elected directors are Artur Issaev from CDS Belgium and Gintare Narkeviciute from JKL Lithuania. The outgoing chairman Bence Bauer was appointed honorary chairman of EDS. In addition to the elections, the application of Liberal Democratic Youth from Moldova (TLDM), AK Party Youth (AKPY) from Turkey and Youth Forum of Democratic League from Kosovo (FRLDK) for observer membership drew the special attention of the delegates. It was amazing to see how serious the delegates took their democratic responsibility: They questioned the applicants closely, discussed the matter in detail with open minds, thereby considering all the pros and cons while constantly being open to new arguments. Finally - about two hours after the time originally set for dinner- all three applicants were granted observer membership.

Later, a typical Austrian dinner was followed by the traditional EDS cabaret, during which the delegations presented slapstick comedy and little sketches, proved their vocal skills and presented their national peculiarities.

On Tuesday, the participants convened for two last panels that were devoted to environmental issues: The first panel focused on the geostrategic relevance, dealing with the question where Europe would be able to find its energy resources in the future. Throughout the panel, the advantages or disadvantages of the various solutions were explained in depth, analysed and evaluated. Marek Staszczyk from the Austrian Economic Forum in Russia and Wolfgang Mühlberger from the Austrian National Defence Academy discussed the situation in Russia and North Africa, as these two regions are main Energy suppliers for Europe.

In the second panel, Stefan de Corte from the Centre for European Studies, Josef Behofsics from the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management and Roger Hackstock from Austria Solar discussed whether green jobs can actually provide answers to the current environmental challenges.

During the whole event, all delegates and

guests had to survive tropical temperatures.

Fortunately, most hotel rooms and other venues were equipped with air conditioning. It was, however, due to the weather conditions that the thoughtful organisers spontaneously decided to replace the traditional summer university soccer match with a swimming expedition. So instead of suffering a heat shock, the participants could prove their beach volleyball skills.

Last but not least, I would like to congratulate our new chairman Juraj Antal, and the whole newly elected board!

A very special thank you belongs to Bernard Krall from AktionsGemeinschaft, for organising and running the XXXVth EDS summer university.

Furthermore, many thanks to Bence Bauer and the old board for their great work! We appreciate what you’ve done for us and wish you all the best for your new challenges.

Happy birthday EDS, may your future decades be as successful as your past fifty years And last but not least, congratulations to my German co-delegate who actually managed to eat a two-digit number of Wiener Schnitzel.

Many thanks to all participants for making this summer university the very special occasion it was. I’m looking forward to seeing you all in Prague!

21

University

Bureau

Sylwia Góra, NZS organisation

Unique charm of Jagiellonian University A great deal of old and new Jagiellonian University was founded in 1364 in Kazimierz by Casimir III the Great and refounded in 1400 in Krakow by Wladyslaw II Jagiello. In 1817 it was given the name of the Jagiellonian, to emphasize it’s relationship with the dynasty. It is the oldest Polish university and one of the oldest universities in the world, located in Krakow. Since its inception, Jagiellonian University, had four departments typical of medieval universities. Unlike contemporary universities, where the faculty of theology was paramount and whose head would dominate the other faculties’ hierarchies, Jagiellonian University was the first university in Europe to have independent chairs of mathematics and astronomy. It is one of the few universities which can boast such a long and admirable history and teaching at a very high European level from the beginning of its existence. Moreover, it is a university that combines history and tradition with modernity.

As the only university in the country, Jagiellonian University is a member of many associa-

22

tions of the most prestigious universities of the world, including Coimbra Group and Europaeum. The Jagiellonian University educates on each of the three levels of study: undergraduate, masters and doctoral level in accordance with the principles of the Bologna Process.

Study can choose from well over a hundred degrees and specializations, several of which are available in both Polish and in English. All courses follow the European system of credits (ECTS), which allows seamless linking of studies at UJ with studies in other European countries.

The university has buildings throughout the city, including historic and artistic buildings in the old part of the city. Meanwhile, new technologies have been developed in a university campus in the Ruczaj district. In the historic center of Krakow, Grodzka Street, there is a university building where Polish classes are taught for foreigners in the midst of the beauty of the city. University students have the option of leaving a foreign exchange of all kinds, of

which Erasmus is the most popular and exchange in the nationwide system MOST. This allows for intellectual development, skilled use of foreign languages, but also social development. Knowledge contained in the travel-time student in the Erasmus scheme often dividends in the future, allowing students to find jobs not only within its own country but also outside them.

Jagiellonian University is also your student dormitories, which are focused crowds of students, allowing students to further knowledge, but also have great fun, especially during the Juvenalia, which is co-organized by the university annually. This event brings together students from all universities of Krakow, who organize competitions and many concerts of Polish and foreign stars. Juvenalia is just one of the events, which included organizing the Jagiellonian University. Apart from these, co-organizers hold many themed events, meetings, discussions, or encourage life-saving gestures such as giving blood.

Top level education is not the only asset of the university. It also helps students develop their ability to work, their imagination, and answers the questions that are important to them. The university encourages the existence of large numbers of student organizations, ranging from all kinds of scientific circles, discussion meetings, movie nights, or theatre, participation in scientific conferences, make–up advice, and activities in the Student Council or the historic Independent Students Association (NZS).

NZS is a student organization with a 30-year history. It was at the Jagiellonian University in the 80’s that student opposition arose in the form of the Student Solidarity Committee. It was here that one of the first organizations of NZS was formed, which played a huge role in building a new, free country. For thirty years we have maintained this tradition, we remember this history and continue to develop the activities of the association.

Polish Students from all over come to Krakow for two reasons. The first is the desire to study at the Jagiellonian University, which for centuries enjoyed a reputation as the best university in Poland. The second reason is the city. Krakow, which bursts with life and yet retains the atmosphere of former glories is a great place, if not to spend your life, then at least a few student years. Jagiellonian University is a testament to our proud intellectual heritage and a great university’s traditions, yet also demonstrates an ability to innovate. For me, it is to today’s students what medieval cathedrals were to our distant ancestors: a step closer to faith – or as important – to knowledge. Jagiellonian University is a brand that never grows old.

The New Executive Bureau of EDS is chaired by Juraj ANTAL from Slovakia, with Samuli KAURANNE from Finland as the Secretary-General. Both served as Vice-Chairmen in the outgoing Bureau. They are responsible for the daily operation of EDS, Juraj as a political leader and decision maker, and Samuli as the manager who keeps things organised and moving.

The new Bureau has eight Vice-Chairmen, each with their assigned areas of responsibility. They keep busy individually and together in smaller teams in order to keep EDS up to speed.

Kalin ZAHARIEV from Bulgaria and Alexandros POLITIS from Greece together form a team in charge of the core policy work of EDS. While Alexandros plans the input to EDS Working Groups, Kalin is responsible for co-ordinating the practical work of the Permanent Working Groups, as well as planning strategies to improve the output of EDS policy work.

Martin HALADA from Czech Republic complements the policies team by planning and executing EDS campaigns. He is also responsible for coordinating EDS fundraising activities together with the Chairman and the Secretariat.

Ingrid HOPP from Norway is responsible for co-ordinating and helping to organise all EDS events. She stays in touch with the organisers, observes the following of guidelines and performs evaluations afterwards. She is also responsible for staying in touch with the extensive EDS Alumni network.

Bernhard KRALL from Austria is in charge of representing EDS in external events and towards organisations where EDS is a member, together with the Chairman.

Romain SIMMARANO is in charge of all legal questions the Bureau faces.

He is the designated expert in EDS statutes, as well as in charge of any legal questions regarding both current and prospective EDS member organisations.

Finally, the Publications and Communications team is formed by Andraž KASTELIC from Slovenia and Nenad VAJZOVIĆ from Croatia. Nenad is in charge of maintaining all communications, both towards our members as well as towards the outside world and press. He is also in charge of nonlegal membership questions as well as evaluating prospective member organisations. Andraž oversees the productions of all publications of EDS. He also works as the Editor of the Monthly EDS Newsletter and assists the Policies team in input and research questions.

Two Directors are also non-voting members of the Bureau. The Director of Policies Gintare NARKEVICIUTE from Lithuania assists the Policies team by taking care of long-term strategic planning of EDS. Meanwhile the Director of European Integration Artur ISSAEV has responsibility to actively scout prospective new member organisations, especially from Western European countries which currently have no representation in EDS.

Last, but not least, the Honorary Chairman Bence BAUER works as the Bureau’s senior advisor as well as a high ambassador in honour.

Bullseye

23