EUREKA
Spring 2014
A
s society continues to globalise it also seems to become more and more uniform – even in a cultural mixing bowl like London, the same trends make their mark on most people. This isn’t a revelation; We tend to learn from those around us, and one could say it is a natural part of integrating into a community. Yet there is also a growing desire to examine our society from an individual perspective, rather than from the sweeping trends that more and more people in the world identify with. Call them micro-level insights, or windows into the lives of individuals that make up our community. In doing so, we begin a kind of self-examination or reflection that we often neglect in the course of our fast-paced lives. They show us not only the often unconsidered complexity of the lives we touch, even in passing, but also the varying sides of the societal prism we all belong to – reflecting different colours on entirely different planes, yet when spun together, creating something beautiful to reflect and observe. The micro-level self-examination we refer to, if you haven’t thought of it already, is the growing online phenomenon of Humans of New York. Using Facebook as his platform to reach almost 4 million people, photographer Brandon Stanton takes portraits of passerby and asks them personal questions – the answers to which are often surprisingly candid and insightful. The same model has been adopted at UCL, where one of Eureka’s own writers is part of the team that seeks to document the interesting, the unique, the relatable, the often ignored. As editors of Eureka, we consider our mission to be similar to that of Stanton, the pioneers of HOUCL, and their followers. We seek to examine the issues in areas of European society that often fly under the radar: in this issue, Anjalee Patel takes us to the far reaches of a French island off the coast of Madagascar, and Hendrik Obelöer evaluates the role of police in peaceful-turned-violent protests on the streets of Hamburg. Jose Hong tackles perhaps the most pressing protest movement in Europe by taking a look at the crisis in Ukraine, not from the perspective of global powers and politicians involved, but through the eyes of expats living in London. Alberto Delclaux conducts a broader analysis on the assimilation of extreme groups’ policy goals into mainstream political discourse. David Lodder and Lewis Barber present different accounts of the role of individual countries via-à-vis the European Union. In our student reports, Kalle Dramstad looks at the potential implications of the ongoing free trade negotiations between the EU and the USA and Lucile Collin reflects over the judicial limbo that the EU has created for refugees seeking protection on our continent. Back in London, as our decrepit washing machine floods the carpet beneath our feet (only later will we realise the injustice of it all – this time, a rogue sock jammed in the doorframe was the cause), we decide it is time to finish this spring issue of Eureka. Next year there will be two new editors to direct the team of old – as well as hopefully new – writers that will continue to bring us the unconsidered complexities of what now only seems like a distant future. Best, Nadia Badaoui & Kalle Dramstad Editors
T
he European Institute is UCL’s hub for research, collaboration, and information on Europe and the European Union. UCL has an exceptional range of expertise in the key disciples of European Studies. It covers the core subjects of European integration study, including law, politics, economics, and history, but adds to it an unrivalled span of research and teaching in European langaugaes, literatures, philosophy and the arts, as well as on European geography and built environment, medicine and health, and the sciences. Building on this foundation, the UCL European Institute works to stimulate new research and support multidiscoplinary collaboration across the university. It acts as the one-stop access to UCL expertise on Europe and the EU, and provides a conduit between the university and policy-makers, civil society and the media. We offer a diverse programme of public events, provide expert analysis and commentary, build up networks and alliances and aim to provide an intellectually stimulating environment for resarchers at all stages of their careers. For more information, please visit our website: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/european-institute
2
PHOTO BY ALI ARIF 3
Table of Contents Watching your home burn:
the views of ukrainians abroad
5
by jose hong
Democracy, a popular business tycoon, and the european dream
6
by david lodder
Referendums: the haunting spectre of europe
7
by lewis barber
The third way of extremism
8
by alberto delclaux
Reigning in the violent mob
11
by hendrik obelöer
Refugee protection, migration, and human rights in europe
12
by lucile collin
EU trade commissioner speaks on eu-us trade negotiations
13
by kalle dramstad
La réunion: the edge of europe
14
by anjalee patel
Front cover photographed by hugo arevalo-bacon
6
PHOTO BY JUAN AGUIRRE FERNÁNDEZ- BRAVO 4
Watching your home burn:
the views of Ukrainians abroad by Jose Hong Farn Chun
W
hen it comes to the Ukrainian political crisis, much of the world’s attention has focused on events within the country. However, with a diaspora population that ranges from 6 to 20 million (with approximately 120,000 in the UK alone according to unofficial estimates), the voices of Ukrainians abroad should not be ignored. There are many questions that should be asked of this large group. What do they think of the protests? Who do they support? What are they doing? Those interviewed in the UK are overwhelmingly on the side of the demonstrators. Rallies supporting the main protests have been held in London since the beginning of the political unrest. In January a petition with 6500 signatures was delivered to Downing Street asking for British intervention in Ukraine. Organisations such as The Ukrainian Institute in London and the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain (AUGB) actively criticised the government of President Yanukovych, with the latter now switching its focus to the Crimean crisis. Fedir Kurlak, CEO of the AUGB, pinned it down to the experience of living in a free and democratic country. Personally knowing how it feels to live without fear, he said, has encouraged overseas Ukrainians to desire the same for their own nation. “I have never met a Ukrainian living abroad that supported the Yanukovych regime – and I do meet a lot of people”, he declared. A bold assertion, but as the CEO of the UK’s largest representative body for Ukrainians, a claim one has reason to believe. It is also often reported that Ukraine is a divided country, split between ethnic, cultural and geographical lines, where a Ukrainian-speaking west fights for closer ties to Europe, a stance resisted by the Russian-speaking east. The current Crimean crisis seems to lend weight to this view. Most British-based Ukrainians, however, strongly reject this. “The division of Ukraine is a myth,” said Oksana Demynovich, a recent graduate from the London School of Economics (LSE). Ms Demynovich added that today’s perceived differences come from an education system that fails to adequately cover the country’s shared history, thus erecting barriers that should not exist. Her sentiments are echoed by Iryna Terlecky, Vice-President of the AUGB, who said that Ukraine’s ethnic divisions are only made into significant issues “by people who believe it’s in their interest to do so”. As evidence of Ukrainian unity, she pointed out that protesters from differing linguistic, cultural and geographical backgrounds had all congregated together to fight for their freedom. She does not deny that geographical splits exist. But Ms Terlecky blames them on the lack of access to an independent media in the less-developed east and south. “If you’re in the east of Ukraine in a small town or village, you don’t have access to the internet and all you see is the controlled media, so it’s quite easy for people to build up fears that shouldn’t really exist,” she explained. As a UCL university student, who wishes only to be identified as Igor, added curtly, “People [there] don’t get true information. The further east you go the worse it gets – you 5
end up in Russia and watching their television kills your brain.” This censorship is corroborated by Freedom House, an international watchdog organisation, which in 2012 released a report detailing the “declining independence of media from political… influence”. There is also a sense from many Ukrainians abroad that there is something different about these demonstrations, that history is being made. For the first time since independence, civil society has found its own voice. As noted by UCL student Karyna Balabatko, “It’s not the opposition leaders who drove the people, but the people who drove the leaders.” Her words bear a striking similarity to those of lawyer Sergiy Burnus, who said, “People finally understand that political power belongs to them, and they don’t need actual intermediaries to exercise that power.” They are quick to dismiss any comparison with the 2004 Orange Revolution, which brought down then-President Yanukovych. In 2004, they said, the protests rallied around one political party, led by Viktor Yushchenko. This time, the demonstrators supported no political party, and all they wanted was a change to the endemic flaws they saw in Ukraine’s political system. “I think the protesters realised that political activism has to be permanent. It continues with whatever happens in parliament and with the way laws are passed, and that is a lesson that has been learned from the Orange Revolution,” explained Ms Terlecky. But what does Ukraine’s future look like? UCL student Olga Lykholobova said that though she supported the idea of a democratic Ukraine, she is very wary of any economic or political recriminations from Russia. Indeed, though President Yanukovych has been ousted, the crisis has now shifted to the Crimean peninsula, where Russian forces are in de facto control and where a referendum on its secession to Russia is due to be held on March 16. Ukrainians here, such as LSE student Dmytro Shelukhin and Queen Mary student Artur Chepenko, have been protesting in London and raising awareness against what they see to be Russian aggression. They both acknowledge that events are very hard to predict, and although Mr Chepenko fears that Crimea will face a similar fate to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Mr Shelukhin remains optimistic that the international community will “force Russia to honour a series of international agreements in which it recognised Ukrainian territorial integrity”. Regardless of these differences, Ukrainians abroad clearly want the crisis to end. They want to see Ukraine moving towards democracy, where the press is free, politics are clean and the law is respected. And they want to move towards this as a society of united people. Ms Demynovich, now back in Ukraine, helped to coordinate protests in both London and Bilbao, but throughout her interview made it clear that she did not want to be known as a leader. Just before we ended, she suddenly cut me off, “Please. State clearly that it’s the people who have organised themselves. Nobody until now has given them the role of being a part of their country. It’s not about a single person – it’s about Ukrainians.”
Democracy, a popular business tycoon, and the European dream by David Lodder
O
n November 27 1989, the jingling of thousands of keys could be heard in the streets of Prague. More than 800.000 people had come together on Wenceslas Square to demand the communist government to step down and make way for a liberal democracy, free from corruption and violence. Twenty four years later corruption scandals dominate the political debate, President Milosz Zeman extends his power and a Forbes 500 business tycoon is the victor of the parliamentary elections. Long live European democracy? The previous year has marked an interesting year for those interested in gossip, sensational stories and political soap-opera in the Czech Republic. Not only did both president Milosz Zeman and minister of foreign affairs Miroslav Kalousek give public ‘performances’ under the influence of alcohol, but former prime-minister Petr Necas also decided to add to the suspense by playing the lead in a big scandal involving his wife, his Chief of staff and the intelligence service. These and other scandals eventually brought the centre-right government to its knees. The consequent elections were characterized by an anti-corruption campaign, which was won by business Andrej Babis, a Forbes 500 figure that owns the biggest agricultural company in the Czech Republic. In 2014 the Czech Republic remains one of the only countries in Europe without an Act on Civil Servants: a piece of legislation which guarantees continuity in the Czech civil service and depoliticization. At the moment any new government can get rid of the current civil servants and appoint their own set of politically like-minded candidates. The lack of continuity in the past led to problems with, among other things, the spending of European structural funds, as the new civil servants had no knowledge on the prior arrangements and projects. However, this image of the Czech politics is overly bleak and not completely fair. The Czech Republic, initially under the leadership of human rights activist Vaclav Havel, has rebuilt its economy, become a member of both the European Union and NATO and has seen multiple political reforms that led to more political transparency in the last two decennia. These initial changes in order to comply with the Copenhagen Criteria, do, however, not provide a society with a certain continuity of political reforms and a strong rule of law. Political oppression often makes way for a glorification of ‘the other side’,
in the case of countries under the communist regime this other was regarded to be the West. Russian poet Joseph Brodsky underlined this illusion in one of his essays: ‘Hopelessly cut off from the rest of the world, they thought that at least that world was like themselves; now they know that it is like others, only better dressed’. Joining the EU turned out to have its difficulties and negative externalities as well. Civil society and democratic values are not a given and should constantly be reassessed and improved. The European Union is not and will never be a guarantor for perfect democracy, but it can provide the building blocks to start building. How can we use this knowledge when we turn to current political danger zones? Then as much as now, I believe that the strong perceived dichotomy between the East and the West is flawed. The one is not the complete opposite of the other. Turning towards Europe does not mean political paradise, just as much as Russian influence is not a one-way ticket to Tartarus. With the political turmoil in Ukraine and a discourse that increasingly emphasizes a, some would argue fictional, dichotomy between the EU and Russia, the goals of the Eastern Partnership programme seem increasingly out of reach. Association agreements between the EU with the six Eastern Partnership countries would certainly have led to mutual economic benefits, improvement of rule of law and transparency in the concerning countries. This is at least a widespread belief among many cosmopolitan Europeans. Here again I want to stress the importance of a civil society, institutions of rule of law and transparency in the functioning of liberal democracy. Turning to Europe does not instantly provide society with these necessary elements, but it can be the start of their creation. High expectations and consequent disillusion have made Czech public opinion into one of the most sceptical countries in Europe. These anti-political sentiments crystalised in the form of a victory of Andrej Babis, the richest Czech politician to date, ironically chosen out of anti-corruption sentiments. ‘At least he is not a politician’, was the main argument a Czech friend told me. The EU is not to blame for sub-optimal political situation in the Czech Republic, nor should it be expected to simply solve all the problems concerning corruption and rule of law in all European countries. We do need to learn from best practices and try to improve that what cannot simply be taken for granted, not in Czech Republic, not anywhere.
We are very proud of the amazing student photographers who contribute to EUREKA. Hugo Arevalo-Bacon, whose work features on the front cover of this edition, discusses his subject: In the early hours of the morning, Alappuzha India, a house boat ponders around the lake whilst fisherman check on Chinese lift nets. Traditionally made out of bamboo, these boats transported large cargo across the water. Together with the fishing trade, Kerala Matta rice is one of the biggest businesses around the area, and is seen repeatedly conveyed around the waters.
6
Referendums: the haunting spectre of Europe by Lewis Barber
R
eferendums are proving bothersome for the United Kingdom’s political parties. The Conservatives are splitting at the seams over the European (EU) Referendum and the Labour party has been damaged in the polls since announcing being against one. This is because 82% of the population support holding a referendum and many, like me, are counting down to when we can leave the EU. This referendum, which is dictating the political agenda, would only be the third in history involving the whole of the United Kingdom. In Switzerland, the picture is completely different. Last year alone there were eleven referendums, ranging from electoral reform to executive pay. They are so common that it seems strange that a recent referendum in Switzerland has made such an impact across Europe and rallied Eurosceptics everywhere. The referendum to introduce immigration quotas in Switzerland was passed with a small majority, only 50.3% to 49.7%, but will have a profound impact on the future of the EU. Switzerland, although not part of the EU or even the informal EEC, has signed a significant number of treaties with the EU
to increase Switzerland’s integration within it. Most prominent of these is the agreement to allow free movement. Switzerland’s quashing of this is what makes the vote so interesting and will give momentum to the eurosceptic train that is already at full throttle. The discussion over what the effects will be is dominated by economics in Switzerland and politics across Europe. With 3.5% unemployment and budget surplus, Switzerland is dependent on migrants. In construction and farming, they constitute roughly 60% of the workforce . The supporters of the quotas focused on the unsustainability of the 1% per annum population growth, pointing towards the inevitable wrecking of the countryside to accommodate this growth and the pressure immigration is putting on welfare services. This raises the intriguing question of how a country so reliant on immigrants and consequently booming economically could vote to introduce quotas. The outcome is a continuation of the wider trend across Europe, with voters aware of the economic benefits of migration but just not caring. Economics are no longer the keystone for immigration policy. Parties PHOTO BY JUAN AGUIRRE FERNÁNDEZ- BRAVO
7
such as UKIP in Britain, the considerably further right wing National Front in France and the Golden Dawn in Greece are not garnering success through economic arguments, but cultural and social. Sure, welfare has been a central topic of the debate but it is themed around morals as opposed to economic rationale. This may change in the long term though. The University of London reports that migrants are only benefiting the host nation economically as most are at working age, and who, as they get older, will use some of their contribution to the state on healthcare and state benefits related to older age costing the state more. Yet Keynes said, “In the long run, we are all dead” and voters are likewise unfocused on the distant future. The debate is being won against immigration through emotive arguments. This is, admittedly, allowing extremism to flourish and is what particularly scares the European Union. The outcome of the referendum is a classic “Heads I win, tails you lose” scenario for the European Union. There were harsh reactions by the Europhiles all across Europe. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius called the result “bad news”. Neither did Angela Merkel, the power behind the EU, hide her disgust, saying the impact “from our point of view raises significant problems”. This is an underestimate. Their hands are tied. They cannot clamp down on Switzerland’s decision to introduce quotas without adding to the undemocratic image they are tarnished with and buoying up support of Eurosceptic parties ahead of the election. Equally, allowing Switzerland to nullify their agreement with the EU for free movement will give, for example, David Cameron in the UK collateral to be able to negotiate terms of membership, thus weakening the power of the EU further. The likely path is one trodden often by EU leaders: patience. The executive is unlikely to want to make rash decisions
and at the time of writing the permanent representatives of the 28 member states are deciding whether to give the European Commission a mandate to negotiate an institutional agreement to automatically adapt European Union law to Swiss law. It would rather wait for Berne to make the decision. The EU knows they could invoke the famed Guillotine Clause that invalidates the 7 fundamental principles Switzerland has agreed with the EU, including freedom of movement, if one of them is broken. In reality, the EU realizes this is not pragmatic. The EU-Swiss agreements were founded on the idea of bilateral negotiations, allowing the fiercely independent Switzerland to retain a sense of sovereignty. Going against this bilateral approach would only deepen their unpopularity in Switzerland. Imposing the Guillotine Clause would also have contagion effects across Europe. France and Italy are already fretting over what will happen to their citizens who work across border. Transport such as the railways would no longer be able to travel through Switzerland unhindered and agreements amongst Universities for students to take advantage of the Erasmus Program would collapse. This is just the tip of the iceberg. If the EU starts to wobble and agreements start to become undone then Eurosceptic parties will strike whilst the iron is hot. The National Front in France has already described the referendum as “evidence of great common sense” and Italian Northern League EMP Mario Borghezio says it is “a great lesson for democracy”. As democracies across Europe start to prepare for the election in May, I will stand with Eurosceptics and will look towards Switzerland as inspiration for opposing the EU and defending their sovereignty. The Swiss decided to reject agreements with the EU and it makes me wonder that if the Swiss can do it, why can’t the UK?
The third way of extremism: radical change from within the system by Alberto Delclaux
W
hat is terror? Most people would associate it with Islamic fundamentalists and American presence in the Middle East. A clash between civilizations perhaps. Since 2001 it has become clear that the main security threat of the Western world is Islamic terrorism. This past decade the suffering cost to human life has been colossal. The train bombings in Madrid took the lives of 191 passengers, those in London left 51 people dead. But let us not forget that terrorism has not always been an external imported phenomenon; some decades ago most Western European democracies suffered from widespread domestic terrorism from both left and right. Not to mention Eastern Europe, where terror was already publicly provided for by the state. Presently we live in turbulent times of profound political and economic crises, and a disillusioned electorate becoming ever more Eurosceptic. We talk about the radicalisation of politics – of extremist parties with xenophobic agendas on the rise again. The old continent appears to be crumbling as voters turn to charismatic Le Pens and Farages and turn their backs on dull, uninspiring Eurocrats. Yet how many European citizens would rather live in another era, or on another continent? Not many, I suspect. Per8
sonal liberty and high living standards are still historically peaking at their highest in history. And, most importantly, we do not have an epidemic of indigenous terrorist groups. Because sometimes we tend to forget to quickly about our troubled past, remembering only the recent prosperous years. Not so long ago, Northern Ireland was a war zone, with thousands British troops and paramilitaries wandering around. In France, de Gaulle survived several assassination attempts in the sixties. Even West Germany, a role model by most measures, suffered. Palestinian terrorists hijacked a Lufthansa flight in 1977 not to wage holy war, but to demand the liberation of their German comrades. If these examples seem distant, take a look at ETA, the second largest terrorist group in Europe after the IRA. It committed its last violent act in 2011. Three years ago. We need to have this in mind if we are to make any judgement about the current status quo. Euroterrorism, which in the United Kingdom left more than three thousand deaths and in Spain close to a thousand, was perpetrated by groups with some degree of support from society. In Northern Ireland and the Basque Country, due to the ethnic component of the IRA and ETA, support was quite large. In the German Federal Republic a poll revealed
that a significant portion of the population was sympathetic to the Baader-Meinhof gang. To be fair, this chic group of beautiful young rebels was indeed quite attractive. But violent action against the state or sectors of society is today no longer tolerated. Despite the exponential growth of immigration-related problems and issues on sovereignty loss, radicals fight the establishment playing by the rules. Independence movements also resort to legitimate political means. So how could the previous generations be so different? Perhaps I should rephrase the question. Why are we so peaceful now? Europeans have excelled at violence in almost every instance of history. The common fallacy that the end of the Second World War marked the start of a new, pacific age still survives. However, violence only really faded off during this millennium. The Cold War was the main catalyst of the 1970s-80s spiral of terror in Western Europe. Neo-fascists existed, but, fortunately, did not have a country to fall back upon and could not operate effectively. Left-wing radicals, on the other hand, did have the KGB, as well as Gaddafi and other anti Western strongholds to support them. Left-wing activists still believed in an ideal revolutionary alternative to the stagnant unjust establishment. And to this dangerous mixture of grievances we have to add nationalist movements, forces which, surprisingly, even now inspire a lot of people in the modern world. Nowadays we still live in a terribly unjust world. And
disgruntled separatists still linger around. But our mentality has radically changed. Why? Why is terrorism not a tolerated means of protest anymore? Chiefly, the communist model has failed everywhere, and is no longer seen as a path to a Worker’s paradise. Additionally, Finding a powerful sponsor has become an arduous task. And the transnational aspect of terrorism, which made it extremely flexible and effective, was replicated at a governmental level. European countries have gradually become more willing to cooperate with one another. ETA activists, for instance, cannot calmly go for a cup of coffee in Bayonne after murdering someone in San Sebastiån. So let us put things into perspective. The development of Europe towards internal cohesion has been a top contributing factor in the quelling of severe political tension and violence. Even though pessimism and cynicism are now widespread in Europe, it only takes some rational analysis to realise that we live very comfortably. Conformism should not take over society, but we should realize that radical solutions have, in fact, never been solutions. The way forward is to trust the institutions that have transformed the continent from a battleground to a unique union of cooperation. Many people lived under constant fear and many others sympathised with terrorists. I emphasize the past tense in the previous sentence. Surely, nobody wants to revert to the seventies and eighties when many problems were resolved with guns.
PHOTO BY JUAN AGUIRRE FERNĂ NDEZ- BRAVO
9
PHOTO BY ALI ARIF 10
Reigning in the violent mob:
why police tactics should be brought into the 21st century By Hendrik Obelöer
‘C
rowds exhibit a docile respect for force, and are but slightly impressed by kindness, which for them is scarcely other than a form of weakness.’ - Gustave Le Bon
The assumption that the individual in a crowd becomes a vulgar barbarian is still at the heart of our conception of mass protest and violence. It is said that the police must react and suppress violence. Only by this can the mob be put in their place and further destruction be prevented. Truth be told, this line of argumentation is, compared to the age of our European democracies, ancient. Gustave Le Bon, was born more than 170 years ago, but we, and notably the police, still seem reliant on his findings. Is it really appropriate that we nowadays evaluate mass protests in the same way? Surely savage mindlessness cannot be the only characteristic of mass protest? Very recently, Madrid, Istanbul and Hamburg, not to mention Kiev and many other major European cities, experienced mass protests, and more alarmingly, violent confrontations between police and protesters. Not all protesters in these instances may have had peaceful intentions. However, I argue that most of the escalation and violence could have been prevented. The Hamburg protests around the ‘Rote Flora’ (red flora) provide an instance in which we can examine modern psychological theories surrounding crowds to identify what went wrong. One of these approaches is the so-called Elaborated Social Identity Model of crowd action (ESIM) which focuses on four stages. The crowd in Hamburg initially started as a physical gathering. They represented different groups. Radical leftwing protesters stood alongside families with children and demonstrated in favour of a home for asylum seekers and a left-wing cultural building. In general these protesters regarded themselves as ‘respectable citizens’ with a legitimate right to demonstrate. This corresponds to the first part described by the ESIM approach. The second phase commences when a powerful outgroup, often the police, classifies the crowd as potentially dangerous and begins to impose their rule on the group of protesters. The crowd in return feels deprived of what they regard as their legitimate right to protest. In Hamburg, the protest was stopped after 80 metres, before the majority of the protesters even had begun walking. In the eyes of the protesters this was absolutely unjust. Even if some flares had already been ignited at that point, this posed little threat to the authority of police and is not an uncommon occurrence in the midst of such a protest. Whoever has participated in protests will know the constant tension caused by large crowds of police forces. Be it rational or not, there have been protests where I asked myself: ‘What did I do wrong to require some hundred armed policemen to look after me?
11
This shared experience of fate unites a group. As explained by modern psychological theories, what was simply a physical crowd earlier, was now also the beginning of a psychological crowd. In the following step, moderate forces, feeling unjustly targeted, become more open to radical forces in the group. Restrictions initially imposed by the police are questioned by the group as a whole. Back in Hamburg, shortly after the police made use of water cannons, violence escalated and some protesters attacked policemen. The view of group unification could be contested in this case since almost only members of the radical left-wing engaged in violence. However, one must be careful to embrace such a simplistic judgement: The protest did not take place on an open square but in a street. The leftwing protesters were placed in the beginning of the protest and during the clashes with police, most of the non-radical protesters further back declared their solidarity with those in the front. The following days sheer anger and criticism in the media from all sides against the actions of the police forces, again suggests that this ‘psychological unification’ did indeed happen. The final pattern seems more than logical and can be described with a simple word: escalation. When violence breaks out the police forces see their initial assumptions confirmed and react by using further force. Back in Hamburg, at some point groups consisting of 10-20 policemen charged into the crowd and back. This lead not only to a further sense of deprivation of rights but also spurred on this feeling of physical danger amongst the protestors. Whenever one side uses force, there will be force as a response, ‘self-defence’ and anger lead to a dreadful situation which only knew the language of violence. Yes, most of the protesters in Hamburg going in front were prepared to use violence. Yes, Hamburg has experienced several rampages of left wing activists in the weeks before – vandalising police stations and attacking small groups of policemen. Nevertheless, police must stand above ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. The police, and that is their obligation when they execute the state’s monopoly on the use of force, must always search for the most peaceful compromise. I am convinced that what happened during the protests could have been managed more peacefully and would have resulted in a better situation for both society and individual. Our own ‘Occupy Senate House’ protests earlier this autumn, however smaller, deserve to be mentioned. The so-called ‘kettling’ tactic employed by police to handle the protesters united the crowd and lead to the same escalation and feelings of justified ‘self-defence’ as we saw during the Hamburg protests. So what can be taken from this? I want to make a clear appeal for the re-evaluation of the role of the police during protests. And in the future, for the police to pursue a different strategy than in the past – policing protests in a way that is in the interest of every citizen.
– EUROPEAN INSTITUTE STUDENT REPORT –
Refugee protection, migration, and human rights in Europe By Lucile Collin
T
he Syrian crisis is not only the world’s largest humanitarian crisis at present, but also Europe’s biggest refugee crisis in twenty years. The European Institute and the Faculty of Laws recently hosted the Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe, Nils Muižnieks, to address these issues. Muižnieks has been working in the field of human rights for the past two decades. His six-year mandate entails continuous meetings with European governments, national human rights structures and NGOs, but also side visits to refugee camps. Last December, he thus carried out a ‘thematic mission’ through Turkey, Bulgaria and Germany to follow the route taken by many Syrian refugees. According to the UN, Syria represents the largest humanitarian crisis in the world and is therefore today’s biggest challenge to national asylum systems in Europe. Whereas Syrians are seeking asylum all over the continent, European countries’ share of the burden has been extremely unequal. Most of them have only agreed to receive a few dozen Syrian refugees, a few hundred at most, while Armenia alone hosted 11,000 of them. But the most generous country, ironically also one strongly criticised by the EU for its lack of respect for human
rights, is Turkey. Turkey is treating its one million of ‘Syrian brothers’ with care, providing children with free education and medical care and granting all families the equivalent of 40 euros a month to satisfy their basic needs. These tremendous costs to the Turkish government are met by very little support from the international community, and the situation is increasingly pressuring Turkish authorities. As for EU countries, Germany and Sweden are by far the most generous hosts, with respectively 28,000 and 21,000 Syrian refugees. The Commissioner noted that Western Balkans and Eastern Europe were not solely transit countries anymore, especially those applying for EU membership. Yet Syrian refugees face further problems caused by the scarcity of legal provisions in Europe concerning irregular migration. Erecting huge fences to prevent irregular migration is utterly useless: ‘If you build a 20-foot wall, migrants will find a 20-foot ladder’, Muižnieks ironically remarked. However, push-back practices on both land and sea by Spain, Italy, Greece and Bulgaria as well as bilateral agreements with neighbouring countries deny migrants the mere right to seek asylum. If asylum seekers eventually manage to access the PHOTO BY JOSE HONG FARN CHUN
12
European territory, the European dream quickly becomes a European nightmare. The criminalisation of irregular migrants and their unjustified detention for months show the lack of safeguards and legal provisions protecting their rights. For instance, France’s off-site court hearings in the Charles de Gaulle airport lie outside of any legal framework, and Macedonia is detaining 7,000 migrants without letting them in or even sending them back. Do security concerns allow such human rights violations? Nils Muižnieks also mentioned the Dublin returns procedure, which allows EU countries to return asylum seekers back to the first EU country they accessed. He observed that the system itself was flawed as it puts an unsustainable pressure on certain countries — in 2010, 90% of migrants to Europe went through the Greek border with Turkey. In addition, several migrants are being returned to Bulgaria, which is problematic since the Bulgarian asylum system is deeply dysfunctional. Finally, the Commissioner tackled the rising wave of racism throughout Europe, not only by extremist parties but also by average citizens. In Greece, Afghan migrants are forced to pay taxes to the police during the day, and to Golden Dawn activists wearing black shirts at night… Immigration has become a hot topic in the UK as well, provoking the increasing stigmatisation of the Roma community. These so-called ‘benefits tourists’ and ‘profiteers’ were the target of the Swiss
campaign against Romanian and Bulgarian migrants, which led up to a referendum and the implementation of immigration quotas. But this myth needs to be destroyed: as a UCL study showed, legal immigrants in the UK who arrived after the latest European enlargement are 60% less likely to claim benefits than natives and 58% less likely to claim social housing. According to Muižnieks, violent parties should be automatically banned and the media ought to tackle populist parties more — which I regard as debatable, as the increasing presence of Marine Le Pen’s Front National in the French media is helping its normalisation as a mainstream party. Assessing the talk, Nils Muižnieks gave a comprehensive account of the current challenges to refugee protection in Europe, even though I believe that more references to current legal provisions would have better supported his points. European states should re-examine their asylum policies to adapt to the Syrian crisis and share responsibilities across the continent. The right to seek asylum ought to be respected, and supplementary provisions on ill treatment and detention are definitely needed. I reckon that pressure from Africa and the Near East will remain in the future; but if irregular migrants do not qualify under the refugee definition, they should at least be sent back to their country of origin instead of being detained in appalling conditions. This alone may avoid a great deal of human suffering.
– EUROPEAN INSTITUTE STUDENT REPORT –
EU Trade Commissioner speaks on EU-US trade negotiations By Kalle Dramstad
‘T
he Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’, or TTIP, is the name of the trade and investment agreement that is currently being negotiated between the EU and the US. According to the European Commission, a successful agreement would, among other things, boost growth in the EU by approximately 0.5% per year. However, in a Guardian article by George Monbiot, the Commission’s positive take is contrasted with critical claims concerning the TTIP’s impact on national regulatory sovereignty. On the 21st of February, UCL’s European Institute hosted a talk with the EU Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht addressing these issues. Referencing Keynes, the opening parts of de Gucht’s speech pointed towards the achievements of globalisation and free trade agreements of the past: how they have reduced global poverty and opened up new possibilities in an increasingly interconnected world. Following from this positive basic outlook, he proceeded to make a strong case for why Britain should remain in the EU. As the largest economy in the world, the EU has more leverage compared to individual member states when conducting trade negotiations. ‘When In Europe we can speak about big countries and small countries, in global terms, all European countries are small.. and they are getting smaller’ – The phrase, although soundbite-esque, clearly makes a strong point. This perhaps explains why de Gucht returned to the EU’s size several times during the talk. 13
Continuing from this, de Gucht chose to address some of the concerns of many in the audience. The most prominent amongst these are that the TTIP lacks transparency, may reduce environmental, labour and safety regulations, limit national regulatory sovereignty, as well as endanger the NHS and other public services. Returning to the size of the EU, he stressed how the EU will not budge on their ambitious general ‘precautionary principle’ vis-à-vis product regulation against the US’s less risk averse tendencies. Moreover, he argued that the two markets combined could act as a strong global force of upwards pressure on regulations: a race to the top. [As a side note, ’Trading Up’ by David Vogel offers a more extensive coverage of this specific argument] As noted in the question rounds, the largest concern of those attending was the proposed Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism or ISDS. This would be an arbitral tribunal of international public law where foreign investors could ‘sue’ host governments for breaching the agreement. The critique expressed in the question-round as well as in Monbiot’s article was that such mechanisms are secretive, undemocratic and limit national sovereignty. De Gucht highlighted how an ISDS is a common element in any bilateral investment treaty, including the UK’s current ones, and how it’s exception from the TTIP would do little to change the power of the ISDSs already in practice. Regarding the NHS, de Gucht clearly emphasised
how public services would be excluded from the agreement. Comparing the TTIP and the UK’s current individual investment treatise he stressed how ‘the goal is to have more, rather than less, policy space’. Concerning the fear that the TTIP, through ISDS, will limit future government power of de-privatisation, he noted that it would add no restrictions on governments. This is of course with the exception of the existing ‘no expropriation without compensation’ principle – something in line with general legal principles in all western countries. Lastly, for added transparency in the negotiation process, de Gucht outlined the Commission’s intention to hold public consultations on the draft text for the negotiations. However, some attendants questioned the possibility to influence the draft structure, as well as the overall secrecy of the negotiation process. De Gucht answered by referring to the US tradition of ‘confidentiality’ and how he ‘cannot make public
a text from the US without their consent.’ Nonetheless, this failed to completely satisfy many of the critics in the audience – is the Commission really pushing for more transparency or is it just shifting the blame to the US? Looking back on the talk, notably in relation to the latter quote, it is important to remember that it takes two to tango. De Gucht put forward confident and, in many ways, compelling arguments in favour of the TTIP. Nevertheless, his positive outlook and reasoning around the ISDS, increased transparency, assurance of safeguarding the NHS as well as the EU’s high regulatory standards, are only convincing to the extent that one believes that these assurances can be guaranteed in practice. As the bargaining process moves forward, one cannot tell how far some of his promises will be sacrificed. Therefore, to me, this seems to call for a positive yet cautious approach to the TTIP.
La Réunion: the edge of Europe By Anjalee Patel
P
alm trees, sandy beaches, year-round blue temperate seas, volcanoes and an island surrounded by sharks – where are you thinking of? Hawaii? The Philippines? In fact it’s France. Well, to be more precise a tiny French territory in the Indian Ocean called La Réunion. Classed as an outermost region of the European Union it is still included in the Eurozone. Nonetheless with the region’s capital - St Dénis - being almost 9400km away from its ‘métropole’ counterpart there are a multitude of differences between these two versions of France and their interpretations of the French identity. Encompassing an area of only 2512 km2, 40% of the island is classified as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. This area covers the two volcanoes on the island (one extinct and one very much still active) as well as its famed three cirques: Mafate, Salazie and Cilaos whose massive walls covered in lush vegetation provide a stunning backdrop for any visit here. Within this there are a myriad of gorgeous waterfalls, cool basins for swimming and deep gorges perfect for canyoning, kayaking and white water rafting. The UNESCO site covers the central part of the island but its surroundings are surprisingly diverse. La Réunion astonishingly has over 200 micro-climates; the East has a much wetter environment and is more humid whilst the West is incredibly hot and dry. The environment of the island in part contributes to its weak economy which historically has been based on agriculture. The mountainous landscape and varied climate means that sugar cane – its primary crop – can only be grown in the East and South of the island. This has led to an unemployment rate of 40% amongst the population – the highest out of all the French departments. In comparison, France as a whole has a rate of 11.1% unemployment. In recent years the government has been trying to increase tourism with the hope of reducing the amount of financial aid required from Paris. However, this in turn has encountered its own problems. Although beautiful, La Réunion is not the ideal destination for a beach break. Out of 210 km of coastline only 35 km of that is sandy beach. The rest is made up of cooled ancient lava flow. It should also be noted here that unlike Réunion’s neighbour Mauritius, it has a 14
rather small coral reef barrier which is one reason for the strong presence of sharks in its coastal waters. Since 2011 there have been 13 shark attacks in the waters around the island, 5 of which were fatal. Officials have been forced to restrict swimming in certain areas and have completely banned surfing, a sport which attracted visitors from all over the world. As such Réunion must look to its mountains and infinite hiking trails to draw more tourists in. Aside from this dangerous reputation La Réunion is known for the warm, friendly and open attitude of its people. The population of the island is estimated to be 800,000 and is commonly described as a ‘melting pot’ of cultures and ethnicities. This is due to the unique history of the island. Previously unpopulated, it was colonised by the French in 1665 who increased their workforce by bringing slaves over from nearby Madagascar until 1848 when slavery was abolished. From this point onwards, it was supplemented by cheap contracted labourers from India and China producing the amazingly mixedrace population of today. There is no single dominant ethnic group, instead the term ‘creole’ is applied to all those born on the island, regardless of their ethnic origins. The creole people are exceptionally proud of their rich cultural heritage but they are equally as proud of calling themselves French. (There have been few independence movements on the island with little support from the people.) One of the most important parts of their culture is the creole language. A combination of French, Malagasy, Tamil and some English, it is in fact the mother tongue of the majority of the population. It is for this reason that many people suggest that Creole language classes should be taught in schools and colleges on the island to help combat the high illiteracy rate in the region. Up to 18% of people aged 16-65 are illiterate, twice the rate than in continental France. It is thought that teaching French alongside Creole as a second language may help children to learn the language which all their lessons are given in and which they will require for a successful future. Although French is the language of social promotion, Creole is the language of integration into Réunionese society and has its own words for identifying the different sectors. Cafres are of African ancestry,
Malbars are from southern India, Z’arabes are from Gujurat in northern India, Yabs/Petits blancs are rural whites from the mountains, Grands blancs are the white landowners and finally the Z’oreilles [ears] are those from mainland France. A term used because of the fact that the majority of them tend to stay down the west coast which forms a rough ear shape. There have been some racial issues between the creole population and the z’oreilles, many of whom do not integrate into creole society and who in the past also tried to stamp out the Creole language: believing in the mainland policy of assimilation. There has also been racism towards new waves of immigrants from the Comoros Islands and Mayotte, indicating that the often promoted mentality of tolerance on the island may not be as true as it seems at first. However, the creole culture extends beyond language.
The people have two traditional types of music: Sega and Maloya, both brought over by the African slaves with dances and costumes that accompany them. Maloya songs are often politically orientated with the performers singing about poverty and slavery – it was actually banned by the French government in 1970s as they perceived it to be a threat. Similarly Sega sings of suffering and injustice, but incorporates more European instruments into its music. The island of Réunion, set in a corner of the world remote from most of Europe, provides the backdrop to a unique blend of cultures from around the world. This is reflected in every part of its culture, from the music and language to the food and architecture. Despite the economic and pedagogical issues it faces, it should be looked to as an exemplar of multiculturalism: a region that truly reflects the people that inhabit it.
Interested in to contributing to the magazine? Please contact the EUREKA team at eurekaeurosoc@gmail.com. Visit our blog at eurekaucl.wordpress.com for updated info on the topics we are covering in the next edition or take a look at old editions of EUREKA.
PICTURED: LA RÉUNION, BY ELLEN VANDERHOVEN
15
16