Bullseye No. 50 "Roma Issues in Europe" by EDS European Democrat Students

BullsEye Decemberâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;12 / 51st year / No. 50 / ISSN 2033-7809

The newsmagazine of European Democrat Students

Roma Issues in Europe p.20

Erasmus for All? p.18

Obama: Good for Europe? p.12-13

EDITORIAL

Henry Hill, Editor-in-chief

Amélie Pommier, EDS Vice Chairman

CONTENT

Hello, and welcome to the second issue of the 2012/13 Bureau. I hope that you enjoy the wide range of topics discussed in the following pages, which Amélie outlines below. Our last issue went down very well at the EPP Congress – somebody even got interviewed about it on Romanian television! Sadly, it wasn’t me… One of our key aims at BullsEye is to promote vigorous debate between young people about the future direction of the European Union. This is a time of unprecedented crisis and uncertainty for the project, but one advantage of such troubled times is that it creates a receptive climate to bold and innovative thinking that the “steady as she goes” mentality of happier times does not. Thus over the coming issues I hope to publicise more articles like Luke Springthorpe’s, which challenges European leaders to take tough choices on our continental economy, or the debates in the BEOn section. This magazine should be the place where young writers are unafraid to challenge the old orthodoxies and ask the hard questions. Are there aspects of the European project, dear to many, which are holding us back? How should we move forward? What shape will the post-crisis EU be? How can we redistribute wealth around the Union without upsetting the thrifty nations and subsidising the irresponsible? What should our trade policy be? Should we go for protection, building up walls of taxes and tariffs to protect European industries from global competition? Or should we embrace the opportunities of globalisation, taking advantage of lower prices and more choice whilst using our trade to create the sort of meaningful long-term economic development in the third world that aid has not managed? If Europe is to become a federation, then what kind of federation will it be? Should there be a European Army? How big should Europe get, and what should be the definitive criteria for admissibility? Can we fairly claim that Turkey is not European but French Guiana is? These are just some of the many, many questions that cloud the future of the Union. We at BE think young people should be at the forefront of finding the answers.

EDS has now started its new working year officially in Bucharest, Romania with its first Council Meeting. This event was actually very fruitful for BullsEye because our magazine was given during the EPP (European People’s Party) Congress and got media attention. Looking at this issue I would say that Higher Education matters are definitely European. We can read about the Erasmus programme, the European brain drain or the competition between American and European universities. Many students and higher education institutions issues are similar in European countries and are more and more discussed on the European level. EDS wants to actively contribute to these debates and decision-making, which is why you will find in this issue some explanation about the Higher Education and Research programme EDS is working on this year. Understanding the question of Roma people present as communities in different European countries is also the main topic of this present BullsEye issue. Indeed this is the topic EDS will discuss during its second Council Meeting of the year in the beginning of December in Trnava, Slovakia together with the Council of Europe. The acceptance of Roma people and their integration into society is an important topic. I would also like to invite you to get to know more about EDS new member organisation TLDM Moldova. I wish you to enjoy reading the second issue of the year. I also wish you by advance to have good times with your relatives for Christmas, and to keep the precious light of hope for the coming New Year.

CHAIRMAN’S LETTER

Freedom Fighters 04 Malala Yousafzai

Dear readers and supporters of EDS!

Current Affairs 05 Votes at 16?

06 Litmus Test for Georgian Democracy

The second Seminar and Council Meeting of this working year takes place in the historic city of Trnava. Also known as the Rome of Slovakia, this city hosted many “refugees” from occupied or war struck regions of the monarchy. It temporarily hosted the Archbishop of Esztergom and was the place of University and knowledge. EDS comes here to explore the topic of “Living Together in Diverse Societies – A Youth Approach to the Dialogue of Cultures with the Roma Minority”. Over the days and at the end of the Seminar, I am sure EDS activists will be much more informed and learned about the peculiarities of this Europe wide phenomenon and how to deal with it. The recent EPP Congress brought the new Political Platform upon which the EPP will stand for the next decades. It is a programme that shows what it believes in and where it wants to guide the EU in the future. EDS is of the opinion that new ways of thinking about politics will be necessary. I have stressed this many times in my speeches and lecture, both at the EPP Congress and at University guest speeches. I sincerely hope that the topics of our seminars, such as the Trnava one, sponsored by the Council of Europe, will help in achieving this goal. This is also the reason why EDS will take more active steps in leadership, electoral campaign management trainings and finally be more active in North Africa next year. It is my belief that the skills and non-formal education that one learns in their EDS activist times will benefit them in the long run. So when talking about the new politician, why not help in this, why not move to a new understanding of zoon politikon? As Alexis de Tocqueville said in his writings “We succeed in enterprises which demand the positive qualities we possess, but we excel in those which can also make use of our defects.” Why not use our misunderstanding of i.e. Roma, immigrants, the multi-culti debate, helping other struggling democracies with all our misperceptions and look at those problems reasonably? In the 21st century one should strive to excel in the enterprises that make use of our qualities! The EU was deservedly given the title of a successful peace project. It was a point of jokes and sarcasm, who will take over the price. However, no one stood up and stated the obvious. The EU is a very much striking example PEACE in Europe. The absence of war for close to 70 years is the prime example of it. The more students and young people I talk to during my lectures, the more I find out that today’s societies of the EU have fallen into conformity of normality and relative peace. They want their welfare state and want to work less. No young people want to get into politics as that is a label…however; no one wishes to engage in their local community with the Roma or immigrants from outside the EU either. When politicians start abusing traditions of their country and generalize about the blank spots in their history, then racism, xenophobia and chauvinism take root. I wish that during their active term in EDS, our council members will learn new skills and broaden their horizons. I wish you a pleasant and informative read through the pages of this 50th issue and wish to thank the Council of Europe for supporting this publication through 2012.

08 A Moral Double-Standard on Life 09 EDS Higher Education and Research 10 To Cure the Crisis, Major Reforms

must Follow Assistance 11 Europe and Nuclear Safety in Iran

Bullseye on

12 Obama: Taking the US Forward 13 Why will Obama be bad for Europe?

Reports

14 The Hard Road to a Competitive

european Economy 15 Europe’s Brain Drain 16 International Observers in Post-Soviet Democracies 18 Erasmus for All?

Theme

20 Roma Issues in Europe 22 Developments in the Roma

Question in Western Europe 23 History of the Roma 24 The Way to Roma Inclusion

Universities: 26 Sciences Po

Events:

28 The UK40 - Most Influential

Britons in Europe

Bureau

30 Liberal Democratic Youth of Moldova

Council of Europe

31 The Council of Europe and the Roma

Sincerely,

Juraj Antal,

BULLSEYE

ISSN: Print: 2033-7809, Online: 2033-7817 Editor-in-chief: Henry Hill, Editorial team: Aija Koniševska, Alexandra Gazashvili, Algirdas Kazlauskas, Amélie Pommier, Ana Janelidze, Anna Tamasi, Andrey Novakov, Emilis Kazlauskas, Henry Hill, Jakov Devčić, Luke Springthorpe, Matt Lewis, Miroslav Jurčišin, Petros Demetriou, Contributions: Ingrid Hopp, Stelios Georgiou, Anna Masna, Eva Majewski, Krisztina Csillag, Dominic Hatiar, Michael Augustin, Jean-Baptiste Dabezies, Ghenadie Vertos, Photos: Balázs Szecsődi, European Commission archives, KAS archives, private archives, Shutterstock, Design: Creacion.si, 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

The newsmagazine of European Democrat Students

Articles and opinions published in this magazine are not nessessarily reflecting the position of EDS, EDS Bureau or the Editorial team.

Chairman

Publication supported by: European Youth Foundation of the Council of Europe

BULLSEYE

FREEDOM FIGHTERS

CURRENT AFFAIRS

Alexandra Gazashvili

Malala Yousafzai On the 9th of October, 14-year-old Malala Yousafzai was shot twice: once in the head and once in the neck. She was airlifted to a military hospital in Peshawar. After a threehour operation a bullet, which had lodged in her shoulder near her spinal cord, was successfully removed, but she remained a coma. All of this was the culmination of a long struggle between the Yousafzai family and the Taleban.

Malala is known as an activist for women’s rights and education. She started speaking publicly about educational rights in 2008, when she was just ten years old. In 2007 the Swat Valley had become Taleban territory, and as their influence in the region grew more and more schools were closed. The situation was being covered by the BBC, but they needed a girl who would write about her life under Taleban rule. Even though Malala was only 11 years old at the time, she was up to the task. In Mingora, the city where she lived, the Taleban had issued an edict that no girls could attend school after 15 January 2009. They had already blown up more than one hundred girls’ schools and didn’t stop after the ban. From this time on Malala began to appear on television to publicly advocate for female education. In one interview she stated: “How date the Taleban take away my basic right to education? They won’t stop me. I will get education, if it is in home, school or any place. This is our request to the whole world that save our

schools, save our world, save our Pakistan. Save our Swat.” Malala was inspired by her father, Ziauddin Yousufzai, who runs a chain of schools and actively promotes education. Ziauddin was one of the few people to stand up to the Taleban: “Those were the most terrible days – the darkest in our history,” he said. “We spared no efforts to speak up against terrorism and that struggle brought us into the limelight.” As for Malala, her father says she “got influenced by what was going on and gradually she joined me in our struggle against extremism.” Inspired by her father’s activism, Malala committed herself to becoming a politician, rather than the doctor she had once aspired to be. In one interview she declared: “I have a new dream… I must be a politician to save this country. There are so many crises in our country. I want to remove these crises. I want to save my country.” In 2009 the Khpal Kor Foundation, with the support of UNICEF, established the District Child

Assembly Swat, which gave young people the opportunity to speak about their concerns over child rights issues and to offer solutions to the problems. Malala was given the position of chair, stating that “girls can share their views in front of the stakeholders, and I’m an example of it.” At the same time she began taking part in the Institute of War and Peace Reporting’s ‘Open Minds’ project. Thanks in part to Malala’s inspiration, many girls decided to participate in the programme. One of her intentions is to establish her own charity, the Malala Education Foundation, which would help poor girls to study. In 2011 she was nominated for the International Children’s Peace Prize and was awarded Pakistan’s first National Youth Peace Prize. For many Pakistanis, Malala has become a symbol of resistance to the Taleban. “Malala was the lone voice in that wilderness,” writes Feryal Gauhar in the local Express Tribune. “Hers was the voice which made us consider that indeed, there can be alternatives, and there can be resistance to all forms of tyranny. Today, the attempt to silence that voice shall only make her stronger; the blood stains on her school uniform shall only feed the conviction that as long as there is breath and life, there shall be struggle. Malala rose to heights few of us can aspire to.” As Yousafzai’s public profile grew, she began getting more and more death threats. Some were published in newspapers, others slipped under the door. Yet this did not deter her. At a meeting held in the summer of 2012, Taleban leaders agreed unanimously to kill her, and in while on her way home from school in October Malala was shot by a Taleban gunman. “Which one is Malala? She must be punished!” shouted the gunman, after which he immediately recognised Malala and shot her at point-blank range. Despite the fact the bullet reached her skull, she survived and is back on her feet again, although a full recovery will take a long time. Ihsanullah Ihsan, the chief spokesman of the Pakistani Taleban, officially claimed responsibility for the attack, saying that Malala was symbolic of obscenity and had spread negative propaganda. One this story reached the global media it sparked both sympathy and anger. Leaders from all over the world spoke up, and a petition in Yousafzai’s name “in support of what Malala fought for”, under former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, was launched. Despite being only 14 years old, Malala has already found her purpose in life. She has a dream: that one day every single girl in Pakistan will be able to go to school. And she has courage and bravery enough to fight for this dream against the extremists and theocrats arrayed against it.

Stelios Georgiou and Ingrid Hopp

Should Europeans vote at 16? EDS attended the General Assembly of the European Youth Forum between the 22 and 24 November 2012 in Maribor, Slovenia. One of the most debated topics was whether the voting age should be reduced to 16 at a European level or not. The position of the EYF is that the voting age should be reduced to 16 and they have been lobbying for the past 2 months so that the European Parliament will pass this in a month’s time. EDS has not yet reached a decision on the matter and perhaps a decision should be made by the Council at the Council Meeting in Trnava, Slovakia. In order for the EDS Council to be able to reach an informed decision in on this topic, it is necessary for all member organisations to analyse the arguments in favour and against reducing the voting age to 16 prior to voting. Should the EDS Council decide to support reducing the voting age to 16, we will do our best to assist the EYF in their efforts during the next month by getting in touch with our contacts in the European Parliament. These arguments will also enable our readers to make up their minds as to whether they agree with the question posed above or not. There are several arguments in favour. First, young people mature faster and become politically aware at a younger age thanks to early introduction to modern technology and the modern syllabuses they are taught at school. Politically aware 16 year olds should be given the right to vote so that they can also be politically active; they will be able to express themselves by casting their vote in the ballot. Technology has enabled young people to be well informed and to keep up with all of the latest news without being dependent upon what they are taught by their teachers at school or by their parents at home. They can make the right choice based on their own independent research rather than by succumbing to peer pressure from friends and/or family.

BULLSEYE

There are parts of the world where 16 year olds are allowed to drive a car on public roads due to the fact that they are considered mature and responsible enough to do so. If 16 year olds have been deemed mature and responsible enough to drive a car, why should the right to vote be any different? Giving the right to vote to a larger percentage of the population means that the election results will be more representative of the total population. Furthermore, fundamentally 18 is just a number, and there are many 16 year olds who are just as mature, if not more mature, than the average 18 year old. Yet there are counter-arguments. People tend to live for much longer in the 21st Century, thanks to the many medical breakthroughs of the past years. If European states want to get more people voting, perhaps they should convince existing registered voters to go to the ballot rather than give 16 year olds the right to vote when there is no guarantee that they will actually exercise the right to vote if it is granted to them – otherwise turnout figures will simply get even lower as lots of non-voting 16 year olds are added to the totals. People tend to associate reaching the age of 18 with reaching maturity and becoming independent from your parents. This automatically makes it the more suitable

voting age. 16 year olds can be more easily manipulated by their parents due to the fact that they tend to still be dependent on them and usually reside under the same roof with them. This is especially true in states where families traditionally vote for a particular political party by default irrespectively of their political agenda or what their candidates for various positions have to offer if they are elected. Thus although the election results will be more representative of the total population, this does not mean that they will be fairer, especially if the 16 year olds do not use independent judgment to cast their votes. Despite the fact that 16 year olds of the 21st Century are more mature than 16 year olds of the 20th Century, this does not necessarily mean that they are mature enough to cast their vote in a responsible manner. Finally, it is worth considering that many EU countries – notably the UK – are actually making it harder for young people to do other independent things like smoking and drinking, whilst it is the norm across Europe to prevent people younger than 18 from having access to certain types of cinematic material. If we do not think 16 year olds mature enough to attend a horror movie, how can we think them mature enough to vote?

CURRENT AFFAIRS

CURRENT AFFAIRS Northfoto

Ana Janelidze

“Litmus Test for Georgian Democracy” Georgian Elections 2012 6

On 1 October 2012, parliamentary elections were held in Georgia. The coalition Bidzina Ivanishvili – Georgian Dream emerged as the winner with 54.97 per cent of the vote and a parliamentary majority with 85 seats, whilst the United National Movement (UNM) came second with 40.34 per cent and 65 seats. Other political parties also participated in the elections, though they received minor votes and did not manage to pass the threshold of five per cent. Georgia is a young independent country, and this was the seventh legislative election held since independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. In 2011 the electoral system was reformed and agreed upon by the incumbent government (UNM) and several opposition parties. According to the new electoral system, 77 of the 150 seats are allocated to the party lists, and the remaining 73 to the winners of singlemember constituencies. In addition, parliament was permanently relocated from the capital of Tbilisi to the country’s second city, Kutaisi. According to the 2010 constitutional amendments, a new government will be formed following the presidential election scheduled for 2013. The parliament elected in 2012 will have to form a government after the new constitution enters into force upon the inauguration of the next president. As a result of these amendments, the powers of the Presidency were reduced in favour of

the Prime Minister and parliament. There were several attempted joint campaigns by the opposition parties against the government before autumn 2011, but on 7 October 2011 Bidzina Ivanishvili announced in a statement his intention to establish a political party and “win an absolute majority” in the 2012 parliamentary elections. This shook up the Georgian political scene. He went on to name the Republican Party, led by David Usupashvili, and Our Georgia – Free Democrats, led by Irakli Alasania, as amongst his future partners. From this statement to polling day, the whole year was full of tense moments. Holding dual Georgian and Russian citizenship alongside a French passport, Ivanishvili’s Georgian citizenship was invalidated by the Georgian civil registry agency, whilst the law states that only Georgian citizens can set up or fund political parties. In May 2012 parliament eventually voted to allow European citizens to become Members of Parliament. On 27 May 2012 tens of thousands attended a mass opposition rally organised by the Georgian billionaire-turned-politician and coalition leader. The opposition claimed the turnout was as high as 300,000 people, making them more convinced of victory in the upcoming elections. The main concerns of President Saakashvili’s opponents were slow progress in solving socio-economic problems. Ivanishvili’s supporters accused Saakashvili of authoritarianism and not do-

BULLSEYE

ing enough to tackle poverty and the high unemployment rate. Government and opposition parties focused on certain key issues in their party programmes, such as: emphasising the need to solve socio-economic problems; fighting against unemployment; rising pensions; allocating more funding to higher education, insurance and healthcare; ensuring security and stability. Though the election campaign was largely peaceful, there were some incidents. Riccardo Miglori, president of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, claimed of both parties that instead of “presenting their programmes, they were trying to destroy their enemies”. As polling day drew near, the more strained the situation grew, with events swinging back and forth like a pendulum. A prison abuse scandal revealed two weeks before the election inflamed tensions and stirred a mass protest. The active participation of students and youngsters in protest rallies is important to mention. Protesters demanded the resignation of the justice and interior ministers and an independent investigation. Some of them, by chanting “Misha, go!”, even called out Saakashvili. Both ministers eventually left their offices. The elections had the largest presence of international observers in Georgian history. After the election, President Saakashvili conceded that his ruling UNM party had lost the parliamentary election and was going into opposition. Thus the 2012 election marked a milestone in Georgian history as the first time since independence in 1991 that a change in government occurred by election. The first televised election debate in Georgian history also took place during the election. Thus the election may be considered a turning point for the evolution of Georgian politics and society. Now Georgia has a new government headed by Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili. He wants to rebuild relations with Russia after the war in 2008. On the other hand, Georgian Dream are committed to continue on Georgia’s present course of European and Euro-Atlantic integration, and to adhere to the western path Georgian citizens chose by referendum. The NATO Secretary General called the conduct of the autumn election and campaigns as a “litmus test for Georgian democracy”. Compared to previous elections, those of 2012 and the manner in which they were held were a step forward, and thus the election was viewed positively by the international community.

CURRENT AFFAIRS

Algirdas Kazlauskas

A Moral Double Standard on Life

Over the last few weeks the European media headlines were full of a story from Ireland. Savita Halappanavar suffered a miscarriage and later died of blood poisoning. According to some commentators, this would not have happened if she had had an abortion. The incident is really painful, but I also felt upset by one particular issue – a quite nihilistic and selective attitude towards the human life by some journalists and society actors. Turmoil occurred due to the fact that the situation took place in Ireland, where abortion is prohibited. Liberal-minded people did not miss the opportunity to criticise Irish law. Ruth Bowie, one of those fighting for the legalisation of abortion from the group Terminations for Medical Reasons Ireland, claimed that the dead woman would still be alive if she had lived in another country. She asks: “Does it take the death of a young, innocent woman to finally make our government stand up and do something once and for all? […] How many more tragedies are going to take place before action is taken?”

Of course, every death of an innocent human being is a tragedy. There should be no doubt or hesitation about this. However, as the saying goes: “If you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” As it is known at all stages of history, women have risked their lives in childbirth, as men have risked their lives going to war in military service. However, both women and men did and do their risky duty in order to implement a greater, common good. Therefore, to make a radical change in policy in this case is truly unwise. There is no reason to think that risking life giving birth or defending a homeland is something evil eo ipso which has to be prohibited. There is another problem: the rhetoric of abortion activists clearly demonstrates that their attention is focused only on the woman who lost her life. Meanwhile, the dead baby is not considered an issue. He is not treated as a human being with a right to life that should also be protected. This can be read from the quotation above, which claims that if abortion controls are relaxed it would save “young,

innocent woman” in the future. The unborn child is treated as if a malignant tumour in the woman’s body, and the unwanted pregnancy a treatable disease or medical condition. The question is, then, do people truly know what abortion actually entails? The term, abortion, is a politically correct one which was introduced into popular use as an attempt to disguise the action it describes – infanticide, or child murder. Using this work in lieu of murder makes one feel as if one is talking about a value-neutral action. Abortion is performed to an object, or process, rather than a human being. This is pure nihilism. Once we were all, without exception, unborn babies. So were we then non-humans that could have been thrown out with the trash? Here I cite a quotation of Ronald Reagan, one of the most prominent US Presidents: “With regard to the freedom of the individual for choice with regard to abortion, there’s one individual who’s not being considered at all. That’s the one who is being aborted. And I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.” Why is our society perturbed when some malevolent mother flushes her newborn baby down the toilet, but there is a tingling silence when this is done to the unborn human? Abortion activists often argue their position on the grounds that a woman’s body is her property, and she can thus do with it as she thinks is appropriate. However, this is not true. First, the child is not part of the female body in the same way as a hand, foot or head. A child is a new, maturing, independent life. Second, the human body is the property of nobody. It is no such a thing that could be possessed or owned. It is the home of human life. This perception is the basis of all the legal systems in the civilised democracies. Without it, human existence bears no meaning. It should be noted that Europe is proud of herself for banning the death penalty, which is treated as highly inhumane. However, many European countries still allow abortion. The contradiction is obvious: on the one hand, killing the innocent is protected by law in European hospitals and clinics; on the other, the worst murderers are meant to ensure their enshrined rights and good treatment in European prisons. One can only regret the saying that to be a murderer in Europe is much more worthwhile than being a victim of crime. This suggests to us that we live in a legal absurdity. The law is meant to protect the innocent and protect the guilty, is it not? Why so often then, do we find it serving the inverse purpose, and European legal practise at odds with common sense?

Amélie Pommier, UNI-MET

EDS Higher Education and Research Programme Launched The Higher Education and Research Programme is one of this year’s most important projects for European Democrat Students. EDS members will together build a political programme on higher education and research for the 2014 European elections. EDS has always been pushing for policies on student issues at a European level, and wants this year and next to take the opportunity offered by the European Parliament elections to be heard by European politicians and decision makers. These elections come at a crucial time in European politics, especially due to the Lisbon treaty. European citizens will probably and hopefully be more active in these elections

BULLSEYE

than ever before. That is why EDS would like to take part fully in the campaign, highlighting student and higher education issues. Realising that there is no concrete coordinated programme from any political party or any nongovernmental organisation, EDS wants to be the first to underline this need and provide a response as these issues become more and more important on a European level. Thus EDS thinks that European politicians should be more aware of these problems. That is why EDS plans to use this political programme to show the importance of action on higher education and research at Union level. With the programme EDS wants to draw at-

tention to specific issues but also put forward some concrete proposals to improve the higher education system. With student organisations from around Europe EDS has as a consequence a huge amount of knowledge about how to improve European higher education. The idea is certainly not to unify all the various national systems into a European one – we believe that the diversity of national systems on offer is a source of strength for higher education in Europe, not a weakness. Yet EDS does serve as a means by which students within different systems can exchange advice on best practise, and together as the largest European student organisation EDS wants to find a way to bring their advice to policymakers. Raising this on the European level is also an attempt to put pressure on national governments across Europe who might not be taking sufficient action on these issues. According to EDS’ values and beliefs this project will produce a programme for higher education and research issues and champion it using all of EDS’ political connexions, particularly with the European People’s Party. As an associated member of the largest European political party we shall contribute via this programme to the field work of the EPP’s 2014 election campaign. EDS will be present to help the EPP win those elections and help to keep our areas of interest prominent in the debate. This sort of action for higher education is more needed than ever in European countries. The number of young graduates continues to rise alongside the jobless rate. Improving the educational system in Europe is beneficial to all European societies, with a growing economy and better living standards. This was articulated last year by EDS’ “Knowledge is Power” campaign. The realisation of EDS’ 2014 programme is charged to three EDS Vice-Chairmen: Ingrid Hopp, mainly responsible for communications; Amélie Pommier responsible for publications and campaigns; and Andrey Novakov, who is responsible for input and output policies. They have been building the programme to submit it for adoption to the Council at the 2013 EDS Summer University. The programme will be discussed much earlier on a piece-by-piece basis during each EDS Council meetings and during the Winter University. This will allow delegates to learn from other countries’ systems and from EDS’ own research. Indeed, EDS has done a lot of research for this project with the help of EDS Research Officer Balint Balogh. EDS hopes that this Higher Education and Research Programme will increase and improve discussions and decisions about these issues on both the European and national levels.

CURRENT AFFAIRS

For some time, the voice of reason has been heard in Europe. Clearly, European leaders and citizens have realised that we must put an end to the mindless pouring of money into countries without clear conditions. The catalyst for the change of course is the ongoing poor health of the European economy, and the particular situations of some countries such as Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy.

Andrey Novakov

To Cure the Crisis, Major Reforms Must Follow Assistance 10

CURRENT AFFAIRS

The same good practise applies to the EU’s partners south of the Mediterranean as well. The European Commission doubled aid to Sudan and Yemen, but at the same time a joint document supported by the Commission, Parliament, Council, Economic & Social committee and the Committee of the regions made clear that further support will only be given to those countries which achieve good results. In fact, there is no more logical approach than this one. Otherwise, we’ll face the paradox that states which spend more than they have will receive the most aid. This skews priorities and does not encourage fiscal discipline, so recipient states will not stop wasting money. Quite the reverse, in fact, if the accumulation of debt and uncontrolled spending are tolerated. Using this new approach in all sectors, especially banking, is one of the guarantees that Europe is on the right track and will achieve sustainable stability and good financial outcomes. Everything else can be considered either populist, impotent or irrelevant.

If one thing is certain, it is that future European politicians should learn this lesson and never again permit so wrong a course to be taken in the first place. Otherwise, the granting of rescue loans may become common European practice and jeopardise the stability of the entire Union. Where is the place of youth in this puzzle, and why is the position of young people important? The young are one of society’s most vulnerable groups. This is because any crisis inevitably has an impact on the education system. For many students, it became difficult to finance their education amid rising costs and fees. These were born from proposals to reduce the cost of education which unleashed a wave of discontent and disapproval. The EDS’ own unyielding position was fronted by the ‘Knowledge is Power’ campaign, which has become a pan-European voice for many young people and students who were against budget cuts for higher education. Moreover, many European leaders and politicians, such as EPP President Wilfried Martens, President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso, Prime Minister of Finland Jryki Katainen, VicePresident of the Union of European Federalists Dr Andrey Kovachev and many others supported the campaign. Yet even that is not enough. The most important thing is that the new generation of young European politicians clearly understands that prudent policies, combined with high technology and innovation, is the key to increasing employment, decreasing indebtedness and ensuring a better quality of life. In times of severe crisis, some leftist political messages and promises have found fertile soil in some European countries. Artful words, calling for higher paycheques and more taxes for the rich are populist, dangerous and wrong, not least because socialist promises of higher wages cannot explain where all the necessary money is coming from save for ‘the rich’. Nobody can pay for more without earning more, at least not for long. It should be mentioned that the last key factor for the future of the European community is true and deep European integration. Europe must become a ‘federation of nation states, with deeper political and economic interdependence to counter nationalism and populism. Moreover, this is the way for Europe to be competitive in the global economy and to be a major player in world politics. In conclusion, we can say that Europe is much more than merely a geographical continent: it is an idea, perhaps the first of its kind. This is an idea that unites the pasts, present and futures of more than 500 million people. Or as Mr Barroso put it once: “We either swim together, or sink separately.”

Aija Konisevska

Europe and Nuclear Safety in Iran

“…we must prepare ourselves… for the worst… The worst it’s war.” Bernard Kouchner, French Minister of Foreign and European Affairs 2007-2010 The European Union sees nuclear proliferation as a major threat. However, it cannot ordinarily be considered a direct threat to EU member states. In December 2003 the European Security Strategy (ESS) was adopted, and the proliferation of WMD was identified as one of the main threats to Europe. In this the most dangerous regions were listed as the Middle East, South Asia and North Korea. To combat this, at the same summit the EU also adopted its first “Strategy Against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction”. The EU feels responsible for this issue and cares about a global reduction in WMDs through multilateral initiatives. The main reasons for EU involve in nuclear issues are: increasing tensions between the USA and Iran that could lead to war; the role of the EU as an agent for reconciliation following the divisions between states over the Iraq War; the possibility of the EU becoming a global power player on nuclear issues; and pressure to develop a European non-proliferation strategy. Background on EU-Iranian Relations: On 5 March 1970 the Treaty of non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) entered into force. This treaty is considered a key basis in the fight against the spread of nuclear weapons across the world. The Imperial State of Iran, under the Shah, ratified this treaty in February 1970. In 1992 the EU adopted a policy approach called “Critical Dialogue” at a European Council meeting in Edinburgh, UK. The Council declared that Iran is an important regional actor and that it was necessary to establish and maintain dialogue with this state, with an emphasis on human rights, arms purchases and terrorism. In 1998 the EU and Iran formalise their relationship through “Comprehensive Dialogue”, because of their shared interest in commercial and political cooperation. In 2001 the Council adopted a mandate for negotiations about comprehensive trade and cooperation agreements and a political dialogue agreement.

BULLSEYE

Negotiations in both areas, including human rights, started in 2002 and continued until Iran declined to participate in 2004. During the 1990s the EU played an important role on the non-proliferation issue by emphasising a multilateral approach and strengthening already existing treaties and regimes using political and financial instruments. The main aim of the concept was to maintain international stability. As a result, in 2003 three EU countries – the UK, France and Germany – engaged in dialogue

dialogue process. Furthermore, the statement of 12 January 2006 stated that the EU not anymore be in the way of an IAEA investigation. As showed in the progress reports, EU efforts did not achieve their objectives and their proposals were rejected. EU3 realised that dialogue had led nowhere and only afforded more time to Iran. So the new framework of negotiations a format of the EU3+3 (Russia, China and the US), also called P5+1 The involvement of new actors introduced new tools for policy implementation. Europe sees diplomacy as a synonym for negotiations, but the US understands it as finding the solution within a broader framework which encompasses such options as sanctions. The options for compromise became more complex because of the involvement of Russia and China in the negotiations, which are entangled with their own economic national interests and extensive relations with Iran. EU oil sanctions came into force on 1 July 2012, and were followed by US sanctions in mid-July. But it is not only Iran that feels the

EU3 Proposal

P5+1 Proposal

Iran’s Proposal

Offers

• Strong and mutually beneficial relations between Iran and the EU/E3;

• 20% enriched uranium as a fuel for the Tehran medical research reactor and help with nuclear safety; • Lift sanctions on Iran’s passenger planes.

• Full transparency about its nuclear program; • Full cooperation with the IAEA;

Demands

• Confinement of Iran’s enrichment program; • Legislative and regulatory measures; • Enhanced monitoring;

• Stop the enrichment of uranium to 20 %; • Ship stockpile of 20 % enriched uranium out of the country; • Close down the facility of Fordow.

with Iran about Teheran’s nuclear programme, aiming to deal with nuclear, security and economic issues. At the same time they insisted that Teheran suspend work on its uranium enrichment programme and be open to full cooperation with an investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In response, Iran’s proposals also covered subjects like Teheran’s support for terrorist organisations, regional security issues, and economic cooperation. But in the beginning of 2006, Iran resumed work on uranium enrichment, which the EU took to be a clear rejection of the EU3-Iranian

• Lift the oil sanctions; • Recognize Iran’s right to enrich uranium; • Discuss regional issues such as the situation in Syria and Bahrain

impact. Western economies have still not recovered from the economic crisis, and oil sanctions on Iran are hurting themselves too. Although the IAEA haven’t yet found any evidence of a military dimension to Iran’s nuclear programme, P5+1 believe that Iran’s nuclear ambitions require a political solution. Iran postponed further talks until after the US Presidential elections. In late November 2012 the talks between P5+1 and Iran will possibly be resumed, and further talks between Iran and the UN nuclear agency IAEA are scheduled for December..

BULLSEYE ON

Obama Ingrid Hopp

Taking the US Forward When Obama was elected President four years ago, he took up the leadership of a troubled United States of America in the middle of a recession. However, Obama led America through four years of financial instability, an ongoing war in Afghanistan and at the same time managed to push through a greatly needed healthcare reform. As a liberal Conservative I would have cheered for the Democratic Party, and gladly voted for Obama. “Obamacare”, i.e. the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is a political accomplishment.

Since the Second World War many US presidents have wanted to change the American healthcare system, but none have had any major successes. In 2010 almost 50 million Americans didn’t have any health insurance. Obama made the impossible possible when Obamacare was signed into law. Many have questioned whether healthcare is a state or federal responsibility, but in my opinion the reform was a worthwhile political victory as I strongly believe that all citizens should be given access to healthcare, and that the reform will

benefit the American community as a whole. Obamacare aims to get more Americans insured and will provide an estimated 30 million impoverished citizens with medical coverage, and has created an equal right to healthcare in the US. In my view this was a major step towards becoming a more sustainable society. There was a fair amount of criticism when Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize only months after winning the Presidency. Yet it put pressure on him to make sure his actions were worthy of it, and looking back at the Arab Spring and the withdrawal of US troops from their present military commitments it probably wasn’t a bad choice. Throughout Obama’s first term he cooperated with Europe and demonstrated the ability to be a unifying global leader. He ended the war in Iraq, began the drawdown of troop numbers in Afghanistan and toppled Muammar Gaddafi in cooperation with the EU and Arab League. He also told Mubarak to step down. Obama has further stated that he will not send US troops to Syria or assist the opposition with weapons before he knows the shape that the opposition will take if they win the Civil War. For decades, abortion has been one of the issues that have divided the American population the most. There are pro-life and pro-choice movements in both the Democratic and Republican parties and in this election both President Obama and Governor Romney had, at least in the past, been pro-choice. The fact that during the campaign Romney abandoned his earlier pro-choice position not only made him a flipflopper, but also made him a threat to the right of women to decide over their own bodies. Obama stated that abortion should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal in the US, and was the only candidate who would guarantee a continuation of the current US policy. On same-sex marriage, only a handful of US states permit it despite a general shift in attitudes towards tolerating it amongst the US population as a whole. Obama’s swing to support same-sex marriage earlier this year, and his repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (which barred openly homo- or bi-sexual people from military service) strengthened my support for Obama. As a liberal conservative, I believe that LGBT people should have equal rights to heterosexuals. I believe that the core of any family is the mutual love between two people, which is not determined by gen-

der. I am also in favour of an open military that allows all qualified personnel to serve. I hope, and am convinced, that Obama will continue to work for equal rights for all citizens in his second term, and that he will repeal the federal Defence of Marriage Act that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and gives states the freedom to refuse recognition of such marriages. I am positive that re-electing Obama for four more years was the best choice America could have made. He has the right values for the job, is a good ambassador for his country and is pushing policies that Americans need. History has down that being the President of the USA is easier in the second term. Obama will be less worried about the polls and have more time to concentrate on his core issue: taking the US forward!

Emilis Kazlauskas

relations can sometimes bring about the opposite (thus, positive) outcomes for the penalised party. However, even though it is a big challenge to cope with these difficulties, one can risk making several assessments of Obama’s negative influence on Europe as a whole, both in the realms of politics and security and of economics. Everybody interested in international politics knows that, in the past few years, the US have shifted their strategic and political posture from Europe to Asia and the Pacific in order to challenge and check the emerging powers of India and China. Even though this process was gradual, the idea was hugely encouraged by the Obama administration. During his first years he more or less abandoned politically the US’ European allies from the Bush administration, particularly the United Kingdom and countries in Central and Eastern Europe. He also frequently ignored the European Union, with its innumerable trivial summit conferences, and pressed the ‘reset’ button on relations with the Russian Federation, which was a means to acquire more diplomatic leverage to challenge problems in Afghanistan and that nuclear wannabe, Iran. It is not a secret that the US in the past decade was regularly complaining that Europeans commit too little to their own defence. These complaints continued during the first Obama term, and will continue during the second, because European states persist in reducing their defence budgets and thus become more and more dependent on US-backed security assurance. It is not surprising that, considering this uncomfortable imbalance of military strength and the fact that the financial crisis has hit the US budget too, Americans are becoming increasingly sceptical about footing the bill for European security when Europeans are not particularly interested in the issue themselves. Of course, diminishing US interest in European political and economic security might be a very useful wakeup call for a European political elite who evince a distinct lack of enthusiasm for military affairs, but in the short term at least it leaves Europe more vulnerable to external threats. Of course Mitt Romney, if elected, could

Why will Obama be bad for Europe? It is quite hard to judge whether Barack Obama’s second term is going to be more useful or harmful to Europe, not least because Europe in general and its key institutional unification effort – the EU – in particular is still divided on various aspects of common political existence. The second difficulty with transatlantic relations is connected to the fact that good intentions are not always welcomed by the intended beneficiary and conversely, deliberate punishment and a desire for deterioration in

BULLSEYE

not have made a huge difference because of strong and hard-to-reverse shifts in public opinion and the realities of fiscal constraint. However, as he was planning to increase the defence budget and rejuvenate relations with CEE countries, Europeans could have hoped for more attention from the US on their security concerns than they can now. So, if we have such a negative stalemate in transatlantic approaches to political and security issues, there is still the economy, a sphere where Western democracies pursue active and constructive relations. However, here again Obama’s second term does not offer much hope to Europe. When global financial crisis struck, the US and the EU took different methods of coping with it. The US decided to print money and pour it into a shrunken economy, exploiting the advantages of controlling the world’s premier reserve currency to save “too big to fail” banks and enterprises such as General Motors. Europe, on the other hand, enacted austerity measures in order to counteract its ever-increasing public debts. These fundamentally different approaches are still being pursued despite the fact that in France and several other European countries socialists are entering government because societies are tired of seemingly endless financial austerity. Even the newly elected socialist president of France, Francois Hollande, spoke recently of the need to reduce government spending (especially on social affairs) and called for an historic compromise between trade unions and employers to reform labour contracts. This is just another indication that the German path to fighting the financial crisis is winning in Europe. This will definitely contribute to more strained relations with the US, which reasserted support for Obama’s economic plan, which means more government spending and money printing – an approach held in low regard in today’s Europe. To sum up, it should be stated that during the second term of Obama, Europe’s political and security problems will continue to fall further down the priority list of the United States’ foreign and security policy. This will make Europe more vulnerable to external threats and challenges, such as those posed by terrorists or Russian divide et impera policies. Neither will different economic visions contribute to improving relations, whilst continued siren calls from the Obama administration for the EU to abandon financial austerity could encourage the left and have a disastrous impact on weak European economies which already spend far too much.

REPORTS

Luke Springthorpe

The Hard Road to a Competitive European Economy

If there’s one thing all citizens of Europe are well versed in by now, it’s the debate that rages between the proponents of austerity and their various opponents. “Why should be foot the bill for your profligacy?” grumble those nations with a strong investment-grade credit rating assigned to their sovereign bonds. Their fear is not confined to the political wrath incurred domestically by explaining the need to bail out member states still seen as “foreign”, but extends to a wider problem over who would pay for the solutions required, and indeed why they should pay at all. The immediately obvious solutions, in terms of centralisation, that have been put forward to avert future catastrophe are broadly as follows: Further centralise the regulatory oversight of the financial sector. This has been combined with the offer of liquidity to the financial sector via the European Central Bank, albeit with conditionality for the sovereigns. Strengthen federal oversight of national fiscal policy. Potential strengthening of the commission and

altering the role of the council to an “upper chamber”. Clearly, each of these comes with their own complications, not least regarding further moves away from national sovereignty. Seen as an imposer of austerity by many, the ability to deliver potential treaty changes resulting in further integration will be a real test of European citizens and the political willpower of their governments. Measures such as federalising deposit insurance is essential, but sharing in the burdens of moral hazard and future bailouts of banks will also be trying. Faith in the European project will be tried and tested as never before. We have heard how the Eurozone “multiplier effect” is amplified as nations move to cut budgets in tandem. This is true, and the absence of a redistributive federal budget of any real size and force amplifies this further still. But what is sorely missing is a genuine debate on what kind of economy Europe wants to be, and what reforms we hope to deliver beyond cutting budgets and centralising oversight. Any debate on our economic future needs to present a vision that goes beyond simply hacking away at spending. It must focus on how to restore a competitive edge to the Eurozone as a whole, with reforms necessary at the level of member states as well as the European institutions. Where nationalised industries still exist, they should be privatised. Where subsidies misallocate resources to pet sectors, they should be trimmed. Where the regulatory hand is a heavy burden of minimal benefit to citizens, it should be eased or withdrawn entirely. And where trades unions stand in the way of wage moderation and labour flexibility that would pave the way for employers to recruit the masses of young unemployed, they should be side-lined. This will, of course, require difficult decisions to be made both at a European level, and by the member states. Vested interests are often rife, and an inevitable scuffle will ensue at every point such interests are confronted. Businesses too will have to make difficult decisions. Some will also consolidate in sectors such as banking, defence and automobile manufacturing. Such industries are often entwined with the very fabric of the respective nations and jobs would be at risk in the short term. Despite these needs it would, as I have already alluded to, be a false pretence to pretend the Eurozone is inherently uncompetitive. Yet the underlying strength seen by large volumes of exports to the US and China should not mask the fact that a large part of the trade surplus stems from Germany, and that overall export volumes have shown a decline recently (albeit by less than imports).

What we have seen is an underlying trend where markets have been skewed, and often in a way that is detrimental to those the social market was most intended to help – the low paid. The disparity between the wage increases in different member states has led to something of a competitive chasm between states such as France and Germany, and it must be plugged. For critics of the Euro as a currency, conspiracy theories abound that Germany benefits by tying itself together in a currency group where its currency is devalued relative to what it would be if it stood alone. This conveniently shirks assessing why Germany has run away with such a competitive advantage. For such advocates of departure and devaluation as a solution, one need only see the muted impact of a huge devaluation of sterling in 2008 has had on the UK balance of payments, Devaluation in the UK has a negligible effect on everything other than inflation, and is no alternative for genuine structural reforms. This applies to the balance of payment deficit states of Europe as much as anywhere else. Germany was able, via the Schroeder reforms, to revive the demand for low cost labour in Germany. Europeans must now embark on a similar route and realise that making it possible to have a low-cost employment base is just as important as cultivating the high-end, cutting edge jobs. One cannot exist without the other. What’s more, it would be incredibly naïve to believe that the economies of the Far East and elsewhere are not rapidly encroaching on the ‘high-end’ sector. The days of outsourcing the low-cost heavy lifting are fast coming to an end, and European companies need a comfortable surplus to invest in research and development to maintain any advantage they currently possess. This means reversing a trend seen in some states of reduced operating margins for businesses – which translates to reducing labour costs. Action must start with bold support from governments for businesses, combined with collective short-term sacrifices from citizens. Wage moderation will have to continue, and should never again be allowed to break away from productivity growth. Giving power to the market will also, on the face of it, appear to bring increased insecurity over jobs. This should not be resisted, and inbuilt flexibility will help affected economies adapt their labour markets quickly to changes in economic trends. Austerity is painful and is taking its toll on citizens. In itself, it solves little – especially where it is ‘solved’ by increasing taxation. Without meaningful and lasting economic reform to go with it, the fear has to be that it will all be proven in vain.

Andrey Novakov

Brain Drain

Europe’s talent heads abroad A few years ago I travelled from Sofia to Thessaloniki. It was the time when I was deciding at which university I wanted to study. When I arrived in Thessaloniki I saw a graffito on the university wall, which read “hands off our brains”. It stuck in my mind, and six years later I still think about that piece of graffiti and its anonymous author. Youth has always been the most active and daring part of society. And one of the main aspects of the life of every young person is education. Today, more than ever, education is a two-way investment between students and the state. The students invest time, effort and resources and the state in turn invests its own resources, primarily financial. Both sides of this process expect it to be mutually profitable and a return on their investment. However, in recent years there has been a negative process, with stable trends, that exposes the long-awaited result of our education system. The so-called ‘brain drain’ is a process by which young and highly skilled people leave

BULLSEYE

their home countries and start to work and to apply their knowledge abroad. In the 21st Century it is not uncommon, nor is it wrong, to go abroad to study or gain experience and knowhow. However, often these young people never go back to their home countries. This presents a two-fold drawback. On the one hand, the state is losing people, people in which it has invested and who it had expected to create more jobs. On the other hand, for the graduate it is much more difficult to prove him or herself and to build a career abroad. What is the explanation for this apparent paradox? Higher education is not simply a function of universities alone. It is a long-term process which doesn’t end with the diploma. It takes longer and involves business and the state alongside higher education institutions. The unemployed, highly skilled graduate is completely useless to the state, to society and to themselves. Furthermore, when this anomaly becomes a mass phenomenon it becomes a serious problem with severe consequences.

Skilled migration has increased in recent years, often stimulated explicitly by the use of targeted visa programmes by developed countries. Brain drain is common amongst developing nations, such as the former colonies of Africa, the island nations of the Caribbean, and particularly in centralised economies such as the former Eastern Bloc, where marketable skills were not financially rewarded. Unfortunately, there are many bad examples of scientists and engineers who create significant intentions abroad and the patent does not belong to the home country of the inventor, but the problem goes even deeper. The EU spends billions on the education of young Europeans and creating opportunities such as the Seventh Framework Programme. Therefore the brain drain becomes a money drain as well, as resources are spent developing graduates who then take the results of that investment abroad. Thus the situation is not only a problem for individual member states, but for the entire Union. Speaking about brain drain at the European level, and of highly (and expensively) educated individuals who leave the EU, we should say that common policy on the issue is needed. Encouraging the development of the creative and innovative economy, alongside incentives for young entrepreneurs, could be one of the solutions to the problem. In fact, this is what some countries – such as Canada and the USA – have already done, and those two countries are the main destination of the European brain drain. To be clearer still, one could stress that up to 28 per cent of physicians practising in four of the world’s richest countries – the USA, UK, Canada and Australia – graduated from medical schools based in a developing country. This loss is restricting the efforts of local, regional and international organisations to provide optimal health services in developing countries. Nevertheless, travel restrictions and harsher visa regimes are not the solution. Free movement of people and capital is one of the core values of every modern country. Therefore, I think the young should be motivated to stay, if not in their home countries, at least within the EU. Along with governments and European institutions, students, NGOs and youth political organisations should contribute as well. They should launch awareness-raising campaigns in order to show current possibilities for work, study and research within the Union. After all, brain drain is just another form of migration and like any other form, it will disappear when the conditions that stimulate it improve and the home countries become more competitive.

REPORTS

Anna Masna

some of our members’ reports suggests that observers in post-Soviet countries are not always safe.

in Post-Soviet Democracies

ARoN VERESS, CHAIRMAN oF FIDESZ YoUTH, HUNGARY: On 28 October I visited the office of the Electoral Commission for the 97th Constituency in Brovary near Kyiv. As I approached the building I noticed a group of physically imposing men, some wearing badges reading “technical worker”. Outside the Central Election Commission I spoke to a journalist who told me that he was denied entry (to the office of the Commission) beyond a barrier that had been erected just after the entrance. He thought the barrier was designed to prevent people like him from observing the commission’s work. He also complained that he was physically assaulted by men who had gathered outside and inside the Commission’s office. His video is posted on the internet site YouTube and shows a man physically assaulting a cameraman. When I entered the commission I saw a female reading from a piece of paper in front of video cameras in the area between the entrance and the barrier. After entering the building approximately eight men, some of them “technical workers”, entered behind me. The female (a candidate on the Ukraine-Forward! Party list) was holding a document and appeared to be questioning the legality of the presence of technical workers. The committee representative told her that the decision to hire the technical workers had been made by one of the predecessors of the standing Chairman of the Commission. The standing chairman was not present to comment. We were able to review the camera footage of this exchange, as well as an incident with a cameraman when he stepped outside and tried to re-enter the office of the commission, and the video was posted on YouTube. The video shows a group of men physically blocked the cameraman from entering the office of the commission. The cameraman exists onto the street to speak to a police officer and when he tried to re-enter the building a group of men physically block him from doing so. The audio in the video is perhaps more telling of the intensity of the moment, it captured the voice of one man saying to the cameraman “I didn’t come here to follow laws, but to beat (people)”. I heard journalists and candidates voice their concern about the barrier, which they thought was designed to hinder observation of the electoral process. The Secretary of the Commission invited me beyond the barrier and explained that he thought the barrier was necessary to ensure that the commission could work in a comfortable environment without people leaning over

International Observers

Alexander Kalina

EDS has a tradition of promoting and defending democracy, especially in the countries of the former communist bloc. Often this takes the form of different documents, resolutions, motions and statements but also through direct participation. This year EDS sent international observation missions to the elections in Georgia on 1 October 2012 and the Ukraine on 28 October. Some sceptics have suggested that the presence of international observers does not help produce transparent and democratic elections and some have gone so far as to label observers “political tourists” and a waste of money. My colleagues and I strongly disagree with such opinions, as we have seen through personal experience the role that such missions have played in promoting free and fair elections, discouraging bad behaviour and detecting falsifications and bad practises that might otherwise have gone undetected. The work of observers has provided useful knowledge into the electoral process and its vulnerabilities, and helped to empower young democracies in their recovery from communism. The presence of observers at the Georgian and Ukrainian elections has been met with amity by locals. That is not surprising, considering that 70 per cent of Ukrainian citizens polled indicated that they do not expect the elections to be free and fair. The people voiced their opinion in polls carried out ahead of the parliamentary election on 28 October. A majority believed that the authorities have falsified, are falsifying and will fal-

sify the results of the election and they see the presence of observers, especially international ones, as a serious obstacle to falsifying election results. Different stages in the electoral process are potentially vulnerable to fraud. The majority of such fraud takes place when the ballots are in the possession of the commission for each district and especially during the counting of votes and preparation of protocols. Other serious violations might still occur with ballot casting at polling stations: for example a voter may use fake identification cards and cast multiple ballots or may not be asked to present identification at all. Sometimes the commission might simply drop bundles of fraudulent votes into the ballot boxes. Beyond this there are issues such as disregard for the secret ballot, depriving voters of their rights by deliberately omitting them from the list of voters, and so on and so forth. EDS has seen how the presence of foreign observers can prevent these types of fraud and protect the integrity of elections, and some of them relate their experiences below: ANNA SAMSoNIA, UNITED NATIoNAL MoVEMENT, GEoRGIA: International observer missions were of paramount importance for Georgia in terms of holding elections in a free and democratic environment, as well as for acknowledgement of the results. Through the efforts of the Government of Georgia, approximately 70 international ob-

server missions have monitored the election process. Simplified registration procedures made it possible to resister a large number of observers. EDS representatives observed the election process in the Georgian cities of Tbilisi and Rustavi. The first EDS observer mission in Georgia enabled young politicians to participate directly in the process of the democratic development of another country and their communication with media representatives contributed to a more transparent election process. EDS Chairman Juraj Antal, Secretary General Ann-Sofie Pauwelyn and Jani Johansson were part of the EDS mission sent to Georgia to observe the elections in October. The EDS delegates observed campaigning before elections were held and also covered a number of districts on election day. Their reports documented several violations. It is important to point out that international election observation is important not only on polling day. This is because observers are also able to observe the formation of election commissions, the course of election campaigning and laying the voter registry. Observing this year’s election campaign in Ukraine, international observers expressed concern about how the commissions were formed, legal regulations on the election process, voter registry, pressuring voters and abuse of administrative resources. This year Ukraine registered 3797 observers from foreign countries and international organisations including the EDS mission. A review of

BULLSEYE

their shoulders. He gave me a tour of the premises. At this time three candidates were allowed to enter the commission, but they were asked to leave some minutes later. As an observer I wanted to observe and to document what I saw so that my report could be used as a source of information, from which concerned citizens could draw their own conclusions. The observer’s role should not be to interfere or take sides. It is also true that the observer’s presence has an influence on the process, if one believes that people work and act differently when faced with the threat of scrutiny. When I introduced myself as an international observer the members of the committee were less hesitant to answer my questions than they were with the local journalists. ToMASZ RoLA, PoLAND, oBSERVER IN SHEVCHENKoVE VILLAGE: I was registered as an observer for the Ukrainian parliamentary elections through the Polish Embassy. It was not my first experience monitoring elections in post-Soviet countries. I am fortunate to have a lot of friends in Ukraine and I was happy to be invited to be an observer. I observed the elections in a small village, Shevchenkove, which is not far from Kyiv. In general, the process was very quiet, maybe because the polling station was very small. I think that my role as international observer mainly consists of “being on the guard of democracy” at the polling station. The presence of international observers exerts psychological pressure on those who want to falsify results. And of course, by observing the elections we were showing our respect to a young democracy. ALINA PANCHUK, UKRAINE, oBSERVER IN KIEV: I observed the elections in Kyiv. This was my first

experience as an observer. I felt that my task was to observe the voting process and try to do my best for the election’s transparency. Unfortunately we did see some incidents. At the polling station I witnessed an attempt by an individual to leave the polling station with a ballot that was not filled out, however the individual was stopped and the ballot was confiscated. I also saw numerous cases of photographing ballots in voting booths – this was alarming because I had heard rumours of vote buying – when a voter is paid to cast a ballot for a particular candidate and takes a photo of the ballot to later prove the ballot was cast accordingly. And at the election commission there were unexplained delays in vote counting and a reluctance to prescribe official protocols of official results when requested. I did not see any international observers at the polling station where we were stationed, but I think that there is no significant difference between the task of international and local observers; in both cases their presence can help to provide accounts of falsifications. ANNA MASNA ASKED KRISTINA WILFoR, DIRECToR oF NDI UKRAINE, To CoMMENT oN oNE oF THE MoST IMPoRTANT qUESTIoNS – DoES THE PRESENCE oF INTERNATIoNAL oBSERVERS ENSURE DEMoCRATIC ELECTIoNS? “The presence of international observers cannot and does not have to guarantee transparency of elections. The transparency depends only on those who are carrying out elections. However, while international observers cannot guarantee transparency of elections they do have several important functions. “Observers may demonstrate international support for a country that wants to develop democratically. They can provide an unbiased

Alexander Kalina

REPORTS and accurate assessment of the electoral system and document the way the elections took place, as well as provide an account of what happened in the days before the election. They can also promote public confidence in the election process through the respectful opinions in their reports. Their presence can help facilitate peaceful election campaigns, voting, counting and recognition of the election results. “Also, special attention should be paid to the significant importance of the international observation for the opposition, especially in case of countries with a non-democratic government. After all, if there is no effective voting control system during parliamentary elections the opposition is unable to challenge falsifications and provocations by authorities nor are they able to defend their results.” MICHAEL ALEXANDER HEHN, GERMANY, EXPERT IN TRANSFoRMATIoN STUDIES AT THE UNIVERSITY oF HEIDELBERG: Election monitoring has increasingly become the international norm observed in many electoral processes and executed in a myriad of countries across the globe. This exercise serves primarily two tasks: first, to prevent abuse and fraud through the presence of national and international, NGO- and IGO-sponsored monitoring missions (long-term and short-term) and second, to report and assess characteristic achievements and failures of a given electoral process, both in terms of quality and quantity. International observers play a critical role in election monitoring: they are a necessary link between the international community and electoral events. Foreign observers are a valuable resource as an independent third party with very little or no stake in the country they are sent to. International observers are not as exposed as local observers to the influence of local authorities and their reports are hard, if not impossible, to falsify as they are processed through an international bureaucracy that is beyond the control of local authorities. For these reasons the reports provided by international observers should be treated as more credible than those of local or party observers. In conclusion, the international mission’s presence in post-Soviet countries makes elections more democratic. This is because international observers are influencing this process, more or less. They can help stop massive fraud because their presence exerts psychological pressure on those who are perpetrating it. Of course, falsifications will take place regardless, but not to the full extent enabled by the administrative resources of non-democratic regimes.

REPORTS Eva Majewski

Erasmus for All? Challenges to Europe’s education exchange

Every student in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) is nowadays familiar with the terms ‘Erasmus’ and ‘Bologna’. However, many students that participate in the Erasmus programme face difficulties in their travels abroad. We should take the 25th anniversary of Erasmus as an opportunity to analyse its unfolding. At age 25 it should be shining in all its glory, keeping its young spirit whilst fulfilling its purpose. How does it look in reality? Erasmus was established in order to improve the quality of higher education and strengthen its European dimension. Intended as a means to execute the Bologna Strategy, it does so by encouraging transnational cooperation between universities, fostering the European mobility of students and teachers, and contributing to improved transparency and academic recognition of qualifications and studies throughout the European Union. The overall aims of the Bologna Declaration of 1999 are stated precisely, and its main

task is to ensure that degrees are to be easily readable and comparable and that systems should be based on two cycles. With the recent numbers showing an increase of 8.5 per cent year-on-year during the 2010-11 academic year for Erasmus, with more than 231,000 students receiving Erasmus grants to study or train abroad, the European Commission and the Commissioner for Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth, Androulla Vassiliou, are fond of the progress realised: “The Erasmus programme, whose silver anniversary we are celebrating this year, is one of the biggest success stories of the European Union. The figures speak for themselves – and would have been even higher if we had the resources to match demand. In these difficult times, the skills gained through Erasmus studies and placements are more valuable than ever.” A closer look at these numbers is thus necessary. We as European Democrat Students appreciate the opportunity to study

abroad which is facilitated enormously by the support it receives from all the participating universities in 33 countries across Europe, the commission, as well as the help from national agencies which are involved in the execution and particularly the payment of funds. Where in the past students that intended to study abroad faced certain restraints and had to pay tuition fees, they now benefit from this established framework. However, as stated by Vassiliou there is a scarcity of funding. In debating how Europe will perform in the future and how it will be able to sustain growth, both education and research play crucial roles. Our generation is in need of a sound academic system that it can rely upon and it must exhibit profound knowledge in order to innovate and accomplish new tasks. In that context, we appreciate that job placements in companies and other organisations increased by 15 per cent in comparison to the previous year. However, the average grant provided

BULLSEYE

to such students trying to gain work experience decreased in the 2010-11 academic year, as well as for students attending universities abroad. That alone would not be too bad if only there was security in planning the stay abroad. Planning reliability begins with the timely confirmation of the chosen university. At times, studies abroad may be prevented because the foreign university neither confirms the study in due time, leaving the student without proper documentation, nor provides necessary help in finding accommodation. Some 75 per cent of students studying abroad receive financial support from their parents. This number is surprisingly high. This does not mean that there is a need for exaggerated funding through the European Commission though. Students taking the conscious decision to study abroad are convinced that a stay abroad – whether with the intention to gain work experience, to study at a foreign institution in order to learn from the best, or to challenge themselves by coping with a foreign language and culture – will contribute to their personal growth and make them more employable. It is a vital process for a Europe that does not have rich natural resources, and consists of countries many of which are too small to take a strong position in world affairs, but which can grow together, in unity and innovation, having learnt the value of different cultures and their contribution to sustainable success. Therefore, the facilitation of such studies should be one of our highest priorities. To promote Erasmus should be the sedulous aspiration of everyone involved in the Higher Education sector across Europe. The stay abroad needs to be better managed. The grant amount has to be determined before the student leaves, and additional finance solutions need to be available through such organs as the European Investment Bank (EIB), which could channel money through to private or promotional banks that can cooperate with the national agencies in charge of promoting the Erasmus programme and universities involved. This way, students can apply for loans at a reasonable interest rate and bureaucracy is kept at a low level for those participating. We appreciate the plans of the European Commission to involve the EIB Group in funding full-time Master’s students; however this by itself is not the solution to the current obstacles. Whilst some countries experienced extreme growth in the number of students

studying abroad during the financial crisis, there were countries such as Luxembourg, Hungary, and Poland which experienced a decrease. The easy access to finance can be another tool to soften the impact of a troubled economy. At age 25, Erasmus needs to become more flexible. In the spirit in which the programme was initiated, students in a twocycle system of studies should be allowed to apply for Erasmus grants twice, so that they can make better use of the effective duration limit which is between 3 and 12 months currently. This will also help to ease the transition process from bachelor studies into masters programmes, since the need to extend bachelor studies only in order to have sufficient time abroad can make a significant difference in the life of a student. Given the positive impact of studies abroad in an increasingly connected world, and the important role that the Erasmus programme plays in this process, remains unchallenged, it is not reasonable that almost until the very end of negotiating the EU budget it was not resolved how the European Commission was to tackle the shortfall Erasmus was facing, also with respect to outstanding Erasmus funds and the claims that national agencies had filed. Whilst EU budgets work differently to national budgeting, this is a question of priorities. If Europe wants to remain an active player and seize its opportunities in innovation, it has to prioritise Erasmus over payments resulting from promises made e.g. for a common agricultural policy. €90million for student grants was briefly put at risk but could then be included in the amended budget for 2012; €90million within an overall budget of close to €150billion; 90million that would have a severe impact on whether or not a stay abroad could be realised. With Erasmus for All, which is due to start in 2014, and will bring together all the current EU and international schemes for education, training, youth and sport, this might change. The overall idea behind it is to increase efficiency and make it easier to apply for grants. It is estimated to make up roughly two per cent of the EU budget. Not too much to ask for a programme that needs to evolve over time yet has shown its importance by providing mobility aid to more than 2.5 million students. So happy birthday, Erasmus! May you enlighten our hearts, boost our potential, leave us with splendid memories – and may you do so for many years to come.

theme

ROMA ISSUES IN EUROPE Krisztina Csillag

EDUCATIoN: Primary school attendance is compulsory in all member states. Despite this fundamental right, member states are not always successful in ensuring good education to children with multiple disadvantages. Many children often enter primary schools with no knowledge of hygiene, language and socialisation. Lately, the Czech Republic and Slovakia had to face a carping criticism from Amnesty International, which accused the Czechs of denying proper education and practising exclusion of children from mainstream education. These countries often considered separate classes as the most appropriate solution for inclusion. Unfortunately, this solution led only to further dissocialisation due to the lack of mutual contact and exchange with children from majority families. This is why some member states established a special pre-school system to combat language and other barriers before enrolment in the elementary school. Despite the low attendance of Roma children in public primary schools there is an extreme over-representation amongst them of children with multiple disadvantages. Today, Poland struggles with the over-representation of Roma schoolchildren in special schools. It is important to mention that these children hold a special certificate testifying to a mild degree of disability. According to a report by the Programme for the Roma community in Poland, parents often exploit their children’s ‘status’ to obtain “support provided by the social care system and it is the primary reason why Roma parents prefer to enrol their children to special schools.”

Since the eastward enlargement of the European Union in 2004 and 2007, Europe has had to face a new challenge to its goal of uniﬁcation. A different kind of emphasis was given to minority rights, since the enlargements have brought between ﬁve and six million people of Roma origin into the European community.

Political, economic and social inequality. In 1993 the Copenhagen criteria were accepted and it was a promising year for minorities, as its main idea was to ensure “stability of institutions consisting of democracy, rule of law, human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities”. However, the path the European Union dictated was not adequate. The image of integration held by acceding national states was far from the ideals adopted by the Union. Moreover, there had been a lack of pressure from EU policymakers which made it more difficult to implement the changes on a regional level. The situation today has changed and the EU is trying hard to introduce different frameworks and strategies on how to integrate the Roma population into society. However, it is the national states’ primary responsibility to make tangible differences in the lives of minorities. Despite the encouragement of the EU, and taking into account different starting points for different national states, there is still strong anti-Roma discrimination in Europe, and the Roma are still experiencing human rights violations. According to the European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (MIDIS), which took place from May to July 2008, every second Roma respondent was discriminated against at least once in the preceding 12 months and, on average, 69% of Roma respondents consider that discrimination on the basis of somebody’s

ethnic or migration background is widespread in their country. Member states with the highest Roma population rates (Czechia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Romania and Poland) are struggling with day-to-day problems concerning the integration of the Roma population. Despite the diversity of problems these national states face, there are some commonalities they share, particularly in the fields of housing, employment, education and healthcare. HoUSING: Housing is recognised as a fundamental right across Europe, yet many Roma families are denied access to proper housing. In many cases they live under the normal standard in houses not suitable for long-term living. Countries like the Czech Republic have recognised the need to support access to social housing for low-income Roma families and introduced a new housing with an accompanying social programme, which developed a “three-stage bilaterally accessible housing system”. In Hungary, the Ministry for Regional Development has been developing a ‘Concept for Social Housing’ for some time. Moreover, Roma are affected by special isolation, which means they are faced to live in the suburbs and outskirts, which affects both urban and rural areas. Roma families living on the outskirts of cities lack the connexion to public water supplies, and rural areas often have under-developed sewer systems.

EMPLoYMENT: A long-term priority is the inclusion of the Roma in education to make them economically independent in the future. Many national states have recognised the economic potential of the Roma population. According to research carried out by the World Bank, “full Roma integration into the labour market could bring economic benefits estimated at €0.5billion annually for some countries”. One of the main reasons that member states are struggling with high unemployment rates amongst the Roma population is historical. After the transition from communism in 1989, Roma people started to work in the so-called “grey market” as a cheap labour force. A massive uneducated and government-dependent population is the legacy of the majority of member states after the 1980s. The second reason is that the majority of the Roma only complete primary education, making it difficult to adapt to changes in the labour market. Member states are trying hard to intro-

This issue mostly affects Czechia, Poland and Bulgaria. Kladno, a middle-sized town near Prague, and Malopolska in Poland are good examples of Roma being forced out of ethnically mixed communities. Due to their spatial isolation they often experience problems with infrastructure and transportation, but more disturbing still is the denial of education and employment opportunities to their young people. A different consequence of isolation is the lack of legal awareness, which makes many Roma vulnerable to unlawful treatment by state organisations. According to MIDIS, even if the Roma are aware of discrimination in the field of housing, on average 83 per cent of all respondents could not name any organisation that would be willing to assist them.

Bullseye

duce life-long learning systems and adult and vocational training to create a population which would be more flexible and responsive to shifts in the labour market. However, making them more flexible does not entirely ensure admission to employment, because there is still a gap between the working population and unemployed Roma people. The first task is to combat discrimination in the labour market through encouraging a sense of social responsibility amongst employers. HEALTHCARE: According to the document An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020, “life expectancy at birth in the EU is 76 for men and 82 for women. For Roma, it is estimated to be ten years less.” This difference is the result of several factors. First, there are their poor living conditions. As many Roma families have neither access to clean drinking war nor a connexion to the sewer system, they are exposed to serious health problems like infectious diseases, parasites and gastrointestinal diseases. The spread of infectious diseases is also aided by many people sharing small apartments without bathroom facilities. Second, they have limited access to health services. According to a MIDIS ‘Data in Focus’ report, “there is a cultural barrier in the doctor-patient relationship (different traditions, customs and habits, lifestyle and relationships to illness itself). This often results in an unwillingness of health workers to help. Finally, there is a lack of information. A significant majority of Roma people are unaware of the risks of an unhealthy lifestyle. Also, teenage pregnancy is a widespread problem in member states. There is a lack of health awareness promotion targeted at the Roma. On the other hand, improving awareness of health workers is also needed to diminish prejudices in order to positively affect the rates of diagnosis for illness. These are only a few common issues shared by those member states with the highest Roma population rates. Despite this fact, the solutions to these problems differ in every country. The main obstacles that are inhibiting the effective implementation of such solutions are the lack of Roma civil rights movements, contradictions of integration policy on the local and regional level, problems with the definition of the term “minority”, lack of empirical resources about Roma people, and prejudice. Only by addressing these key factors can member states change the persistent status quo in Europe. If we do not recognise these problems in time, we may soon witness a rise in xenophobia, chauvinism and extremist groups.

theme

Dominic Hatiar

Developments in the Roma Question in Western Europe

“Do you have problems with peoples from Central or Eastern Europe? Have you recently lost a job to a Pole, Romanian, Bulgarian or other Eastern European? We want to know.”

This is a quote from the website of the Dutch Freedom Party. At the same time, 68 per cent of the entire Italian population would like to have the Roma expelled. More tellingly still, Nicolas Sarkozy aimed to prevent Roma immigration by using the inhumane policy of forcing Roma to prove DNA blood ties to French nationals. The “radicalisation of anti-Roma politics” is becoming an increasingly pressing challenge for the EU whilst all eyes are focused on her economic problems. In paradox, the expansion of the EU and its accompanying integration and rising living standards is being accompanied by new forms of racism and social exclusion. It is therefore necessary to scrutinise the way that France and Italy aimed to “solve” their “Roma issues”, analyse the stance of the EU towards such decisions, and most importantly ask “where do we go from here?”. France has provided an excellent example of discrimination against an ethnic group. The first domino fell when “gens du voyage”, so-called “travelling people”, violently assailed a police station in response to a member of their community who was involved in a burglary being shot. As a consequence of this skirmish, the French president made a fundamental mistake

as he coupled his “declaration of war” on gangsters, delinquents and criminals with the failures of immigration policy. Because he didn’t want to “welcome all the misery of the world” (meaning Roma immigration), radical steps followed, and some 539 illegal Roma camps were to be cleared. Sarkozy’s administration aimed to legitimise the deportation of Roma under the term “securitisation”, as Roma were accused of constituting “threats to the integrity of the French state and France’s way of life”. The deportations were presented to the world as “humanitarian returns” where the returnee would be granted 300 euro. On rare occasions the French government coupled the deportations with the promotion of local small businesses in the home country of the returnee. This was to done by giving grants of thousands of euro to returnees who were able to provide a trustworthy business plan. However, very few Roma have accepted such grants as they would have put themselves at risk of not having a chance of returning to France. It must be said that France has pursued this Roma strategy of deportation for several years in combination with policies which prevented or hindered the integration of Roma into wider society. Nevertheless, many Roma have

been deported purely on the basis of their ethnicity, a chilling but not unique consequence of the growing “anti-gypsyism” in Europe. It can be said that anti-Roma sentiments are even more deeply rooted in Italy, but the government hasn’t done much to change these feelings. Conversely, “government policies to the Roma problem have further inflamed antiRoman sentiments, encouraging violence and racism”. Segregation of Roma from the rest of society has culminated in the Roma being moved to special camps on the outskirts of cities by the government. Silvio Berlusconi signed a decree calling “a state of emergency in relation to settlements of communities of nomads”. Such legislation is only usually used in the event of natural disasters, as it enabled officials to begin a massive collection of the fingerprints of Roma living in the camps. The Interior Ministry justified this action by finding Roma to be numerously involved in high-profile murders and rapes. The response of the European Parliament came within five weeks, and wholly condemned Berlusconi’s decree as being racist and discriminatory. Fundamental rights commissioner Viviane Reding criticised the policies of Italy and France since they “touched upon the fundamental values on which Europe has been built since World War Two: respect for the individual and non-discrimination against racial, ethnic or national groups”. European Court of Human Rights stated that “no difference in treatment which is based exclusively or to a decisive extent on a person’s ethnic origin is capable of being objectively justified in a contemporary democratic society built on the principles of pluralism and respect for different cultures”. In the end, the EU has successfully forced France to “desecuritise” the Roma issue, it has become an issue of normal juridical politics and hence, expulsion can occur only on an individual, rather than group, basis. Unfortunately, I have to point out that although the EU emerged out of this situation with respect as it was able to tackle these large members, the Roma expulsion is only a small part of a larger problem whose solution hasn’t yet been found. The Roma problems which are already occurring in Western Europe demonstrate the need for a Europewide solution. Central and Eastern European countries proved to be unable to help Roma in escaping the “poverty trap” but this article shows that the West isn’t doing much better. We should realise that the Roma issue is a problem for all of us and if current elites cannot provide viable solutions, it will fall to our generation to do so.

If we study the oldest history of the Roma, we encounter the problem that the legends have been better preserved than the facts. This is because their language is unwritten, and thus we have no relevant written sources. Therefore scholars must rely on the results of comparative philology (the study of written historical sources). After researching the different dialects of the Roma language, scientists have situated it in the wider group of Indo-European languages. For the origins of the language it is necessary to look at Sanskrit, and on the basis of this linguistic analysis we can determine the homeland of Michael Augustín the Roma as Rajasthan, the largest state in northwest There are many perspectives from which we can explore contemporary issues. India. In India, the Roma One is the historical aspect, which this article will discuss. We can’t deal with belonged to the a problem we have little knowledge of. Prejudices we have about other ethnic groups are frequently the product of our lack of knowledge about them. lowest social classes. In etymological terms the name, “Roma“, is connected to one of those inferior social groups, the Dom. These, also called “Domba“, were especially servants, musicians or animal trainers. This group represents a similar or identical ethnicity to the Roma. As for the migration of the Roma from India to Europe, it probably occurred around 1000 AD, again we can identify this from the Romani language. At the beginning of the 11th Century only two genders were used in most Indian languages: masculine and feminine, but five hundred years ago Indian nouns had acquired three genders whilst the Romani language still had only two. There are several proposed explanations for this exodus: some say they were escaping the spread of Islam, others that they were taken as slaves by the Seljuks alongside those Rajput who served in the Seljuk army. The Roma wandered next through Persia, Asia Minor and Armenia, although not for more than fifty years or so. They arrived in Anatolia in the territory of the Byzantine Empire, where they settled for about 250 years. Here the Romani language and grammar absorbed Greek influences and their contemporary language was formed. As the Byzantine world and the Balkans

History of the Roma

Bullseye

gradually fell to Muslim occupation the Roma began to move west towards central Europe, often forming part of the Ottoman army. When the Romani people came to Europe, they presented themselves as Egyptians. It created the impression (later debunked) that the Roma arrived from Egypt. At a later time, in the 12th and 13th centuries, the Romani lived in a territory called “Aegyptus Minor” (Little Egypt) near the village of Methoni in Greece. From this name “Aigyptoi”, in Greek pronunciation “egypti” or “gypti”, gradually came the word “gypsy” in English. From the 14th Century the Roma started spreading to countries of Western Europe – except the Nordic countries – in several waves. Between the years 1407 and 1416 we find different mentions in the chronicles about gypsies in Germany. In 1417 (regarded as a key point in the Roma’s history) groups of Roma passed through the whole of Central Europe, the Hanseatic League, Saxony, Bavaria and along the Swiss border. They simultaneously came from the north and south into Italy, whilst similar groups of nomads visited the Netherlands and Belgium. Spanish and Portuguese annals also mention the presence of Roma there. The Romani people appeared in the northern parts of Europe in the 16th Century: Denmark in 1505; England in 1514; Norway in 1540 and Finland in 1584. The French assumed that the Roma came from the Czech lands, and thus termed them “Bohémies”. A significant part of the Roma did settle in Hungary (including the territory of modern Slovakia) and in the territory of the modern Czech state, and live there today in different and numerous subgroups. Europe greeted the Roma with amazement, apprehension and misunderstanding. These people were impossible to group into any particular social class and their origin and ethnicity was understood incorrectly. If to be “European” means to have a sense of common identity and values, and it is not necessary to come from any particular part of Europe or possess a state, then the Roma are authentic Europeans who have lived here for more than 500 years. Consequently, we should treat the issues that face the Roma minority in our countries as the problems of fellow Europeans, and not as those of an alien, outside group who do not belong here.

THEME

Miroslav Jurčišin

INTERVIEW

The Way to Roma Inclusion

Stanislav Daniel grew up in Skalica, Slovakia. Far from the picture of Roma settlements you could see in the media. For many years at the secondary business school and later, he never thought he would be devoting his professional career to Roma. But here he is, after getting a degree in social work with a focus on excluded Roma communities, working in a Roma settlement. He has further professional experience in civil

society organisations in Slovakia, in the European Roma Rights Centre in Budapest, OSCE Ofﬁce for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights in Warsaw. He currently works for the Budapest-based Roma Education Fund.

MIRoSLAV JURČIŠIN: IF YoU WERE To DESCRIBE THE PRoBLEM oF MARGINALIZED RoMA CoMMUNITIES IN SLoVAKIA, WHAT WoULD YoU SAY? Stanislav Daniel: Imagine yourself as a child in Roma settlement somewhere in an underdeveloped region of Slovakia. Your parents lost jobs in the transformation after 1989 and since then they are on welfare with only some seasonal short-term jobs. Your mother was recently told that she couldn’t be accepted for a cleaning job, because the company can’t employ Roma. Before enrolment into primary school you were sent for testing, where you didn’t understand, so they diagnosed you with mental disability and sent to special school. So you’re at special school with vast majority of other Roma children, diagnosed with mental disability, you can only go to a two-year high school that would qualify you for some helping profession.

At the same time the local mayor is threatening your family that you’ll be evicted because your house is illegal. The non-Roma citizens are demonstrating against you and your family for abusing social welfare. And, by the way, you and the whole community have only one source of water in the middle of the settlement. So it is really difficult to say what the biggest problem is. The biggest problem is probably the combination of issues, which are concentrated in the excluded Roma communities. MJ: WHAT Do YoU THINK WAS THE BIGGEST MISTAKE oF PREVIoUS GoVERNMENTS IN SLoVAKIA WITH RESPECT To IMPRoVING THIS SITUATIoN? SD: One frequent misperception among general public is that too much has been invested in the cause and too much money is spent on the Roma. The facts however show the contrary. For example in edu-

about the free choice of the parents, but the fact remains that the choice wouldn’t be free if there is literally only one option. A fullday education system is currently being pilo ted and I believe it is a very good alternative.

cation, the civil society and independent education experts have been proposing the same measures for number of years, but little has been implemented. On the other hand we learn about new pilot projects and experiments. Organisations like the Roma Education Fund have long been proposing systematization of preschool education to make it more accessible, improve its quality and enforce cooperation with parents. Now we are happy to see that some governments, including the Slovak government, are discussing these measures and piloting them at local level.

MJ: Do YoU THINK THE CHANGES IN SoCIAL SYSTEM WoULD HELP? SD: I believe that the condition of family benefits being paid only in case of proper school attendance may sound good to the general public, but we need to look a bit further and answer the question who is really suffering if the family’s social welfare is cut. There should be measures to positively motivate parents to send their children to school and cooperate with school. And in general, our target is not to discuss how big or small the social welfare should be. Let’s aim at getting the people to work.

MJ: WHAT WoULD A PERFECT GoVERNMENT Do? SD: A perfect government would evaluate its steps and follow the results of evaluation. Some time ago the Slovak government approved a document listing projects which were reportedly targeting the needs of Roma communities. After some concerns by civil society the media were reporting about some of the cases, including a village which installed public lights and reported it as a project addressing needs of Roma, even though there were no Roma living in the village. The question remains how many of the approximately 600 million EUR were really addressing problems of Roma. A perfect government needs to know how their funding is spent and how the action could be improved. This can be only done by proper evaluation and introducing the evaluation results into the system.

MJ: Do YoU THINK THERE IS A NEED To CHANGE THE PoLICIES oF THE GoVERNMENT oR THE CURRENT PoLICIES ARE GooD oNLY THEY NEED MoRE TIME? SD: One of the biggest challenges the programmes addressing the so-called Roma issues are facing, are the political changes. Maybe this is something that we need the governments to understand. They basically need to design the long-term strategies in a way that they would be acceptable also for a new government from a different political spectre. But in general I would like to say that I do not believe that we’re facing some kind of crisis as many people say. Some critics say that the number of Roma dependent on social welfare is growing. Fortunately, the number of Roma university students is growing too, some of them from families dependent on social welfare. There are steps that can be taken right now; there are steps that need longer preparation. We only need to make sure that we keep in the right direction.

MJ: IS EDUCATIoN THE oNLY THING THAT WoULD IMPRoVE THE SITUATIoN? SD: Even if we focused only on the children, we need to understand that the children don’t live in vacuum. They live in certain environments, where their parents often cannot fully support them, where they live in houses with limited access to water, etc. Education is not a magic wand, but on the other hand, we cannot talk about full inclusion without inclusive education. MJ: AND WHAT ABoUT THE BoARDING SCHooLS FoR CHILDREN FRoM EXCLUDED CoMMUNITIES? SD: Some of the best schools in the world are boarding schools and they definitely have their place in the education system. On the other hand we shouldn’t accept them as a systemic measure to address problems in education of Roma. If we have a problem with Roma housing

resulting in the fact that children cannot well prepare at home, we need to address the problem of housing and don’t need to cut the family ties necessarily. Sometimes parents cannot support their children in education because they themselves lack edu-

BULLSEYE

cation. This is something we in the Roma Education Fund are addressing by our work with parents and afterschool programmes which also include the parents. There have been proposals for boarding schools for Roma and their advocates spoke

MJ: HoW Do YoU KEEP YoURSELF PoSITIVELY MoTIVATED? SD: My grandparents experienced the times in which they were not allowed to use public transport, go to the cinema or public swimming pool, because they were Roma. They thought people have to give up their Romani ethnicity to live a decent life. Today I am being interviewed for the magazine of the European Democrat Students. Future leaders are reading my words. And I didn’t have to give up my ethnicity. So there is obviously progress.

UNIVERSITIES

UNIVERSITIES tut d’Etudes Politiques and the Library, was the elite university of France. Between the two major models of University and Grande Ecole, Sciences Po was already linked to both of them in order to use the best of each of the two systems within greater autonomy. Richard Descoings, director of Sciences Po since 1996, gave a new impulse to the most independent public HEI of France. From a three-years curriculum (most of the students started directly in the second year after a first Univerity degree) the core degree moved to a five-year structure. The student completes an undergraduate programme in two years in France before going abroad in the third year (as a student or as a trainee). Back in Paris, the last two years (including at least one semester dedicated to a training period) lead to the master degree. As for me, I started in Nancy at the college for GermanFrench studies with three teaching languages (French, German, English) before studying one year at the Humboldt Universität zu Berlin. Back in France, I completed my master’s degree in public affairs. I spent my training period as a parliamentary assistant to an MP at the Assemblée Nationale. ToDAY, SCIENCES Po FEATURES SEVEN UNDERGRADUATE PRoGRAMMES ALL oVER FRANCE: • The historical campus in Paris • French-German studies in Nancy • Central European studies in Dijon • Latin American studies in Poitiers • Middle East and Mediterranean programme in Menton • Asian studies in Le Havre • The transatlantic programme in Reims.

Sciences Po Jean-Baptiste Dabezies

With a strong focus on each related area, each undergraduate programme provides a solid education in public law, contemporary history and economics. Half of the programme is given in languages other than French. The students are selected through a “concours” or an interview for the international students (more than 50 per cent of the students in those campuses outside Paris). The strong international dimension of Sciences Po is illustrated by some figures: more than 40 per cent of the 11,000 students are not French; the undergraduate campuses are international campuses per se; and all students visit courses in diverse languages (at least French and English). The third year abroad is a unique experience for each student to discover himself acting over the long term in another country. Some of them continue during the master’s programme to get one of the 35 double degrees with other instutions such

Paris Institute of Political Studies Sciences Po is a well-known higher education institution (HEI) providing a multidisciplinary take on the contemporary world. All study programmes include space for periods abroad and, when needed, for periods of practice training. Alongside the University professors, the teachers are experienced practitioners of their field, from journalism to law, from finance to public administration. Sciences Po is a unique French HEI. Founded right after the 1870 defeat in the FrancoPrussian War, the “école libre de sciences politiques” was dedicated to the education

of the future political and administrative elite, who had to prepare to lead and seek revenge on Germany. Today, Sciences Po is an internationally competitive institution specialising in the humanities and the social sciences. It’s is the story of how an old fashioned model was recreated in the same spirit but with a strong vision of the future. When I was a high school pupil in the late 1990s, Sciences Po was still the major public establishment in the mood of the contemporary political landscape. The Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, including Insti-

BULLSEYE

as the Columbia (New York), London School of Economics, Freie Universität Berlin, Fundan University (Shanghai), MGIMO (Moscow), Sankt Gallen and others. Regarding the graduate programmes, Sciences Po created in the last few years five specific “schools” of International Affairs, Law, Communication, Journalism and Economics. The Paris school of international affairs includes nine master’s programmes tackling all the current challenges on the international stage: development, environmental policy, energy, security and so on. The students in graduate programmes are former college students as well as external students selected after a Bachelor’s degree. All the curricula combine applied content with theoretical knowledge. After completing a master’s at Sciences Po, 75 per cent of the students go on to work in the private sector, 20 per cent in the local, national, European or international administration, and 5 per cent in teaching and research. Sciences Po provides a strong knowledge in all the forms of expression: oral and written, dissertations, synthetic notes, and thesis. Students learn how to find the right information, to present it in a short exposé. They learn also to work in team with debates during the courses as well as in collective projects (project management). The graduate school leans on a strong research dimension in Sciences Po. In regard to the 35 per cent of the annual budget allocated to research, Sciences Po employs

(in addition to 50 University professors) 200 researchers and teacher-researchers. The 440 PhD students are integrated into one of the 12 research centres (of which five are associated with the CNRS). Five doctoral programmes are proposed: law, economics, history, political science, and sociology. To create opportunities to work in international research networks, Sciences Po developed two dual PhDs with Columbia University in Political Science and the Max Planck Institute of Cologne in Political Science and Sociology. The spirit of study at Sciences Po is the interest in knowledge and in participation. In addition to the collective projects in college and graduate programme which apply to the most diverse topics, there is a truly active associative life. At the beginning of the year, all the students vote each for the five associations he supports then the HEI recognises the ones over the threshold as partners during one year. During their studies, students are accompanied by Sciences Po Avenir, the service dedicated to training periods and first jobs. Open to students until two years after graduation, Sciences Po Avenir gives an appropriate overview on the job market and the job opportunities and helps prepare and support job-seeking (CVs, interview, personal projects etc.). In addition to this personal support, Sciences Po Avenir organise recruiting events as the Forum Sciences Po Entreprises in November. More than a third of the students sign a hiring contract before completing their master’s.

Graduate programmes at Sciences Po Paris School of International Affairs (PSIA): • Master in Development Practice • Master in Environmental Policy • Master in Human Rights and Humanitarian Action • Master in International Development • Master in International Economic Policy • Master in International Energy • Master in International Public Management • Master in International Security • Master in Journalism and International Affairs

Master in European Affairs

Sciences Po School of Communication Sciences Po Law School: • Master in Judicial and Legal Careers • Master in Economic Law

Master in Marketing and Market Research

Sciences Po School of Journalism Department of Economics • Master in Economics and Public Policy • Master in Finance and Stragegy • Financial Regulation and Risk Management

Master in Public Administration Master in Corporate and Public Management Master in Human Resources Management Master Governing the Large Metropolis

Master of Experimentation in Arts and Politics (SPEAP) Master of Public Affairs Master in Regional and Urban Strategies Master in Urban Planning

EVENTS

The UK40: Matt Lewis

Most Influential Britons in Europe

On New Year’s Day, the United Kingdom reaches the milestone of 40 years as a member of the European Union. To mark the anniversary, Euractiv, the major news agency, and Nucleus, the UK campaign group preaching ‘eurorealism’, formed a panel of the great and the good to answer one very interesting question – who are the 40 most influential Britons in the European Union? The list was revealed at an e xclusive event in London a t Europe House, the home of the European Commission Rep resentation to the UK ( a n d somewhat ironically, the former HQ of the Conservative Party), to an eager audience, including this correspondent. Surprises galore; of the top 10 in the list, eight of the Brits are based in Brussels, and few are household names. Prime Minister David Cameron is ranked only ninth, one place below William Hague, the country’s Foreign Secretary and one of the PM’s predecessors as Conservative Party leader. Among the other big names in Britain’s parliament, Deputy Prime Minister, and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg - whose early political career was spent in Brussels – is placed at 15, while Labour Party leader Ed Miliband fails to make the top 40 at all. Instead, the leading spots are taken by a few Members of the European parliament, and a number of eurocrats leading departments in the European commission. Sharon Bowles, the Liberal Democrat MEP who chairs the European parliament’s monetary affairs committee (and is backed by short-odds to replace Sir Mervyn King as the

Governor of the Bank of England), tops the list as the most influential Brit in a surprising result, but on reflection, a deserved one. Jonathan Faull, a former commission spokesman who is the most senior eurocrat running and regulating the single market – the most important aspect of the EU for many in the UK – comes in second. His response was typically British, self-deprecating and to the point, “My role as civil servant is to advise and prepare. I do so in the European interest, which I believe is also the British interest,” he said. A quick look at the list suggests British influence at all levels of the European Union is in rude health, but the its publication also coincides with what is perhaps the most precarious period since Britain gained membership in 1973. Just a week after the list was released, Britain led those countries of the Union calling for a cut to the EU budget, and an end to the never-ending series of hand-outs to the continent’s southern disaster zones. Then back home there’s the increasing prospect in the next Parliament post-2015 of an in-or-out referendum on the UK’s European Union membership. Whilst this correspondent wrote in the last issue of Bullseye of his confidence that the “in” vote would carry the day, nevertheless the chance of “Brexit” have never seemed greater. So, an interesting question: How can British (state) influence seem to be so low in Brussels’ corridors of power, when the list makes it plain that some of the EU’s major players hail from these islands? The Guardian newspaper pondered that “perhaps the Brussels insiders’ victory over the British policymakers reflects London’s waning influence on events and policy across an EU consumed by a single currency crisis, which itself largely excludes Britain.” Faull, when asked to explain why the Prime Minister didn’t come at the top of the list said, “That’s the real question. Presumably there is a perception they don’t have much influence over European affairs now. They’re wilfully semi-detached. That’s the truth.” On Britain’s commissioner in Brussels, Lady Ashton, who is in charge of European foreign policy, being ranked at number 5, Faull added, “That’s because Ashton is not an influential player in Brussels. The most important European institution right now is the European Central Bank and Britain’s not there.” Sir Julian Priestley, the former secretary general of the European parliament, chaired

the all-British panel of experts who decided upon the list. “This list puts a new light on Britain’s relations with Europe,” said Priestley. “It shows often unsung, sometimes unknown Britons at work exercising real influence in Europe, shaping policies, making a strong and constructive contribution to Europe’s future. This is not the picture of ‘Britain cut off from the continent, but the potential of a Britain really at the heart of Europe.” In a speech to the audience, list-topper Sha-

ron Bowles MEP, said, “Engagement with Europe is important. Current circumstances and the fact that financial services are vital to the City and the UK no doubt lies behind my ranking in this list. Politicians rarely get thanked, so I am grateful for the extent to which I have been given recognition. I have to share this with my staff and many in the City and beyond - officials and industry - who provide a huge source of expertise.” So, a mixed picture. The European Union

is clearly packed to the rafters with Brits who wield real power and influence. The sad truth is that currently, this doesn’t extend to the British Government. However, it is all too easy to see only the high-profile Council get-togethers; the rows, the vetos, the failure to agree, and become disheartened with Cameron and co. The real work though goes on in Brussels every day, and it is there, through the likes of Bowles, Faull, and Corbett, that the UK is making a real difference.

1. Sharon Bowles MEP (Liberal Democrat) 2. Jonathan Faull (Commission d-g for internal market and services) 3. Malcolm Harbour MEP (Conservative) 4. Richard Corbett (Member of Cabinet of Herman Van Rompuy) 5. Baroness Cathy Ashton (High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) 6. Philip Lowe (Commission d-g for energy) 7. Robert Madelin (Commission d-g for comms networks, content and tech) 8. William Hague MP (Conservative, Foreign secretary) 9. David Cameron MP (Conservative, Prime Minister) 10. Andrew Duff MEP (Liberal Democrat, Union of European Federalists President) 11. Sir Jon Cunliffe (Britain’s Permanent Representative to the EU) 12. Lowri Evans (Commission d-g for DG Mare) 13. Belinda Pyke (Commission director for migration and borders) 14. Lord Adair Turner (FSA chairman) 15. Nick Clegg MP (Liberal Democrat, Deputy Prime Minister) 16. Sir Graham Watson MEP (Liberal Democrat) 17. Lionel Barber (FT editor) 18. Ivan Rogers (PM’s adviser on Europe) 19. David Lidington MP (Conservative, Europe Minister) 20. John Cridland CBE (CBI director-general) 21. Prof. Anne Glover (EU chief scientific adviser) 22. Glenis Willmott MEP (Labour) 23. Philip Stephens (FT associate editor) 24. Jacqueline Minor (European Commission director for consumer policy) 25. Mark Boleat (City of London Corporation) 26. Tony Long (WWF European office) 27. Daniel Hannan MEP (Conservative) 28. Robert Cooper (European External Action Service counsellor) 29. Peter Kendall (National Farmers’ Union president) 30. Dr Kay Swinburne MEP (Conservative) 31. John Peet (The Economist) 32. Charles Grant (Centre for European Reform director) 33. Graham Bishop (financial markets analyst) 34. Nigel Farage MEP (UKIP) 35. Mark Leonard (European Council on Foreign Relations) 36. Roland Rudd (Business for New Europe chairman) 37. Prof Simon Hix (London School of Economics) 38. Paul Dunstan (European Parliament directorate for the plenary) 39. Shirin Wheeler (Commission spokesperson and ex-BBC ‘The Record Europe’ presenter) 40. Jon Worth (blogger) BULLSEYE

BUREAU

COUNCIL OF EUROPE Amélie Pommie

The Council of Europe and the Roma

The actions of the Council of Europe are directed toward creating respect for democracy, and peace within and between the member states. They are also aimed at the societies of those states, particularly at reducing social inequalities. That is why the Council of Europe focuses a lot on the issue of minorities. Integration of minorities and respect for their human rights are the key to a better European society.

Ghenadie Virtos

Liberal Democratic Youth of Moldova “Our mission is an enlarged Europe.” The Liberal Democratic Youth of Moldova (TLDM) is the youth and student wing of the Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova (PLDM), the center-right senior partner in the current governing coalition in the country.

Thanks also to Matt Lewis, who wrote the Council of Europe article in the previous issue.”

BEGINNINGS TLDM is a young and therefore very dynamic organization. It was created on 15 November 2008, at a moment when the youth of the country were looking for a strong organization to represent their interests in relations with the government, which was dominated at that time by the Communist Party. It was a difficult time for Moldova because the ruling Communists took control of all the branches of power, putting the development of democracy in Moldova under direct threat. Therefore, immediately after its creation, the priority of TLDM was to voice the general discontent of the young generation at the course that the country was taking. Being an opponent of the incumbent government in the Moldova of 2008 was not a risk-free undertaking, and TLDM members were harassed by the police, interrogated, arrested, their laptops confiscated and put under constant pressure due to their participation in public protests. The crucial elections of 2009 also saw the student protests on 7 April, a seminal event that changed the preference of the electorate and allowed the democratic forces to leave the communists in opposition. Thousands of young

people applied for membership in order to be part of the democratic tide that was soon to transform Moldova for the better. DEVELoPMENT After the elections, TLDM put a lot of effort into its own internal development in order to strengthen its organisational foundations. Gradually TLDM was able to build local branches in all the 32 districts of Moldova while its member basis reached around 11,000 young people, which established TLDM as the largest political youth organization in Moldova. TLDM has organized Liberal Democratic Student Clubs in the nine major universities of the country. These student branches keep in touch with the students and their interests. An important point in relations with students was the launch in the 2010 elections, at the initiative of TLDM, of a separate political programme for the youth which addressed the main interests of students and young people: employment, visafree travel in EU, proper student housing and support of youth entrepreneurship. The elections of 2010 were particularly successful because PLDM gathered 29% of the votes and was able to lead a new Government whilst TLDM Chairman George Mocanu also became an MP. Since then youth related matters have had even more support on the Parliamentary agenda. VALUES AND PRoJECTS In recent years the Liberal Democratic Youth

This was officially decided by the council during its first summit on the 8-9 October 1993 in Vienna, Austria. The Council of Europe decided to do everything possible to protect minorities and their cultural identity across Europe, and the fight against any form of intolerance became crucial for the Council. That is why a specific European commission against racism and intolerance was created in 1993 within the Council, and the Roma present is actively considered in the Council’s activities. Within the priorities of the Council of Europe the Roma issue aligns with three: the protection of minorities, the fight against racism and intolerance, and the fight against social exclusion. We can count ten to twelve million Roma people in most of the Council’s member states. Many states are facing important issues relating to the Roma community, and the Council is always looking at the reactions of governments and peoples towards these questions in order to protect the Roma minority. Besides this, the Council tries to establish a global approach to this crucial issue. To complete these tasks the

of Moldova was the most active political youth organization in the country. Our initiatives and projects are structured around the values promoted by the organization: democracy, European integration, active citizenship and human rights. As part of its democracy agenda, TLDM has organized the ongoing project “The Youth Rules”, which consists of organized trips to public institutions for young applicants. In its initial phase we had around 500 participants and more than 20 visits to ministries, the Parliament or other public institutions. TLDM also developed projects as part of its European agenda - aimed at promoting European values and European sentiments among young people. Such a project was “The School of European Studies” which offered a series of training opportunities for 150 applicants on the nature of European Union as an institution, on the European perspectives of the Republic of Moldova and on European opportunities for youth and students. Our most recent project is “The Political Academy”, which aims to fulfill our mission of offering our members the necessary skills and knowledge in order for them to succeed as young political leaders. It also offers the unique opportunity of interaction between the senior leaders and ministers of the party and young politicians through a free and open dialogue, which we hope will create a two-way learning process.

Council created in 1995 a Committee of Experts on Roma and Travellers (CERT). This committee can help member countries to deal with the social issues they face when integrating and protecting the Roma. One Council of Europe activity aimed at the Roma is the training of mediators to solve the practical questions of integration in any member country. The mediators always cooperate with the public authorities. The questions they most often face are linked to human rights, or access to education, health services and jobs. The Council also adopts policy recommendations on the Roma minority for the member states. It plays the role of expert for different countries, especially with the work of the CERT. The support of the Council for member states also goes toward the establishment of programmes or strategies directed at the Roma. It is very important for the Council that Roma play an active role in current affairs. For that the Council signed a partnership with the European Roma and Travellers Forum in order to invite them to take part in debates. Their voice

is needed to improve the current situation and build effective policies. The cooperation between Roma NGOs and decision makers is crucial to solving problems. So the Council does not stop pushing for such discussions. Together with the European Roma Rights Centre the Council of Europe helps people who defend the Roma people in court. People who specialise in these questions can get training and assistance from both institutions. The Council’s attention on Roma has grown since 2010. Indeed, this year Roma issues became highly mediatised in several countries. Some countries were trying to repatriate the Roma to their countries of origin. The Council reacted strongly to this news and realised the urgent need for more mediation between the authorities and institutions involved. The work has just started and the economic crisis has not helped matters. The actions of the Council are also aimed at encouraging young people to believe that they are the future and the source of future change. Thus in April 2011 the Council supported a study session organised by the Forum of European Roma Young People under the title “Strategies for inclusion of young Roma”. The discussion ended with the elaboration of an action plan towards young Roma, the effects of which we will hopefully see during the coming year. To promote tolerance towards Roma people and to make people better informed about the different issues our societies are facing with regard to their integration the Council of Europe organises conferences and workshops. This is actually what EDS will follow during its second Council Meeting of this Bureau in Trnava, Slovakia. The title of the event is “Living together in diverse societies: A youth approach to the intercultural dialogue with the Roma minority”.

MISSIoN All the projects and activities of TLDM aim toward the promotion of our mission: to foster the values of European democracy among the young in order to ensure that the recent democratic reforms that received such praise from the international community, as well as the European integration tendencies, are further developed and that democratisation and Europeanisation become irreversible processes in Moldova.

BULLSEYE

BullsEye