L A I R O T I D E Dear delegates, it’s finally here. Equipped with relevance and faces full of cheer, we embark on a sail through storms of mind, with burning hearts and with bruises we’ll prevail
To no avail, we try to see days brighter Changing channels, papers, und so weiter Today though, we dive in with doubts, some fears, but hopes for change
Through debate we will verstehen. You’re wondering, Was machen wir wohl hier? A media team, hm, they’re always near, Typing, snapping, with a smile Pokecej si, kafčo dají si,* Their ideas, supergeil. This Ausgabe, weiter lesen! It will hau you of your Besen!
2 | RSC Leverkusen EYP Germany *talk to them, they go for coffee!
CfoO NTmENT r the com
ittees on:
Foreign Affairs 4-5
Zeynep Demir
Development 6-7
Zeynep Demir
Economic and Monetary Affairs 8-9
Carl Schneegass
Women’s Rights and Gender Equality 10-11
Ruby Goddard
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety 12-13
Ruby Goddard
International Trade 14-15
Ruby Goddard
Security and Defence I 16-17
Paula Koehler
Security and Defence II 18-19
Paula Koehler
Security and Defence III 20-21
Dolora Kasemi
3
S N O I T A T N E I R O NEW F
or Syriza, challenging the EU’s stance on Russia reflects an ideology “that says we have to be skeptical of certain things our European partners do because the E.U. is a capitalist, neoliberal enterprise,” said Spyros Economides, an international relations professor at the London School of Economics. After the early parliamentary elections held on 25 January 2015 in Greece there have been speculations concerning the new government and its political orientation. Apparently the PM Alexis Tsipras’ open declaration of his discontent regarding the sanctions to Russia and his close contacts with Russian authorities and politicians have created tension in the European political scene. Concerns over Greece and its allegiance to the EU and also the EU’s fight against the anti-democratic invasion of Russia into Crimea have been expressed
4 | RSC Leverkusen EYP Germany
by many scholars and politicians across Europe recently. Greece, or rather the new government, is being accused of having the potential of assisting Russia in its vision of a Russia-led ”Eurasian Union”. The fact that some SYRIZA authorities were mentioned as “key potential partners” by Russian nationalist politicians, Tsipras’ former visits to Kremlin, some officials being on certain mailing lists created by Russian authorities and finally the close contacts of Tsipras and other party officials with Russian authorities caused controversy over the new Greek government and its potential in helping Russia to promote its foreign policy in Western Europe . Further concerns are concentrated on the fact that some other countries may also hide behind the Greek government in the
near future and may tend to hold a similar stance which would threaten the EU’s solidarity in opposition to the violation of democracy in Ukraine and Its political and economical orientation in general. So what should EU’s stance be to keep its ties among 28 members together in a time where different inclinations towards different ideologies occur?
Zeynep Demir (TR)
5
n o z i r o h s t i f o t u o EU
EU
-ACP cooperation is supposed to enable ACP countries to take part in the global political scene by strengthening their economic and social conditions. EU’s benefit would be the increased trade thanks to the welfare within the countries.
trade ACP countries, the political and civic conditions should reach some standards.
The ACP countries are supposed to be funded by the Europe Development Fund that supplies cooperation in economic, social and human development issues in addition to regional cooperation and integration. The advantage of the fund is that the ACP countries will be able to increase their export up to 10 percent also presumably having up to 70 percent less to pay for the imports with the EU. In addition the EU support, the BRIC countries are also investing in ACP countries which help them to The handicap of this programme is that in order for EU to
6 | RSC Leverkusen EYP Germany
To achieve that, EU implements some prerequisite prin-
ciples to ensure the change of situation in the aforementioned countries. It also applies some sanctions in case of violations of the basic human rights in ACP countries to encourage development and democracy. The slippery slope here is that the sanctions to governments affect citizens and their living standards on a larger scale considering the constant danger of terrorism and diseases prevailing in the area. EU’s help to ACP countries is crucial to the mentioned areas as they are often struggling with poverty and epidemics and the fact that they are being preconditioned by EU in these circumstances is what causes further question marks. In addition, should the EU restrict its aid to economic retributions or should EU be more involved into transition progress
to democracy and good governance? As the efficiency of the development programmes are thought to depend on the conditionality that the EU applies, what should EU do to make sure that the ACP countries achieve desired standard of humanitarian and political conditions to guarantee profitable and fair trade relations together with the improved social and political conditions in the countries or should the EU put more emphasis on the profit or the needs of the people in poor conditions? Should the EU expand the range of its economic aid even more to have more players in the game who have the potential to contribute to the overall trade profit of the union?
Zeynep Demir (TR)
7
ur
yo ts c e ff a l e rt a c e c ri p How a
breakfast I
magine it is a nice Sunday morning and all you need for a perfect breakfast is a fresh warm piece of bread and some pretzels, wherefore you are quickly stepping to your next bakery. However, you recognise the price of all products in your bakery – and as you check further in your town – the ones of all the other bakeries have suddenly doubled, no chance for substitution and purchasing from a different one. How could this have happened and what can one do against it? If the reason was secret collusions of the bakeries, it’s a case for RSC Leverkusen’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs! If you love pretzels the most, but the price suddenly doubles, you might be cool with having croissants instead, or just purchase from a different produc-
8 | RSC Leverkusen EYP Germany
er. However, if all the bakeries raised their prices of all products together after secret collusions, you won’t be able to substitute and would pay the higher price. This kind of secret collusive price policy is called a cartel. A cartel cancels out free competition between the companies and leads to a de facto monopoly, where the cartel members act as a single agent that sets the product prices or quantity produced. The European Union is highly interested in free competition with many suppliers, in the best case perfectly competitive markets, and not in a market, where one product is only supplied by a single company or federation acting like on, since this leads to higher prices, less quantity supplied and inefficiency.
Existing methods to fight cartels are fines for blameworthy companies and the Leniency policy that prevents companies that are members of a cartel which they expose to a competition authority, from fees and other legal consequences. The EU has fined companies more than â‚Ź1.6 billion in antitrust cases in 2014, which proves anticompetitive practices to be still widespread and a crucial issue for all honest entrepreneurs and aggrieved consumers. Hence, how could the EU ensure regulations of cartels to be more effective and prevent the development of new ones?
further level to fight transnational cartels? These among others are the questions to be answered by the committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to prepare a strong resolution on the regulation and prevention of cartels.
Which actions could be implemented to detect existing cartel earlier and better? Could the national competition authorities cooperate on a
Carl Schneegass (DE) 9
N IO T A IL T U M L A IT N E G FEMALE
E U S S I N A E P O R U E IS A F emale Genital Mutilation is an extreme humanitarian and gender-based crisis, violating the rights of the 125 million women and girls worldwide who are currently living with the consequences. Despite the fact that around 500 000 FGM victims live in the EU some still contend that FGM is not a European issue, with few European countries explicitly accepting the threat of FGM as a reason for asylum. There has been much progress on FGM prevention globally; in 2012 the UN adopted a Resolution ‘Intensifying global efforts for the elimination of female genital mutilations’. Following this, the EC expressed its action plans in the 2013 European Commission com¬munication on the elimination of FGM, emphasising its commitment to combat violence against women and eliminate FGM both within EU and beyond. Ahead of International Women’s Day 2013, Eu-
10 | RSC Leverkusen EYP Germany
ropean Commission Vice-President Viviane Reding called for zero tolerance for FGM. However, although FGM is directly or indirectly prohibited in most European countries, the laws are often incomplete or unenforced; few cases of FGM have been brought to courts because of the transnational character of the problem, with many individuals involved travelling outside EU borders for the procedure. France is the only country to ever institute legal proceedings in connection with FGM. Thus we must consider how to reinforce pre-existing laws within member states. A key problem is the lack of reliable data on the prevalence of FGM, thus a key priority is how best to collect holistic and comparable data on an EU scale. Additionally, there is a lack of effective cross-border measures against FGM; any efforts take place within the country borders. Therefore a resolution may
look to establish a more cohesive, pan-European framework. Awareness is a significant problem; many European countries still view the issue with some distance. Individual member states have taken action on this, for example former Education Secretary Michael Gove wrote to every school in England about the dangers of FGM in 2014. Equally, the annual UN ‘International Day of Zero Tolerance for FGM’ on the 6th February works to highlight the issue. Perhaps such an education scheme could be implemented on an EU scale? Should FGM be discussed more openly in school environments? Finally, the EU lacks victim support measures for sufferers of this barbaric practice. Victims are usually approached by authorities in an inadequate way, often lacking psychological support. FGM is in hardly any EU country a regular part of the vocational training of health workers; any hope of combatting this
issue must first look to the training of its health professionals. FGM is undoubtedly a European problem. Thus member states have a responsibility to contribute towards a solution; but do the existing measures in place go far enough? Or should we look to implement further holistic EU strategies to help to tackle misconceptions and work towards eliminating this barbaric practice?
Ruby Goddard (UK)11
G FA GEREOWDINIGN WORLD T
he world population is growing at an exponential rate; with a current world population of over 7 billion, and projections reaching 9.1 billion by 2050, more needs to be done to meet ever growing food demands. Furthermore, the right to food is recognised in article 25 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). With the size of agricultural land needed to produce an adequate food supply being larger than the available agricultural land, new agricultural technologies appear to be one of the most viable alternatives. However, such technologies have been criticised for inefficiency or incompetence in ensuring public health.
12 | RSC Leverkusen EYP Germany
There are several key issues within this debate. Firstly, contention over whether genetically modified food is the answer; as of September 2014, 49 GMOs have been authorised by the EU. However, the EU has some of the most stringent GMO regulations in the world. Perhaps a clear, holistic EU stance on GMO would provide a way forward. However, this may prove problematic in practice as six Member States, including Austria, France and Germany, currently apply bans or prohibitions on GMO events. Thus any attempt to override this at EU level risks infringing on national sovereignty. Secondly, the environmental impact of any proposals must be considered. Agriculture is among the greatest contributors to global warming, emitting more greenÂŹhouse gases than all our cars, trucks, trains, and
airplanes combined. Thus any emerging technology must aim to reduce this negative impact. Thirdly is the issue of food waste; any new measures must look to reduce the current 1.3 billion tonnes of food waste that is produced annually. Research on food waste shows that one third of the agricultural products are not even used and simply go to waste either in the first stages of production or at later stages of the supply chain. Equally, what, if anything, can the EU do to address changing consumer patterns? These have shifted further towards animal-based products, partly due to income changes. We must consider grassroots action starting with the farmers themselves, many of whom are successfully trialling these new agricultural methods. Can the EU provide incentives, monetary or otherwise,
to support farmers in continuing to trial these methods? Ultimately, any resolution must seek to answer some key questions: Should measures focus on redistributing pre-existing food resources to meet demand? Should we focus on a product or consumer-orientated approach? Does the Common Agricultural Policy go far enough? And how can the EU ensure food security without risking food safety?
Ruby Goddard (UK)13
THE EU:
UP IN ARMS
“The arms business has a devastating impact on human rights and security, and damages economic development. Large scale military procurement and arms exports only reinforce a militaristic approach to international problems.” Campaign Against Arms Trade
T
he EU’s CSDP is underpinned by a commitment to peace and human rights. However, the EU granted export licenses for €834.5m worth of arms exports to Libya in the first five years after the arms embargo was lifted in 2004; Is this compatible with the aims of the CSDP? The contentious nature of the European Arms trade became painfully visible during the 2011 Arab spring, when European arms were used against peaceful civilians demonstrating for democracy. Similarly, the Netherlands exported armoured vehicles to Egypt and Bahrain which
14 | RSC Leverkusen EYP Germany
were used against civil protesters. Such exports clearly contradict the EU’s commitments in the CSDP, but how can the EU reconcile these competing interests? Measures are already in place, including the 1998 ‘European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Export’ and the 2008 Common Position on arms export controls. On an international scale, the UN Arms Trade Treaty entered into force on 24th December 2014. These international agreements do not by themselves control arms trade; they do provide a framework for the next steps, but do they go far enough? Together the nine biggest EU arms industries spend nearly 2.5 million Euro on lobbying in Brussels; these huge special interests in the arms trade may make further solid legislation problematic. France, the UK and Germany are the three largest EU arms exporters and thus are integral
to this debate. Germany is the the biggest EU exporter and the third largest global arms exporter, with an 11% share of all military exports 2006-2010, thus we must consider Germany’s role in any new EU framework. Furthermore, Asia has become a key market for the European defence industry, with the current trade volume with Asia worth billions and the ‘big three’ countr ies supplying arms to virtually every Asian country. Thus, should the EU be seeking a closer arms trading partnership with Asia despite security concerns within the region? European arms exports are controlled by eight criteria (1998 Code of Conduct) which set clear standards for an ethical arms trade policy. However, while the licensing authority needs to take into account human rights,
armed conflict and the economic situation of the buying country, the criteria do not demand that in case of doubt an export license has to be denied. Because of this elasticity, many European arms still end up with dictators and human rights violators and in conflict regions. Ultimately, should the European export of SALW to the Middle East be valued at €265 million (2012) considering the conflicts there? Alternatively, should adherence to the CSDP always take preced e nc e over economic interests? And is the solution a pan-European or a nationalistic approach?
Ruby Goddard (UK)
15
Honey, I’m home E
veryone knows the sweet joy of coming home after a long journey: There is nothing nicer than sleeping in your own comfortable bed again, using a clean bathroom that is all yours and enjoying your favourite series in front of your TV.
seen horrible and disgusting violence. In the worst case scenario, those radicalised and trained returnees do not seek help, but rather plot attacks on their own home countries. How can the EU protect its citizens and avoid terrorist attacks in Europe?
However, nowadays Europe is confronted with people, who return to their home countries with a less pleasant feeling about it. These people often fought in war zones like Syria or Iraq and have
Apart from storing and collecting data – which has to be seen critically – the EU can use repressive measures (e.g. taking away passports or prohibiting travels to certain countries
16 | RSC Leverkusen EYP Germany
for individuals) and preventive measures (e.g. reintegration programmes or de-radicalisation projects). Let’s take a look at how the three member states with the highest number of foreign fighters per person deal with the issue. France uses mostly repressive measures and aggressively pursues aspiring and returning fighters as well as their recruiters. The direct opposite can be found in Denmark where returnees receive a second chance through counselling, readmission to school and support. The third country, Belgium, uses a mix of repression and prevention by persecuting fighters as well as implementing social measures. Considering all these different approaches of the member states, it is challenging for the EU to find a common strategy on how to provide safety.
In order to solve the problem at its root, it is also crucial to tackle the source of radicalisation. Recruiting is not only done by radicalised preachers, but also through strong media presence. Especially the terror group IS has a strong media campaign with which they reach millions of people all over the world. For example, they create a “Twitter- bomb� where popular and trending hashtags are misused to spread their messages. Then a lot of people, who follow the popular hashtag, automatically see the content of IS. Even if only a small percentage of viewers react to this, IS already succeeded. The EU needs to react to these developments. Otherwise the joy of returning to our homes after a long journey will be dulled by the fear of attacks happening in our safe Europe.
Paula Koehler (DE)
17
Oh Captatainin, All
my Cap
over the world conflicts arise. The EU needs to set course for a new defence and security policy in order to facilitate a collective response to the challenges ahead. Cast off! The ship EU is sailing international waters for a long time now. But the seas are getting rougher: almost everywhere conflicts arise. Russia presenting itself as a big and anything but peaceful player, war on the boarder of Turkey, a country which expressed interest in becoming an EU member, or various threats
18 | RSC Leverkusen EYP Germany
from terrorist organisations all over the world. Additionally, the USA is not willing to play global policeman anymore and therefore Europe needs a stronger stance on its own foreign and security policy. At the moment Europe is mostly using soft power in the conflicts it is involved. This means that the EU tries to shape the political landscape according to its values through cultural or economic influence. Having experienced a history of brutal war, it is only reasonable to do
so. However, many voices call for an increase of hard power which focuses especially on military means. They argue that in order for the EU to be taken seriously on the world stage it is time to get tough and embrace hard power more. To be fair, the EU has room for improvement when it comes to military expenditure as only 1.5% of the GDP is used on that, whereas for example the US spends 4.2% of its budget on defence.
speak with one voice and act coherently. As easy as it seems, it is important to acknowledge that the national sovereignty of a member state is crucially defined by its freedom to choose if and how to get involved in a conflict. The EU should start shaping a security policy which is adequate to the modern demands. It will not be easy, but a smooth sea never made a skilful sailor.
As every member state of the EU reacts differently to conflicts around the world, our ship is trying to go in many different directions all at once. This does not only slow down a boat, it also makes it impossible to navigate to any destination. Because of that, many argue that the EU would be stronger and taken more seriously all over the world if it would
Paula Koehler (DE)
19
? T S O C T A H W T A : E PEAC T he EU and its Member States are the UN’s largest financial contributors, providing 38.9% of the UN budget in 2007. The EU also offers 55.6% of global development aid, 40.6% of the funding for UN peacekeeping operations and around half of the budgets for UN funds and programmes. Almost a third of the European Commission’s aid budget goes to the UN.
20 | RSC Leverkusen EYP Germany
EU’s peace building role was further fortified on the basis of ESDP (European Security and Defence Policy), specifically regarding the civilian aspects of crisis supervision, with the EU becoming progressively involved in civilian ESDP operations, as in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, or the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Kosovo was the
first instance, where political affairs at the UN Security Council had a strongly negative impact on UN-EU relations in such crisis missions. These examples may acquaint you with how the EU has played a crucial role during UN’s missions as well as their partial inability to collaborate on specific areas. Despite the widespread misconception of a military active Europe, the European Union does not actually dispose of its own military forces. The EU Member States involve mostly singularly in the international arena. Empirically speaking, the EU relies on the close cooperation with the NATO, while their forces are separable, but not separate.
Nevertheless the EU can urge its States to actively influence international peacekeeping issues, due to its comprising authority. Although it is clear that the EU is not expected to undertake the most decisive actions for the fight against international hazards, the European Union should still be prepared to contribute and guarantee its firm position in the maintenance of global security and protection of human rights.
Therefore the European Union can contribute to UN’s effort only to some extent, given that Member States act independently based on their political agenda.
Dolora Kasemi (AL/GR21)