No visible victims on the first sight, no direct opposing parties and enemies, but yet more than 1.800 casualties in less than five months. This time crisis report won’t be focused only on one country. More than just one country today faces numerous refugees’ problems.
The events in North Africa and the Middle East continue to raise issues in migration trends in Europe. Europe is one of the most important regions in terms of migratory flows based onInternational organization for migration (IOM). Amnesty International (AI) has reported on more than 2.500 drowning or missing in the Mediterranean in 2014 alone. The real number is probably a lot higher than official records, since not all of the boats were spotted and detected. By the end of April this year, more than 1.800 people drowned in shipwrecks in the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas and the number are expected to grow. The number is twenty times higher than it was last year at the same time. Based on United Nations (UN) reports this year about 60.000 people from Africa and Middle East went on a dangerous road towards a better life.
Italy, Malta, Greece and Spain are on the front lines of humanitarian crisis and are confronted with a growing number of refugees and asylum seekers. In the European Union (EU) that should work as one, policies that country which accepts refugees is considered responsible for their care, this unity is not seen. An improvement could be made in the foreseeable future with EU policy that has been unfortunately negative excepted by some of the member states. Suggestion of solidarity and even burden for EU countries was made by the European Commission with the help of the European Parliament in which all countries should accept a proportional number of refugees on their territories. The quota scheme for distribution of asylum seekers, published in European Migration Agenda has already been dismissed by a number of EU countries. Against suggestion are Great Britain, Spain, Hungary, Estonia and Slovakia. Italy, Malta, Germany and Austria agree with the suggestion. The volunteer or obligatory taking in refuges and people who need international protection is still in question. Countries have different views on what such system would bring. On one hand are Great Britain and its followers with opinion that that would further encourage people to come to Europe and on the other hand are ones that believe such actions will lead to decrease in number of immigrants. For years the EU has been struggling to harmonies asylum policy. That is difficult with 28 member states, each with their own police force and judiciary. The relocation scheme still needs some improvement regarding ties to member states, such as family members residing, language abilities and the strength of the existing ethnic community among many others.
From 16 million refugees in the world, there are approximately 1.5 million recognized refugees living in EU member states plus in Norway and Switzerland based on European Council on Refugees and Exiles. The difference between refugees and asylum seekers exists. A refugee is defined by the Geneva Convention from the year 1951 that has been ratified by all EU member states. A refugee is a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group, is outside his or her country of nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or a stateless person, who, being outside of the country of former habitual residence for the same reasons as mentioned above, is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to return to. Asylum is a form of protection given by a state on its territory.Under EU rules, an asylum seeker has the right to food, first aid and shelter in a reception centre.They can apply for asylum after giving fingerprints and being interviewed by a trained case worker. The EU also has the Eurodac system – a common database of asylum seekers’ fingerprints, which can be accessed under strict controls. Police use it to intercept false or multiple claims. They may be granted asylum by the authorities at “first instance”. If unsuccessful, they can appeal against the decision in court, and may win. Asylum seekers are supposed to be granted the right to a job within nine months of arrival.
EUROSTAT statistics for 2014 show that the number of asylum applicants registered in the EU has increased to 44% from the previous year. The peak number in 2014 was 626.000 applications and in 2014 there were 1.2 asylum applicants per thousand inhabitants in the EU. One of three asylum seekers applied in Germany and further highest numbers of applicants were registered in Sweden, Italy, Hungary, France, Hungary, Austria, Malta and Denmark. The main citizenship of asylum seekers was from Syria (20% of all applicants), Afghanistan (7%), and Kosovo (6%). Last year, 45% of first instance decisions made on asylum applications were positive. In absolute numbers a total of almost 104 thousand persons was granted refugee status in the EU-28 in 2014, nearly 60 thousand subsidiary protection statuses, and just over 20 thousand authorizations stay for humanitarian reasons. Based on the UNCHR report number of asylum applicants from January till May this year was 40.500, where most of the applicants were from Kosovo, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
European Council on 18th of May established EU naval operation – EUNAVFOR MED to disrupt human smugglers in the Mediterranean. It will consist of many phases. In initial one there will be surveillance and assessment of human smuggling and trafficking networks in the Southern Central Mediterranean. The second and third phases will be search, seize and disrupt the assets of smugglers, based on international law and partnership with Libyan authorities. NGOs and many international organizations are being sceptic about the EU military operation which goal is mainly to destroy smugglers’ boats inside the broader European Migration Agenda, due to the even greater risk to which operation may expose refugees and migrants and into forcing them to take even more dangerous routes to reach Europe. Maybe should Europe focus on saving lives of people instead on military operations?
Thousands of euros are put into the insecure road to “better” feature and more that millions into the rescue operations. Only EU operation Triton took 2.9 million euros pro month, another one Poseidon 600.000 pro month and another 570.000 euros were spent for operation Mare Nostrum Lampedusa. Could this amount of money be spent in other directions? Maybe West is not having the right focus, maybe West is not facing the core problems, the problems that have led to migration in the first place. War is waging in Iraq, Somalia, Libya, and other Sub-Saharan countries on the African continent, lack of job opportunities, insecurity, prosecutions, poverty and overall no perspective for the future, force many to seek a better life in the old continent. We are letting immigrants to drown, waiting for papers on the streets without shelter, without food, income and without dignity.
It looks like the European Union is not as open to foreigners as some have emancipated. Negative responses to quotes about taking in the refugees in a lot of EU member countries have come to me as a surprise. The great problem represents the fact that right national orientated parties are using immigrants in gaining greater support.A tragedy of epic proportions as named by The United Nations has reached such levels also because of an act of government policy. For some it looks like Europe does not want to save refugees because that leads to further consequences. It looks like a policy that was chosen by some countries is let’s let them down (drown) so that people will stop trying to make that perilous sea journey. I am not illusionist I know all cannot be saved and found in a vast sea, but intentionally making policies towards deterrence of new refugees and asylum seekers to come to Europe should not be made by countries that called themselves democracies. People flee their countries with not without a reason. It is unimaginable that every single one of immigrants has risked their lives for a present that is in some cases even worse than the situation they were running away from. Beside political solutions in the EU, solution for stabilization of countries from which refugee come from being the most important thing in solving the problems and not just focusing on human trafficking.
Dayton Peace Accord 23 Years On: Ensured Peace and Stability in Former Yugoslavia
For the past twenty-three years life has been comparatively peaceful in the breakaway republics of the former Yugoslavia. The complicated civil war that began in Yugoslavia in 1991 had numerous causes and began to break up along the ethnic lines. The touching stories and the aftermath effects of the breakaway republics of Bosnia- Herzegovina, Croatia and in Kosovo are still unfolding. Though the numbers of deaths in the Bosnia- Herzegovina conflict in former Yugoslavia are not known precisely, most sources agree that the estimates of deaths vary between 150,000 to 200,000 and displaced more than two million people. During the conflict a Srebrenica a North-eastern enclave of Bosnia once declared as a United Nations (UN ) safe area” saw one of the worst atrocity since second world war.
It has been estimated that more than 8,000 Muslim Bosniaks were massacred in Srebrenica and it was one of the most brutal ethnic cleansing operations of its kind in modern warfare. The US brokered peace talks revived the a peace process between the three warring factions in Bosnia- Herzegovina. For Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina a United States (US ) -brokered peace deal reached in Dayton on 21st November 1995. In a historic reconciliation bid on 14 December 1995 , the Dayton Peace Accord was signed in Paris, France, between Franjo Tudjman president of the Republic of Croatia and Slobodan Milosevic president of the Federal Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), Alija Izetbegovic, president of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
When conflict in Bosnia- Herzegovina, Croatia ended, the reconciliation began between ethnically divided region. The US played a crucial role in defining the direction of the Peace process. In 1996, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) -led 60,000 multinational peace enforcement force known as the Implementation Force (IFOR)) was deployed to help preserve the cease-fire and enforce the treaty provisions. Thereafter, the Court was established by Resolution 808 and later, Resolution 827 of the United Nations Security Council, which endorsed to proceed with setting up of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to try crimes against humanity . International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was the first United Nations (UN) war crimes tribunal of its kind since the post-second world war Nuremberg tribunal.
In the late 1990’s, as the political crisis deepened a spiral of violence fuelled the Kosovo crisis between the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and the Yugoslav forces. Unlike the Bosnia- Herzegovina, Kosovo was a province of Serbia, of former Yugoslavia that dates back to 1946, when Kosovo gained autonomy as a province within Serbia. It is estimated that more than 800,000. Kosovos were forced out of Kosovo in search of refuge and as many as 500,000 more were displaced within Kosovo.
Subsequent t hostilities in Kosovo the eleven week air campaign led by NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) against Yugoslavia in 1999 the Yugoslavian forces pulled troops out of Kosovo NATO. After the war was over, the United Nations Security Council, under the resolution 1244 (1999) approved to establish an international civil presence in Kosovo, known as the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). Nevertheless UNMIK regulation No 1999/24 provided that the Law in Force in Kosovo prior to March 22, 1989 would serve as the applicable law for the duration of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK).
In this context reconciliation is a key to national healing of wounds after ending a violent conflict. Healing the wounds of the past and redressing past wrongs is a process through which a society moves from a divided past to a shared future. Over the years in Serbia, Bosnia- Herzegovina, Croatia and in Kosovo the successful peace building processes had happened. The success of the peace building process was possible because of participation of those concerned, and since appropriate strategies to effectively approach was applied with all relevant actors. The strengthening of institutions for the benefit of all citizens has many important benefits for the peace and stability of former Yugoslavia. Hence, the future looks bright for the Balkan states of Serbia, Bosnia- Herzegovina, Croatia and Kosovo.
Hungarian Interest, Ukraine and European Values
Diplomatic conflicts that have recently arisen between Hungary and its neighboring countries and the European Union as a whole most clearly show the new trend in European politics. This trend is committing to national and state values of a specific European country, doubting the priority of supranational interests within the European Union. Political analyst Timofey Bordachev believes that “the era of stale politics and the same stale politicians, who make backstage decisions based on the“ lowest common denominator,” are finally coming to an end. Politicians with a new vision of the world order come to power, such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Austrian Federal Chancellor Sebastian Kurtz, or the new head of the Italian Interior Ministry, leader of the right-wing League of the North Party, Matteo Salvini ”.
It is not the first year that Hungary is trying to protect the interests of its citizens and the state from external influence, to protect the Hungarians in the territory of neighbouring states by establishing for this a special position (Commissioner for the development of the Transcarpathian region of Ukraine), to determine relations with other countries on the basis of their attitude to the rights of Hungarians. This is how conflicts with the European Union arose, after Hungary refused to let migrants into the country, in the same manner, a conflict arose with Ukraine, which is trying to build a state ideology, based on nationalism, which a priori does not provide for the proper level of realization and protection of the rights of non-titular nations.
In relation to Hungary, Ukraine follows the same policy as in relation to Russia – to initiate various accusations, to call for punishment, to talk about the inconsistency with European values of the Hungarian policy under the leadership of Orban. Doing so Kiev has its multifaceted interest: cooperation with NATO and the EU, support for any decisions of Brussels, the anti-Russian course, domestic policy based on the nationalist ideology. And in all these areas Hungary poses a problem for Ukraine. In the description of relations with Hungary Kiev even uses the word “annexation“.
Hungary is hardly planning to seize any Ukrainian territory, but on what grounds Ukraine falsely accuses Hungary of its annexation intentions in relation to Transcarpathia? The Ukrainian side highlights several positions:
Issuing Hungarian passports to Ukrainian citizens (ethnic Hungerians)
This is an old story, it has come to light again recently due to the growth of Ukrainian nationalism. Moreover, there are concerns about the implementation by Hungary of the “Crimean scenario” in relation to Transcarpathia.
The Hungarian government has created the position of “Commissioner for the development of Ukraine’s Transcarpathian region and the program for the development of kindergartens in the Carpathian region”.
Ukraine demanded an explanation. A note of protest was delivered to the Hungarian Charge d’Affaires in Ukraine, and the Foreign ministers of Ukraine and Hungary had a telephone conversation on the problem. Hungary continues to ignore the requirements of Kiev.
Ukraine fears further disintegration processes
At the same time, in Kiev there is no understanding of the fact that combining the ideology of nationalism with the country’s national diversity and European integration is hardly possible.
Ukrainian experts note the growth of separatism in the Transcarpathian region, as well as the “strange behavior” of the governor, who plays on the side of Hungary. They also complain that “pro-Ukrainian ideology”(?) is not being сonsolidated in Transcarpathia, and this region is not controlled and monitored by the Ministry of information. In a word, the state is losing control over the territory, which it neither develops nor controls. Such behavior of the governor and the region’s residents may indicate that the state is not sufficiently present in the lives of residents of Transcarpathia, and this a financial and humanitarian drawback they compensate with the help of Hungary, – experts believe.
Apparently, Ukraine is unable to reach an agreement with Hungary as relations are tense. In response to the Ukrainian law on education, adopted in the fall of 2017, which infringes the rights of national minorities, Budapest blocked another, the third, Ukraine-NATO meeting. Ukraine witnessed this embarrassing situation in April 2018. At the same time elections were held in Hungary, in which Viktor Orban’s party won a majority in the parliament. Such a tough stance of Budapest in relation to the Ukrainian educational policy Kiev considered to be just a sign of electoral populism. However, this was a mistake.
Viktor Orban’s victory in spring 2018 was convincing, and a convincing victory means obvious support of his migration policies as well as his support for compatriots abroad. The party of Orban – Fides – not only won a majority but a constitutional majority – 133 of the 199 seats in the National Assembly of Hungary.
There is no doubt that Hungary has become Ukraine’s another serious opponent in the process of its European integration. And it is unlikely that either country will take a step back: there will be presidential elections in Ukraine soon, and in Hungary, the victory won by Orban, apparently, confirms the approval of his independent foreign policy by the citizens. So the conflict is likely to develop.
First published in our partner International Affairs
Belt and Road Alternatives: The European Strategy
The European Union (EU) has put forward a plan for enhancing connectivity within Asia, which has been dubbed as the Asia Connectivity Strategy.
The EU does not want to give an impression, that the Asia Connectivity Strategy (ACS) is a counter to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Yet, senior officials of the EU, while commenting on the broad aims and objectives of the project, have categorically stated, that the primary goal of the Asia Connectivity Strategy, is enhancing connectivity (physical and digital) while also ensuring, that local communities benefit from such a project, and environmental and social norms are not flouted (this is a clear allusion to the shortcomings of the BRI). There are no clear details with regard to the budget, and other modalities of the project (EU member countries are likely to give a go ahead for this project, before the Asia-Europe Meeting in October 2018). EU has categorically stated, that it would like to ensure that the ACS is economically sustainable.
Other alternatives to BRI
It is not just the EU, but even the US, along with Japan and Australia. which are trying to create an alternative vision to the BRI.
The US alternative to the BRI, is being funded by the recently created United States International Development Finance Corporation (USDFC) (an organization which will merge Overseas Private Investment Corporation and other Development Finance Programs) which came into being after the passing of the BUILD (Better Utilization of Investments leading to Development) Act recently.
It would be pertinent to point out, that the US which has been accused of lacking a cohesive vision to counter China’s BRI has in recent months spoken, on more than one occasion, about greater the dire need for robust connectivity in the Indo-Pacific. In July 2018 US Secretary of State while speaking at the Indo-Pacific Business Forum committed an amount of $113 million for U.S. initiatives to support projects related to digital economy, energy, and infrastructure. The Secretary of State, while speaking about close links between US and Indo-Pacific, also spoke about the need for greater private sector involvement in projects in the Indo-Pacific. Pompeo off late, has also been reaching out pro-actively to a number of countries in South East Asia, and visited Malaysia, Indonesia in August 2018.
It would be pertinent to point out that OPIC (now part of USFDC) has already signed with the overseas finance development arms of Japan and Australia, and is in talks with India to work jointly. Some of the areas being explored for joint investments are energy, infrastructure.
It is not just the US, even Japan has come with it’s own alternative, Partnership for Quality Infrastructure (PQI), to the BRI.
Potential Appeal of the Asia Connectivity Strategy
So the question then arises, why would countries seeking an alternative to China, not come on board the US’ connectivity initiative. The ‘Asia Connectivity Strategy’ may be especially acceptable to leaders, who do not want to be seen as blindly following US diktats, but who are also uncomfortable with Beijing’s economic policies, and want to avoid falling into what has been dubbed as Beijing’s ‘debt trap’ diplomacy. A perfect example being Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohammad who scrapped projects worth 40 Billion USD, and also referred to the rise of a ‘new colonialism’ being promoted by China. The Malaysian PM has not shared a particularly cordial relationship with the US in the past. While addressing the United Nations General Assembly (unga), Mahathir made some interesting points, saying that Malaysians want a Malaysia, which seeks relations based on ‘mutual respect’ and a Malaysia, that is ‘neutral’ and ‘non aligned’
EU itself trying to strike a balance
EU Chief, Jean Claude Juncker, has been pitching for a more pro-active response to Trump’s insular policies, as well as China’s BRI. Given the fact, that EU has taken a divergent stand from US on the Iran issue, and has proposed a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) which will ensure that trade with Iran continues, even before the impending US sanctions to be imposed on Iran in November 2018. The SPV was announced, jointly with Russia and China, on the sidelines of the UNGA.
At the UNGA, French President, Emmanuel Macron disagreed with Trump’s views with regard to Iran, and supported the 2015 Vienna Accord. Said Macron: We know that Iran was on a nuclear military path but what stopped it? The 2015 Vienna accord.”
While it remains to be seen, if the SPV set up by EU works or not, but a number of countries which do not want to be part of the Chinese or American orbit would be attracted towards the EU, in spite of all the problems it is facing, due to it’s capacity to take an independent stand.
Asia Connectivity Strategy is not only about competition
It remains to be seen whether the Asia Connectivity Strategy can gain traction. In terms of connectivity, there may even be strong overlaps with the ‘Indo-Pacific vision’. France, which has strengthened strategic ties with Australia and India, is already seeking to play a pro-active role in the Indo-Pacific.
French President Emmanuel Macron had referred to the need for a strong Paris-Canberra-New Delhi axis, during his Australia visit, as a counter to China’s increasing assertiveness.
Interestingly, while there is a realization, that Asian Connectivity Strategy has a competitive element, and there are some clear differences between EU’s strategy and BRI, there are also some who believe, that there is space for collaboration between the Asia Connectivity Strategy and BRI. This point has been put forward by some policy makers and strategic commentators in EU, as well as sections of the Chinese media. Wang Wen Wen in an article for the Global Times, argues:
‘Asia needs Europe as much as it needs China. Since the EU and China are the two largest economic entities in Eurasia, it is vital that they steward the continent’s economic development agenda. Some programs in the BRI have carried out cooperation with the European side on technology and equipment procurement.’
In conclusion, the Asia Connectivity Strategy is an interesting idea. A lot will depend upon available resources and the response of potential stakeholders. But EU going ahead with such an initiative in spite of numerous problems within is truly laudable.
Putin Welcomes New Ambassadors in Moscow
Russian President Vladimir Putin has strongly reminded newly arrived foreign ambassadors of their important mission of promoting relations between their individual countries...
Why China will win the Artificial Intelligence Race
Two Artificial Intelligence-driven Internet paradigms may emerge in the near future. One will be based on logic, smart enterprises and...
Italy’s and EU’s natural gas imports from the United States
Currently natural gas is one of the most important US assets in its relations with the European Union. In fact,...
Eurasian Research on Modern China-Eurasia Conference
October 26-27, 2018,National Academy of Sciences, Armenia. Address: Marshal Bagramyan 24, Yerevan, Armenia. Organizers:“China-Eurasia” Council for Political and Strategic Research,...
The “Neo-Cold War” in the Indian Ocean Region
Addressing an event earlier this week at London’s Oxford University, Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said some people are...
Kazakh court case tests Chinese power
A Kazakh court is set to put to the test China’s ability to impose its will and strongarm Muslim nations...
Portugal’s post-crisis policies boosted growth and employment
A mix of sound economic and social policies and constructive social dialogue between the government, workers’ and employers’ organizations have...
Defense2 days ago
US-China Tensions in South China Sea
Middle East2 days ago
Syrian Kurds between Washington, Turkey and Damascus
Intelligence2 days ago
The risk of a new Islamic State on China’s Western Border
Southeast Asia3 days ago
Improving Vocational Education in Thailand: An interview with Khunying Sumonta Promboon
Economy2 days ago
Prema Gopalan Honoured as India Social Entrepreneur of the Year 2018
Africa3 days ago
Global community must go beyond military cooperation to assist Africa
Southeast Asia3 days ago
Indonesia: Balanced politics amid major powers
Americas2 days ago
Weather and White House Turmoil as Elections Loom