IF Augsburg 2018 | Press review by Media Teams of EYP Germany

PRESS REVIEWS

ugsburg 2018

International Academic Summer Forum

AFET II

by João Silva (PT)

EU security and defence: back in the future? Europe matters for North Korea engagement — no, really By Ramon Pacheco Pardo - The Hill

reparations for the first inter-Korean summit in over a decade, and an unprecedented meeting between a sitting U.S. president and North Korea’s leader, indicate that the tide in the Korean Peninsula is turning towards engagement and the easing of tensions. President Donald Trump has shown his willingness to put all possible options to deal with Pyongyang on the table - including diplomacy. South Korean President Moon Jae-in is looking at developing a framework for cooperation with its northern neighbor. And Kim Jong Un has signalled that he wants dialogue with both Washington and Seoul. As the United States and the international community consider giving engagement a try, it would be wise for the Trump administration to get Europe on board. Even though the European Union and other European countries might not be at the top of people’s minds when thinking about North Korea or East Asia at large, the truth is that Brussels has been taking the region more seriously over the past few years. Aware of its security flashpoints and economic opportunities, the EU is implementing its own «pivot to Asia.» Crucially, this involves actively responding to developments in the region whenever possible. In the case of North Korea, the EU has a policy of so-called «critical engagement.» This involves two components. The first is to put pressure on Pyongyang through sanctions, interdiction of nuclear and missile technology shipments, actively supporting United Nations resolutions, and other measures. In fact, Brussels likes to boast that it has the most comprehensive sanctions regime on North Korea - going well beyond U.N. resolutions. Crucially, though, the second component of the EU’s policy - engagement - is as important. Although the EU last held an official bilateral summit with North Korea in 2015, several European countries are hosting Track-2 dialogues involving North Korean officials, maintaining embassies in Pyongyang, and continuing to provide aid inside North Korea. Europe can thus bring two important elements to the table if the upcoming summits prove successful and engagement with Pyongyang takes hold. To begin with, European countries can use their existing diplomatic links with the Kim regime to support American engagement efforts. Embassies in Pyongyang can provide a supplementary source of infor-

mation about developments in the North Korean capital. European countries can continue to facilitate quasi-diplomatic links between regional powers and the United States by hosting dialogues in a neutral venue. And the EU can add its voice to that of international partners seeking to convince Pyongyang of the need to move towards denuclearization. In fact, North Korean officials have stated that they see the EU as a neutral and credible voice because it lacks geopolitical interests in the Korean Peninsula. Furthermore, Europe is well-positioned to support economic engagement with North Korea were the international community to decide that this is the way to go. In fact, there is discussion in Brussels about supporting inter-Korean economic cooperation projects if and when the Moon government launches them. Europe can also offer more aid than it currently does to support vulnerable North Koreans suffering from malnutrition and other problems. In addition, it can contribute to the building of any infrastructure or to energy transfers that North Korea might be offered in return for halting and reversing its nuclear programme. And if there is a push to support economic reform in North Korea, the EU can offer not only capital but also technical expertise. The above does not imply that Europe should be taken for granted. Many in Brussels have bad memories of the way that Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) was dismantled without real consultation with the EU - despite it being one of the four executive board members. Also, many Europeans were disappointed at the way the EU was overlooked during the Six-Party Talks years. They felt that the EU should have been more closely and regularly consulted as the talks unfolded. The point is not that Europe should be at the forefront of the resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue; Brussels understands this is not the case. But the EU feels that it should be consulted by allies so that it can offer its views. It would thus be important for the Trump administration to reach out to Brussels as preparations for the potential Trump-Kim summit proceed. In Europe, Washington can find a trusted ally with cooperation in its DNA and existing links with the Kim Jong Un regime. If engagement is to be given a try, Europe will be more than happy to oblige.

Trump really has achieved a historic breakthrough for the Kim dynasty By Jonathan Freedland - The Guardian

useful way to test the deal Donald Trump has reached with Kim Jong-un is to imagine what Trump himself would have said had it been Barack Obama rather than him who shook hands with the North Korean dictator. Look first at what Kim got from the encounter. Once ostracised as a pariah, Kim was treated as a world statesman on a par with the president of the United States, the two meeting on equal terms, right down to the equal numbers of flags behind them as they shook hands. The tyrant now has a showreel of images – including his walkabout in Singapore, where he was mobbed by what the BBC called “fans” seeking selfies – which will feature in propaganda videos for months, if not years. What’s more, Trump lauded Kim as “a very talented man … who loves his country very much,” a man the US president admired for his ability to take over North Korea at such a young age and to “run it tough”, as he put it in a later press conference. And when asked if he had even mentioned human rights in their talks, he said it had only been discussed “briefly”. The harshest words he had for a country that starved its own people in a famine that cost up to three million lives, were: “It’s a rough situation there … it’s rough in a lot of places by the way.” So Kim leaves Singapore having gained much of the international legitimacy the dynastic dictatorship has sought for decades. But the gifts from Trump did not end there. He also announced an end to US military exercises in the Korean peninsula – the “war games” which he said were costly and, deploying language Pyongyang itself might have used, “very provocative”. Trump also hinted at an eventual withdrawal of the 28,000 US troops stationed in the Korean peninsula. And what did Kim give Trump in return for this bulging bag of goodies? The key concession, the one Trump repeatedly invoked, was a promise of “complete denuclearisation”. Trump held this aloft as if it were a North Korean commitment to dismantle its arsenal, with work beginning right away. To be sure, such a commitment would be a major prize, one that would merit all the congratulation a beaming Trump was heaping on himself. But this is where you need to look at the small print.

First, the text itself says merely: “The DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula.” Kim has promised not “complete denuclearisation” but simply “to work toward” that end. Negotiators the world over know is the fudging language you use when you’ve extracted something less than a real commitment. Kim has offered only an aspiration, with no deadline or timetable, not a concrete plan. But the heart of the matter is the word “denuclearisation” itself. The problem here is that that word does not mean to Kim what Trump thinks it means. To North Korea, it is not shorthand for unilaterally scrapping its arsenal, but a vague aspiration for a nuclear-free region (a move that would, incidentally, require the US to withdraw its nuclear forces from Asia and remove South Korea from the protection of its nuclear umbrella). On the contrary, analysts say that the Singapore text’s reference to the Panmunjom declaration of April this year – when the leaders of North and South Korea met for the first time in over a decade – is a further signal that Pyongyang sees the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula as part of a wider process of global disarmament. Put simply, Kim is saying he’ll get rid of his nuclear weapons only when Russia, China, the US and everyone else gets rid of theirs. In his press conference, Trump praised himself for achieving a historic milestone that had eluded his predecessors. But it turns out that Pyongyang already offered very similar pledges in agreements it signed with the US in the early 1990s and in 2005. In fact, those earlier accords pushed the North Koreans much further: the former included an inspection regime, the latter a verification process. As the former US negotiator with North Korea, ambassador Wendy Sherman, told MSNBC, “Not only have we been here before, we’ve been here before with much greater specificity.” Of course it is better for the world that Trump and Kim are shaking hands rather than hurling insults and threatening nuclear war. For that we should be grateful. But for now, this is only a historic breakthrough for the Kim dynasty, whose rule over an enslaved nation has been given a huge boost. They will be celebrating.

4. Let’s go deeper! Was the Trump-Kim summit a huge success or a colossal failure? By Adam Taylor. North Korea, Trump and Human Rights. By Nicholas Kristof. Why Korea Split Into North and South Korea? By WonderWhy. Kim Jong Un’s New Strategy: Explained. By PolyMatter.

his photo shows a reality many of the opinion-makers regarding North Korea seem to ignore - in fact, portraying former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and deceased North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-Il, you might have thought it was doctored, just another piece of fake news in the age of plentiful Photoshop and flexible morals. However, there is no historical doubt that the meeting did, indeed, take place, which, in the context of media coverage of the Panmunjeon and Singapore Summits sounds a very alternative fact indeed, as members of the Trump administration dubbed the recent efforts as a “one-time shot” or a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity”. However, if one takes context into account, it’s a narrative that’s quick to crumble - not only is diplomatic rapprochement to North Korea not unheard of, it’s actually been fairly common, with no less than 7 deals (the first harking back to 1985) struck between the so-called Hermit Kingdom and Western powers. The way one interprets this image and information is up to one’s beliefs regarding this topic - those who believe in the merits of closer diplomatic ties will point to the image as proof that North Korean leadership are not averse to the establishment of stable and mutually beneficial talks with the West, and that, if the diplomatic pathway to engagement and denuclearisation is this well-trodden, then this would surely be a very positive sign for the potential of détente. On the other hand, sceptics of such an approach would point to the Albright picture as nothing more than the reflection of the sheer volume of failure presented by repeated attempts by the international community to kill off North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. After this picture was taken, Dr. Albright returned to the US without a deal and just two years later, the Framework on which the visit was based collapsed a stark, but possibly informative view of how diplomatic engagement with North Korea can be: fickle and feeble, with a strong tendency for unreliability and sudden collapse. On the background, however, lies another unconsidered factor: South Korean representatives sent on the trip watch the toast with smiles, but also perhaps some guarded reluctance, as they’ve grown learned of their neighbours’ penchant for unpredictability and erratic behaviour, while also being the ones who most desire peace and prosperity for the Peninsula - their desires and interests cannot in any way be ignored.

AUGSBURG 2018 - PRESS REVIEW INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC SUMMER FORUM

AFET I

by Artur Matos (PT)

Why Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal? The Iran nuclear deal isn’t dead — yet By Zack Beauchamp - Vox

rump’s Iran deal announcement was made in a Tuesday afternoon White House address, in which he announced that he would reimpose sanctions on Iran’s oil sector that had been lifted as part of the agreement. This put the US in violation of its obligations under the agreement, and thus constitutes a unilateral American withdrawal from the deal. Read: Trump’s Iran nuclear deal speech full text The problem, though, is that the deal wasn’t “rotten”: The best evidence we have suggests Iran was actually complying with the deal. Iran has dismantled a huge portion of its nuclear program and given international inspectors wide latitude to make sure it isn’t cheating; the country is significantly further from a nuclear weapon than it was when the deal came into force. Now, American withdrawal doesn’t mean the deal is immediately dead. Technically, the nuclear deal is an agreement between Iran and what’s called the P5+1 (the US, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany) — which means the US leaving the agreement doesn’t end it. If the rest of the P5+1 keep their sanctions off, Iran may decide to continue to adhere to the deal’s restrictions even after the US pullout.That’s what Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said his country would do in a speech. Prior to the Iran deal, the P5+1 had imposed a dizzying and complex set of international sanctions on Iran as punishment for its nuclear development. The basic gist of the deal was that the sanctions would be lifted in exchange for Iran agreeing to several serious restrictions on its nuclear development. Among the most important, the deal called for: •

Reducing Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium by 97 percent, and banning them from possessing any uranium

•

• •

potent enough that it could be used to fuel a bomb Capping its number of nuclear centrifuges, devices used to enrich uranium, at roughly 5,000 — and only permitting it to use old, outdated, and slow centrifuges Stopping Iran from operating its Arak facility used to make plutonium that could fuel a bomb Permitting wide-ranging and intrusive IAEA inspections designed to verify that Iran isn’t cheating on any portion of the deal

These provisions, taken together, make it functionally impossible for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon so long as they are in place. And the IAEA has repeatedly confirmed that Iran is complying with all of its obligations under the deal. What’s weird about Trump’s decision is that he presented no evidence that Iran wasn’t complying with its obligations. Instead, the president’s case revolved around perceived defects in the deal itself. The first one is that the deal isn’t entirely permanent; the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program start to relax about 10 years after the deal was signed (though the agreement not to build a nuclear weapon is permanent). The second is that the deal didn’t cover other problematic things Iran was doing, including ballistic missile development and its support for violent militias around the Middle East (like Hezbollah in Lebanon). French President Emmanuel Macron urged Trump to try to open up new negotiations on these issues while staying in the deal, thus keeping Iran’s nuclear program in check for now while dealing with these other issues. But Trump rejected that approach, preferring instead to withdraw from the deal entirely. Trump has said he’s open to negotiating a newer, tougher deal, but there’s little chance that Europe and Iran would agree to do so.

Fact-checking President Trump’s reasons for leaving the Iran nuclear deal By Glenn Kessler - The Washinghton Post

resident Trump’s reasons for withdrawing the United States from the Iran nuclear deal caught our attention. The stakes are huge, so Trump’s rationale merits scrutiny. The United States was one of seven countries in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an agreement struck by President Barack Obama’s administration in 2015. Aside from Iran, the other countries are China, France, Germany, Russia and Britain. It remains to be seen whether the Iran deal will hold together without the United States. We reviewed six of Trump’s claims from his May 8 speech announcing the decision to withdraw from the deal. As is our custom with roundups of multiple statements, we will not be offering a Pinocchio rating. But we invite readers to weigh in with comments. The JCPOA’s prohibition on Iran’s building nuclear weapons does not sunset, and other international agreements to which Iran has committed itself also prohibit the development of such weapons. However, critics of the JCPOA have voiced concerns that — despite these strictures — Iran could keep working toward nuclear weapons capability under the guise of pursuing peaceful goals, such as a nuclear energy program. Trump is alluding to the fact that the JCPOA gradually lifts restrictions on the types of nuclear activities and the level of uranium enrichment Iran may conduct. These and other provisions sunset over 10, 15, 20 or 25 years. The president argues that easing these restrictions over time would open the door to Iran’s obtaining nuclear weapons capability, rendering the JCPOA ultimately ineffective. But supporters of the Iran deal dispute that and say the JCPOA at least buys time, subjecting Iran to strong constraints on its nuclear activities for 10 to 25 years. Without the JCPOA, Iran could hasten its development of nuclear weapons on an even shorter timeline than the one Trump found unsatisfactory, they say. In agreeing to the JCPOA, Iran reaffirmed its commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and stated: “Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.”

Trump always makes it seem that the United States casually handed Iran billions of dollars in cash. But as we’ve reported, this was always Iran’s money. Iran had billions of dollars in assets that were frozen in foreign banks because of international sanctions over its nuclear program. The U.S. Treasury Department estimated that Iran would have a little more than $50 billion of usable liquid assets at its disposal after a broad lifting of sanctions under the terms of the JCPOA. The Central Bank of Iran said the number was $32 billion. Iran’s current budget is funded largely through “oil, taxes, increasing bonds, [and] eliminating cash handouts or subsidies” for Iranians, according to an article by a Forbes contributor, Heshmat Alavi, sent to us by a White House official. Citing the semi official Iranian Labour News Agency, Alavi wrote that the Iranian government had increased the suggested budget for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps by 42 percent, and 33 percent for the defense budget. The nuclear accord has contributed to the overall increase in spending — including the increase in military spending — since it lifted sanctions and allowed for a rise in oil production and exports. This all hinges on the access given to international watchdogs (and their ability). Supporters claim the JCPOA grants them unprecedented access. Some critics point out that Iran has been known to evade inspections in the past and that key provisions giving access to monitors sunset over time. Others say the IAEA should be given wider authority, particularly the ability to inspect military sites, to adequately police Iran’s nuclear programs.One aspect of the deal secures Iran the right to postpone IAEA inspections for up to 24 days, for instance at military sites. It has been questioned whether Iran could not pursue military nuclear development at these sites and then clean them out before the IAEA is admitted there. Another point that US officials and Trump have criticised is that the lifting of sanctions in 2016 led to an unfreezing of Iranian government’s foreign assets amounting to around 120 billion. There is no evidence that this money has been invested into the economy but rather rumors that Iran has used these funds to arm radical movements in the Middle East.

4. “As long as Iran remains in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it has an obligation to answer the IAEA’s questions and allow inspectors access to military sites and personnel in Iran related to that effort,” the Institute for Science and International Security, which has been skeptical of the Iran deal, said in a statement after Trump’s speech. “The Iranian regime is the leading state sponsor of terror. It exports dangerous missiles, fuels conflicts across the Middle East, and supports terrorist proxies and militias such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda.”

This claim is not new to the president’s repertoire. Trump suggests the assistance to al-Qaeda continues to the present day. This is in line with the latest State Department Country Reports on terrorism, released in July 2017, which said: “Since at least 2009, Iran has allowed AQ facilitators to operate a core facilitation pipeline through the country, enabling AQ to move funds and fighters to South Asia and Syria.” This phrasing marked a shift from previous reports, which indicated the support was in the past.

Let’s go deeper! How the Iran nuclear deal works, explained in 3 minutes. By Johnny Harris, Joe Posner and Max Fisher.

Who Is Trying To Kill The Iran Deal? By Omar Duwaji.

he image above visually describes what was the takedown of a world diplomatic victory. The Iran Nuclear Deal was an agreement between Iran and another six world powers, until the president of the United States of America, Donald Trump, decided to quit. This agreement had the objective to not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons and in exchange Iran would get free of sanctions that crippled their economy. This historic opportunity would make Iran rejuvenate into a prosper era for Iranians until the U.S.A. cut off the roots of the deal as it it is shown above.

AUGSBURG 2018 - PRESS REVIEW INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC SUMMER FORUM

AFCO

by LENA Vรถlk (DE)

«EU I have a proposal for you, what should I do?» The E.U. Is Democratic. It Just Doesn’t Feel That Way By Amanda Taub - The New York Time

ASHINGTON — Does the European Union have a democracy deficit?

Leaders of the campaign for Britain to leave the European Union have proclaimed last week’s historic vote as a victory for democracy. The union, they often argue, is elitist and undemocratic. The only way for member states to regain full control is to quit outright. The reality is more complicated. Scratch the surface, and it becomes clear that neither the European Union’s very real problems nor the criticisms of the bloc are really about anything as straightforward as elections or representation. This is a debate about democracy, but in a way that is both more meaningful and harder to define than how we usually think of it. Technically, the European Union has quite a lot of democracy going on. The European Parliament, often referred to as the “lower house” of the union’s legislature, is directly elected, via free and fair elections in the 28 member countries, every five years. Every European Union citizen of voting age is entitled to cast a ballot to select a representative. The legislature’s 751 seats are apportioned by the bloc’s treaties. The Council of the European Union, or “upper house,” consists of representatives sent by the governments of member states. They are not directly elected, but the governments that send them are. Likewise, the members of the European Council, which sets the European Union’s policy agenda, are the elected leaders of member states. These bodies, in turn, appoint and confirm a number of civil servants, as well as members of groups such as the European Commission. While these officials are both powerful and unelected, the process is not different from many democracies. The United States, for example, does not directly elect its secretary of state or, for that matter, any State Department functionary. So while defenders of the European Union have evidence to show that the bloc is democratic, this misses the point. Democracy, after all, is about more than elections. It’s also about accountability: whether the government is responsive to the citizenry.

Yes, the European Union has elections (and, yes, like the United States, participation has been less than 50 percent for many cycles). But, in a functioning democracy, popular will is also expressed through mechanisms other than marking ballots. The European Union, perhaps in part because it was designed by technocrats rather than developing organically, does not account for or often even allow those mechanisms. And this is why, for many Europeans, the body does not feel democratic. The trouble with technocracy Some of this is by design. Although its legislature is elected, the union is in many ways a technocracy first. It was designed to be an institution that allows experts to make the best decisions possible, simultaneously rising above and defusing nationalist politics. The ultimate goal of the project has always been a peaceful, united Europe. Protection from politics was supposed to help achieve that. Nationalist rage, after all, once allowed the rise of fascists and Nazis. The European Union was designed to prevent that from happening again. But politics has its benefits. It’s an avenue by which people can express their will and institutions can respond; this, in some ways, is what real democracy is all about. Day-to-day politicking is often treated as an unseemly distraction from the “real” work of legislating. But while politics isn’t always a pretty process, it is an essential one. In democracies, when there is a contested issue, elected officials and interest groups from all sides argue it out in public view, in the media, on the floor of the legislature or both. Even if your side loses, you have seen the process play out, and maybe even participated in it by signing a petition or attending a protest. You feel included because your representative argued for your interests. If your lawmaker didn’t do that, you can vote him or her out, but you don’t need to throw out the whole system.

That sentiment has led to “Euromyths,” a genre of urban legends about European regulations that gained traction during the British referendum campaign. One claimed that London’s beloved double-decker buses were to be banned, another that “fish and chips” would have to be written in Latin on menus, another that bananas would be required to be straight. The subtext of those stories was that the European Union was not only threatening British culture, but doing so carelessly — that the Brussels bureaucrats imposing those regulations didn’t care or maybe even understand that their decisions would take away something culturally important, and that there was no way for ordinary citizens to reach or influence them. Those feelings apply to more important decisions too: migration and financial bailouts for troubled member states, to name a couple. People in Britain and other countries, feeling that the European Union is blithely ignoring their political will, have responded by expressing that will more forcefully than ever.

A problem of weakness The thing that makes this problem so severe is not that the European Union is too strong, but that it is too weak. Consider the unfolding migrant crisis. Because the union lacks institutions muscular enough to either design or implement a Europe-wide policy, its officials have resorted to begging and cajoling member states to voluntarily resettle more refugees — and those states have largely refused. The resulting compromises haven’t made anyone happy, and have left certain states, particularly Greece and Italy, bearing the brunt on their own. Such compromises compound the sense that the bloc does not represent actual Europeans. Negotiations that attempt to balance the interests of more than two dozen distinct societies often yield unsatisfying solutions. This feels undemocratic because someone in, say, France, sees that European Union policy differs from the French national will.

The union was designed to overcome national politics, but has actually fostered more of it — much as the his- That feels like French democracy is being overridden torian Tony Judt predicted in a 1996 essay that now by a remote, unresponsive entity, and there is nothing the French can do about it. seems chillingly prescient. So member states end up inevitably thwarting one another’s democratic desires: The people of Greece want something different than do the people of Germany. But Greece is affected by Germany’s policies, and vice versa. The European Union doesn’t work like that, so it doesn’t As long as the European Union is strong enough to put feel as democratic. Its decisions seem remote, its leaders them in conflict but too weak to create a solution, it will unreachable. So when people are unhappy with Europe’s de- feel, in some sense, undemocratic. “We may wake up one day to find that far from solving the problems of our continent,” Mr. Judt wrote back then, “the myth of ‘Europe’ has become an impediment to recognizing them.”

cisions, it is easy for them to believe that it’s because Europe — some vague, amorphous body — did not listen to them, and perhaps does not even care about them.

Why elections are bad for democracy? By David Van Reybrouck - The Guardian

ur voting system worked well for decades, but now it is broken. There is a better way to give voice to the people. Brexit is a turning point in the history of western democracy. Never before has such a drastic decision been taken through so primitive a procedure – a one-round referendum based on a simple majority. Never before has the fate of a country – of an entire continent, in fact – been changed by the single swing of such a blunt axe, wielded by disenchanted and poorly informed citizens. But this is just the latest in a series of worrying blows to the health of democracy. On the surface, everything still seems fine. A few years ago, the World Values Survey, a largescale international research project, asked more than 73,000 people in 57 countries if they believed democracy was a good way to govern a country – and nearly 92% said yes. But that same survey found that in the past 10 years, around the world, there has been a considerable increase in calls for a strong leader “who does not have to bother with parliament and elections” – and that trust in governments and political parties has reached a historical low. It would appear that people like the idea of democracy but loathe the reality. Trust in the institutions of democracy is also visibly declining. In the past five years, the European Union’s official research bureau found that less than 30% of Europeans had faith in their national parliaments and governments – some of the lowest figures in years, and an indication that almost three-quarters of people distrust their countries’ most important political institutions. Everywhere in the west, political parties – the key players in our democracies – are among the least trusted institutions in society. Although a certain scepticism is an essential component of citizenship in a free society, we are justified in asking how widespread this distrust might be and at what point healthy scepticism tips over into outright aversion.? Fifty years ago, we lived in a world of greater political apathy and yet greater trust in politics. Now there is both passion and distrust. These are turbulent times, as the events of the past week demonstrate all too clearly. And yet, for all this turbulence, there has been little reflection on the tools that our democracies use. It is still a heresy to ask whether elections, in their current form, are a badly outmoded technology for converting the collective will of the people into governments and policies. We discuss and debate the outcome of a referendum without discussing its principles. This should be surprising. In a referendum, we ask people directly what they think when they have not been obliged to think – although they have certainly been bombarded by every conceivable form of manipulation in the months lea-

ding up to the vote. But the problem is not confined to referendums: in an election, you may cast your vote, but you are also casting it away for the next few years. This system of delegation to an elected representative may have been necessary in the past – when communication was slow and information was limited – but it is completely out of touch with the way citizens interact with each other today. Even in the 18th century, Jean-Jacques Rousseau had already observed that elections alone were no guarantee of liberty: “The people of England deceive themselves when they fancy they are free; they are so, in fact, only during the election of members of parliament: for, as soon as a new one is elected, they are again in chains, and are nothing.” Referendums and elections are both arcane instruments of public deliberation. If we refuse to update our democratic technology, we may find the system is beyond repair; 2016 already risks becoming the worst year for democracy since 1933. We may find, even after the folly of Brexit, that Donald Trump wins the American presidency later this year. But this may have less to do with Trump himself, or the oddities of the American political system, than with a dangerous road that all western democracies have taken: reducing democracy to voting. After all, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 states as much: “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.” The words “this will shall be expressed” are typical of our way of thinking about democracy: when we say “democracy”, we only mean “elections”. But isn’t it remarkable that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains such a precise definition of how the will of the people must be expressed? However, elections originated in a completely different context from the one that they function in today. When the supporters of the American and French revolutions proposed elections as a way of learning “the will of the people”, there were no political parties, no laws regarding universal franchise, no commercial mass media, and no internet. The forerunners of our representative democracy had no idea that any of these things would come into existence. Elections are the fossil fuel of politics. Whereas once they gave democracy a huge boost, much as oil did for our economies, it now turns out they cause colossal problems of their own. If we don’t urgently reconsider the nature of our democratic fuel, a systemic crisis awaits. If we obstinately hold on to a notion of democracy that reduces its meaning to voting in elections and referendums, at a time of economic

5. Let’s go deeper! You can help make the EU more democratic! By DemocracyNetwork.

Now the EU needs to hand power to its citizens. Here’s why. By Ulrike Guérot. A European citizens’initiative 2.0 to tackle the democratic deficit effectively. By Eléonore Garnier. Fulfilling the promise of the ECI, learning from the Right2Water experience. By Sandrine Bélier.

“U

nhappy!” citizens pointlessly crying into megaphones to call attention to their opinions.

The European Union is a union of democracy – of course, it is no one would disagree with that statement. But how do we get the feeling that citizens’ participation in the European Union isn’t really based on democratic rights? Maybe because we feel like we don’t get heard by the politicians. The only real chance citizens get to introduce their opinion and ideas is either by electing their MEPs or by starting an European Citizens Initiative (ECI). MEPs are elected by a universal suffrage, according to digressive proportionality. Which gives less populous states more influence per head. These elections for MEPs often see a low turnout of voters with under 50%. As we all know the European Parliament has no legislative powers – so even if you were to go to the election you can’t vote for the ones making the decisions “up there”. Starting an ECI sounds like a great idea but in reality, barely any of them get implemented into law. It’s not worth mentioning those which didn’t even pass the high requirements. 1.000.000 people, in 7 member states have to sign the ECI within 12 months - definitely not realistic. So what measures could be implemented to allow us, the citizens, to make our voices heard?

AUGSBURG 2018 - PRESS REVIEW INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC SUMMER FORUM

JURI

by Florence Hull (CH)

United in diversity: a motto for the EU law too? Sovereignty - The difficulties that come with transposing EU directives into national law By Florence Hull For the last 25 years, every Member state of the European Union has faced several issues in adapting to EU legislation and maintaining national sovereignty whilst bearing in mind the concept of European unity. Several Member states have brought to light the great issues faced by those that have to transpose EU directives into national law, as very often they are unclear and do not provide the resources for Member States to implement them. Thus the issue has led to the question of Sovereignty vs. Unity. EU Member States may transpose and implement directives using any mechanism they like as long as the directive is put into place and the key target is accomplished. As simple as this may seem, over the years the EU has faced a fluctuating transposition deficit and an increasing number of infringement procedures leaving many people questioning why Member States are having such a hard time transposing directives. On a European level there are several factors that contribute to the demanding and troublesome process of transposing a directive. Firstly, there is the complaint that the directive itself is identified as an issue. Prof. Bernard Steunenberg, a professor at the Leiden University, suggests that, due to its complexity, the directive may be composed in an incomplete, incompatible or inconsistent manner. This means that more time is needed to transpose it (average delays being between 6-10 months), leaving no time for the actual implementation of the directive. Directives may also be watered down or manipulated due to corrupt officials or conservative members that are simply unwilling to make changes. Dr. Victor Bekkers, Professor of Public Administration at the Erasmus Graduate School in Rotterdam, additionally states that certain directives may have “internal contradictions or are in contrary with other Community legislation”, therefore giving way to misinterpretation and non-compliance. Such infringement can be identified in France, which was fined 57.8 million euros over 6 months due to breaching EU fishing laws. Member States may see further reason to exploit a directive if they feel that their national sovereignty is under attack. These states are attached to obsolete attributes of sovereignty that do not cooperate with the growing interdependence of states as globalisation and the EU continues to spread. Since the EU depends on unity, thus contradicting sovereignty, some Member States attempt to protect their power by delaying, altering or even cancelling directive implementation. An example would be the .

What is more, another issue identified in infringement procedures is the lack of communication of feedback between the decision makers in Brussels and the implementation and enforcement bodies in the Member States. This means that a Member States is left misinformed about a directive’s requirements and could unintentionally transpose it incorrectly, thus not fulfilling its initial purpose. Implementation itself has several stages that are extremely bureaucratic and have to be worked through for every single new legislation. In 2016, 66 new directives had to be transposed and implemented which was a significant increase to the previous year with 47 directives. The completeness rate was a mere 64%; showing that certain Member States were unable to benefit from the intended effects of the non-transposed directives. A lack of communication between the EU legislators and the Member States was very likely a part of this delay. Although Member States are free to use any mechanism to transpose a directive, they may face limitations by the EU Court of Justice, whose job it is to fairly judge the implementation of directives and the legal instruments and tools used to do so. However, since the EU Member States employ different national legal systems, the itself court may have a biased over how a directive should be transposed. Even if a Member States’ transposition deficit is small, if one directive is particularly important (if it for instance contains improvements on citizen rights) and is not implemented before the deadline, citizens, businesses and stakeholders could complain to the EC, potentially launching a formal infringement process which may lead to fines, penalties or both. This in turn would harm the Member States’ economy as the financial burden could halt the advancement of national development. In several cases this has angered Member States and even limited them to the extent where leaving the EU has become a favourable option. In conclusion, the transposition process is a messy business and has yet to become favourable to all the Member States of the EU. Over the years, several Member States that still function with the desire to maintain sovereignty instead of unity make it demanding for the EC to keep them in line and still advance with the implementation of their goals. Out of the existing 2000 directives that have been passed, 470 have yet to be transposed. Thus, it may be concluded that the EU does not enable Member States the degree of sovereignty which they desire or in some cases demand.

Unity - Why union-wide legislation is worth it ? By Florence Hull

Member States of the EU have greatly benefited from the EU’s approach, despite the complaints about a loss of national sovereignty and the difficulty of transposing directives. Since the founding of the European Coal and Steal Community in 1951 (the ECSC) 72 years of peace have been predominant. The EU has four main roles: 1) To establish European citizenship 2) To ensure freedom, security and justice 3) To promote economic and social progress 4) To assert Europe’s role in the world. Through passing various laws it aims to enforce these goals onto its Member States which, by entering the EU, they have agreed to. However, with an increasing transposition deficit, implementing these aims has become harder than ever. Unified law encourages and imposes transparency and a commitment to openness whilst avoiding protectionism. Since the creation of the EEC, GDP growth has been 1/3 higher in the EU15 than in the United States and the private wealth that had been lost in the two World Wars has doubled as a percentage of national income. Naturally it can be stated that some of this growth had been achieved due to a natural catching up processes after which takes place following a war, however according to Mario Draghi in his speech for the 10th anniversary of the euro in Slovenia, “EU’s GDP per capita would be as much as one-fifth lower today if no integration had taken place since the war”. This showcases how EU-wide unity enables Member States to benefit from EU law. One country which has especially benefited from being a member of the EU is Ireland, where, according to the European Parliament, 90% of people in Ireland feel that joining the EU has paid off. Since 1973, Ireland has transformed from an agriculture-cantered economy into a modern and thriving high-tech industry and it is estimated that their net gain from EU budgets since 1976 is 44.6 billion euro. Additionally, Ireland has been immensely supported by the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework and the Youth Guarantee scheme that has helped Ireland to tackle youth unemployment and provided funds to invest in businesses, infrastructure and education standards. The EU Single Market has especially helped the export reliant economy in increasing trade in Europe and international markets which in turn has broadened the trade market for other Member States.

Generally, EU members do not only benefit from the fair trade and the stable currency (the euro), but also from legislations, such as the, Free movement of labour regulation, the Working Time directive, the Clean Water Directive and the 2020 climate & energy package all of which aim to improve the living standards of the 500 million EU citizens. If EU Member States do not comply with EU law by not transposing a directive correctly, it denies EU citizens and businesses the rights and the benefits they should enjoy under EU law. In 2017 the cases of cases of infringement have decreased drastically by 34% (from 847 in 2016 to 558 in 2017), a great improvement from 2016, illustrating that EUwide law has become more accepted and correctly implemented. EC itself naturally aims to maintain unity by providing aid to Member States which have difficulty transposing new directives. The Commission assists Member States by preparing implementation plans, dedicating websites and guidance documents and by exchanging best practice in expert group meetings. For instance, before introducing the new Data Protection Regulation (25th May 2018), they published a guidance to help Member States with the new rules in January of 2018. With the Better Law-making agreement, the EC has aimed to formulate legislations more clearly in order to make transposition and implementation easier. The use of guidelines, such as the Better Regulation Guidelines, provides as much aid as possible to individual Member States when implementing regulations or transposing directives. Overall, as hard transposition can be, compliance with EU law is seen as favourable in many Member States. The legislations made by the EC are there to benefit the EU citizens and businesses and to maintain the high standards that the EU has set out to obtain. Thus Member States, although sacrificing national sovereignty are granted prosperity and safety through unity.

4. Let’s go deeper! Better Regulation Guidelines. By the European Commission. Impact of EU membership on Ireland. By the European Commission Representation to Ireland. 15 EU laws and regulations we will miss in post-Brexit Britain. By Andy McSmith. The Rise and Fall of Europe: Unity and Challenge. By Stephen Chan. The image above illustrates the concept that whilst some countries, such as those in the Middle East, fight “for democracy” and “for sovereignty”, countries joining the EU seem to throw away these valuable privileges without a second thought. This portrays that by joining the EU Member States have to sacrifice certain aspects of their sovereignty. Also, what this may allude to is the sovereignty that these Member States would have to give up is the same sovereignty that they had fought for some time ago. Although joining the EU would remain beneficial, the idea of losing said privilege would interfere with the concept of EU unity, thus contributing to issues such as the belated transposition of EU directives.

AUGSBURG 2018 - PRESS REVIEW INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC SUMMER FORUM

SEDE

by David Teixeira (PT)

EU security and defence: back in the future? No, Europe Isn’t Ambushing NATO By Shannon Togawa Mercer - Foreign policy

ow to learn to stop worrying and love the EU’s new security and defense agreement.

European Council President Donald Tusk has hailed PESCO as the materialization of a more than half-a-century-old dream for European defense cooperation. German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel explained, according to Politico, that the EU spends “50 percent as much as the United States on defense yet only has 15 percent of its military efficiency.” Coming on the heels of the launch of the European Commission’s European Defence Fund and the European Defence Industrial Development Programme, there has been a lot of momentum to establish PESCO (an annual 5 billion euro — $6 billion — worth of momentum in the case of the European Defence Fund). What does PESCO mean for NATO? Some commentators have characterized PESCO as a European alternative at a time when a lot of Europeans are appalled at the political direction of the United States and don’t trust American leadership on security matters, particularly with respect to Russia. Other sources, including the principal director for European and NATO Policy at the U.S. Department of Defense and the PESCO notification document itself, describe it as a complement to NATO (“Enhanced defence capabilities of EU Member States will also benefit NATO. They will strengthen the European pillar within the Alliance and respond to repeated demands for stronger transatlantic burden sharing”). PESCO also comes amid consistent pressure from the United States for European NATO member states to meet their financial obligations to NATO. The commander of the Estonian Defense Forces, Gen. Riho Terras, has attributed the launch of PESCO to the European migration crisis and the annexation of Crimea. “After the migration crisis, many countries realized that the European Union would really have to think about their citizens’ security. But the idea of PESCO as a NATO competitor persists. In his hypothesized depiction of the 2020 “death” of NATO in Foreign Policy, Jeremy Shapiro writes in PESCO as the means through which Poland, France, and Germany find a “mechanism of defense … more fit” than NATO to respond to the Russian escalation of aggression in Ukraine. The editorial board at Bloomberg wrote on Nov. 30 that “it’s hard to

imagine Pesco would be anything but duplicative of NATO’s existing command structure. If allowed to go forward, Pesco would simply put needless pressure on the trans-Atlantic alliance. You know who would love that? Vladimir Putin.” The project has already seen its share of controversy. Central Europeans are concerned that the PESCO is part of Germany and the West’s domination of the EU. Of PESCO’s current 17-project roster, Germany and Italy are in charge of four projects each and France is in charge of two. Moreover, there’s reason to worry that PESCO won’t be quite as agile as needed in a military cooperation agreement. While the initial vision was that PESCO would streamline some military decisions such that they would only have to be made by PESCO members and not the EU on the whole, almost the whole EU has now signed up. There is good reason to believe that this will perpetuate bureaucratic delay and grandfather in internal disputes that plague other collective EU mechanisms instead of facilitating a faster-moving NATO equivalent. Finally, there is some worry that PESCO and NATO will run into each other as both regimes develop. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has cautioned the EU against political and military conflicts with existing commitments: “There has to be coherence between the capability developments of NATO and the European Union. We cannot risk ending up with conflicting requirements from the EU and from NATO to the same nations.” While some deconfliction may be necessary, PESCO can’t fully supplant NATO as a collective defense force. The capabilities that are developed under PESCO don’t become collective EU assets. They remain the property of each member state and must be deployed through another supranational mechanism such as NATO. All of this means that there’s no reason to believe that PESCO will significantly undercut the structure or mission of NATO. The real question is whether it will do anything at all. This is not to say that no dissonance between the two regimes will arise. How might NATO’s and PESCO’s agendas differ? First, there are the potential divergent approaches to Russia advocated for by NATO’s most dominant member, the United States, and equivalently dominant players in PESCO. [...]

3. Second, PESCO may not function forever to support the EU’s role within NATO (as many officials have asserted). It is hard to ignore the possibility that PESCO is not only a mechanism for military cooperation, but also a mechanism for bolstering EU integration. What happens if and when PESCO, now a baby, grows up? At the cusp of its first “exit,” experiencing the resurgence of domestic nationalist parties with meaningful electoral support, facing threats of domestic terrorism, fearing Russian incursion, and handling unprecedented immigration, the EU is not in fine form. From a historical perspective, the development of a national defense apparatus suggests a collective that requires defense. [...]

To the extent that PESCO evolves into a manifestation of the need to protect collective identity, real and troubling policy divergences between the United States and PESCO, the U.K. and PESCO, or Turkey and PESCO could result in NATO discord. But, at least as it stands now, PESCO is far from a NATO-slayer. There is a good chance that, with proper implementation and the discovery of greater efficiencies between EU nations, it has a modest role to play. And the reason for its modesty is simple. There is one thing that PESCO and the EU lack that is central to NATO’s success: the United States.

Warning: Europe is entering a permanent state of emergency By John Dalhuisen - The Guardian

overnments across the continent are assuming sweeping powers over all their citizens in response to the threat of terrorism. This endangers our way of life France declared a national state of emergency in the wake of the November 2015 Paris attacks.

wave after wave of counter-terrorism measures that have eroded the rule of law, enhanced executive powers, peeled away judicial controls, restricted freedom of expression and exposed everyone to government surveillance. Brick by brick, the edifice of rights protection that was so carefully constructed after the second world war is being dismantled.

Hundreds have been killed and wounded in a spate of terror attacks across Europe in the past two years. These callous crimes have not just targeted individuals, they are also attacks on our societies, our freedoms and our way of life. The need to protect people from such wanton violence is clear, but this is not something that can be achieved by any means. Crucially, it neither should nor can be achieved by riding roughshod over the very rights that governments are supposed to uphold.

In a report published today, Amnesty International reveals how a deluge of new laws and amendments rushed through by individual EU states are corroding the rule of law and undermining fundamental freedoms. The recent wave of counter-terrorism measures has often proved to be discriminatory both on paper and in practice, and has had a disproportionate and profoundly negative impact, particularly on Muslims, foreign nationals or people perceived to be Muslim or foreign.

The last two years have seen a profound shift across Europe: a move from the view that it is the role of governments to provide security so that people can enjoy their rights, to the view that governments must restrict people’s rights in order to provide security. The result has been an insidious redrawing of the boundaries between the powers of the state and the rights of individuals. In the weeks after the horrific Paris attacks in November 2015, for example, France declared a state of emergency and set about introducing a series of new counter-terrorism measures. Other countries quickly followed suit, passing draconian new laws of their own: a ripple effect spreading across Europe and resulting in an ever-deeper state of permanent securitisation.

Men, women and children have been verbally and physically abused. Passengers have been removed from planes because they “looked like a terrorist”. Women have been banned from wearing a full-body swimsuit on the beach in France. Refugee children in Greece have been arrested for playing with plastic guns.

Individual EU countries and regional bodies have responded to the attacks by proposing, adopting and implementing

One of the most alarming developments across the EU is the effort by states to make it easier to invoke and prolong a “state of emergency” as a response to terrorism or the threat of violent attacks. In a number of countries, emergency measures that are supposed to be temporary have become embedded in ordinary law. Powers intended to be exceptional are appearing more and more as permanent features of national law.

4. Given the febrile state of European politics, people should be extremely wary of the range of powers and extent of control over their lives that they are prepared to hand over to their governments. The rise of far-right political discourse, anti-refugee sentiment, stereotyping and discrimination against Muslims and intolerance of free speech or other forms of expression increase the risk that these emergency powers will target certain people for reasons that have nothing at all to do with a genuine threat to national security. Indeed, this is happening in Europe already. The threshold for the triggering and extension of emergency measures has been lowered – and runs the risk of being reduced even further in coming years. While international human rights law is clear that exceptional measures should only be applied in genuinely exceptional circumstances – namely “in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation” – the disturbing and corrosive idea that Europe faces a perpetual emergency is beginning to take hold. There are many countries in Europe, particularly those with little history of terrorism, in which hardline governments of whatever political persuasion will be tempted to impose states of emergency in response to the first serious terro-

rism-related attack they face. These governments will enjoy a range of sweeping powers whose use is unlikely to be restricted to those involved in the committing of such acts. Ultimately, however, the threat to the life of a nation – to social cohesion, to the proper functioning of institutions, to respect for human rights and the rule of law – does not come from the isolated acts of a violent criminal fringe, however much they may wish to destroy these institutions and undermine these principles. It comes from governments and societies that are prepared to abandon their own values in confronting them. On 15 November 2015, two days after his wife was killed in the Bataclan theatre in Paris, Antoine Leiris wrote an open letter to the killers. “On Friday night, you stole the life of an exceptional being, the love of my life, the mother of my son, but you will not have my hate … You want me to be scared, to see my fellow citizens through suspicious eyes, to sacrifice my freedom for security. You have failed. I will not change.” If we are to avoid creating societies in which liberty becomes the exception and fear the rule, we must follow Leiris’s example. We must not allow fear to change us.

his is a poster used to show “PESCO: European defence’s last frontier”. It shows soldiers from a variety of different countries coming together with a common goal; planting the flag of the European Union. Despite the fact that they come from different countries they are working together for a greater good. This conveys the concept that co-operation and integration of Member States are of utmost importance when it comes to security measures in the EU. Let’s go deeper! Security and defence infographics. By the European External Action Service. The EU-PESCO agreement and the Nato. Map created with Vizzlo. Who are the largest defence spenders around the globe? By EU Institute for Security Studies. EU now: EU Defense Through the Lens of a U.S. Transatlantic Security Expert? By Martin Caudron.

AUGSBURG 2018 - PRESS REVIEW INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC SUMMER FORUM

TERR

by Mireia Marquillas (es)

The need to monitor citizens’ use of the Internet The Case for Internet Surveillance By Daniel J. Gallington - U.S. News (adapted by Mireia Marquillas)

eeping an eye on Internet communications is key to keeping the nation safe.

So, two key policy questions emerge from this discussion and the technical realities of today’s Internet: •

•

First, do all of us, including the spies, terrorists and kidnappers among us, have a reasonable expectation of privacy when we use the Internet today? And to what extent, if any, have the various democratic governments betrayed the modern day realities of the Internet by their various degrees of monitoring? Second, what effect – if any – on the expectation of privacy should efforts to encrypt Internet communications have? In other words, when someone encrypts their Internet communications, are they somehow entitled to more privacy or does it make the Internet less secure because of the government’s possible need to decrypt it, for one reason or another, good or bad. Even more fundamental perhaps – and not intended to be silly – should spies, terrorists and kidnappers be able to encrypt their communications with the expectation of privacy?

It would seem that, in turn, the key to these questions (and also the key to whether our government has been and is acting responsibly) is this more fundamental question: How do we determine whether someone’s or something’s Internet communications are related to espionage, terrorism or criminal activity – the assumption here being that if they are, then our government should know about it and be able to watch them to keep us safe. It seems reasonable to conclude that: 1) The expectation of Internet privacy does not, should not – never has and never should – extend to spies, terrorist and criminals; 2) Our government should be monitoring the communications of

these people, whether they are encrypted or not (and perhaps especially if they are); and 3) Our main focus, therefore, should be on how, who and on what basis (or threshold) a determination is made to look at a particular Internet communication or category of communications, and how this determination is monitored and by who. If we knew, based on reliable information or sources that Internet user X was in fact engaged in espionage, terrorism or criminal activity, it seems clear that our system should enable intrusive surveillance of X’s Internet usage, just as it would X’s telephone. Also, it would seem reasonable to also look at whom X was communicating with, if only to see if the communications were routine – e.g., to order a pizza – or if they were to someone else engaged in espionage, terrorism or criminal activity or were somehow related to those activities. Assuming it were technically possible to somehow sort through huge amounts of Internet traffic, by using key words or other kinds of data in some kind of search engine, and if there were several layers of review, including human review, in such a process, could it then be reasonable to selectively look at the content of the traffic, provided such was also 1) approved by a judge or a senior official, and 2) was allowed for only a limited period of time, and 3) was subject to periodic review? This kind of examination may not necessarily require the identity of the communicators, until and unless such was approved by an additional/similar process that required a specific approval. Would such an approach to looking at Internet traffic for spies, terrorists and criminals be 1) reasonable 2) constitutional, and could it be established by public law and implemented by executive order and regulation, provided the Congress was kept in the loop with regular oversight reporting?

When states monitored their citizens we used to call them authoritarian Now we think this is what keeps us safe By Suzanne Moore - The guardian

he internet is being snooped on and CCTV is everywhere. How did we come to accept that this is just the way things are? What I failed to grasp was quite how much I had already surrendered my liberty, not just personally but my political ideals about what liberty means. I simply took for granted that everyone can see everything and laughed at the idea that Obama will be looking at my pictures of a cat dressed as a lobster. I was resigned to the fact that some random FBI merchant will wonder at the inane and profane nature of my drunken tweets. Slowly but surely, The Lives of Others have become ours. CCTV cameras everywhere watch us, so we no longer watch out for each other. Public space is controlled. Of course, much CCTV footage is never seen and often useless. But we don’t need the panopticon once we have built one in our own minds. We are all suspects. Or at least consumers. iTunes thinks I might like Bowie; Amazon thinks I want a compact tumble dryer. Really? Facebook seems to think I want to date men in uniform. I revel in the fact that the algorithms get it as wrong as the man who knocks on my door selling fish out of a van. «And not just fish,» as he sometimes says mysteriously. But how did I come to accept that all this data gathered about me is just the way it is? Wasn’t I once interested in civil liberties? Didn’t freedom somehow incorporate the idea of individual privacy? When the state monitored all its citizens as though they were suspects – whether in East Germany or North Korea – we called it authoritarianism. Now we think it is what keeps us safe. In 2009 I sat on a panel with Vince Cable at the cross-party Convention on Modern Liberty. Cable told us that a recession could provide the preconditions for fascism. Gosh, I thought, that’s a bit strong. Then the recession hit and austerity became the narrative that subsumed all debates about freedom. No one poor is free, and it is no coincidence that the poor are the most snooped on of all.

What Snowden, who is no spy, has revealed is the nature of the game: that surveillance is a huge private industry; that almost full control of the internet has been achieved already; that politicians here and in the US have totally acquiesced to industrial-scale snooping. There is a generation now made up of people who will never have had a private conversation online or by phone. These are my children. And should they or anyone else want to organise against the powers that be, they will be traceable. We have sleepwalked into this because liberty remains such an alien concept, still. But the US has the fourth amendment: «The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure, shall not be violated.» It has been violated. Bradley Manning is in prison, Guantánamo remains open, CIA agents who spoke out about waterboarding are banged up. And there are other kinds of whistleblowers who conveniently kill themselves. The letter from Daniel Somers, who served in Iraq, says he was made to do things he could not live with. He described his suicide as a mercy killing and reminded us that 22 veterans kill themselves every day. This is not whistleblowing. It is screaming into a void. But we remain passive while other European countries are angry at what Snowden has told us. We maintain the special relationship. For Snowden, the truth will not set him free, it will imprison him forever. We now debate whether we should exchange liberty for security, but it is too late. As Christopher Dawson said: «As soon as men decide all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil they set out to destroy.» He could have been talking about our passivity. When did you surrender your freedom to communicate, something that was yours and yours alone, whether an email to a lover or a picture of your child? Ask yourself, do you feel safer now you know that you have no secrets? Now, the intimacies that are of no import to anyone but you have been subject to virtual extraordinary rendition. Because, fundamentally, your government does not trust you. Why therefore should you trust it?

he use of Internet and electronic devices is increasing daily. In fact, it is said that there are more mobile devices than people in the world. This could become a threat to all the users due to the fact that terrorists and criminals can take advantage of it. In order to prevent this, the police force and government institutions are responsible for protecting our data and avoiding possible cyber attacks. This photograph metaphorically represents just that: the protection that governments should bring to their citizens.

Let’s go deeper! How terrorists use the internet. By Gabriel Weimann Together against terrorist use of internet. By UK, France and Italy to the UN. Fight against terrorism: it’s a challenge we share. By President of the French Republic - Emmanuel Macron (speech) The Life of a Cyberthreat. By IBM Security

Terrorists are always planning new attacks, using the Internet’s potential: they communicate to each other by Telegram, recruit new members on Twitter or the Deep Web, search for new weaknesses, learn new techniques and skills… They also utilise the internet to look for information -for example, they try to gain access to bank accounts or private information- to use it during and before their attacks. The governments are constantly searching for solutions in two different ways: protecting our data and finding solutions to detect next terror attacks.

AUGSBURG 2018 - PRESS REVIEW INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC SUMMER FORUM

DEVE

by Leonor Amaral (PT)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 70 years old, happy birthday ? Why foreign aid fails – and how to really help Africa. By Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson - The Spectator

“T

he idea that large donations can remedy poverty has dominated the theory of economic development — and the thinking in many international aid agencies and governments — since the 1950s. And how have the results been? Not so good, actually. Millions have moved out of abject poverty around the world over the past six decades, but that has had little to do with foreign aid. Rather, it is due to economic growth in countries in Asia which received little aid. The World Bank has calculated that between 1981 and 2010, the number of poor people in the world fell by about 700 million — and that in China over the same period, the number of poor people fell by 627 million. In the meantime, more than a quarter of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa are poorer now than in 1960 — with no sign that foreign aid, however substantive, will end poverty there. Last year, perhaps the most striking illustration came from Liberia, which has received massive amounts of aid for a decade. In 2011, according to the OECD, official development aid to Liberia totalled $765 million, and made up 73 per cent of its gross national income. The sum was even larger in 2010. But last year every one of the 25,000 students who took the exam to enter the University of Liberia failed. All of the aid is still failing to provide a decent education to Liberians.

One could imagine that many factors have kept sub-Saharan Africa poor — famines, civil wars. But huge aid flows appear to have done little to change the development trajectories of poor countries, particularly in Africa. Why? As we spell out in our book, this is not to do with a vicious circle of poverty, waiting to be broken by foreign money. Poverty is instead created by economic institutions that systematically block the incentives and opportunities of poor people to make things better for themselves, their neighbours and their country. Recognising that poor countries are poor because they have extractive institutions helps us understand how best to help them. It also casts a different light on the idea of foreign aid. We do not argue for its reduction. Even if a huge amount of aid is siphoned off by the powerful, the cash can still do a lot of good. It can put roofs on schools, lay roads or build wells. Giving money can feed the hungry, and help the sick — but it does not free people from the institutions that make them hungry and sick in the first place. It doesn’t free them from the system which saps their opportunities and incentives. When aid is given to governments that preside over extractive institutions, it can be at best irrelevant, at worst downright counter-productive. Aid to Angola, for example, is likely to help the president’s daughter rather than the average citizen.”

Here are 10 reasons why providing foreign aid to LDCs is so important By Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson - The Spectator

It can be used as humanitarian aid. This form of aid is generally given during times of great distress such as natural disasters until the state can support the disaster relief effort. The European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid categorizes humanitarian aid as a “…needs-based emergency response aimed at preserving life, preventing and alleviating human suffering, and maintaining human dignity wherever the need arises if governments and local actors are overwhelmed, unable, or unwilling to act.”

It can help LDCs fight against diseases such as HIV/ AIDS. HIV and AIDS are still a major threat in countries such as Africa and require support from other countries willing to help with the crisis. Organizations and governments around the globe, such as UNITAID and PEPFAR,

provide aid to help fight HIV/AIDS in LDCs. A new plan submitted by UNAIDS projects the end of the HIV epidemic as a public health threat by 2030. The new plan would need $26.2 billion by 2020 and an additional $22.3 billion by 2030 to eliminate the disease.

It helps with economic growth in LDCs. Aid is generally given in countries that are characterized as low income or that have high unemployment rates. This results in low savings and investments, meaning the capital stock is small. Countries that are provided aid need rapid economic development. Providing aid stimulates the growth of the world economy along with promoting economic development within the region.

It can help with market expansion. Providing aid to a country could mean the expansion of goods and resources that can be shared between the two countries. This can attract new investors into the country further improving the LDCs economy.

It helps with basic infrastructure in LDCs. Another key component to promoting a strong economy is the expansion of a well-developed infrastructure. Basic necessities such as transport, communication, power, education, health services and industry serve as key components to building a strong and long-lasting infrastructure.

It helps promote improvements in agriculture. Aid can be used to teach farmers how to utilize their land and resources more efficiently to produce more crops. This, in turn, provides vitamin and nutrient giving foods to people living in LDCs.

It can help with poverty relief. In 2013, 767 million people (10.7 percent of the world population) lived on less than $1.90 a day, well below the world poverty line. This is a drastic improvement from the 1.85 billion in 1990 and the number has gotten significantly better over the years.

However, there is still much to do. Many of the global poor live in rural areas where they do not have access to adequate medical treatment and education.

It helps LDCs grow and become more independent. By providing aid to promote health, education, and infrastructure, LDCs can focus more on growing their economies. By reducing the amount of disease and poverty, citizens of these regions will be able to flourish and contribute to the growth of the country.

It promotes political ties. Aid can be used to establish and strengthen the connection between the donor and recipient countries. Aid is given to both LDCs and developed countries alike to promote solidarity and companionship.

10.

It makes the world safer. Providing LDCs with aid and development reduces the threat of terrorist organizations by alleviating poverty in susceptible countries. A study provided by the RAND Corporation concluded that development is a more effective strategy against terrorism than military force.”

nternational Aid is a topic which often generates great controversy. Some believe that it is very helpful whilst others view it as a temporary solution to a permanent problem. We know that this aid may fall into the wrong hands, after having left the pockets of taxpayers and Governments with the best of intentions in mind. This cartoon illustrates a different side of this problem whilst most concentrate on the corruption surrounding external aid. The aid is shown brandishing a barcode - representing its value - being dropped from expensive helicopters, which pay no heed to its recipients. It also shows the destruction, caused by natural catastrophes or wars, which leads to a country’s need for aid. These countries citizens’ need for help is represented by the single raised hand, about to be met by a rapidly falling box. This encapsulates how aid can cause more harm than good when it is not delivered correctly.

Let’s go deeper! UK among six countries to hit 0.7% UN aid spending target. By Ben Quinn Proof That Government Development Aid Doesn’t Produce Economic Growth. By Tim Worstall Foreign Aid: Are we really helping others or just ourselves? By Maliha Chishti

Aid is most certainly not a negative thing, however, it is a layered, complex subject of European countries far from meeting development aid promises. By which the consequences must be measured, Cécile Barbière and action tailored to the problem at hand.

AUGSBURG 2018 - PRESS REVIEW INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC SUMMER FORUM

Droi

by Marina Zhideleva (RU)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 70 years old, happy birthday ? The Failure of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights By Jacob Dolinger - University of Miami Law School

he UN Human Rights Commission dedicated over two years to the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was approved by the General Assembly in 1948. The underlying reason for the Declaration was the genocide executed by Hitler’s Nazi Germany against the Jewish people throughout Europe during the Second World War. The fundamental mistake of the Commission was that the persecution by the Nazis was not directed against individual persons, but against an entire people, whereas the Declaration deals exclusively with the rights of the individual human being, no reference whatsoever made in the document to collectivities.

tortured and murdered by the innumerable dictators that converted the second half of the twentieth century into one long succession of rivers of blood, the millions of women and children that have been, and continue to be, sold into slavery and sex, the millions of women cruelly discriminated in Muslim countries, or the hundreds of thousands of Christians discriminated and persecuted in those countries.

Moreover, the Declaration has no force of law as it is a mere declaration with no effect over the horrors suffered by many peoples since its adoption by the UN. Therefore it is not correct to incorporate it in the realm of International Law. Considering that the majority of the UN state members do not comply with the principles of the Declaration, and that the international organization has practically never come to the help of communities under the most cruel persecutions, victims of terrible atrocities, real genocides, the author concludes - despite a series of United Nations proclamations and in disagreement with illustrious authors of international law - that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been a total failure.

The drafters of the Declaration committed a major historical and legal mistake by tying the principles and rules of the Declaration to Hitler’s devilish regime. Scholars that followed this analysis have equally erred. The Declaration was intended to protect individuals, but it does not deal with minorities or any kind of human collectivity that suffers under dictatorships or cruel regimes—where the real suffering of human beings is concentrated. Instead, the Declaration is nothing more than a mere declaration. It has no force of law, and was a wasted effort.

The authors of the Declaration recognized that acceptance of a legally-binding treaty would prove very difficult to obtain, but that it would be relatively easy to reach agreement on the text of a hortatory declaration. The Declaration was seen as having only moral force, binding only in the sphere of conscience. As such, every state is entitled to interpret its provisions in its own light as to the ethical rights and wrongs of any given situation. Actually, denial of its legal character appeared at the very moment of its approval by the General Assembly on December 10, 1948 when the delegate to the United States, Eleanor Roosevelt, said, “It is not a treaty; it is not an international agreement. It is not and does not purport to be a statement of law or of legal obligation.” Almost seven decades after the approval of the Declaration, we now know that even if we were to attribute a legal, positivistic character above natural law to the Declaration, it still would have failed to help the millions of victims to human rights violations. The victims include those who were

And yet, it is important to emphasize, there is not one line in the whole Declaration which guarantees that in the future, a persecuted person, racial tribe, or religious or ethnic group will be protected by the United Nations.

The majority of the States that make up the United Nations in our time are not human rights observant in their internal affairs. In fact, the states most involved in drafting the Declaration were violating basic human rights principles themselves, which only demonstrates the hypocrisy in which the Declaration was born. This hypocrisy has continued throughout almost seventy years, as, with a few rare exceptions, neither the UN nor a group of states have acted to bring real, effective help to a persecuted minority. To add insult to injury, democracies continue their commercial and economic dealings with the greatest human rights deniers. Legal literature, many states’, and later UN proclamations and declarations have vehemently urged the importance and validity of the Declaration, but are completely oblivious to the realities on the ground. Terrible sufferings, such as persecutions, discriminations, lack of basic liberties, ethnic cleansings, atrocities of all kinds, and actual genocides, have affected, and continue to affect, billions of people throughout the world. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the documents that followed have had no influence over those tragedies.

Dignity and hope: too much to ask for? By Nick Fraser - The Guardian

ixty years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, how well have the original objectives of this ‘Magna Carta of all men everywhere’ fared? In a world gripped by a ‘war on terror’ and with conflict erupting on almost every continent, what hope is there for extending respect, freedom and rights to everyone? Perhaps it’s time to rethink the politics of human rights for the 21st century. The declaration was one of a number of documents adopted by the newly created UN as part of the postwar effort to save humanity from further bloodshed. It is emphatically a document of its time, making no mention of many things that liberals would now regard as their inalienable rights - to express one’s own sexuality by choosing partners of either sex in perfect freedom - and of course no mention of the death penalty and abortion. Much of the declaration reeks of the collectivist, welfarist consensus of the late 1940s. David Cameron and contemporary conservatives would find nothing to object to in its evocation of its importance of the family as the cornerstone of civilisation. Truly striking, however, are the guarantees of free speech, freedom to migrate (as crucial a right for refugees in the 1940s as it is for the world’s migrants today), and the basic kit of political freedom that comprises what democrats value in the contemporary world. ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers’ (Article 19). No one could have put it better, even after all these years of attempts to implement these principles. Franklin Roosevelt’s widow, Eleanor, who presented the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the General Assembly on a winter’s day in 1948, in Paris, would be astonished by the proliferation of treaties and declarations designed to further the cause, and she would certainly be encouraged by the arrival of a new international style of public life. No non-governmental organisations (NGOs) existed in her lifetime, and we can imagine her as a member of Amnesty or Human Rights Watch. But she might be shocked to discover that the undertakings made in the wake of the mid-century catastrophe hadn’t borne much fruit. The killing fields are still open, though they may be more carefully hidden and on a smaller scale.

As the neocons tell us, parts of the world appear bent on perfecting authoritarian systems. Because of their beliefs, Islamists can have no regard for secular rights. Just as worrying is the assertion (invariably made by those who wish to dispense with them, finding expression in many deeply shocking documents churned out by the UN) that human rights belong to the West, either a rich man’s toy or a legacy of imperialists. Human rights may simply be a last, ineffectual expression of Samaritanism in a post-Christian world in which suffering is commemorated but no one ever meets the victims. Trying to impose standards by means of pieces of paper which express high humanitarian aims may be what we do when we no longer have the power or the will to engage with the messiness of real politics. Put another way, human rights may merely be a way of appearing to save the world for those who don’t want to try too hard to do so. The lawyer and author Geoffrey Robertson outlines his pet project - a Convention Against Tyranny capable of giving legal justification in order to overthrow evildoers. ‘At present it would be confined to situations where genocide or widespread murder and torture are being inflicted by state agencies,’ he says. ‘But there are other forms of barbarism: the Taliban’s denial of education to women and girls and execution of homosexuals. Mugabe’s destruction of democracy and use of starvation and thuggery as political weapons. That is for the future.’ If not beady-eyed, the redoubtable Irene Khan, secretary general of Amnesty, turns out to be nearly as positive. ‘You have to think of the Europe of 1938,’ she says. ‘The biggest European country was ruled by a government that persecuted minorities, arranging «disappearances». That would be unthinkable now.’ Khan points to all the treaties signed in the past 60 years. ‘We don’t need any more declarations about rights,’ she says. ‘The problem is implementation.’ Abstractions such as peace and security make sense only if states treat their citizens properly - and are prepared to extend such rights to the citizens of other states. But human-rights culture has wrongly neglected the notion of dignity. Freedoms mean nothing if people have no sense of their own worth.

4. Let’s go deeper! Human rights and data: Views from a leader in the EU Parliament. By Brookings Institution Human rights. By European Union

About Freedom in the World: An annual study of political rights and civil liberties. By Freedom in the World

he picture represents nations facing a wall on their way to gaining their human rights. Just a small part of the global community The EU - enjoys a great view whilst leaving other nations in the dark. Their struggles are eternal unless they get the helping hand they need to enable them to have a brighter future. Human rights violations in counterterrorism measures, poor detention conditions and curbs on freedom of expression and the right to privacy are the among the key concerns in a new report on human rights issues in Europe. «Migration and asylum policies remain focused on keeping irregular migrants, including children, out of the EU and removing those who are present rather than ensuring their rights are protected. Racist and xenophobic incidents and policies, particularly affecting the Roma and Sinti, Jewish, and Muslim populations, as well as migrants, were an issue in a number of EU states,» the report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) says.

AUGSBURG 2018 - PRESS REVIEW INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC SUMMER FORUM

ugsburg 2018

International Academic Summer Forum