Academic Preparation Kit Athens 66th International Session of the EYP by International Office of the European Youth Parliament

Athens 2011 EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY 2.0 - REDISCOVERING DEMOCRACY IN ITS BIRTHPLACE Topic Preparation Kit

Partner:

DELEGATESâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; PREPARATION KIT I

Committee Topics

For your information you will find a list of all 15 Committee Topics. Always be aware of the work of the other Committees, since everybody will participate in the final discussions of the General Assembly.

Committee Topic Preparation

Overviews: The overviews are written by the Committee chairpersons to serve as background material. They aim to identify the key issues at stake while synthesizing the topic area. The objective is naturally to keep these overviews as balanced as possible, yet they may not receive unanimous consent. It should be noted that the EYP strongly encourages independent thinking so feel free to disagree! Keywords: The non-exhaustive list of keywords intends to facilitate searching for information, may it be documents, news items or articles, at different types of search engines, news websites and encyclopedias. Research Links: As regards the suggestions for research links, the list is by no means exhaustive. Rather than citing individual links, we have preferred indicating links to websites where several relevant documents and articles can be found. Please note that the EYP is not responsible for the contents on various websites; the texts reflect the opinions of their authors only.

We wish you successful preparation and interesting reading!

Hamed Mobasser President

Hadrien Segond Governing Body

Jan-Philipp Beck Executive Director

Committee Topics

1. Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) With Copenhagen and Cancun already behind us and Durban up ahead – is this enough? What approach should Europe take to tackle the challenge of climate change? 2. Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) Finding a balance between digital access and the need for privacy: How can the EU encourage the development of electronic communications without creating a voyeur society? 3. Committee on Constitutional Affairs I (AFCO I) In light of the continually declining voter turnout in European and national elections: In an age wherein the world's leading democracies are making a shift into the digital world, what should Europe do to revitalise its democratic culture? 4. Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) Given the political unrest surrounding recent elections in Belarus: What strategy should Europe adopt to deal with the continent’s last dictatorship? 5. Committee on Security and Defence (SEDE) Considering the growing concerns over Iran’s nuclear programme: How should Europe act to ensure peace, stability and security in the region? 6. Committee on Human Rights (DROI) With Islamophobia on the rise, nationalist parties are gaining support in many parts of Europe. How can the EU realise its ideal of peaceful religious diversity, freedom of thought and freedom from discrimination as ensured under the Charter of Fundamental Rights? 7. Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs I (LIBE I) With strict media laws having been introduced in Hungary and concerns expressed over free and objective media in Italy: How can the EU ensure its citizens’ right to freedom of information as well as freedom of the press? 8. Committee on Development (DEVE) After the resignation of Ben Ali and Mubarak and considering the on-going mass demonstrations in other countries of the region: How should Europe react to these changes in the Arab world? 9. Committee on International Trade (INTA) The monopolisation of knowledge against public interest or the necessity to ensure economic growth and innovation: What position should Europe take in the debate over stricter legislation and international trade agreements on intellectual property and the growing criticism of stricter regulation and enforcement?

10. Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) Creating opportunities for future generations: What actions should European governments take to decrease dramatically high youth unemployment rates? 11. Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs II (LIBE II) With more and more people trying to reach Europe’s southern borders via the Mediterranean Sea: What strategy should Europe adopt to deal with ever increasing migration? 12. Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) With more than 30% of all Europeans never having used the internet: What strategy should Europe adopt to achieve the ‘digital inclusion’ of all citizens in order to face the challenges and use the opportunities of the digital age? 13. Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) In light of the Euro crisis: What should Europe’s economic governance be like in the future? 14. Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) A call for the next big step forward: What measures should Europe adopt to regain the global lead in higher education? 15. Committee on Constitutional Affairs II (AFCO II) An ever growing European Union? What should the EU’s answer be to neighbouring states attempting to join the European Union?

III

Committee Topic Preparation

1. Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) Kerstin Mathias With Copenhagen and Cancun already behind us and Durban up ahead – is this enough? What approach should Europe take to tackle the challenge of climate change?

OVERVIEW While many citizens, politicians and scientists claim that climate change is one of the greatest social, economic and environmental challenges of our time, others fear that the issue has been securitised and demand for it to be lower on the European Union‘s (EU) current agenda. The question that therefore needs to be answered before being able to progress further is “Where on the EU’s agenda the fight against climate change should be placed?” After having determined the EU‘s climate change aims and interests both within its own borders and beyond, while not dismissing the need to prioritise actions, the main political aspect of this topic can be tackled. Key issues to be addressed are: 1. Future form and platforms of negotiations: Development of a single, comprehensive global regime, such the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) versus more flexible, decentralised negotiations involving multiple agreements and/or smaller groups of countries or private-sector parties (for example, like-minded states or companies); 2. Time frame: Short or medium-term time frame versus long-term evolution and development of a regime; 3. Mitigation commitments: a) Approaches to defining commitments: Top-down (multilateral negotiation of commitments) versus bottom-up (seeking to encourage countries to make pledges of domestic measures); b) Type of commitments: Quantitative emission targets (fixed, national, Kyotolike targets, dynamic, dual, sectoral, etc.) versus non-target-based approaches (harmonised domestic policies, development-focused approaches, technology standards); c) Stringency of commitments: relatively weak commitments versus more stringent commitments;

d) Differentiation and burden sharing: Targets allocation on the basis of population, historical responsibility, etc. versus differentiation between developed and developing countries or indeed additional categories (e.g. on the basis of per capita GDP, per capita emissions, total emissions); Adaptation: UNFCCC approaches versus liability or insurance schemes to provide compensation to countries adversely affected by climate change.

In order to revise the EU‘s current strategy it is crucial to know what it is characterised by at the moment. According to data provided by the European Environmental Agency (EEA), the EU is responsible for around 22 per cent of all global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Hence, within the framework of the Second European Climate Change Programme (ECCP II) the EU has already put forward a few possible solutions. These include cross-cutting measures, such as the EU emission trading scheme (EU ETS) and the use of Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM) and Joint Implementation Mechanisms (JI), as well as action regarding energy demand and supply, investment in research and development (R&D), such as energy efficiency tools, renewable energy sources, carbon capture and storage (CCS) geo-engineering, transport and industry. Most prominent is probably its 20/20/20 strategy. Even though the Kyoto Protocol contributed little to decreasing global emissions according to the World Bank‘s World Development Report 2010, reaching a global deal on climate change has always been a top priority for the EU. While the Copenhagen Climate Conference was largely considered a disappointment, the Cancun Agreement (COP 16) marks progress in the areas of emissions, finance, forest protection, as well as the setting up of a “Green Climate Fund“ and the "Cancun Adaptation Framework". Next to this a number of bilateral agreements and projects are already in place, notably with China and India. Furthermore, the EU has proposed creating a Global Climate Change Alliance between the EU and developing countries, in particular the least economically developed countries (LEDCs) and small island developing states (SIDS). Also the Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Funding (GEEREF) was launched by the European Commission. Climate change is a wicked problem. It is therefore of great importance for the EU to follow a coherent strategy. What can and should it contribute to tackling global climate change involving a great variety of different stakeholders, especially in light of its economic problems? Balancing advantages against disadvantages of potential next steps, should, and if so how can, the EU lead international climate negotiations and find measures that exceed unilateral commitments, bilateral agreements and financial contributions? And how can it thereby develop a new form of climate diplomacy?

KEY WORDS Kyoto Protocol, Cancun Climate Conference, Second European Climate Change Programme (ECCP II), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC, EU climate and energy package, Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), greenhouse gases (GHG), carbon capture and storage (CCS), geoengineering

LINKS Official Sources What is currently being done: Building a post 2012 global climate regime http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/future_action.htm An overview of the ECCP I and II http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/pdf/eu_climate_change_progr.pdf An overview of the global EU actions against climate change http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/pdf/eu_climate_change_progr.pdf Information on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change http://unfccc.int/2860.phpOverview Information by the European Commission on climate change http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/home_en.htm Summaries of EU legislation on energy and environment http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment/index_en.htm# Information on climate change adaptation http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/adaptation/index_en.htm Commissioner on Climate Action: Connie Hedegaard http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/hedegaard/index_en.htm Information by the European Environmental Agency http://www.eea.europa.eu/

Informative Material Introductory United Nations Environment Programme http://www.unep.org/climatechange/Introduction/tabid/233/language/en-US/Default.aspx IPCC: Climate Change 2007 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Synthesis Report (52 pages) http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

Factsheet on climate change by the European Commission http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/factsheets/climate_change.pdf Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change http://www.webcitation.org/5nCeyEYJr The Kyoto Protocol: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php Approaches to Climate Change: An Ethical Approach: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/scienceand-technology/climate-change/ A Conceptual Approach: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Conceptual_approaches_to_climate_change_vulnerability_assessmen ts A Research Approach: http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7399 A Successful Approach: http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=19625911 A Human Rights Approach: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/elr/vol33_2/Limon.pdf

News articles, papers and opinion pieces Policy Network: “It’s time for a post Cancun strategy” http://www.policy-network.net/articles/3917/Its-time-for-a-post-Cancún-strategy Time: “Lessons from the Copenhagen climate talks“ http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070_1949054,00.html Reuters: “Climate finance key for Cancun talks” http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6221BZ20100303 EurActiv: “Brussels to play down ‘carbon leakage’ threat” http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-environment/eu-plays-down-carbon-leakage-threat494359

news-

The Guardian: “One lesson not learnt from Cancun“ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/dec/02/cancun-climate-change-summit-mexico Grist: “Can a technology- first approach work? http://www.grist.org/article/2010-10-14-can-a-technology-first-approach-to-climate-change-work/ Tony Abbott: “A realists’ approach to climate change” http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/News/tabid/94/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/7087/A-REALISTSAPPROACH-TO-CLIMATE-CHANGE.aspx The Telegraph: “Cancun Climate Agreement” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8197785/Cancun-climate-agreementAnalysis-of-the-text.html

2. Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) Drazen Puklavec Finding a balance between digital access and the need for privacy: How can the EU encourage the development of electronic communications without creating a voyeur society?

OVERVIEW The Internet has been the most fundamental change during my lifetime and for hundreds of years. ~ Rupert Murdoch The subject of how modern communication technologies alter the way in which various entities of the private sector, the public sector and civil society interact, has spurred much debate. Internet has been one of the most powerful drivers of change in our global society and has greatly shaped the way that we communicate, connect, organise our lives and educate ourselves. From a novelty that initially attracted only academics and IT experts, internet has now become a public utility that is fueling our economic, social and political development. One of the most important changes this development has introduced is that people have many new ways to impart and access information about the world and about other people. This abundance of information has brought success to numerous companies by allowing them access to the global market, with no regard to their size; it has helped develop international cooperation between NGOs and contributed to the establishment of networks of never before seen magnitude; it has, in its lightest moment democratised our society by allowing the voices of the underprivileged and oppressed to be heard. But what if that information is private? Every time someone accesses the internet and reads, buys or just searches for something, traces of his or her personal information are left all over the web. EU legislation requires that users be notified every time information about them is being gathered so that they could give their consent. It even demands that the purpose of the gathering and the profile of the data controller be revealed, but this is regularly breached when different applications store information automatically and often without peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s knowledge or consent. Given that violations of this right come from such diverse sources as individuals, private companies, IT criminals and even our own governments, it is hard to apply a universal legislative solution. Giving up some private details arguably brings us a better user experience and enables companies to tailor their services to the specific needs of consumers, but there is no way of ensuring that this information will not be shared with

third parties. Data retention aids in apprehending criminal activities, but can the institutions responsible for gathering them be trusted to respect the line between public security and private information and not abuse the gathered information? In principle, sensitive information such as data relating to racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or data concerning health or sexual preference should not be stored, but with the growing popularity of social networking it is almost naĂŻve to think this is true. Should this problem be resolved by further restricting access to private information or with better control of the institutions handling them, or both? No one can argue against the benefits gained from the development of these technologies, but in a time when technology can move faster than the law, how can we ensure that we control and anticipate the implications of these major changes in our society?

KEYWORDS Global Society, Information Society, data retention, data protection, online privacy, EDPS, ENISA

LINKS Official Sources Institutions in the EU dealing with data protection and privacy: European Data protection Supervisor http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/edps/EDPS?lang=en http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2002/l_183/l_18320020712en00010002.pdf European Network and Information Security Agencyhttp://www.enisa.europa.eu/ http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/information_society/l24153_en.htm The European Privacy Institutehttp://www.privacyinstitute.eu/?page_id=2

Informative Material Definition of privacy: Pro-market perspective http://www.privacilla.org/fundamentals.html Human rights perspective http://www.craigbellamy.net/2006/04/24/privacy/

Civil liberties perspective http://www.eff.org/work Data protection: Overview of data protection legislation http://www.dataprotection.eu/pmwiki/pmwiki.php Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/108.htm Council of Europe web site dedicated to the Convention http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/DataProtection/default_en.asp Directive of the EU concerning personal data http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/information_society/l14012_en.htm Data protection guide in EU legislation http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/index_en.htm Development of information and communication technologies: Information technology and innovation in business http://www.euractiv.com/en/innovation/information-technology-innovation-smes/article-180285 Lisa Gansky- sharing is the future of business http://www.ted.com/talks/lisa_gansky_the_future_of_business_is_the_mesh.html Digital Agenda for Europe http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/pillar.cfm?pillar_id=43&pillar=Digital%20Singl e%20Market Data retention: Directive of the EU on data retentionhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:105:0054:0063:EN:PDF The "moment of truth" for the Data Retention Directive: EDPS demands clear evidence of necessity http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=EDPS/10/17&format=HTML&aged=0&lang uage=EN&guiLanguage=en INDECT, project to catch criminals online http://www.indect-project.eu/ Online privacy in practice: ‘Bittersweet cookies’: new types of ‘cookies’ raise online security and privacy concerns http://www.enisa.europa.eu/media/press-releases/2018bittersweet-cookies2019-new-types-of2018cookies2019-raise-online-security-privacy-concerns Web firms face EU data privacy crackdown http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/web-firms-face-eu-data-privacy-crackdown-news-499412

Media Coverage Legal confusion on internet privacy http://www.economist.com/node/16377097 Apps secretly sharing data http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/29/apps-secretly-sharing-per_n_662886.html

3. Committee on Constitutional Affairs I (AFCO I) Katrina Šuvajeva In light of the continually declining voter turnout in European and national elections: In an age wherein World’s leading democracies are making a shift into the digital world, what should Europe do to revitalise its democratic culture? OVERVIEW In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21 determines one of the most fundamental political rights: ‘a right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representative’, as well as sets out the principles of electoral procedures: ‘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 right to take part in the local and national governance of one’s home country and the EU serves as one of the basic features of democracy and without this right, the democratic regime itself would be endangered. Although democratic societies ensure that their citizens have a say in how their societies function and how their countries are ruled, as well as who holds political power and represents the population, it is evident that citizens’ participation today still faces serious challenges. The latest statistics of the European Parliament elections show that voter turnout has fallen steadily from 61.99 per cent in 1979 to 43 per cent in 2009. Similar numbers apply to the elections in EU Member States and other European countries. For instance, at the elections to the German Bundestag in 2009, the percentage of eligible voters who cast their vote was 44%, while the Polish and Finnish elections attracted 53.9% and 65% respectively. These percentages are low considering the fact that electoral or voting systems can be seen as one of the primary axes around which our democracies are built. A major challenge for AFCO I will be to assess why voter turnout is declining. What are the key factors that deter voters from taking part in elections? A country’s democratic culture is partly defined by the extent to which citizens participate in the public discourse and cast their vote at elections. As such, it is safe to assume that political structures and historical backgrounds greatly contribute to shaping this culture. Political parties and institutions may be well-established and with longstanding traditions, whereas other parties may change their programmes from election to election. As such, the trust in parties can be pinpointed as a factor that greatly impacts on recent statistical tendencies. Other influences, such as age and gender, or geographical, psychological and socio-economic factors, and even climate conditions must be taken into consideration when attempting to define the current trend. It is important to be aware of the role transparency of political structures and party programmes and financing of political parties play in citizens’ choices to take part in elections or not. Moreover different electoral systems (majority, proportional and mixed)

may yield different voting results. Do different electoral systems account for different voter turnouts? In the 21st century, when digital possibilities are seemingly endless, it is vital to become aware of the growing role of the Internet and information technologies, and how these can contribute to shaping a culture of democracy. E-democracy is a broad topic, concerned with the idea of how to use modern technologies to enliven people’s role in modern democracies, by for example enabling easier communication and greater access to decision making processes. E-voting can be seen a primary means to bring politics closer to citizens, but with a wide variety of different voting systems across Europe, the actual implementation and exercise of e-voting may be the start of an entire discussion in its own worth. The opportunities and threats posed by new technology force us to remember that despite the advantages that come with e-voting, we should not forget about the question of how to implement e-voting in a safe and fraud-proof way, thus ensuring the principle “one man, one vote”. One of the key questions for AFCO I is to identify and outline the key aspects of what a true democratic culture entails, and to find out whether participation in political life and high voter turnout indicate a stable democracy. If so, then how can voters be attracted to the ballot box, and what role can information technologies play in reversing the trend? On the other hand, a low voting turnout may also be seen as a sign of a weak political structure, therefore, it is relevant to ask oneself, should it be a citizen’s duty to support democracy by participating in electoral processes? Ultimately, the core question AFCO I is faced with is how to revitalise the democratic culture by embracing electronic means as a tool or mechanism for increasing the voting turnout in national and European elections.

KEYWORDS E-democracy, E-voting, Voter Turnout, democratic deficit, transparency, democratic culture, Voting Systems, Elections in the EU, Voter Turnout, Civil Society, Democratic deficit in the EU

LINKS Human Rights instruments Official Sources Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm

European Convention of Human Rigts http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm Charter of Fundamental Righst of the European Union http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/default_en.htm

Voting tunout Official Sources Voting turnout at the European Parliament (1979 – 2009) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/archive/staticDisplay.do?language=EN&id=211 International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance http://www.idea.int/vt/index.cfm Eurostat: Voter turnout in national and EU parliamentary elections http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tsd go310 EurActiv: Poll hints at low voter turnout in EU elections (15.04.2009) http://www.euractiv.com/en/eu-elections/poll-hints-low-voter-turnout-eu-elections/article-181280 Parliament unveils ‘choice’campaign for EU elections (18.03.2009) http://www.euractiv.com/en/eu-elections/parliament-unveils-choice-campaign-eu-elections/article180390 European Elections: Outlook for 2009 http://www.euractiv.com/en/eu-elections/european-elections-outlook-2009/article-174694 Eurobarometer: the 2009 European elections (a report, 43 pages + annexes) http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_299_en.pdf

Informative Material Election resources on Internet (for a number of nations) http://electionresources.org/ Reports and Statistics about Internet Voting in Estonia (English) http://www.vvk.ee/index.php?id=11509

Media Coverage Who is to blame for EU voter apathy? (03.06.2009) http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,627958,00.html Why all the fuss over low EU voter turnout? (10.06.2009) http://thefastertimes.com/westerneurope/2009/06/10/why-all-the-fuss-over-low-eu-voter-turnout/

Voting systems Informative Material Electoral Reform Society â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Voting systems http://electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=5 International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance: Electoral System Design http://www.idea.int/esd

E-voting Informative Material Internet voting: 3 European countries in line for 2011 http://www.edemocracy-forum.com/2011/01/internet-voting-3-european-countries-in-line-for-20112011-will-mark-an-important-step-in-the-evolution-of-electronic-votin.html Internet voting in Estonia (I-Voting) http://www.vvk.ee/index.php?id=11178 Focus on e-voting â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The Electoral Knowledge Network http://aceproject.org/ace-en/focus/e-voting/

Media Coverage Online voting clicks in Estonia (03.02.2007) http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/03/72846 Chaotic polling problems lead to calls for e-voting (07.05.2010) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10102126 Why e-voting is a bad idea (19.07.2002) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/2135911.stm David Bismark: E-voting without fraud (lecture and user comments, 2010) http://www.ted.com/talks/david_bismark_e_voting_without_fraud.html

E-democracy Council of Europe: E-democracy projects http://www.coe.int/t/dgap/democracy/Activities/GGIS/Default_en.asp Ad hoc Committee on E-democracy (former Austrian Chair of Committee explains its work, 2009) http://www.bmeia.gv.at/index.php?id=70339&L=0

Media Coverage Is e-democracy a good thing? (14.10.2009) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8304266.stm

The road to e-democracy (14.02.2008) http://www.economist.com/node/10638222 Mistrust is e-participation block in Central and Eastern Europe (19.04.2010) http://www.headstar.com/egblive/?p=462

Additional Reading/ Media coverage Democratic deficit http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/democratic_deficit_en.htm Simon Hix on The State of European Democracy after Lisbon (lecture 2010) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qu6SogtOa0 The EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s democratic challenge (21.11.2003) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3224666.stm MTV launches youth election campaign (09.04.2009) http://www.euractiv.com/en/eu-elections/mtv-launches-youth-eu-election-campaign/article-181201

4. Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) Milda Šabūnaitė Given the political unrest surrounding recent elections in Belarus: What strategy should Europe adopt to deal with the continent’s last dictatorship?

OVERVIEW The Belarusian presidential election of December 19, 2010 was followed by unprecedented violence towards protesters, who had gathered in Minsk to object the results of the rigged election and the regime itself. Over 600 protesters, including 7 opposition candidates, were detained. The authoritarian regime in Belarus has always been a key issue for the EU; however, the recent events are seen by experts as pushing the line even further. Such actions of the Belarusian government were condemned by the Western community, including the EU, which imposed a travel ban and froze the accounts of Alexander Lukashenko and 157 individuals close to his regime. Shortly after, the US announced similar measures. The EU also increased its support for Belarusian civil society from 4m euros to 15.6m euros. The travel ban for Lukashenko had already been put in place after the 2006 presidential election, but it was suspended in 2008 as the EU took a softer approach and called for dialogue with the Belarusian regime. Unfortunately, this strategy of the EU – just as those preceding it - has proved to be completely ineffective, as the Belarusian regime remains undemocratic and shows no willingness to change. The EU’s first sanctions on the Belarusian regime were applied in 1996, after Lukashenko took over the presidency and abolished the democratic regime, creating what is now known as Europe’s only legal dictatorship. However, the sanctions only widened the gap between Belarus and the West and brought Belarus closer to Russia’s sphere of influence. Since 1999, the EU has adopted a ‘two-track’ policy, criticising the regime but supporting the opposition and the civil society. It has placed an offer to gradually resume dialogue if Belarus takes steps towards democratisation. However, the soft strategy has also failed to deliver. While the idea of a carrot-and-stick approach is considered to be appropriate by experts, they also agree that the incentives the EU proposes are not good enough and fail to meet the Belarusian regime’s wishes. Simultaneously, the ‘stick’ loses its effect as the EU too frequently switches over from strict criticism and isolation to proposals of dialogue and cooperation. It is impossible to discuss the EU-BY relations without considering Russia’s influence. Lukashenka is well known for his ‘balancing act’ between the Western world and Russia,

playing the two against each other yet never fully joining either side. The US’ role is also significant – it provides financial support for the Belarusian opposition and encourages regime change. When discussing EU’s future relationship with Belarus, it is important to assess past strategies critically, see what measures were effective and what did not bring the desired outcome. It is also important to keep in mind the role of external players, such as Russia, the US or the Ukraine, and consider the importance of personalities, such as Alexander Lukashenko and Vladimir Putin. The Committee on AFET must also take into account the history of the EU-BY relationship, the key stakeholders and Belarusian political, social and economic conditions. Delegates should seek in-depth knowledge in the area, and concern themselves with not merely overthrowing the Belarusian dictator, but creating conditions for a smooth regime transformation for all layers of the Belarusian society.

KEYWORDS Presidential election in Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, EU-BY relations, Russia-Belarus relations, US-Belarus relations, Ukraine-Belarus relations, democratic transformation processes

LINKS Official sources Joint official statement on Belarus from the EP: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/president/view/en/press/press_release/2011/2011January/press_release-2011-January-10.html

Informative material FRIDE (European Think Tank for Global Action) releases a Policy brief (26.01.2011) http://www.fride.org/publication/885/the-eu-and-belarus-after-the-election History of EU-BY relations (15 pages) http://biblio.ugent.be/input/download?func=downloadFile&fileOId=983725&recordOId=983686 Analysis of effectiveness of EU-BY relations: “Fourth Time for Lukashenko: Lessons to learn for the EU” (15.02.2011) http://www.euractiv.com/en/east-mediterranean/fourth-time-lukashenko-lessons-learn-eu-analysis502188

Media coverage/NGOs Lukashenkoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reaction to EU criticism (19.02.2011) http://en.rian.ru/russia/20110219/162681422.html The EU and the US announce support for Belarusian civil society (03.02.2011) http://euobserver.com/9/31741 Comment from ex-Head of OSCE mission to Minsk (24.02.2011) http://telegraf.by/2011/02/eu-is-the-main-threat-to-lukashenko-ex-head-of-osce.html Independent BY news website http://charter97.org/en/news/

5. Committee on Security and Defence (SEDE) Sophie Scannell Considering the growing concerns over Iranâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s nuclear programme: How should Europe act to ensure peace, stability and security in the region?

OVERVIEW Nuclear weapons are still somewhat of a delicate subject, especially given that the atrocities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are relatively fresh in our collective conscience, but in the last half a century more and more countries have been warming to the idea of nuclear energy as a sustainable power source. Finding a guarantee that this technology would be used safely became a priority, and in 1968, Irish and Finnish ambassadors proposed a Treaty aimed to ensure the safety of the inevitable progression towards nuclear energy. This Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty has since been ratified by most nations, including all members of the European Union. Calling for two things; that countries who have not yet developed nuclear weapons do not, and that those who have phase them out, the goal of the Treaty is to ensure each country can peacefully use nuclear technology. Iran acceded to the Treaty the same year, but has since been found to be in contravention of the safeguards imposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Iranian government claims that all enrichment is to provide energy for the country, and though other sources argue that this claim may be false, it is certainly likely that the Iranians have the capabilities to develop such weapons. The IAEA reported in 2003 that they had found no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme, but noted that this did not necessarily mean one did not exist. In either circumstance, one of the greatest problems that the IAEA and the EU have with Iranian nuclear development is that it exists behind a veil of secrecy, an example being the discovery of an unknown reactor at Qom in 2009. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad argues that this secrecy is necessary because of past US attempts to sabotage nuclear contracts with other nations, but many commentators suspect that this secrecy may be an act of defiance in retaliation to a request by the UN Security Council that Iran completely suspend its enrichment program. In an attempt to move forward, Iran, in 2003, voluntarily agreed to sign an additional protocol that allowed for more frequent and more intensive searches of the country for nuclear sites, and to temporarily suspend all enrichment while involved in the so called EU-3 talks. It was determined that, in return, Iranâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s nuclear rights would be recognised. While involved in talks, Iran failed to disclose information about previous experiments and the

purchase of nuclear materials. At the same time, the EU-3 countries delayed talks, with some observers alleging that this was at the behest of the US, and disregarded Iran’s requests for haste. Talks collapsed and since then many other deals have been offered to Iran, but none have culminated in any agreement, having been either rejected by Iran, or blocked by the US. A series of sanctions has been imposed, with the US again as the major driving force. None of these have resulted in any real agreement. Iran exists in an unstable situation, with strained diplomatic relations with many of its closest neighbours, and an absolute refusal to recognise the existence of Israel, or what Iran terms “the Occupied Territories”, giving rise to an utter hatred that does nothing to endear the country to the US. Given the potential of the EU to have a major role in the creation of a sustainable compromise, how can we initiate or expedite the process, and ensure Iranian development is peaceful, and above all, transparent?

KEYWORDS NPT, NPT Additional Protocol, Bushehr, IAEA, Qom, Natanz, nuclear enrichment, Tehran Declaration, sanctions, US-Israeli relations, Iran-Israeli relations

LINKS Official sources Website of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) http://www.iaea.org/ IAEA Iran portal http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/

Informative material Global Zero Campaign http://www.globalzero.org

Media coverage Credible News Sites The Economist (news magazine with well analysed articles, mild anti-American bias) The Economist Middle East Site: http://www.economist.com/world/middle-east

The Economist Nuclear Energy portal: http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/display.cfm?id=821240 The BBC (global news website with vast library of articles, some minor anti-Iran, and anti-American bias) - BBC World News: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/ Al Jazeera (Middle East based news site with detailed articles, moderate anti-Iran bias) - Al Jazeera News: http://english.aljazeera.net/ Foreign Affairs (news magazine published by the American Council on Foreign Relations, frequent proIsraeli, pro-American bias): http://www.foreignaffairs.com/ The Guardian (British based newspaper with detailed analyses, mild anti-American, anti-Israeli bias) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world News Articles: Nuclear Proliferation, Enrichment and Policy Article about the Qom reactor http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/09/the-qom-uranium-enrichment-facility-what-and-how-do-weknow.php Articles about the Bushehr reactor http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11045291 and http://www.economist.com/node/16889507 Article about the danger of Iranian developments http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66032/james-m-lindsay-and-ray-takeyh/after-iran-gets-thebomb Questions and answers about Iranâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s nuclear programme http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428 Current International Relations; Sanctions, Talks and Treaties Article about the efficacy of sanctions http://www.economist.com/node/16321536 Article about talks and their failures http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12258067 and http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/22/iran-nuclear-talks-end-stalemate Article about futility of sanctions http://www.economist.com/node/16483587 Iran and the Middle East, Relations with Neighbouring States Article about the possibility of Middle Eastern countries developing weapons because of Iranian capabilities http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66738/johan-bergenas/the-nuclear-domino-myth

Article about Israeli-Iranian relations: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/iran.israelandthepalestinians Series of articles about Iranian relations with Israel and other Arab nations http://www.npr.org/series/12885085/iran-and-its-neighbors

6. Committee on Human Rights (DROI) Jamie Brown With Islamophobia on the rise, nationalist parties are gaining support in many parts of Europe. How can the EU realise its ideal of peaceful religious diversity, freedom of thought and freedom from discrimination as ensured under the Charter of Fundamental Rights?

OVERVIEW As Europe's Islamic population is approaching 16 million, 3.2% of the EU's population, antiIslamic sentiments have become commonplace in the national political discourse of several countries. Islamophobia, the fear of Islam, is on the rise as populist right wing parties like the Sweden Democrats, the Freedom Party in the Netherlands and the National Front in France have all made significant gains in recent elections. By framing their attack as a defence of European values of equal rights, tolerance, freedom and democracy, many in these movements would not consider themselves racist, but rather defenders of secular liberal values against a perceived threat by the innate conservatism and anti-modernity of Islamic practices and philosophy. Many of the anti-Islamic parties and groups claim Islam suppresses free speech, oppresses homosexuals and is incompatible with democratic political systems. It is argued that in countries where Islamic law is strictly adhered to, women do not have human rights by default, non-Muslims have reduced rights, punitive measures are severe and homosexuals are unjustly persecuted. Political parties have begun to feel justified in calling for prohibition or suppression of Islamic law and politics in public to protect gender equality, tolerance and civil liberties. Nationalist groups have grown as they have switched anti-immigration for a much more targeted anti-Muslim platform, which, since 9/11 and 7/7 and the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq, has converged with a portion of the international political rhetoric. Recently, centreright national leaders such as David Cameron and Angela Merkel have made comments concerning the “failure of state multiculturalism”, specifically aiming at the social policies that have isolated Muslim communities and failed to create a sense of civic or national identity amongst them and the resulting social problems. Specific terms have been entering the mainstream in the past decade, such as “Islamism” and “Islamists” for “political Islam”, which is used most frequently in the media and academia to describe those who wish to shape civic and social life around the values of Islam. Then “Islamofascism” is used to describe the more authoritarian, anti-democratic, expansionist forms of Islam by drawing parallels between Islam and early 20th Century

European Fascism. These distinctions are often used to avoid generalising Islam and they are especially used in the secular or liberal arguments for suppressing Islam politically, if not culturally or religiously. Islamic groups decry a political culture seen to unfairly discriminating against the right to practice their religion and live as peaceful citizens. Muslim communities are often the targets of violence, vandalism and other forms of menace by indigenous populations, which, coupled with the Muslims' relative socio-economic disadvantages, has fostered social unrest and inter-community hostility. Muslims are constantly under the constraints of anti-terror laws and are often harassed by intrusive policing and hampered by diminished legal and civil rights. The Charter and Conventions provide equal rights, treatment and justice to all citizens of Europe, especially minority populations, and also guarantees the right to freedom of thought and religion. It is prohibited to use the defence of one right to curb another. But if attacking freedom of religion in the name of defending freedom of speech can be done legally by democratic political majorities who wish to legislate their moral or political convictions, then how can we protect all minorities with opposing views? By ensuring the fundamental rights are adhered to, can the EU help communities to live in peaceful and prosperous coexistence? How best to meet the human rights challenges presented by a multicultural society?

KEYWORDS Islamophobia, populist right wing parties, state multiculturalism, Islamism, Political Islam, Sharia, anti-terror laws, minority rights

LINKS Official Sources Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm European Convention of Human Rigts http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm Charter of Fundamental Righst of the European Union http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/default_en.htm

Informative material Islam and Human Rights Council of Europe – Commissioner for Human Rights on the general ban of burqas http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/Viewpoints/100308_en.asp The Danish Institute for Human Rights “Islam and human rights can work together” http://www.humanrights.dk/news/islam+and+human+rights+can+work+together Institution for the Secularization of Islamic Society (ISIS), US-based http://www.centerforinquiry.net/isis/islamic_viewpoints/is_islam_compatible_with_democracy_and_ human_rights/ http://www.centerforinquiry.net/isis/islamic_viewpoints/is_islam_compatible_with_democracy_and_ human_rights_part_ii/ Euro Islam – A researcher’s network on Islam and Muslims in the West http://www.euro-islam.info/key-issues/islamic-law/ National Secular Society (NSS) raise sharia concerns with European Commission President (2009) http://www.secularism.org.uk/nss-raise-shaira-concerns-with-e.html

Media coverage/Debates Islamophobia on the Rise in Europe “’Islamophobia’ on the rise in Europe” (18.10.2006) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/world/europe/18iht-muslims.3939208.html “Europe’s Islamophobia” – Article by Jeanne Kay (09.04.2010) http://www.fpif.org/articles/europes_islamophobia “Ghosts of fascist past” – Essay by Ian Kershaw (23.02.2011) http://nationalinterest.org/article/ghosts-fascists-past-4888?page=show “It’s paranoia, not Islamophobia” – Comment by David Goodhart (15.07.2005) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/15/religion.july72?INTCMP=SRCH “Some good news about ‘Islamic Terror’” – An article by Stephen M. Walt (09.02.2011) http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/02/09/some_good_news_about_islamic_terror?page=1 “The fight against oppression and Islamophobia” - Open letter published in the Guardian (30.09.2004) http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/sep/30/race.gayrights?INTCMP=SRCH “The intolerance of the tolerant” – An article by Cas Mudde (20.10.2010) http://www.opendemocracy.net/cas-mudde/intolerance-of-tolerant Geert Wilders and the Netherlands: “Totally Tolerant, Up to a Point” by Ian Buruma (29.01.2009) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/opinion/30buruma.html

“Nation of Anti-Islam – Is there more Muslim-bashing in the Netherlands than in other countries?” by Christopher Beam (01.10.2010) http://www.slate.com/id/2269658/ “Mainstreaming Hate” by Ferry Biedermann (04.10.2010) http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/04/mainstreaming_hate Germany and Thilo Sarrazin: “The Sarrazin Debate – Germany is becoming islamophobic” by Erich Follath (31.08.2010) http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,714643,00.html Thilo Sarrazin Debate in Germany (including a video transcript of an interview, 05.09.2010) http://bigpeace.com/nmay/2010/09/05/thilo-sarrazin-and-the-islamization-of-europe/ English Defence League and the United Kingdom: “English Defence League: Inside the violent world of Britain’s new far right” by Matthew Taylor (28.05.2010) http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/28/english-defence-league-guardian-investigation “Muslim leaders back Lady Warsi’s comments on Islamophobia” by Robert Booth (20.01.2011) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/20/muslim-leaders-lady-warsiislamophobia?INTCMP=SRCH “Islamophobia is a threat to democracy” - Open letter published in the Guardian (25.03.2010) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/25/islamophobia-a-threat-to-democracy?INTCMP=SRCH “Tackling Islamophobia” by Robert Lambert (05.12.2010) http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/12/anti-muslim-violence-mosques Sweden and Scandinavia: “Swedish far-right calls to fight islamic extremism” (26.01.2011) http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/8225-swedish-far-right-calls-to-fight-islamic-extremism“Sweden looks to combat Islamophobia” (13.01.2011) http://www.thelocal.se/31406/20110113/

Additional Reading “Defending Islamofascism” Islamophobia by Christopher Hitchens http://www.slate.com/id/2176389/ “Free Exercise of Religion? No, Thanks.” against Freedom of Religion by Christopher Hitchens http://www.slate.com/id/2266154/ “Veiled Threat – The many Problems with France’s proposed Burqa Ban” by Wajahat Ali (25.05.2010) http://www.slate.com/id/2254972/ The Future of Islam (Book Review, 27.02.2010) http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/58b05334-2262-11df-a93d-00144feab49a.html#axzz1FYK1Tc4n

7. Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs I (LIBE I) Ruben Wagenaar With strict media laws having been introduced in Hungary and concerns expressed over free and objective media in Italy: How can the EU ensure its citizens’ right to freedom of information as well as freedom of the press?

OVERVIEW On the 21st of December 2010, the Hungarian government adopted a controversial new media law. The law, which took effect on the 1st of January, allowed Hungary’s newly created, government-appointed media regulator to impose large fines on publications that contravened the rules, obliged media outlets (including online blogs) to provide ‘balanced coverage’ and provided the opportunity to restrict media content on the basis of ‘causing offence’. The law became subject of heavy debate, and was criticized by many for restricting press freedom and violating the right to freedom of expression and information. Since then, upon threats by EU Commissioner Neelie Kroes to take the country to the European Court of Justice, Hungary has agreed to amend the controversial law. The European Commission welcomed the amendments that Hungary pledged to make, but opponents voiced scepticism and argued that the issue of political control over the country's media authority had not been addressed. That freedom of the press in Europe indeed continues to be a value that needs to be defended permanently, was recently emphasized by the release of the 2010 World Press Freedom Index. The index, annually issued by the international NGO Reporters Without Borders (RSF), reflects the degree of freedom journalists and news organizations enjoy in a country, and the efforts made by its government to respect and ensure respect for this freedom. Currently, thirteen EU Member States are in the top twenty of the ranking, but other countries such as Italy, Romania, Greece and Bulgaria fare remarkably less well, occupying a 49th, 52nd and a tied 70th place respectively. The report indicated that since several Member States continue to fall on the index, the gap between good and bad performers in Europe is widening, and concluded that the EU is not a homogenous whole in regards to media freedom. This raises a first, very fundamental question that LIBE I need to consider: what exactly constitutes press freedom? And, with different Member States having seemingly different notions on the topic, is it desirable and/or possible for the EU to be a homogenous whole? Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states that “everyone has the right to freedom of expression” and that “freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected”. Indeed, press freedom and access to information are considered to be essential to the health of a democracy, by ensuring that citizens are able to make responsible and informed choices, and by serving as a ‘checking function’. In order to be able

to provide diverse, complete and correct information to citizens and enabling participation in the public discourse, media need to be independent from the state and pluralistic in nature. Yet, despite general consensus that freedom of expression and freedom of the press are non-negotiable values in European democratic societies, MEPs are divided over the question whether the issue is purely of national concern. The European Commission has in the past confirmed its position that media pluralism is an issue which lies fully within the competences of Member States, and that EU intervention in the form of a legislative initiative would be considered as undermining their powers and not respecting the subsidiarity principle. Still, over the last years MEPs have repeatedly called for a European intervention on Media Pluralism, criticising the Commission for being too soft, and calling its ‘three-step approach towards great media pluralism’ in Europe as a “road leading nowhere”. In October 2009 a resolution denouncing the lack of press freedom in Italy and calling for EU legislation to protect media pluralism was rejected by the EP with a very narrow margin of three votes. While some MEPs felt the EP was not the appropriate forum to discuss national issues or make a case against the governments of individual EU countries, proponents of the resolution argued that given the fact that the EU demands a free and open press in countries that wish to join the EU, “to accept anything less from existing members is hypocrisy”. Since the controversy surrounding Hungary’s media law, the European Commission has announced the formation of a working group of experts to investigate the European media landscape, and assess how Member States are performing in terms of media pluralism. But different parties seem to disagree on whether this is enough. Fundamentally, the major question LIBE I is faced with, is whether or not more structural European measures need to be taken to safeguard press freedom, and if so, to what extent the issue is an internal affair for Member States. What is the role of national governments in safeguarding press freedom? Is a mere monitoring role for the EU enough or desirable? Can arguably symbolical, non-binding measures such as the European Charter of Press Freedom provide sufficient protection to a diverse and free media? Or should the possibility of EU legislation seriously be reconsidered?

KEYWORDS World Press Freedom Index; RSF (Reporters Without Borders), Article 11 of CFREU, media pluralism, subsidiarity principle, European Charter of Press Freedom

LINKS Official sources Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

Informative material NGOs Reporters without Borders – For Press Freedom: Press Freedom Index 2010 http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010,1034.html Freedom House http://www.freedomhouse.org http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=16 Committee to Protect Journalists – Defending Journalists Worldwide http://cpj.org/europe/ Hungary’s media law “EU speechless over Hungary's contentious media law” (04.01.2011) http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/eu-speechless-over-hungarys-contentious-media-law-news500877 “Media: Commission Vice-President Kroes welcomes amendments to Hungarian Media Law” Press Release (16.02.2011) http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/11/89 “EU concedes it has little power to act over Hungarian media council” by Andrew Willis (25.01.2011) http://euobserver.com/?aid=31695 Press freedom & the European Parliament “Parliament votes down EU moves on press freedom” (23.10.2009) http://www.euractiv.com/en/pa/parliament-votes-eu-moves-press-freedom/article-186709 “MEPs call for EU law to defend media pluralism” (10.07.2010) http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/meps-call-eu-law-defend-media-pluralism-news-495043 European Commission ‘three-step approach’ Task Force for Co-ordination of Media Affairs: Media Pluralism – The need for transparency, freedom and diversity in Europe's media landscape http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media_taskforce/pluralism/index_en.htm “Independent Study on Indicators for Media Pluralism in the Member States – Towards a Risk-Based Approach” (2009, 153 pages + annex) http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media_taskforce/doc/pluralism/study/final_report_09.pdf

Amsterdam Law Forum (Essay by Ewa Komorek, Vol. 1 2009) http://ojs.ubvu.vu.nl/alf/article/viewArticle/107/192

Media coverage/Debates Recent developments “EU commission urged to set up press freedom watchdog” by Martin Banks (01.03.2011) http://www.theparliament.com/latest-news/article/newsarticle/eu-commission-urged-to-set-uppress-freedom-watchdog/ « Reporters: EU Press Freedom watchdog is bad idea » (20.01.2011) http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/reporters-eu-press-freedom-watchdog-bad-idea “MEPs take note of attacks on EU press freedom” by Andrew Willis (03.03.2011) http://euobserver.com/?aid=31917 “Media experts urge ‘reconquest’ on press freedom” (07.03.2011) http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/media-experts-urge-reconquest-press-freedom-news-502738 “Media Freedom Under Threat: National Problems, European Solutions?” Conference Blog by S&D (03.03.2011) http://www.europeansocialists.eu/gpes/public/detail.htm?id=135426&section=BLO&category=LBLO& startpos=0&topicid=-1&request_locale=EN

8. Committee on Development (DEVE) Petya Koleva After the resignation of Ben Ali and Mubarak and considering the on-going mass demonstrations in other countries of the region: How should Europe react to these changes in the Arab world?

OVERVIEW With the resignations of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia and Egyptâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hosni Mubarak, many are celebrating a long awaited Arab Awakening and a watershed in global history. As of today, the shockwaves of the Tunisian, Egyptian and Libyan revolutions have echoed all the way from Northern Africa to the regimes of the Persian Gulf. Although differing in ethnicity, political structure and amount of sovereign wealth, these countries seem to have a common underlining principle that triggers the uprisings within their borders. The unprecedented revolutionary waves of the past few months are underpinned by the growing social and economic concerns of the highly educated youth of the Arab world, which today accounts for more than 65% of its population. In recent decades, rising living standards, literacy rates and an expansion in higher education have resulted in an improved human development index in the affected countries. However, most of the countries' elitist governments are ridden with corruption, red tape and autocratic political systems. The evergrowing void between rising aspirations of the society and a lack of government reform is the fundamental driving force behind the Arab revolts. Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s response to the prospect of a democratic transition in the region will be substantially influenced by its post-colonial foreign and trade relations with the authoritarian regimes. The interdependency between these two parts of the world is constituted by oil and arms trade, as well as development aid and security agreements, protecting major oil trade links. As the world witnesses a complete shift in the balance of power in the Middle East, Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ties to these regimes will undoubtedly experience a transformation of their own. This transformation will be defined by the steps the EU takes to aid these countries in the challenges they will face during the post-revolutionary period. The first and most pressing test to be passed is eliminating the power vacuum that is created after a government overthrow. This, of course, involves the risk of the emergence of another undemocratic regime. The second milestone on the route to a democratic transition is the maintenance of public security. If the transitional government does not act fast enough, public nostalgia for

stability of the old regime can create conditions for counter-revolutionary forces to re-assert control. Last, but certainly not least, democratic transitions often lead to weakening economic conditions in the short term. Political uncertainty alters consumption patterns and private sector behavior leading to shortages, price spikes and withdrawal of foreign direct investment. What steps, if any, the EU should take in order to adequately respond to the changes close to its borders will be the key question of debate for the Committee on Development? Oil and turmoil are two defining characteristics of the Middle East region. As the world braces itself to see what happens next, Europe has the crucial task of reacting in a way that strengthens its strategic influence in the region. The line between success and failure is fine, but the outcome is sure to be a defining aspect of the next generation of global foreign policy.

KEYWORDS Arab world protests, democratic transition processes, post-revolutionary period, EU-Middle East relations, global foreign policy, European foreign policy

LINKS Informative material A timeline of the revolutions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010–2011_Arab_world_protests “Egypt And The Arab Awakening: What Next?” http://www.currentintelligence.net/columns/2011/2/2/egypt-and-the-arab-awakening-whatnext.html “Revolution In The Gulf States” http://www.currentintelligence.net/gulfstream/2011/3/2/revolution-in-the-gulf-states.html Gulf Security Today – A UAE Perspective http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/ISNInsights/Detail?lng=en&id=126802&contextid734=126802&contextid735=126800&tabid=126800

Media coverage “MEPs debate antigovernment protests in Egypt and Tunisian Jasmine Revolution” Press Release (02.02.2011) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/en/pressroom/content/20110202IPR13046/html/MEPs-debateantigovernment-protests-in-Egypt-and-Tunisian-Jasmine-Revolution

”Libyan revolutionary calls for EU recognition, military assistance” by Andrew Rettmann (09.03.2011) http://euobserver.com/24/31948 “The West must talk to the Muslim Brotherhood” Comment by Miguel de Corral (18.02.2011) http://euobserver.com/892/31832 Britain’s fast changing relationship with Middle East autocracies http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/01/dictators-britain-arms-tradehypocrisy?CMP=twt_fd The shift in influence in the Middle East http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/world/middleeast/24saudis.html?ref=iran

9. Committee on International Trade (INTA) Monica Bota Moisin The monopolisation of knowledge against public interest or the necessity to ensure economic growth and innovation: What position should Europe take in the debate over stricter legislation and international trade agreements on intellectual property and the growing criticism of stricter regulation and enforcement?

OVERVIEW On the question of intellectual property: the monopolization of knowledge against the public interest or a necessity to ensure economic growth and innovation? What position should Europe take in the debate over stricter legislation and international trade agreements on intellectual property and the growing criticism of stricter regulation and enforcement? As a type of property Intellectual Property (IP) refers to the intangible. It refers to what the human mind has created, usually expressed or translated into a tangible form that is assigned certain rights of property. Among IP examples we can include musical, literary and artistic works, inventions, software and symbols, names, images, designs, business methods and industrial processes used in commerce. Intellectual property rights include patent, copyright and trademark rights. Copyright rights are generally related to creative and artistic works such as books, movies, paintings, photographs and software while patents and trademarks are used more often with industrial properties, as they are generally created and used for industrial or commercial purposes. Protection and enforcement of intellectual property are a key issue for the European Union, being an essential factor for competitiveness in global economy. The European Union possesses two important bodies in charge with carrying out the mission of IP protection, protection which also entails the fight against piracy, illegal trade and counterfeiting: the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), which is responsible for the registration of Community trademarks and designs, and the European Patent Office (EPO). Standardization of intellectual property at European level represents the milestone for the respect of the basic principles of the internal market: free movement of goods, services and free competition. With the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union has gained legal personality thus being entitled to act on the international scene holding the same rights and obligations as the other participants. The European Union must now take a step forward when it comes to assuring the protection of intellectual property and must strengthen her ability to compete in the global economy. The employment sector as well as the health and safety of the European

citizens are subjected to risk when ideas, brands and products from the European market are pirated and counterfeited. The objective of the European Union is to see that IP rights of its’ citizens are also respected by third countries. One of the means to pursue this objective, besides the numerous bilateral agreements, technical-cooperation programs and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), the European Union is also involved in the development of the AntiCounterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). This is the point where the question marks and signs of concern have risen among the European Community. Behind closed doors, the European Union, United States, Japan and other governments negotiated the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement which will contain new international norms for the enforcement of copyrights, trademark rights, patents and other exclusive rights. According to the TFUE (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU), the international trade policy represents a domain of exclusive competence of the EU; therefore, a Treaty signed by the EU is legally binding for all Member States and becomes part of their national legal system. For the US, on the other hand, ACTA represents a “voluntary agreement”, bearing in mind that the US did not ratify the Convention of Vienna on the law of Treaties. Facing this scenario, ACTA’s provisions must be carefully and strategically analyzed before engaging into a legal obligation that might turn to be unfavorable for the long run. Contrary to the EU Commission statements, ACTA does exceed the current European legislation, the acquis in various domains including: injunctions of third parties in litigation over infringement of intellectual property rights, means of compensating right owners, and most important, criminal measures for ordinary companies and individuals, where ACTA goes beyond the current European legislation which does not contain such provisions for IP. In the context of the growing criticism over the stricter regulations codified by ACTA in balance with the need to reform the European intellectual property rights enforcement regime: which approach towards the signature of this Agreement would be more beneficial for the EU in the long run? Do all negotiating parties beneficiate of the same status in negotiations?

KEYWORDS Intellectual Property, piracy, illegal trade, counterfeiting, OHIM, EPO, TRIPs, ACTA

LINKS Official sources The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (2003) www.dfat.gov.au/trade/acta/Final-ACTA-text-following-legal-verification.pdf ACTA text after the last round of negotiations (2010) http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/2379 Office of the United States Trade Representative: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations http://www.ustr.gov/acta

Introductory material European Commission: ACTA information portal (good overview) http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/trade-topics/intellectual-property/anticounterfeiting/ EurActiv: “ACTA comes one step closer to existence” (25.11.2010) http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/acta-comes-one-step-closer-existence-news-499991 Legal memorandum on ACTA: Facts, Aims, Consequences http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/october/tradoc_146792.pdf EU regulations on Intellectual Property (IP) Rights: the EU patent system – “Parliament to press ahead with EU patent” (14.02.2011) http://www.euractiv.com/en/innovation/parliament-press-ahead-eu-patent-news-502130 European Commission: Taxation and Customs Union- Combating counterfeit & piracy http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/combating/ind ex_en.htm

Media coverage/Debates Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure e.V. – ACTA Working Group http://action.ffii.org/acta Bloomberg Businessweek Online Magazine: “EU Data Protection Chief Slams Secret ACTA Talks” by Paul Meller (22.02.2010) http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2010/tc20100222_165816.htm General News on Businessweek www.businessweek.com Controversy around ACTA: “Lawmakers call for halt to ACTA deal” (05.10.2010) http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/lawmakers-call-halt-acta-deal-news-498442 Legal analysis of ACTA provisions: Opinion of European Academics on Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement http://www.iri.uni-hannover.de/tl_files/pdf/ACTA_opinion_200111_2.pdf

10. Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) Faustine Bidaud Creating opportunities for future generations: What actions should European governments take to decrease dramatically high youth unemployment rates?

Overview Youth unemployment concerned 43.8% of the Spanish population aged 15 to 25 years in 2009. Concerning the â&#x20AC;&#x153;EU-27â&#x20AC;? during the same year, this rate was 21.1%, and overall unemployment was of 8.9 %. These high youth unemployment rates concern both graduated students and young Europeans who leave school without any diploma. In order to best understand this topic, it is therefore vital to distinguish between these two groups in order to tackle every aspect of it. Youth unemployment can be explained by different factors. First, the economic and financial crises seem to be the primary cause of unemployment, leading employers to cut jobs and stop recruiting. Another consequence is the multiplication of the short-term temporary contracts, which creates a precarious environment for people entering the labour market, especially the youth without experience. But it is important to bear in mind that the global crisis had an impact on everyone. The focus should therefore be on the problems concerning in particular the European youth either entering the labour market or trying to maintain their jobs. Secondly, political and demographic factors are also contributing to youth unemployment. Indeed, several Member States, such as France, have extended the legal age of retirement, while simultaneously the grandchildren of the baby-boomers are arriving on the labour market. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly difficult for young workers to enter this overcrowded market. The main reasons that they are turned away include lack of experience and/or diploma. The former applies to students finishing their bachelor, the latter to the 15% of young people in the EU who still leave the education system prematurely with no qualifications. However, this contextualisation is not enough. A good preparation for the session implies a good research and work process. For instance, before even thinking about solutions, one needs to determine where EU competencies lie. Education and employment are EU supporting competences. This means that the EU can only intervene when it comes to the coordination and standardization of Member Statesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; policies, and only when they accept so.

Another tool to be well prepared is the research on work covering the topic, and on existing solutions. Some issues concerning our topic have already been tackled, and it is imperative to be aware of them. For instance, the European Parliament committee on employment reported on many issues you could talk about during committee work such as “professional trainings and internships are essential to have a basic work experience and their implementation and generalisation should be encouraged by national governments”. But one must also be aware of solutions brought by the EU institutions and programmes e.g. “Youth on the move”. To cover all the aspects of the topic one must at least familiarise himself with the required terminology. Thus the understanding of career-orientation assistance, work agency, reorientation, sandwich courses , volunteering such as the European Voluntary Service (EVS), start-ups companies and so on are important for the discussion. How can young people deal with their lack of experience? How can they put their potential, competences and non-professional skills forward? If a bachelor degree is not enough, how can you ensure that people without a diploma don’t get marginalised? How do you guarantee that everyone has equal access to information when it comes to job hunts and labour law? This list is non-exhaustive, as are the accompanying internet links. The issue of youth unemployment is one of the closest topics to the EYP population, and needs to be tackled from the point of view of our generation.

KEYWORDS Youth unemployment, short-term temporary contracts, precarious employment, internships, European Parliament Committee on employment, “Youth on the move” LINKS Official sources Report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs on promoting youth access to the labour market, strengthening trainee, internship and apprenticeship status (read at least pages 5 to 14) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A7-20100197+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN Joint recommendations of the Belgian presidency EU Youth Conference on Youth Employment http://www.youtheutrio.be/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=4348325066416D686156513D&tabid=96&language=nlBE&stats=false Statistics and surveys about (youth) unemployment rates in Europe http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Table_unemployment_rate s_by_age_and_gender.PNG&filetimestamp=20100909074530 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Youth_unemployment_rat es_EU.PNG&filetimestamp=20110201104834

European Programs for Youth Official page on the programme “Youth on the move” http://europa.eu/youthonthemove/index_en.htm Official website of the European Year of Volunteering http://www.eyv2011.eu/

Informative material Article on the Organising Bureau of European School Student Unions’ website about the Hungarian presidency focusing on youth employment http://www.obessu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=711:hungarian-presidencyfocuses-on-youth-employment&catid=41:latest-news&Itemid=70

Media coverage Article on « European Youth Unemployment Creating Lost Generation?” by James Joyner (14.07.2009) http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/european-youth-unemployment-creating-lost-generation Article on Youth Unemployment on the BBC website “Youth unemployment: A smouldering fuse?” by James Melik (07.02.2011) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12356092 Video on Youtube about Youth initiatives to get a job (2010 World Bank International Essay Competition-Video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ4JE0LNC68

11. Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs II (LIBE II) Hanna Ollinen With more and more people trying to reach Europe’s southern borders via the Mediterranean Sea: What strategy should Europe adopt to deal with ever increasing migration?

OVERVIEW The issue of illegal immigration into the EU is once again high up on the agenda. Recent news headlines show us pictures of small boats overloaded with people who are running from the instability in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco and other countries through the borders of the European Union. Recently, the island of Lampedusa, south of Sicily, received over five thousand illegal immigrants within a week. Before the recent events in North Africa and the Arab states, illegal EU border crossings over the Mediterranean Sea had decreased remarkably - largely due to the work of European Agency for Management of External Borders (Frontex) which was established in 2005 to promote a pan-European approach towards border management. Frontex has recently put a lot of work into controlling the Greek border, through which approximately 80% of the illegal entries to the EU come in. Most entries occur at the Greek, Italian and Spanish land and sea borders; however, the problem of illegal immigration to the EU does not stop there. Illegal immigrants travel to other, usually richer EU states, putting a lot of pressure on their security, welfare systems and societies. Human trafficking, prostitution, child labour and smuggling are also issues closely tied to illegal immigration. The EU’s role in tackling the issue is particularly interesting, as it is seen as both a cause and possible alleviator of the current situation. Substantial efforts have been made already; in July 2006 the Commission adopted a Communication on policy priorities in the fight against illegal immigration of third-country nationals that sets a balance between security and basic rights of individuals. In 2008, the European Parliament and the Council of the EU adopted a directive on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegal immigrants to their countries of origin. Simultaneously, the EU has bilateral agreements with a number of non-EU countries on financial and technical assistance to prevent illegal migration. To find an adequate response to the issue, delegates first have to answer the key question – should the EU let illegal immigrants stay within its borders or not. Only when we have a conclusion to this question, further strategies and policies can be considered. The debate should cover both sides of the spectre when it comes to potential stances of the EU – one is

maintaining strict control of the number of illegal immigrants that enter, sending them back to countries of origin immediately; another is a softer stance that focuses on providing social welfare and economic opportunities for the immigrants that have already entered the EU, and considering their integration to the society. It is a common interest of all EU Member States to create an effective EU migration policy that deals with the issue of illegal immigrants but maintains the right to free movement within the EU. The question is, can all EU states agree on a single policy (Denmark, the UK and Ireland are already excluded from the current policy agreement) that respects the rights of illegal immigrants and decreases the migratory flows.

KEYWORDS Irregular immigration, refugees, refugee boat, Frontex, Dublin II, Eurodac, Migration and the welfare state

LINKS Official sources Frontex European Agency for the Management of External Borders http://www.frontex.europa.eu/more_about_frontex/ International Organization for Migration http://www.iom.int/jahia/jsp/index.jsp Communication from the commission to the council and the European parliament on a common policy on illegal immigration (2001) http://eurlex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&type_doc=COMfin al&an_doc=2001&nu_doc=672 EU’s Common policy on illegal immigration http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/other/l33191_en.htm Commission “Towards a common European Union immigration policy” (2010) http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/immigration/immigration_intro_en.htm#part_1 EU Legislation: Dublin II Regulation http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylu m_immigration/l33153_en.htm

Introductory material EU Migration Policy A-Z (by Hugo Brady, 2008) www.cer.org.uk/pdf/briefing_813.pdf

Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies on Irregular Migration http://www.carim.org/index.php?callContent=239

Media Coverage/Debates “Migrants Fleeing Violence in Libya Begin Arriving in Tunisia” Press Briefing Note (23.02.2011) http://www.iom.int/jahia/Jahia/media/press-briefingnotes/pbnAF/cache/offonce/lang/en?entryId=29222 BBC “EU job centres to target Africans” by Alix Kroeger (08.02.2007) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6341487.stm BBC “On EU border control with sea patrol team” by Damon Embling (16.09.2010) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11324763 “Migrants’ rights are human rights” Amnesty International News Release (19.12.2007) http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/feature-stories/migrants-rights-are-human-rights20071218 “Greece: Human Rights of migrants” Amnesty International Public Statement (09.03.2011) http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR25/005/2011/en/4b24731f-fcf3-43f0-8a11652b0adf06e6/eur250052011en.pdf “Greece must urgently remedy deplorable detention conditions” Amnesty International Public Statement (16.03.2011) http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR25/006/2011/en/12259396-d3f9-4099-840478396b991d0d/eur250062011en.pdf Anti-Frontex Group http://frontexplode.eu/

12. Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) Gillian O’Halloran With more than 30% of all Europeans never having used the internet: What strategy should Europe adopt to achieve the ‘digital inclusion’ of all citizens in order to face the challenges and use the opportunities of the digital age?

OVERVIEW Having access to new technologies and having the skills to use them will become an increasingly essential prerequisite for European citizens to participate in society and to have opportunities on the employment market. Accessing various media and information sources, shopping, banking, communication, the search for jobs or education programmes, various consultation services (health, legal, etc.), government services or even voting: many of these online services have become daily routine for many of us. In the future, some might not even be accessible anymore without being online or only be conventionally available at very high costs. In light of these developments, the current figures of internet access for EU citizens are a reason for concern: 30 % of all EU citizens have never used the internet1 and only about 60 % use the internet regularly. In comparison, in the United States almost 80 % are already online2. People excluded from the digital world are often living in remote areas or are affected by poverty or unemployment. The process of giving people access to the internet and the ability to use it is often termed ‘digital inclusion’ or ‘e-Inclusion’. A research group lead by Paolo Guerrieri, of the College of Europe, has tried to develop an indicator which captures the various dimensions of digital inclusion and compares the performance of countries within the EU3. Guerrieri’s report highlights the differences amongst EU countries with Denmark being the EU’s leader in the field of digital inclusion and Bulgaria having the greatest challenges to master as of yet (see aforementioned report, p. 26). With its “Digital Agenda”4 the European Union has defined a set of goals in various fields to address the problems outlined. In the field of digital inclusion, amongst others, the EU seeks to lower the share of people who never used the internet to 15% by 2015. Also, political decision makers are committed to initiatives for raising skill levels amongst young and old Europeans. While the goal of further achieving digital inclusion might not be disputed, debates rather circle around the right policy initiatives. Some of the central questions include: How to 1

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/581 http://www.internetworldstats.com/am/us.htm 3 http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/library/studies/docs/composite_index.pdf 4 http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/index_en.htm 2

provide high speed internet access to rural areas? How can high speed access be made affordable? How can people be equipped with the skills to become aware of potential risks of internet usage? How can it be ensured that young as well as older people acquire the skills to benefit from the opportunities of being online? In the field of access and its affordability a central question is whether the state should pay for the expansion of networks funded by general taxes or whether the telecom industry should be required by law to provide high speed access at normal tariffs to everyone which in turn might result in higher prices for all users. With several operators competing on the European market, setting the right policy in this area without creating major market distortions is not an easy task5. The question of skills for internet usage might even be a more difficult one. In this field the EU entirely builds on the Member States’ national initiatives and still plans to develop indicators and recommendations, for example in the field of education6. In conclusion, the central question will be whether Europe is able to close the ‘digital divide’ in its society. This might be an important cornerstone to meet the challenge of creating a European society of equal opportunities to become one of the world’s most competitive knowledge based economies.

KEYWORDS Information Society, Digital Access, Digital Inclusion, e-Inclusion, Digital Agenda, Digital Literacy, E-Skills, Digital Divide

LINKS Official Sources Analysis of e-Inclusion impact resulting from advanced R&D based on economic modelling in relation to innovation capacity, capital formation, productivity, and empowerment – Summary Report (2010) http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/library/studies/docs/composite_index. pdf eInclusion public policies in Europe – final report (2009) http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/library/studies/docs/einclusion_policies _in_europe.pdf Digital Agenda for Europe 2010 – 2020 http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/index_en.htm

5 6

http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/eu-asks-who-will-pay-high-speed-internet-news-301230 http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/pillar.cfm?pillar_id=48

Enhance e-skills as part of the Digital Agenda http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/pillar.cfm?pillar_id=48

Informative Sources Internet Usage Statistics http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

Media Coverage/Debates “EU asks who will pay for high-speed Internet” (03.03.2010) http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/eu-asks-who-will-pay-high-speed-internet-news-301230 “Digital Agenda: Commission outlines action plan to boost Europe's prosperity and well-being” Press Release (19.05.2010) http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/581

13. Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) Riaan Stipp In light of the Euro crisis: What should Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic governance be like in the future?

OVERVIEW "This is an historic watershed moment," Belgian finance minister Didier Reynders said before the vote on the European System of Financial Supervisors7, which represents one pillar of the future of economic governance within the EU. But how are further aspects of economic policies to be regulated across the EU? Which long-term structural changes will ensure a stable common currency in a crisis-resistant economical union? While the answers need to focus on the future it is important to understand what has made this topic so newsworthy at present: The financial crisis has shown the world a new dimension of external financial shocks and has been the first real stability test for the common European currency, bringing several countries close to bankruptcy. First Greece, then Ireland, applied for funds from the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF). Euro-critics believe that the common currency is the major problem for countries experiencing financial difficulties. They argue that affected countries no longer possess policy counteractions, such as influencing the interest or the exchange rate. These are no longer regulated on a national level. Sovereign debts by individual member states create a problem for the union as they cause severe damages to the entire Eurozone. While euro-critics already predict the return of the individual currencies, many heads of state declare to hold on and support the Euro. A first step was the creation of the EFSF. Its prime objective is to ensure that financially instable countries receive credit at reasonable rates. However, this step has also led to a hail of criticism from Euro advocates. The problem lies within the asymmetric usage of the EFSF. Wealthier countries need to supply their finances while others only profit from them. Some claim this lowers the incentive of individual member states to address debt issues more urgently, causing more countries to require the schemeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s support. This could lead to a vicious cycle. Consequently, France and Germany have put forward the concept of an economic government. The core idea being that it is not only agreed on how financial losses are counterbalanced, but also on how income is ensured (e.g. taxes). 7

http://euobserver.com/?aid=30866

At present the details are being discussed behind closed doors. According to the proposed schedule final decisions are to be made by the end of March, making this topic highly important for current European politics. But it must be kept in mind that it remains unclear if the European Union wishes to find a common ground or if economic governance remains a national issue. Due to the wide range of discussions that will be arising in the media just before the session, it is of utmost importance that you not only consider the links provided, but also gather upto-date information. The reference to the Euro crisis hints to a discussion on the common currency. This cannot be debated without outlining the concept of economic governance. Such governance can include anything from budget decision-making on a national level to defining a common retirement age. Due to the magnitude of this topic, the systematic resolving of this issue is key. The Committee on Economics must find congruent answers to, amongst others, the following questions: 1)

How far should European integration go? Which key areas of economic decisionmaking are nations willing to adjust on a pan-European level? Which structural changes need to be made to avoid upcoming crises? And, what kind of safety schemes will counteract future unforeseen crises? Is a common policy addressing the compliance with the Competitiveness Pact necessary?

2) 3)

Keeping in mind the consequences for: a. b. c.

Individual nations. The global economy. The European industry.

KEYWORDS EFSF, European economic governance, EMU, Bailouts, financial supervision,

LINKS Economic Governance Informative Material Background on the Economic Governance http://www.eu2011.hu/economic-governance

Media Coverage/Debate BBC - “Eurozone to consider closer economic scrutiny” (02.03.2011) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12609072

European System of Financial Supervisors Informative Material Action plan of European Systemic Risk Board explained by Jean-Claude Trichet (07.2.2011) http://www.esrb.europa.eu/news/pr/2011/html/sp110207.en.html Media Coverage/Debate EU Observer - “Europe seals deal on financial supervision” by Andrew Willis (22.09.2010) http://euobserver.com/?aid=30866

Competitiveness Pact Informative Material Background on the Stability and Growth Pact: http://www.euractiv.com/en/euro/stability-growth-pact/article-133199 Background on the Europe 2020: http://www.eu2011.hu/europe-2020-strategy Media Coverage/Debates “Trade unions 'dare' EU to hold referendum on economic pact” by Leigh Phillips (02.03.2011) http://euobserver.com/9/31910 Speech by Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the ECB, on “Competitiveness and the smooth functioning of EMU” (23.02.2011) http://www.ecb.int/press/key/date/2011/html/sp110223.en.html “Delors backs competitiveness pact” (01.03.2011) http://www.euractiv.com/en/euro-finance/delors-backs-competitiveness-pact-news-502610

Eurozone Bailouts Informative Material Background on Enlargement and the Euro: http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/enlargement-and-euro-linksdossier-188288 BBC provides Facts and Figures on the Eurozone Crisis http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10150007 Media Coverage/Debate Blog “Will Greece lightening strike twice?” by Mats Persson (11.02.2011) http://blogs.euobserver.com/persson/ “Why Europe Needs Automatic haircuts” by Hans-Werner Sinn (25.02.2011) http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sinn36/English

14. Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) James Benge A call for the next big step forward: What measures should Europe adopt to regain the global lead in higher education?

OVERVIEW Rarely has higher education reform been a more noticeable issue in many European states. The past eighteen months have seen protests in many cities, culminating in severe disruption being caused in Rome and London in the final months of last year. In both cases national governments have attempted to reform education to increase their country’s competitiveness marketplace. Fee rises have been proposed as the only way of maintaining a higher education structure that can compete with North American universities whilst promoting availability so that any student who wants to attend university can do so. Yet if Members States are to create a truly world-leading higher education industry would joint action be more beneficial? European countries first laid out their plans for “an internationally competitive and attractive European Higher Education Area” (Budapest-Vienna Declaration) under the Bologna Declaration of 1999, an attempt to create an overarching framework of reform, which ultimately led to the formation of the European Higher Education Area in March 2010. Yet can European states adapt the nuances of the education systems of nearly fifty countries into a joint structure that allows them to challenge the best universities in the world? Among the Bologna Process’ key aims there has been a focus on ensuring quality teaching across Europe and creating a greater degree of mobility. One aspect of higher education that appears not to have been considered has been tuition fee levels and delegates must ask whether levels of fee charges and government investment will allow European universities to bridge the gap. It is increasingly apparent that Europe is lagging behind world leaders in higher education, with less than a third of the world’s top hundred universities currently in Europe. This topic requires national governments to focus on long term policies as this issue will not be solved in the next few years. How can Europe catch up with an American system with such high levels of private funding? What can be done to foster a European identity in modern universities? Should teaching in universities change to ensure that the next generations of academics are thoroughly tested? How can the traditions of national universities be maintained within a European framework? And, in light of debate over who should bear the cost of higher education, where do national governments fit into the process of European integration?

KEYWORDS Bologna Declaration 1999, Budapest-Vienna Declaration, European Higher Education Area, Bologna Process, University Ranking

LINKS Official sources Useful questions, particularly those on access to education http://ec.europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/education/faq/index_en.htm Bologna Process & European Higher Education Area: Official EHEA website http://www.ehea.info/ A particularly useful video http://www.ehea.info/video-gallery-details.aspx?videoId=7&objId=3 Budapest-Vienna Declaration on the EHEA http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/about/Budapest-Vienna_Declaration.pdf A recent update on the Bologna Follow Up Groupâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s progress http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/about/Bologna_work_plan_2009-2012_07-02-2010.pdf Modernising European education: Report from the Commission to the Council on modernising European universities http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc/com/680_en.pdf European Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s conclusions on the internalisation of higher education http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:135:0012:0014:EN:PDF

Informative Material Particularly useful as it outlines the effects of the Bologna Process in various European countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_Process Worldwide university league table http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/top-200.html Another useful comparison of higher education costs in a number of European countries http://www.studyineurope.eu/tuition-fees

Media Coverage/Debates The Bologna Process in Action

A useful article that provides an insight into the difficulties of matching national policy with European aims “Two-year degrees may disadvantage UK graduates” by Harriet Swain (03.08.2010) http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/aug/03/vince-cable-two-year-degrees?INTCMP=SRCH One interesting aspect of the Bologna Process has been language. This article provides an interesting overview of the switch to English in some European universities “Language switch challenges on campus” by Jessica Shepherd (17.09.2009) http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/sep/17/tefl-netherlands?INTCMP=SRCH Will the universities survive the European integration? By Chris Lorenz (You need only read the introduction, part 1 and the conclusion for this) http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/1871/11005/1/Sociologia%20Internationalis.pdf Fees and protests Protests in Rome “Students cause chaos around Italy in cuts protest” (30.11.2010) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11877337 Protests in London “Student tuition fee protest ends with 153 arrests” by Seah Coughlan (01.12.2010) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11877034 Placing the issue of fees in its wider economic context: European University Association (2011) http://www.eua.be/Libraries/Newsletter/Economic_monitoringJanuary2011final.sflb.ashx

15. Committee on Constitutional Affairs II (AFCO II) Stefan Vandenhende An ever growing European Union? What should the EU’s answer be to neighbouring states attempting to join the European Union?

OVERVIEW When the European project started in the early fifties with the foundation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), it had only six members. Now, almost 60 years later, we have a European Union with 27 Member States, and even more aspiring to join. Enlargement has been a constant theme throughout the EU’s history, and the debate around this topic is more alive now than ever. During the 2004 enlargement process, when ten former Soviet countries joined the EU, a framework for enlargement was established. It consists of a number of criteria a country needs to fulfill before being allowed to join the EU and is still being used today. Having a thorough knowledge of this accession procedure is crucial for understanding the topic. The best known are the Copenhagen Criteria, which consist of political, economic and legislative criterion. The latter is best known as the “acquis communautaire” - divided into several “chapters”, it is fulfilled through a lengthy negotiation process between the candidate state and the European Commission. Additionally, there is also a contested and heavily debated geographic criterion, which says that the candidate country needs to be “European”. At the moment, there are five recognized candidate Member States, and four others are potential candidate countries. The nine can be roughly divided in four categories: Iceland, Turkey, Balkan countries that have a potential candidate status, and Balkan states with a candidate status. While Iceland and Turkey are obviously unique cases, there are proposals for applying a single Balkan Strategy to the whole region, instead of using the current caseby-case approach. Having a general understanding of the progress of each of these groups in the accession process is vital. However, delegates should avoid dwelling too much on the specifics of every candidate, and instead keep the bigger picture in mind. At the center of the subject is the question whether the EU should expand at all. What should the boundaries of the EU be in the long run, and is the EU ready for further enlargement on the short term? What should the conditions for future enlargement be, and are the existing criteria enough?

Two core points of debate can be identified. Firstly, there is the economic dispute, particularly relevant since the recent crisis. Some say the EU’s economy is not ready to take on new Member States with their economic troubles; others argue that both the EU and candidate state economies would benefit greatly from the access to new markets. Secondly, there is a political argument concerning the public opinion towards enlargements throughout the EU – currently, citizens of the EU seem to be very critical towards the idea of further enlargement. The different opinions towards enlargement can be ordered along an axis. On the one extreme are who say the EU has already reached its limits and should not expand any more. On the other are supporters of the fast-track option, arguing that all current candidate members should join as soon as possible. In-between these two positions, we find a variety of opinions that delegates of AFCO II should consider when preparing for the topic.

KEYWORDS ECSC, 2004 Enlargement process, Copenhagen Criteria, fast-track option

LINKS Official Sources Website of the European Commission on Enlargement http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/index_en.htm The procedure for Enlargement (have a look at the subcategories too) http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/the-policy/index_en.htm Short overview of the current (possible) candidate states: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/the-policy/countries-on-the-road-to-membership/index_en.htm

Informative Material General directories with the latest news: EUObserver has EU-news clearly summarised, definitely one of the best news sites on EU-matters, this is the EUObserver’s overview of the latest news concerning enlargement: http://euobserver.com/15 Another great EU-related news site - Euractiv’s overview of the latest news concerning enlargement: http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement EUBusiness is another website on EU-news, no separate ‘enlargement folder’ though http://www.eubusiness.com/

Having issues with all the EU terminology? A great overview of all the abbreviations, committees, institutions, etc. can be found here: http://europa.eu/abc/eurojargon/index_en.htm Summaries of EU relations with (possible) candidate states, great overviews with milestones of the past and recent issues, a lot of background knowledge: EU-Serbia relations http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/eu-serbia-relations-linksdossier-257362 EU-Western Balkans relations http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/eu-western-balkans-relations-linksdossier-188295 EU-Croatia relations http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/eu-croatia-relations-linksdossier-188293 EU-Iceland relations http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/eu-iceland-relations-linksdossier-188523 EU-Turkey relations http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/eu-turkey-relations-linksdossier-188294 More important than ever since the financial and economic crises, Enlargement & the Eurozone, an overview: http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/enlargement-and-euro-linksdossier-188288 Looking for some news concerning Enlargement in your native language? Have a look at this map: http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/enlargement-newsmap/article-186142

Media Coverage/Debates Comment piece at EUObserver, “The Balkan powder keg” by Nemanja Tepavcevic (07.03.2011) http://euobserver.com/7/31935 The fast-track option? The main points of debate summed up, a bit messy, but worth a read: http://debatewise.org/debates/2279-the-candidate-countries-should-be-fast-tracked-to-eumembership-in-2012 Comment piece at EUObserver, “The EU-Turkey Deadlock” (28.01.2011) http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/turkey-eu-deadlock-analysis-501705