Transborder Cooperation and Youth Opportunities

Why the European Right must fi ght

The Holodomor in Ukraine

BullsEyeThe newsmagazine of European Democrat Students

March’13 / 52nd year / No. 51 / ISSN 2033-7809

Garrick Club04 David Teilett

Freedom Fighters 04 Lech Walesa

Current Affairs06 Operation in Mali

07 hould the EU abolish visas for Russians?08 Right loses out in Czech Presidential election

09 Why the European right needs to fight10 Childcare key to economic recovery

Bullseye on12 The importance of the CAP13 The case against the CAP

Reports14 The Schengen Agreement15 Europe’s democratic deficit

16 Our money, our future 19 The harm of wage

indexation mechanisms20 Young politicians fuel think-tanks

21 Europe is a racist continent

Theme22 Visegrad 4 Eastern Partnership

24 Interview with Jacob Schrot25 Cross-border cooperation and

youth opportunities26 Interview with Miroslav Hajnoš

Events:27 EDS meets in Slovakia

Universities:28 The University of Bergundy

Council of Europe30 The Council trusts young peoplea

Bureau31 EDS Bureau 2012-13

The newsmagazine of European Democrat Students

Bullseye

editorial Content

Hello again readers, and welcome to the third BullsEye of the 2012/13 EDS Bureaux. Sadly I will not be able to join you in person as I had hoped – it turns out that flying from Dublin to Lvov takes almost as long as flying to Beijing!These continue to be interesting times for the European Union, and I think we have successfully captured some of that spirit in these pages. We’ve got plenty of articles aimed at policy discussion, from the euro to childcare policy. We’ve also got a bumper-sized Reports section, whose articles examine the role of think-tanks and the Schengen zone in the European project.One of my missions as editor of BullsEye has been to encourage those who write for it to be free to challenge the status quo and the orthodoxies of European politics. In my three issues I’ve seen writers do this from across the Union, but in this issue the mantle of troublemakers-in-chief falls squarely on the shoulders of the British. Really, who else could it have been? I take part in the BEOn debate on the Common Agricultural Policy and, spurred on by Britain’s apparent moves towards a referendum in which I will be forced to actively campaign for Europe, make the case that the European ‘right’ is doing very little to challenge an increasingly social-democratic European direction. Meanwhile, that redoubtable EDS veteran Matt Lewis tackles the continent’s continued problem with racism, even in the well-heeled West.But good as this is, there still isn’t enough. What I really want to see are articles that face up to the realities of European federalism, to which the EPP is committed. I want to know what you want a United States of Europe to look like, how strong its armies will be, how it will work. If you’ve an article on those topics you’d like to write, please get in touch.Good reading, and enjoy Ukraine.

Henry Hill, Editor-in-chief

Dear readers, I will start with a short story. This happened during our last EDS event in Trnava, Slovakia. I came with my car and had the aim to bring home as many BullsEye last issues as possible. I was very glad for once not having to think about the weight of my luggage for a flight. However something unexpected hap-pened! There was no BullsEye left. Not even a single previous issue, even stained by coffee or tea. Faced to the surprise I thought it was a trick planned by some silly colleagues but, after some investigations, I found out that it was not. All BEs were gone. If I told you about this story it was not to complain about not getting a BullsEye issue but to thank you for your interest in this EDS publication and for spreading it all over Europe. This issue will be delivered during the EDS Winter university in Lviv, Ukraine. I think this event will be a great opportunity to discuss youth opportunities in today’s Europe. Young Europeans have never experienced Europe as much as we do nowa-days: We travel, study and work more and more in other European countries and especially in neighborhood countries. This is understood by our politicians who try to facilitate it on a European level with EU policies. Let’s be very optimistic about future of this process, whilst never forgetting Europe’s darker history, of which Ukraine’s Holodomor is an illustration.I wish you to enjoy this issue, and to always spread it further.

Amélie Pommier, EDS Vice

Chairman

Publication supported by: European Youth Foundation of the Council of Europe

ISSN: Print: 2033-7809, Online: 2033-7817 Editor-in-chief: Henry Hill, Editorial team: Aija Koniševska, Alexandra Gazashvili, Algirdas Kazlauskas, Amélie Pommier, Ana Janelidze, Anna Tamasi, Andrey Novakov, Emilis Kazlauskas, Henry Hill, Jakov Devčić, Luke Springthorpe, Matt Lewis, Miroslav Jurčišin,Petros Demetriou, Contributions: Guillaume Dos Santos, Elina Foinska, Dimitar Keranov, Eva Majewski, Anaïs Mattez, Vivika Melts, Ann-Sofie Pauwelyn, Vit Voseček, Photos: Balázs Szecsődi, European Commission archives, KAS archives, private archives, Shutterstock, Design: Creacion.si, Publisher: European Democrat Students, B-1000 Brussels, Rue du Commerce 10, Tel: +32 2 2854-150, Fax: +32 2 2854-141, Email: eds@epp.eu, Website: edsnet.eu

Articles and opinions published in this magazine are not nessessarily reflecting the position of EDS, EDS Bureau or the Editorial team.

2

Dear readers and supporters of EDS!This year’s unusually early Easter has brought an unusually early ball season, Fat Tuesday and a very early start of Lent. Thus having a tuxedo picture would be unwise at best at the beginning of March.More seriously, we are meeting for our XXIII Winter University, entitled “Transborder Co-operation and Youth Opportunities”. We meet in the city of Lvov, in the large and deeply historical Republic of Ukraine, which bears clearly the marks of history. It is a country that has a distinct heritage and culture, especially in the west, and a more pro-Russian pull in the mineral-rich east. For years, Ukraine has been torn between its western aspiration and the close grip of its ‘elder brother’, which remains from older times. We also meet in a country where the powerful have decided to cancel out opposition lead-ers and imprison the former Prime Minister. Abraham Lincoln once said: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power”. This holds true in the Ukraine, and those in power must realise that just because they can do a thing does not mean they should! I call for the immediate release of former EPP Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko from prison, and her full reintegration into Ukrainian society.The abuse of power, and the other tests of the character of politicians, spills over to other areas of life in Ukraine. This is very much true of our discussion topic. Where and how do young people find places in the future of their societies? Where and how does the Ukrainian youth get involved in Erasmus, in Leonardo da Vinci? How is the visa duty impeding their op-portunities to apply for Masters programmes within the European Union? Will they become a brain drain generation, as it has been in so many Eastern and Central European countries? We will find answers for this topic not only on the pages of this issue of BullsEye, but also in our meetings and the Conference Resolution that follows.It is my firm belief that societal change will be brought about by the people themselves. The young people who travel, and see the unification of Europe of which EDS is but a part, will bring about the change we want. I have high hopes for the youth of today; an increasingly sophisticated youth that does not listen to the propaganda so easily spread by the media, and conduct their debates on the internet, and who will see that politics needs to be done differently. We shall strive to create a youth who realise that the true and best motivation for politics is public service. We will educate them and free their minds, so they do not lose sight of their dreams as they pursue their careers.Transborder Cooperation is a tool to that end. It ameliorates people’s fears and suspicions about their neighbours, and helps them better judge their own society and political system. In a country with an internationally-aware citizenry it will not be possible that a former PM goes to prison on the basis of fabricated pretexts, and is sentenced using part of a criminal code left over from communist tyranny.I do have high hopes for our young students. I also hope that the cross-border cooperation of EU member states with their closest neighbours will allow them to know us better, and will create bonds in early adulthood that will persist in later life, and are not forgotten once today’s youth are in tomorrow’s positions of power.Eastern and Southern Partnership states need our support, and EDS wishes to express its readi-ness to assist our neighbours in building the bridges of knowledge and progress. I wish you a pleasant read of our articles and we hope we provoke new thoughts or patterns of thinking in you.

Juraj Antal, Chairman

Sincerely,

Chairman’s letter

Bullseye 3

David TeilletLet’s meet with an EDS former Vice-chairman and former delegate for UNI-MET France.

GarriCk CluB

was not part of the government: I was Chief of staff of French Foreign Affairs Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy (C).In 2011, I left politics for the private sector and French chef, Alain Ducasse and became Del-egate Director for Alain Ducasse Enterprise, a group of 27 restaurants with 21 stars and a global workforce of about 1,400 employees. A few months back, I became the Chairman and General Manager of an Investment Fund’s Eu-ropean branch.

How do you tHink we can act in politics? Admittedly, there is a difference in the scope of what grassroots members can achieve com-pared to political leaders, but day in and day out, promoting the values one believes in can be achieved at any and all levels. There are multiple ways one can act in politics. For example, I am and will most likely always remain an activist.

wHat do you tHink eds Has brougHt you during your time as a delegate and as a Vice-cHair-man?Looking back on my time as Delegate and Vice-Chairman, between the years 1997 and 2002, i.e. prior to the enlargement of the E.U., I can say I have gained two essential benefits from EDS: First, I have had the rare opportunity to meet with delegates and political figures from all over Europe. Some of them were already prominent, others were budding politicians, and I have the privilege of having remained friends with a great number of them. The second benefit EDS has brought me is that I have gained valuable experience from partici-pating in the life of an international organization, and contributing to helping it achieve greater vis-ibility. Launching the “Free Belarus Campaign,” and submitting resolutions to the European People’s Party during its Congress remain vivid memories, and many years later, I still keep up with EDS and its present-day campaigns. Once a member of EDS, always a member of EDS!

wHat did eds represent to you wHen you took part of its actiVi-ties? It may sound obvious, but the reason I decided to join EDS after UNI, was that I saw it as a

way to take my activism to a truly European level. I was interested in joining a wider forum to share information, viewpoints, and visions for the future, with the common goal of advancing European youth, and Unity through Diversity. As the largest political youth organisation in Europe, EDS brings together a great variety of students, it fosters political debate, and has grown to be a major policy-shaper.

wHat do you tHink of tHe recent cHanges in HigHer education and researcH in europe? in wHicH way do you tHink tHe cHanges sHould be establisHed?Over the past 20 years, essential reforms have been implemented throughout Europe, making student mobility a long-awaited reality. Gradu-ates are now free to receive their training from different European countries, to experience dif-ferent cultures, and grow from them. The fact that European degrees are now recognized the world over, means that European youths can fully partake in the global economy. In turn, so can Europe.

wHat are for you tHe main is-sues nowadays for students in europe?To my mind, mobility is the main issue students now face in Europe. In order to better adapt to the modern world and to its economy, I believe students ought to accept and welcome mobil-ity throughout the course of their training, all the more so since there is a high likelihood they will end up working and/or living in another country than the one where they were born. As a result, mobility is not just a challenge, it is also an op-portunity.

wHat would your words to a student wHo is taking part of eds actiVities at tHe moment?Enjoy your student years, of course. Do not be afraid to think different: speak up your mind, and stand up for what you believe in. Remember that socialism is not the only choice, and make the most out of your EDS experience, so you can be a European activist!

wHicH goals would you giVe to eds nowadays? EDS is, and ought to remain, the largest politi-cal youth organization in Europe. As it brings to-gether, and represents literally millions of centre-right European students, EDS has a duty to be a source of proposals and an advocate of our values in European institutions. It also provides an outstanding learning experience for the politi-cal leaders of today and tomorrow.

could you giVe us an oVerView of your career especially after you left eds?I left EDS in 2002 to participate to the presi-dential campaign of the incumbent. Jacques Chirac was reelected for a second term in May 2002, and I joined the Cabinet of Xavier Darcos (C), who was then the French School Education Minister, as a Junior Cabinet member. In 2004, I followed Xavier Darcos to the Ministry of Devel-opment, Cooperation and Francophony, first as his Deputy-Chief of staff, and then as Chief of staff. In May 2007, I was once again his Chief of staff at the National Education Ministry, and in 2009, at the Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs, Family, and Solidarity. There was an interrup-tion between 2005 and 2006 as Xavier Darcos

4

freedom fiGhters

TRADES UNioNiSMAn electrician by trade, Walesa became a dissident trade union activist after begin-ning work at the Gdansk (then “Lenin”) shipyards. In December 1970, food short-ages and drastic increases in food prices invoked violent protest strikes in shipyards, and Walesa was elected chairman of the Strike Committee. He was amongst those who negotiated workers’ demands with First Secretary of the Communist Party Ed-ward Gierek.On April 29 1978, alongside union activ-ists, Walesa drew up a Charter of Work-ers’ Rights and formed the unofficial Baltic Committee of Independent Trade Unions in order to protect the workers’ economic, le-gal, and human rights. Due to his activities, he was persecuted by the communist au-thorities, and was both fired and arrested several times.

SoLiDARiTy1980 was an important year for Walesa. Having been in charge of the shipyard strike he inspired similar strikes elsewhere, first in the Gdansk area and then across Poland. In August 1980 he was involved in political negotiations that led to the Gdansk Agreement between striking workers and the government. According to the agreement the Lenin ship-yard workers were granted not only the right to strike, but also were permitted to form their own independent trade union. The Na-tional Coordinating Committee of the Soli-darity Free Trade Union was legalised and Walesa was chosen to serve as chairman. Solidarity claimed over ten million members and Walesa gained international fame.

Lech WalesaAlthough he said of himself “I am no politician”, Lech Walesa is a former president of Poland. A charismatic leader, he was the co-founder of Solidarity, the Soviet bloc’s first independent trades union, and was appointed its first chair-man. The main objective of the organisation was to secure worker’s rights, including the right to strike and to organise their own independent unions. With this aim Lech Walesa, alongside his colleagues and co-workers, organised the free unions. In 1983 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his distinguished service.

Ana Janelidze

After the declaration of martial law in 1981, Walesa like many other Solidarity activists was arrested and Solidarity was outlawed. He was incarcerated for 11 months at several eastern towns. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1983. Unable to accept it himself for fear that Poland’s government would not allow him to return to the country, his wife Danuta accepted it on his behalf. In his speech, which she delivered, Walesa declared: “We crave for justice, and that is why we are so persis-tent in the struggle for our rights.”During the mid-1980s, Walesa continued underground Solidarity-related activities. In late summer he instigated strikes at the Gdansk shipyard. After months of strikes and political deliberations, the government agreed to enter into round table negotia-tions, which resulted in an agreement to re-establish Solidarity.It also led to an agreement to organise a “semi-free” election to the Polish parlia-ment – 65% of the seats in the Sejm re-mained reserved for the Communist Party and its allies. The Solidarity Citizen’s Com-mittee, established in December 1988, won the parliamentary election in June 1989, taking all the seats in the Sejm that were subject to free voting and all but one seat in the newly re-established Seante.

PRESiDENCyDisappointed with some of his former comrades, who seemed to be satisfied to govern alongside former communists, in 1990 Walesa ran for the re-established Presidency of Poland under the slogan “I don’t want to, but I have got no choice”, and won. His presidency is characterised

as a transformation from a communist to a post-communist state, marked by pri-vatisation, the transition to a free market economy, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Poland, reduction in Poland’s external debt and realigning Poland’s foreign rela-tions. Walesa supported a course towards membership of both NATO and the Euro-pean Union; both goals were realised after his presidency, in 1999 and 2004.Due to Walesa’s confrontational character annual changes of government occurred, while former Solidarity allies clashed with one another. He was strongly criticised by his allied parties for this style of presiden-cy, and as a result he lost more and more political allies. He performed poorly in the 1993 parliamentary elections and narrowly lost the 1995 presidential election, gather-ing 48.72% of the vote against Aleksander Kwasiniewski, a representative of the Pol-ish post-communists.After the election, he entered “political re-tirement” – although this didn’t stop him running again for the presidency in 2000. However, he is still famous internationally. Walesa continues to lecture in Poland and abroad on history and politics and various universities and he remains active today, having been awarded various honourable titles and medals.The motto of a humanitarian trade union activist’s life is perfectly reflected in his own words: “The defence of our rights and our dignity, as well as never to let ourselves be overcome by the feeling of hatred – this is the road we have chosen.”

Bullseye 5

Current affairs

the EU Battlegroup at this time is battling not with the Union’s enemies but its own irrelevance.

UNwiLLiNGNESS AND iNCAPABiLiTyHowever, the most striking observation is not that Western nation states are laying down ever more rules to constrict deci-sions about deploying soldiers, but that Western countries are becoming more and more interested only in themselves.For example, France is so active and con-cerned about the situation in Mali not just because of a desire to free the Malian peo-ple from Islamist oppression, but because it was the perfect opportunity for presi-dent Francois Hollande to strengthen his indecisive image. Furthermore, as political analyst Alexander Pannett argues, Mali’s neighbour Niger provides 18 per cent of the raw materials consumed by French nuclear power plants. France for obvious reasons does not want Niger’s uranium mines to be disrupted or even captured by Islamists spilling over from Mali, not least because it might allow insurgent manufacture of dirty radiation bombs.Finally, fighting in Mali against a poorly-prepared Islamist paramilitary army is an achievable mission for the shrinking mili-tary forces of France. The same was true of Libya, whose relatively weak armed forces almost proved too much for the several Eu-ropean countries that took part in ousting Gaddafi – until the US rode in to save the day, as per usual.This poorly disguised self-interest, com-bined with shrinking defence budgets, is a combination that may well mark the beginning of the end to the modern West-ern commitment to policing the world. The Syrian massacre remains unchallenged, whilst in the media and in local govern-ment the voices that speak loud about the national interest, in chorus with the voices of the pacifist left, drown out those voices in favour of risky military deployments in far-flung foreign lands.As political analyst Gregor Peter Schmitz recently argued in Der Spiegel, uncertainty continues to grow because, despite the worsening security situation around the world, Obama in his inaugural address de-clared that “a decade of war is ending”. Schmitz wrote that, when it came to polic-ing the world, “Europe is incapable, America unwilling”. One might add that prolongued unwillingness often leads to incapability as military might, like any muscle, must be kept exercised lest it wither away.

Operation in Mali just another sign of Western confusionIn recent weeks the Western media, tired of the seemingly never-ending massacre in Syria, could turn their attention to a relatively fresh military conflict. By the time this article is published, French troops will likely have already regained all major cities that were under control of Islamist rebels. But that is not as important as the surrounding circumstances of this, on first glance successful, military operation.

Emilis Kazlauskas

NATioN STATES VERSUS EU CSDPThe military operation was undertaken almost exclusively by the French mili-tary. Such events appeared fairly natural because Mali is Francophone: a former French colony where France is the official language. As France has crucial knowledge of the cultural peculiarities of the country, she was the obvious option for restoring normal life to the failing Mali state.Yet is it really so natural? We live in a world, replete with international political institutions such as the UN or EU, where multilateralism is held as good and unilat-eralism frowned upon. The answer seems to be yes.The UN appears to have given the opera-tion a form of silent approval, whilst dur-ing the opening stages of the intervention the EU, for all its claims of being a unified political entity (or even superpower), was nowhere to be found. The slow response of High Representative of the Union for For-eign Affairs and Security Police Baroness

Ashton and the newly-established Europe-an External Action Service to rapidly chang-ing circumstances demonstrated that the implementers of EU common foreign and security policy either lack competence or the leverage to involve themselves in hot spots like Mali.Moreover, other member states clearly showed reluctance to help France, and only the United Kingdom after some little time provided several hundred soldiers to pursue non-combat tasks such as train-ing the Malian army and their allies from other African countries. European solidar-ity, which is crumbling on economic and financial matters, is almost nowhere to be found on defence issues. The EU Battle-group – a rapid reaction force consisting of 19 multinational battalions – should be the crown of the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy yet remains beneath a layer of dust despite this perfect opportunity for its first deployment. To use the words of defence analyst Myrto Hatzigeorgopolous,

6

Current affairs

Should the EU abol-ish visas to Russia?Relations between the European Union as a supranational entity

and the Russian Federation have experienced their ups and downs in recent years. Nevertheless, the European Union has had a well-

defined foreign policy towards Russia since the early 1990s.

too difficult at the moment. If you need to go to Germany, for example, you go to the embassy and the chance is high that there will be no obstacles to getting a visa unless you’re wanted by Interpol. Even Barroso has said that the EU gave 5.26 million visas to Russians in 2011 and that visitor numbers were up some 60 per cent. Judging by these numbers, the system seems to be working flawlessly and the visa regime is not a prob-lem.Why then is Putin’s government so persis-tent, bringing this up on every occasion? In Putin’s own words: “The lack of a visa-free regime constrains the future development of economic ties”. This sentence is a ci-pher, since visas have little to do with trade and business. There are visas between the United States and China, but this doesn’t seem to hinder the economic cooperation between these two countries.Putin further said that Russian tourists were an important contributor to the EU’s income. No doubt, but if this is so with the visa re-gime in place what compelling reason is there to abolish it? As the American saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. The visa regime is the Union’s only tool for controlling the masses of people trying to

get in. With the financial crisis and other things the EU has enough problems to deal with already and no reason to make life even harder.Interestingly, the Russian government re-cently announced that it was severely tight-ening up the visa regime for German citizens. This move is widely seen as retaliation from Moscow for the pause in the visa liberalisa-tion talks, which stems largely from German opposition. The Kremlin muscle-flexing is obvious, bearing in mind that Russia was pushing these discussions and campaigning for the visa-free regime in the first place. As Francesco Bigazzi, a retired Italian diplomat, was quoted as saying: “The Kremlin has achieved nothing and has come up with this aggressive response. Now Russia is much further that it was from its goal.”There is one more important thing to con-sider. The European Union and her citizens must think in broad strategic terms. This is not simply about making travelling easier. It would be a lot less complicated if it was, but it isn’t. There are a lot of steps being taken right now in Moscow in order to create a Eurasian Union. This is neither joke nor rumour, but official Kremlin policy. Something like a capitalist version of the Soviet Union, or what the Commonwealth of Independent States was envisioned as. Not that Russia is very capi-talist or democratic at present, so it looks more like an attempt to directly resurrect the Soviet empire.Over one thousand people currently work at the Eurasian Customs Union, and the Court of the Eurasian Economic Community was just established recently. Some even call it a challenge to the EU Eastern Partnership project, as the Union’s eastern neighbours will be forced to choose between two dif-ferent paths. Constanze Stelzenmueller, a representative of the German Marshal Fund, said: “The thing is we no longer live in the Cold War. Russia’s soft power is pretty limited even in its neighbourhood. Russia can still threaten a little bit, bully a little bit, but it doesn’t re-ally have a lot of power in positive persua-sion, for the simple reason – Russia itself is not a good model to follow.”So does the European Union really want to have a visa-free regime with a country that is making some very shady moves towards redrawing the map in Russia’s favour, utilis-ing KGB-style bullying, all to punish some-one for being unwilling to open their borders to waves of illegal immigrants? I would think twice about that.

Recently, bilateral relations have been put to the test as the issue of so-called ‘via liberalisation’, and even the abolition of the visa regime (although this has no time frame yet) have been raised in several summits. Some Russian politicians have gone as far as saying they want to see visas abolished by the start of the Winter Olympics in Sochi in 2014. It seems as if they are declaring some sort of ultimatum.Visa liberalisation sounds fairly reasonable, but total abolition now or even two decades hence will be a bitterly regretted own goal for the Union. Why?First, this would disproportionately benefit Russian citizens (who would get free access to the EU), since I do not see queues of EU citizens wanting to go to Russia. This would most likely result in one-sided inward migra-tion to the European Union. This would not profit the Union, as it would certainly burden the social and financial support systems of the member states. Germany and France are opposed to visa abolition precisely be-cause they see a huge risk of unwanted immigration.Second, it is totally unnecessary. Some will say it would make travelling easier, ease international study, and so on. But this isn’t

Dimitar Keranov

Bullseye 7

At the beginning of the campaign there were 12 candidates. To be eligible as a can-didate one had to collect 50,000 signatures or have the support of ten senators. Two can-didates failed to meet this condition, namely Tomio Okamura and Vladimir Dlouhy. An ab-solute majority two-round system was used.In the polls for the first round Jan Fischer, former prime minister, was being indicated as the winner. Right behind him was another former prime minister, Milos Zeman, followed by the socialist candidate Jiri Dienstblier. Then came the “blue” candidate, Vladimir Franz. Behind him there were very small gaps be-

thinking that association with a political party was automatically a bad thing. However, the best result that “apolitical” Franz achieved was 10 per cent.Famous people and celebrities also got exten-sively involved in the campaign, particularly in the very successful campaign of Karel Schwanzer-berg. Many of them openly expressed their sup-port for him and no other candidate could match his mobilisation of the social elite.Another big theme of the election was our relationship with the European Union. Former president Vaclav Klaus is a well-established Eurosceptic. However, there was a big shift at this election because there were only two eu-ro-sceptic candidates: Jana Bobosikova and Civic Democratic candidate Premysl Sobotka.The last major theme of the election was “who was a member of the Communist Party and why”. There were two former commu-nists amongst the candidates: Jan Fischer and Milos Zeman. Yet there was a big differ-ence between them. Zeman was a member for two years and was expelled after writing several brave articles which were critical of the regime. Fischer on the other hand was a member for a full decade, right up until the Velvet Revolution. There was a huge cam-paign against him as a result of this.The results of the first round saw Jan Fischer eliminated from the race and in his place Karel Schwarzenberg made it into the sec-ond round. This was the biggest surprise of the first round. Milos Zeman was in first place as expected and Civic Democrat Premysl So-botka got 2.5 per cent of the vote and did not make it into the second round.At the beginning of the second round there were two relatively strong candidates. On the one side was right-wing candidate Karel Schwanzenberg, whilst on the other was typi-cally left candidate Milos Zeman. There were about ten television debates, where Schwanzenberg was clearly los-ing to Zeman, who is a brilliant speaker and made good use of his gift. His attacks on Schwanzenberg were aimed mainly at his role in the current government, and focused on the unpopular reforms it is undertaking. On the other side, Schwanzenberg had the sup-port of abnormal numbers of famous and suc-cessful people, and his attacks focused on the role of Miroslav Slouf, an unpopular advisor of Zeman, and an opposition agreement signed with Vaclav Klaus. Milos Zeman won the election with 55 per cent of the vote, against 45 for Schanzenberg. Is this bad for the Czech Republic? I don’t know, but what is certain is that the right-wing parties completely lost this election.

The Czech Presidential ElectionSince the last presidential election of the Czech Republic in 2008, in which the right-wing president Václav Klaus was elected, there was debate about the direct election of the presidency. The main topics in the recent parliamentary election were corruption, cuts and direct democracy, and as promised Parliament enacted direct elections to the presidency in 2012.

tween the candidates, which included our own from the Civic Democratic Party Premysl Sobotka and the candidate from TOP 09, For-eign Affairs minister Karel Schwanzenberg.There were a lot of debates with the can-didates on television, and Milos Zeman emerged the winner from these. A big part of the campaign was the unpopular government and its programme of tax increases and re-forms to the social system. This offered some candidates unaffiliated to the government an advantage.Many citizens wanted an “apolitical” present, such as Vladimir Franz, because they were

Vit Voseček

Current affairs

8

But at the prospect of actually having to defend the EU, to argue that the UK was bet-ter within it and that it will develop in a manner I find appealing, the whole prospect came to seem increasingly sour. Being pro-EU as a sort of default state is all very well. But for a rightist like me, it is not unproblematic. The EU needs reform, and quite urgently. At present it consists in the main of an unaccount-able bureaucracy with a well-developed taste for imposing regulations on all aspects of com-mercial life. One can think of a slew of depress-ing examples.Most recently was the ghastly proposition from Sweden of a ‘meat tax’, designed to artificially inflate the price of meat products and thus de-crease consumption, chiefly by pricing it out of the diets of the poor. Naturally, the architects of this notion believe it should be rolled out across the EU.Just prior to that, we have the enthusiastic reception by European Commission Vice-Pres-ident Neelie Kroes of the UK’s ‘Leveson Report’, which purports to produce a ‘responsible’ press by subjecting it to the judgement of a small, elite class of people who read the country’s least popular newspapers. According to Kroes, each EU member state should have a powerful press regulator which makes the press uphold ‘European values’.Before that, we had the disgraceful decision that the EU is apparently going to enforce gen-der quotas for the executives of companies within it. This grotesque piece of discrimina-tory legislation fits the pattern of subjugating economic liberty and competitiveness to the whims of its unelected political class – a ten-

The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has announced that if the Conservative party wins the next general election, the UK will have a referendum on her EU membership. Since I am in the unusual position of being a right-wing pro-European Brit, this will – or ought to – place me in the position of campaigning against much of my own party during the referendum.

ing of a battle-scarred continent into one of the largest states on earth, yet everyone seems to be drifting towards it unthinkingly.The pan-European right, of which EDS is a part, needs to start doing something about this be-fore it’s too late. For all that the British are poor Europeans – and for all that we will probably vote to remain in the Union, at least for now – we’ve got a point. The Union has become an unaccountable, bureaucratic entity that manu-factures left-of-centre legislation without having to get it past the electorate. Legal restrictions on the number of hours in the working week? No self-respecting party of the right should have let that slide. So what can we do? To my mind, the very first thing we should do is content the next European elections under the names of our Eu-roparties, rather than using domestic member-parties as proxies. It should be the EPP on ballot papers from Bulgaria to Portugal. This would re-mind voters that Europe has politics, rather than simply being a way to register discontent with domestic parties. It would also pull the teeth of the separatists, who would have to appear on the ballot as independents or non-inscrits. Second, we should start noisily and publicly criticising the EU’s regulation machine. We should have senior European politicians push-ing for reform, making the European Parliament more powerful, and criticising the injustice of unelected members of a pan-continental civil service drawing up authoritarian legislation to govern hundreds of millions of people.Thirdly, we should open up an honest debate about what a federal Europe will look like. It can-not be right for leaders across Europe to con-tinually stress their commitment to integration without any serious public debate about what we’re supposed to be integrating into.The United States is making it increasingly clear that they’re not going to pick up the bill for Eu-ropean defence in a post-Cold War age. This means that a Europe that has grown over-fond of slashing its military budgets to pay for social spending has a lot of growing up to do. Unless we take an active stance on the issue, we risk allowing a Europe to be built around us that is militarily weak, economically uncompetitive and enormously over-regulated – the sort of Europe the PSE want, in other words.Currently, we on the European right look too much like insiders, attending impenetrable Euro-pean conferences where safe and bureaucrati-cally-worded motions are debated and passed, rather than clearly and courageously taking on the EU where it’s wrong. We can’t leave the important task of holding the EU to account for its many, many flaws to the separatists. Why should the devil have all the best tunes?.

Current affairs

dency which, tragically, truly deserves the moni-ker ‘European’. And don’t get me started on the CAP (well, not until BEOn, anyway).And all that’s just the tip of the iceberg, the lat-est breakers in the tide of petty regulation that pours out of the EU year on year on year, with-out the democratic consent of the European electorate.I know that the UK, at least the UK right, has a poor reputation in Europe. We’re not the best team players, we don’t hold the ‘European project’ in as high esteem as most others, and we’re less willing than most to politely put up with the squandering of a vast portion of the EU budget on the tiny agricultural portion of the Union economy. But the European right, even the federalist EPP we walked away from, should fear us leaving. Because the UK – and this truly is depressing – is, in European terms, an eco-nomically and militarily right-wing country.Germany sees in Britain an ally on the issue of free trade and economic liberalisation over protectionism. France sees in Britain the only other martial culture and military power on the continent, excluding Turkey. If we left, the bal-ance of power inside the continent would be tipped even farther towards a highly-regulated, tariff-insulated, producer-interest economy and a cringing, pacifistic, minimalist approach to military matters.This stuff isn’t just idle speculation, either. Ap-parently the EU is still on the road to federation, the path of ‘ever closer union’ undiminished – to the spluttered horror of Eurosceptic naysayers. But where is the great debate about the sort of country Europe is going to be? The European Project is apparently going to end in the unit-

Why the European Right Needs to Fight

Henry Hill

Bullseye 9

It is acknowledged that most the worst hit states during the present economic malaise are also those that are suffering from a common problem: low birth rates, leading to economies being slowly suffocated by a shrinking corset that is population decline.First of all, let us consider why low birth rates are a problem. Economically, it can necessitate government borrowing to fund welfare liabilities that promised to the elderly. This borrowing is, in turn, re-paid at a later date by the younger generations by way of higher taxes and/or re-duced entitlements for themselves. It can lead to perpetually declining property prices as a result diminished demand, which in turn makes banks have to constantly write down the value of their property lending (thus requiring state funded bailouts) and builders reluctant to build.

ter avenue was often exercised, it is fast being extinguished with increasing retirement ages.What we see in Italy is that this unappealing mix of choices often results in women dropping out of the labour force in the event of choosing to give birth. The result is some of the worst female labour participation in the OECD at a paltry 49%. For many women in Italy, aspiration comes at the expense of ever having children and vice versa. The result is, unsurprisingly, an appallingly low fertility rate of 1.4 children per woman, compared to 1.98 and 1.87 for Swe-den and Denmark respectively. As Italy is now finding out, the cost of a birth rate below the rate of replacement is high.So, why not means test the benefits one may ask? Whilst this does succeed in partially ad-dressing the birth rate problem, it is lopsided in that middle income family’s will- where they are not eligible for support- either reduce the num-ber of children they have, or not have children at all. It also places an unduly high burden on many families, with the average cost of raising a child costing a UK family 19% of their household income compared to 8% in the case of Sweden.At the crux of the question for many European states is how care should be funded. Yet per-haps a more poignant question is whether the welfare state can exist without a universally ap-plicable childcare infrastructure. In the cases of Denmark and Sweden, where the state funds 80% and 66% of childcare costs respectively, the reward is a consistently high birth rate and high female labour rate participation. Equally importantly, however, child poverty is also de-monstrably lower than those countries where government does not intervene in ensuring the availability of childcare.Added to all this is ample evidence that ensur-ing a high level of childcare provision exists between the age of one and three years that is accessible to all is a significant factor in im-proving a child’s educational attainment in later life. Ultimately, the reward will be a smarter workforce that can enable European economies to maintain an edge in a competitive, globalised knowledge economy.But perhaps the most important issue at stake is one of justice. Can it be right that a child’s life chances are affected by the absence of a level playing field in childcare provision? Is there any way of justifying the continued necessity of many European women having to sacrifice ei-ther their careers or a family life?Fundamentally, it is question of acknowledg-ing the realities of the modern economy that now requires dual incomes. The electoral success of European centre-right parties may very well hinge on their ability to address this very issue.

Childcare provision is key to recoveryBy now, there have been a wide range of different solutions to the Eurozone crisis. One that is rarely mentioned, however, is adequate provision of childcare and early-years education.

It can also lead to a slump in consumption, as those who are in young either defer spending in expectation of higher taxation or save more in anticipation of reduced entitlements. When the tax rise does come, it will always come with a sting in the tail for demand.At present, there exists a varying patchwork of welfare provision across Europe. For much of the continent, the trade off over assistance with raising children is often categorised as family provision (often the mother or grandparents) versus state provision. The “Anglo Saxon”, or means tested, model sits somewhere in the middle, offering some state support for those at the bottom and expecting those above a thresh-old to meet the cost.The impact that the type of model employed can have on birth rates is striking. The nations that have predominantly taxpayer funded, uni-versally available early childcare (such as Swe-den and Denmark) have higher birth rights than European states where this is not the case. This keeps economic growth ticking over, and helps ensure those leaving the workforce can have their elderly welfare reliably covered by a stable working age tax base. This can only be contrasted with the states that place the responsibility for child care at the foot of the family- be it parents or grandparents. The primary example is Italy, although there is a sig-nificant degree of regional variation. Here, we often see that women are faced with a choice if they wish to have children. They can either meet the cost of child care whilst working, drop out the labour force temporarily or completely, or at-tempt delegate to grandparents. Whilst the lat-

Luke Springthorpe

Current affairs

10

Vivika Melts

The importance of the CAP and equality of subsidy amongst member statesAcknowledging the need for effective and strong ag-ricultural policies at the global and European levels, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) will remain one of the most important policies of the EU, as it has been since the establishment of the European Economic Community in 1958. The initial objectives of the CAP were to develop a post-war agricultural sector that could provide consumers with food at reasonable prices and to encourage farmers to ex-pand production and maintain food prices at a level that would guarantee their income.

Since the 1990s increasing attention has been paid to the additional demands of society: food safety and quality assurance; environmental and rural development concerns; and the chal-lenges of climate change. Constant changes in the world, as in the agricultural sector, have raised the necessity for restructuring the CAP and its spending. There is no doubt that the CAP requires effective reforms and updates in order to be able to fulfil its multifunctional tasks in future – and there are many different opinions and forth-coming debates on agriculture and its budget.I believe financing the CAP of the EU budget to a certain extent makes sense, as it is the most effective policy instrument to achieve the objec-tives and challenges of ensuring equal conditions of competition throughout the internal market. However, let us stop thinking about the CAP’s future prospects for a minute and focus on how it currently works.Farm subsidies account for the largest propor-tion of agricultural spending in the EU budget at 38 per cent (despite a significant reduction from around 80% in the 1960s), which is why every-body has their say. Direct payments have been one of the main support instruments to the ag-ricultural sector of the Union from the early 199s and they still take the largest share of the current CAP budget. The average levels of the direct pay-ments for many new Member States are lower, and may differ up to five times compared to the older Member States. These differences in sup-port are disadvantageous and cannot be justified.The economic reality is that many small farms and young farmers all around Europe are the vulnerable to market changes, and are for that reason more reliant on the maintenance of a certain level of subsidies to ensure their com-petitiveness. Looking to the future, one cannot deny the importance of making the agricultural sector sufficiently attractive to young people to prevent urbanisation, particularly in peripheral ar-eas. But the current functioning of the CAP does not grant equal support to farmers in all Union countries and is thereby damaging EU unity and the principles of solidarity and fair treatment. It is also fostering Euroscepticism by favouring certain Member States.

Bullseye on

Bullseye 11

Bullseye on

For me, one of the worst aspects of the EU is that it is dominated by

an ethos that what the continen-tal bureaucrats who run it would like to happen can – and should

– trump the economic facts on the ground. Thus a Un-ion built on breaking down cross-border trade barriers

has become a veritable manufactory for regula-

tion and red tape.

The Case against the CAPHenry HillThe common struggle for equal opportunities

amongst politicians, officials, diplomats, and other agricultural negotiators in many newer Member States, farmers and the European Par-liament’s agriculture committee, as well as from the EDS resolution on agricultural subsidies from the Council Meeting in Trnava on the 8 Decem-ber 2012, has paid off. EU leaders have reached an agreement on agricultural and rural support for the next budgetary period in which inequal-ity resulting from direct payments is significantly reduced. For example, if so far some Baltic states have got direct payments that are 33 per cent of the EU av-erage then the European Parliament will confirm that these rates will rise to 75 per cent of the EU average by the year 2020. Although it is unable to definitely eliminate inequality in the new budget-ary period, the problem has been identified and EU farmers have taken a major step closer to fair treatment. Until the CAP is based on subsidising, all Member States of the EU should have the right to expect and demand the application of the principles of solidarity to ensure all farmers equal opportunities in the common EU market.In a rapidly urbanising world let us not lose sight of the countryside. Due to this alternative use of the land for cities, the use of agricultural land as a re-source is reduced, and less farmland must main-tain a growing number of people. The agricultural industry now faces many new global challenges. The CAP is not just about food security and em-ployment but also increasingly about consumer protection, high-quality products, securing bio-diversity, animal welfare, environmental protec-tion, climate change, research and development investment and cultural and regional policy.These are inter-linked, a complex network that cannot be overlooked, and in which the deci-sions made must be careful to ensure we have competitive, efficient and sustainable rural devel-opment across Europe. In conclusion, I say that quite literally we should not bite the hand that feeds us.

12

Bullseye on

We’ve seen proposals for pan-European meat taxes to discourage meat consumption. We’ve seen pan-EU gender quotas for board rooms. We’ve seen the Social Chapter and the Working Time Directive. But at the very top of this mountain of directives that make our social-democratic leaders feel good whilst making us a deeply uncompetitive continent is the CAP.The CAP is an industrial-scale state subsidy aimed at preserving the semblance of pre-indus-trial Europe. It is intended to prop up agricultural business – and even the sweetest family farm or peasant smallholdings are businesses – and shield them from the rigours of competition. Like most long-term bids to prop up unsustainable enterprises, it is a bad idea.First, one of the aims of the CAP is to maintain agricultural employment and stop more young people leaving to the cities. There doesn’t seem to be much justification for this beyond an ideo-logical antipathy to urbanisation (one opponent of mine in the aforementioned debate sug-gested that “maintaining the rural landscape” justified the CAP). But even setting that aside, it is both illogical and harmful. It is illogical because a modernising, efficiency-seeking agricultural sector will inevitably come to employ less people over time, as mechanisa-tion and other forms of best-practise take hold. Unless the CAP aims to stall the move towards agricultural efficiency – which shielding it from competition might certainly achieve, I grant – it will continue to offer fewer and fewer employ-ment opportunities.It is harmful because, like all means of artificially keeping people in work, it locks up some of the vital manpower needed to fuel tomorrow’s economy. Using state money to keep people gainlessly employed, whether in the public or private sectors, slows economic development. New businesses which might be attracted to a large pool of low-cost labour produced by unem-ployment will not see the manpower to hand, whilst the taxpayer-backed wages will drive up the cost of labour in the area. In fact, it seems that slowing the development of the agricultural sector is precisely what the CAP is meant to do. European policy makers ap-parently want to “promote” – i.e. subsidise with your money – “family-run” farms and small-scale production, and one criticism of the CAP is that the funds end up benefiting large, efficient

The Case against the CAPfarms more than small ones. So what we have is a policy specifically de-signed to waste both manpower and money in a fight against efficiency and agricultural mod-ernisation. We should thank the Lord the EU wasn’t around in the 19th Century, or we’d have poured our wealth into subsidising “family-run, small-scale” manufacturing and the Industrial Revolution would never have happened. But even if the CAP were truly wondrous for farmers, agriculture forms only 1.6 per cent of European GDP employing 5.4 per cent of the European population. But the CAP also claims to be beneficial for the European consumer, de-spite the fact that instances when producer and consumer interests are the same is vanishingly small. This is nonsense. The CAP, combined with levies on imports (es-timated at 18-24 per cent), is intended to pro-tect European farmers from global competition. Competition has the effect of depressing prices, which whilst bad for the farmer is good for the consumer. Competition from across the world means not only lower prices but more choice, and if they didn’t get taxed to pay for the CAP your European shopper would have more mon-ey to spend in the shops.Instead, money is taken from their pockets and given to the farmers. The farmers then produce food for a protected market which is more ex-pensive than if it were priced at internationally competitive levels. Thus your poor European has to fork over more unnecessary money for the same bag of shopping. This means that the Eu-ropean has less money to spend on other things. This isn’t just sad for the poor citizen, but for all the businesses who might have received that money. All the businesses that cater to the varied tastes of the Union’s hundreds of millions of citizens lose out whenever a euro that might have been spent on them has to be spent on tax or nec-essary shopping instead. It may only be a small amount per citizen (although it may not) but added together that is big money. This process, which is called opportunity cost (meaning all the potential things you have to give up when you spend money on one thing), adds a whole new understanding of the cost of the CAP and asso-ciated protectionist policies.In short: Europeans are taxed in order to sup-port policies which raise food prices, shrink their

disposable income and lower their standard of living whilst taking money away from productive consumer businesses.To add a final absurd layer to this, we then dedi-cate another section of the European budget to aid. This is essentially wasted money, since we’d do a lot more good to the third world if instead of building protective walls around our farms and sending them high-minded charity funds, we bought their crops instead.Trading with third-world farmers and agricultural producers wouldn’t only increase choice and lower prices for Europeans, but it could trans-form the lives of the farmers. The money would amount to far more than our aid budget, and in-stead of being side-tracked and skimmed off like aid money it would be handed directly to private farmers and businesspeople, empowering them and not the corrupt elites who so often benefit from aid spending.Sure, some people make the case that the CAP allows for things like consumer protection (horsemeat scandal aside!), but it would be rela-tively easy to set up a quality-assurance system for inward trade. FairTrade manage it, and their policy involves all kinds of regressive leftist ideol-ogy like enforcing collective farming and banning traditional employment models. We ought to be able to design a system that’s simpler and much more helpful to developing economies.Let’s summarise: if we stopped spending vast amounts of money subsidising a truly tiny per-centage of the European economy, we would see some farmers become unemployed and possibly be unable to feed ourselves in the event of the European Union ending up locked in to-tal war with another hyperpower – a war we couldn’t even fight, since Europe hates defence spending almost as much as it loves all other spending.On the upside: the EU budget would save tons of money by scrapping most foreign aid and nearly all the current agricultural subsidies; the tax burden on Europeans would decrease; com-petition would see lower food prices and more choice in the shops; Europeans could spend the money saved buying things they actually want; the companies that make those things could expand and hire more people in a sustainable fashion; and third-world producers would be empowered, enriched and brought closer to Eu-rope. That seems a good deal to me.

Bullseye 13

reports

The Schengen Agreement and European unityWhenever people have started to unite into unions and federations, they have tried to negotiate the means to trade and travel freely whilst preserving their mutual liberty. In the older order of things before 1914, it was possible to travel from Paris to Saint Petersburg without passport, visa or any form of official permission.

More recently there are several more limited examples: the common travel area between the United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, and the various Crown Dependencies that was established upon Irish secession in 1922; or the Nordic passport union between Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Swe-den which was established in 1952.Today the Schengen Agreement, signed no 14 June 1985 on a river ship in the middle of the Moselle river, covers 400 million people and a territory of more than 4.3 million square kilometres. But beyond the numbers stand millions of lives, millions of families and untold successful businesses and ideas.Before we start talking about the benefits of free travel and the elimination of borders, I want to tell you a story that dates back over 1300 years, to Eastern Europe in the year 668 AD. The founder of Old Great Bulgaria, Khan Kubrat, was deathly ill and summoned his five sons. He ordered them to bring him two sheaves of wooden sticks. He asked one of his sons to begin to break the sticks of the first sheaf one by one, which the young man easily managed. The Khan then asked the strongest son to break the entire second bundle without separating the rods. No matter how hard he tried, the strongest son could not break them. The Khan told his sons to stick together, for that way they would be invincible, whilst in separation lay inevitable defeat.Why am I retelling this story? It is not to give you a lesson in ancient history. The moral of

this old proverb is that whenever people have managed to stay together and find strength and faith in a common cause and goal, they have been much more successful in achieving their aims.This is exactly what the European Union, and in particular the Schengen Zone, has done. They have achieved the unthinkable in turn-ing many different peoples, nations, cultures, countries and governments, into a single entity with a single goal: the welfare of the people. Today, it consists of 26 European countries. The area includes most EU members and sev-

eral non-member European coun-tries. Soon we will see yet another enlargement of the Union with Croatia’s acces-sion as the 28th member state in 2013. I’m sure this will make the European com-

munity even stronger, and more united in diversity.On 1 January 2007 the EU saw the acces-sion of two new member states – Bulgaria and Romania. They were approved to be-come members of the Schengen zone by the European Parliament in June 2011 and the negotiations are continuing even now. Bulgaria has secured her borders, which are also the external borders of the Union. She has invested in coastal boats, helicopters, video monitoring and many other items of border equipment with the aim of protecting common borders from unauthorised intrusion. In late January 2013 Franco Frattini, the for-mer foreign minister of Italy, suggested that sooner or later expansion of the area will take place and this will contribute added value to the new member and to those who are long-term members of the Schengen area. We young politicians should all know the princi-ples of equality, transparency and fairness on which the European community is built, and apply them equally to all. Only that way will we continue the work of those who built the Union we see today.In conclusion I want to go back to the story at the beginning, and remind you that in those dark days, when there was no financial or economic crisis but brutal battles fought for the very land itself, people found the will to stay together. Even then they realised that unity is the basis of prosperity. That is what we need now: more Europe!

Andrey Novakov

14

But if this is so, how come that the turn-out at European parliamentary elections is get-ting lower every time? Is this another sign of the so-called democratic deficit at the heart of the European Union?This question has been on the mind of many scholars. Some say that there is a problem with the democratic input into the Union. In this opinion, MEPs are not paying enough at-tention to what European citizens think is im-portant. There is a gap between the interests of the citizenry and those of the MEPs. There is also a reverse problem: scholars say that European citizens elect MEPs on the basis of national or even local issues, rather than Eu-ropean issues. European elections are seen as second-order elections and this could be the reason that it is impossible to make the com-position of the European Parliament reflect the interests of European citizens.There is not only a gap between the citizens and the parliament, but scholars also argue that there exists a gap between the parliament and political parties. National parties feel that European issues are not hot topics for their voters and therefore they do not start public debates on these issues. As a result citizens do not get educated about what is happening in the Union.Furthermore, some studies showed that MEPs and other national politicians who are working

The Democratic Deficit in Europe

Ann-Sofie Pauwelyn

In 2014, Europe’s citizens will elect the members of the European Parliament for the eighth time in history. When the European Parliament was created it had only an advisory competence, but with every new treaty that was signed it gained more power. Now some peo-ple say that it is the mightiest parliament in the world.

mation about what is happening at the EU level. But Moravcsik thinks they do not need to know: the few policy fields in which the Eu-ropean Union has a lot of power are very tech-nical and do not interest the average citizen. More political issues, such as social security, taxes and pensions are still decided by national governments. This means that the issues which are really important to people stay at the national level, where people can be more involved if they so wish. Furthermore, if the European Union wants to re-alise something, the voting system makes sure that a lot of member states have to agree with a proposal. When implementation starts, the member states are again the most important actors. To Moravcsik, this means that a lot of power is still in the hands of the member states.Another reason for Moravcsik to disbelieve in a democratic deficit is the fact that there are a lot of ‘checks and balances’ designed in the Europaen system: different kinds of majority voting; different procedures; a low European budget; the increasing power of the European Parliament; the different actors of European decision making… all prevent the European Union becoming a despotic superstate.To solve the democratic deficit, a lot of scholars think that getting the citizens more involved in the decision-making system would be a good solution. Moravscik does not agree with this. As he does not believe in a democratic defi-cit, he argues that there is no need to change anything. If citizens are not interested in getting involved then they should not be involved. The quality of decision making will be much higher if only experts work on European issues without having to listen to 500 million citizens. But not involving citizens does not mean that citizens should be unable to inform decision makers when they dissent. Moravcsik is not that posi-tive about democratic input but he stresses that the system should stay transparent.The question about the democratic deficit in Europe is one with many different answers. We have to wait until 2014 to see if the turnout of the eighth European parliamentary elections will confirm the trend of the past elections or not. In my opinion, the quality of democratic output is more important than the quality of democratic input. On that point, I agree with Moravcsik.But I do not agree when he says that there is no need to change the present situation. Get-ting people involved is also necessary. This is something that the European Democrat Stu-dents can help to do. And when I see how many new faces come to our meetings every time, and how many of them stay around, I’m sure we are doing good!

with European issues can make choices for the party in a very autonomous way. These politi-cians do not often explain to their party what is happening on the EU level and the national party does not explain anything to their citi-zens. This method of European decision mak-ing is not at all transparent, and citizens do not hear about interesting European issues that are also important for them and therefore they do not care.These are all classic arguments that want us to believe that there actually is a democratic deficit. But there are also other scholars who believe the opposite, and in my opinion this is very interesting.Andrei Moravcsik, an American political scien-tist and professor at Harvard, does not believe in the democratic deficit. Instead of focussing on the input side of democracy, Moravcsik has a focus on the output side. In brief his opinion would be: as long as the EU makes good deci-sions that is in the interest of all, the EU will be legitimate regardless of how (un)demo-cratic the input happens. Moravcsik says that although there are some problems, as those mentioned above regarding how the European Parliament functions today, these problems do not create the democratic deficit. They just give citizens the impression that the EU is not democratic.It is true that citizens do not get much infor-

reports

Bullseye 15

reports

Some of the benefits are visible at first glance. The Euro contributes towards shaping a European identity more effectively than any-thing else. This has been seen by the spill-over effects of uncertainties related to sovereign debt caused by the instability of the Euro. A common currency allows us to compare price levels more easily, and lets us travel across the Union without the need to change currency, and trade and investment are facilitated. There is no longer the need for currency swaps, erad-icating many uncertainties.However, the Euro group is not immune to er-ror, both on the national and the collective lev-els. The Maastricht criteria were broken many times without any severe consequences for the nations which did not obey the rules under this admittedly rather loose framework. Yet in the beginning lower interest rates when is-suing sovereign bonds were realised, and be-tween the commencement of the Eurozone and the end of 2007 it was possible to press down the debt as of GDP for the Eurozone from an overall 72.8 per cent to only 66.3 per cent. This success was achieved despite the fact that the biggest Eurozone economy, Ger-many, grew its debt significantly.

Our Money, Our FutureOver the past two years most news on the European Union were focused on the euro crisis and one European summit seemed to chase another. But where are we now, as we dive into 2013 and the build-up to the European Parliament elec-tions? What are the benefits of a common currency – and what will the future of the Euro look like?

Since Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy in 2008 and the economic (later financial) cri-sis was triggered, this debt soared again to as much as 87.3 per cent at the end of 2011. However, the Euro group has moved forward a lot since 2008. With the Fiscal Pact and the European Stabilisation Mechanism (ESM) in force we have effective tools to face up to the mistakes that have been made in the past and also to support economies that are expe-riencing difficulties. Of course, adjusting entire economies as is required under some programmes is not easy to do. However, it will result in a Europe that is able to face globalisation and the compe-tition that results from it. While Europe is adjusting, the only idea of the Obama admin-istration seems to be a strongly-monitored inflation whilst debt is soaring. This will cer-tainly help to ease the burden that the US is facing by its debt being held by foreigners, especially china. However, it is not a route to US success in the long run. Whilst Chinese growth has been relying on an undervalued Renminbi and made use of excessive exports to the United States, the balance of trade will have

to be levelled out at some point in the future. Whilst currently the excitement seems to be concentrated on what is happening in Europe, in the future the USA will face a reckoning with its trade imbalances.In fact, it is interesting to compare what hap-pened to national finances globally after the onset of the economic crisis. It turns out that inflation in the Eurozone has been comparably low between 1998 and 2012: it had an annual rate of 2.06 per cent, against 2.16 per cent in the UK and 2.5 per cent in the United States. Whilst these numbers seem all to be rather small, they have a significant cumulative im-pact over the years.More interesting though is to compare debt and its development. Between 1998 and 2011, debt as of GDP grew by 14.5 per cent within the Eurozone. This is quite a lot, but is not even close to the almost 40 per cent as experienced by the USA and UK, let alone Japan where it grew by almost 100 per cent! The observation is incomplete without an analysis of the recent state deficits and the public expenditure quota. The latter describes the expenditures of the authorities, compris-ing expenditures for statutory benefits, mea-

Eva Majewski

16

But how much is actually known about history of Ukraine? Especially about its history in the 20th Century: part of the Russian Empire; a short period of civil war; an unsuccessful at-tempt to establish its statehood; then the So-viet Union… right? But how many of us know the price by which Ukraine became a part of the great USSR? And how many of us know why the Soviet past is so painful and insulting for Ukrainians?Let’s take one page of Ukraine’s past in the Soviet Union – the 1930s, when the country experienced massive industrialisation, devel-opment, and the Holodomor, or “extermination by hunger”. How could it be that this country, in the midst of “peacetime” and the Soviet Union’s industrial growth, faced starvation?The terrible, genocidal famine of 1932-33,

The Holodomor in UkraineUkraine is known worldwide as the breadbasket of Eu-rope and has one of the most fruitful soils in the world. It is known as a country of great history and traditions, hospitality and picturesque landscapes which has al-ways welcomed people from all over the world. Once you have travelled to Ukraine it stays forever in your good memories.

Elina Foinska

reports

sured again as a percentage of GDP. Being at an already high level, it at least only grew by an average of one per cent in the Eurozone, whilst the public expenditure quota in the US grew by as much as 7.1 per cent and in the UK it rose by 9.6 per cent between 1998 and 2011.So, one may conclude, that the Eurozone and its currency is in fact not as bad as it could be when compared against its peers. This is true especially if considering the more recent data, for example the state deficit data for 2011. Again, the deficit within the Eurozone is, at 4.1 per cent of GDP, not even half as big as that of the UK (8.3 per cent), Japan (8.2 per cent), or the United States (9.6 per cent). This holds true even if Germany, quite often referred to as the anchor of stability, is excluded from this calculation. Without Germany the deficit in the Eurozone for 2011 amounts to 5.3 per cent.Having stated all that, there is still a lot of work left for the Member States of the Eu-rozone, and reforms will take time. Neverthe-less, the OECD presented a ranking of coun-tries by their willingness to undertake reforms within one year. Whilst the list was consider-ing factual reforms that have been realised and not just intended, Greece is still on top of this ranking, followed by Spain, Ireland, and Portugal – in short, all the countries which receive support from the other members of the Eurozone. On the other hand, the United States only takes ninth place, whilst Japan is 17. As painful as future reforms might be, they are worth it.Focusing one last time on trade balances, it has to be stated that all the countries under a European programme have been tackling the issues of trade imbalance successfully. In Portugal, Ireland, and Spain, the trade bal-ance – i.e. the difference between imports and exports – improved by as much as ten per cent of their economic performance. Even Greece, which has received a lot of criticism from the outside, was able to increase their exports in 2011 by an astonishing 37 per cent. Partly this is because of a fall in the do-mestic consumption which fuels imports, but it still shows that adjustments are possible within the framework of a common currency.As long as politicians and supervisory bod-ies such as the European Central Bank will keep firm their commitment to the European Union, we can certainly weather the chal-lenges ahead. Proud of the history of Europe in recent decades, we may look into the fu-ture with hope. The Euro will be a big chapter in the success story of the European Union. It is our money, and our future!

when millions of Ukrainians died, is one of the greatest tragedies in Ukrainian history. It was engineered by the Soviet Union in an effort to destroy the Ukrainian nation. Even today it is impossible to accurately estimate the death toll, but known facts and recently uncovered documents show than seven to ten million people starved to death during this artificially created famine.The historical factsFrom the beginning of the Soviet era, the Ukraine was a problematic territory for the young Soviet Union and its governors. Too much of a national idea lived in this nation; too strong a desire to be a unified and independent country; too much history and tradition and intelligence. Taking into account a favourable geographic position and the very rich soils

Bullseye 17

reports

and natural resources of Ukraine, such a na-tion was not supportive of the new communist regime with its forced industrialisation, mas-sive collectivisation and the erosion of national and ethnic differences. Those who contributed nothing got an equal share, in theory – but was this the case for the average Ukranian?Stalin stated that: “the national question in Ukraine is in essence a rural question”, and that “after such resistance to collectivisation it is ul-timately necessary to deal a crushing blow to the backbone of Ukraine – its rural population”.The bloody terror unleashed by the Soviet Union in Ukraine started in 1929 with the massive waves of deportations of those with Ukrainian ethnicity, especially prosperous peasant farmers. Ukraine’s cultural, religious and academic leaders faced execution or exile to Siberia, often without food and shelter. The rest of the peasantry were herded into collec-tive farms, and all their property was also “col-lectivised” for the sake of the Soviet Union. The aim of such measures was to destroy national self-identity and to stop any national aspira-tions on the part of a people of whom 80 per cent were farmers.The USSR’s First Five-Year Plan (1928-1932), approved by Stalin, changed the output ex-pected from Ukrainian farmers to unfamiliar crops like sugar beets and cotton, as well as enormous amounts of grain (production quotas were increased by 44 per cent). The situation was exacerbated by poor administration of the plan and the lack of relevant general manage-ment, as well as a lack of motivation to work amongst the peasants. Significant amounts of

gain remained unharvested, and even when harvested a significant percentage was lost during processing, transportation and storage. To fulfil the plan and protect the collectivised property of kolkhozes a very strict “Law of Three Spikelets” was adopted in August 1932, and punishment for its violation was execution by shooting or ten years in the gulag (which was, essentially, a slower execution).So Ukrainian peasants were in need: on the one hand they had to give everything they owned to kolkhoz and to work unpaid there, whilst on the other the kolkhoz did not provide any food supply back to the peasants. Collec-tive farms fed industrial workers in the cities and also provided a substantial amount of gain to be sold abroad, the money used to finance Stalin’s further industrialisation plans.Another decree of Stalin saw the implementa-tion of a discretionary voucher system – mili-tary blockades were erected around villages, preventing the supply of food to that village and the hungry inhabitants from searching for food. Peasants did not have passports and were not permitted to leave the territory where they lived. Brigades of young activists from dif-ferent regions of the USSR were brought into Ukraine to confiscate hidden gain and all food-stuffs from peasant homes – all for the sake of the “common great country” and its economic plan.In the winter of 1932-33 people were left without any hope for food. As a result the rural population of the Ukraine was dying of hunger at a rate of 25,000 people a day. By the end a full 25 per cent of the Ukrainian population had perished, half of them children. All that without a single shot being fired. Hundreds of corpses on village streets, people driven across the line into acts of cannibalism… that was a typical picture of Ukraine in early spring 1933. Whilst millions of men, women and children were dy-ing, the Soviet Union was exporting enough grain from Ukraine to feed the entire popula-tion.Although many countries were well informed about the developing Ukrainian catastrophe, Stalin denied to the world that there was any humanitarian crisis in the Ukraine and prevent-ed international aid from entering the country.ConsequencesAs well as annihilating the peasants, the fam-ine effectively exterminated the Ukraine’s cul-tural, religious and intellectual elites, who were all considered “enemies of socialism”. In addi-tion to direct losses from awful and unnatural deaths, significant indirect losses accrued from the decrease in the birth rate.Yet the consequences are much wider than that: the Holodomor has influenced all spheres

of Ukrainian traditional culture and spiritual life. Traditions which existed for centuries, and the natural connexions between genera-tions, were violently severed. This tragedy has deformed the way of life for the rural popula-tion, and demoralised the nation still scarred by the repressions engineered by the Soviet government. The Soviets have ruined the very heart of the Ukrainian nation which, as Stalin correctly identified, is its rural population. They provoked ruinous changes to the culture, food habits, familial, religious and artistic traditions, and established in their place new Soviet holi-days and ways of raising the next generation which were foreign and not accepted by the population.Lessons for the worldAll these facts were kept out of official history until 1991, when the country with a popula-tion of 47 million finally won its independence. There was a strict ban on talking about the Holodomor in the Soviet Union, and fear kept people far from the topic. Only the Ukrainian diasporas across the world started to com-memorate this tragedy and talk openly about the genocide of the Ukrainian nation.Several countries across the world officially consider the Holodomor a genocide. Amongst these are Australia, Andorra, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Ecuador, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Lat-via, Lithuania, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, the Vatican and the USA. In fact Rafael Lemkin, who coined the word genocide in 1953, defines the Holodomor as “a classical example of genocide, the longest and the widest experiment of russification and destruction of the nation”.On 23 October 2008 the European Parliament approved a resolution condemning the Holodo-mor as a “terrible crime against the Ukrainian people and against humanity”. The UNO Gen-eral Assembly and the PACE also condemned this crime of the communist regime against the Ukrainian nation. Ukraine herself finally acknowledged the Holodomor on the highest level and condemned this crime only in 2006, and special attention was paid to unveiling the archives containing documents and other evi-dence of the former KGB.Every year on the fourth Saturday of November Ukraine and the whole world commemorate the innocent victims of Holodomor and those who tried to help by sharing their food with peasants. To “light the candle of memory” is the common aim of all commemorative action across the world on that day – for only by un-derstanding and recognising the tragedies of the past can we hope to prevent the genocides of the future.

18

reports

The harm of automatic wage indexation

In the past few months Belgium has been the intellectual centre of a thrilling discussion about the “automatic wage indexation mechanism”. This issue

encompasses more than Belgian specificity, as apparently wage indexation is a big topic that often arises in discussions. But what does this concept refer to?

accelerates the inflation. A normal firm in a decentralised economy thinks in terms of cost and benefit and always seeks to maxi-mise profits. If salaries are increasing then the firm is allowed to – indeed must – pass on this increase to its customers in order to maintain its profit level. Thus wage-index-ation will always see a further rise in the cost of living to offset the increased wage costs in the economy, and we are back to square one. Worse still, a country could slide into a vi-cious circle and an inflationary spiral, where inflation is constantly followed by wage in-dexation which drives prices even higher. So it appears that wage indexation cannot constitute an adequate cure for inflation.Second, we may mention the loss of com-petitiveness induced for firms in countries with wage-indexation. If we think as a firm facing a wage increase, we immediately have two options: either we see reduced profits, or we raise prices. In, as usual, we reject the first option because it represents a clear contradiction of a business’s objec-tives – not to mention possibly placing the firm in jeopardy during difficult economic times – then the second option is taken.But prices are not the same in all countries in the single market and across the world. Due to globalisation we face competition from the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), where labour costs are lower. All things being equal, we will ob-serve a fall in our sales in proportion with demand elasticity in prices. This induces a fall in production from the country that leads in turn to job losses.Our third argument concerns the idea be-hind the indexation paradigm: the desire to preserve consumer’s purchase power. Such a goal seems laudable. However, we can wonder what underpins the supposed right to preserve our purchasing power through law in the face of changing economic cir-cumstances. Increasing state debt, adverse

demographics, and the rise of the BRICS should all serve as a warning that we may well not be able to preserve through law our wage purchasing power indefinitely. In future we will have to restore our competi-tiveness against our commercial partners and decrease our state debt. In order to face the European problems of the new century it is now obvious that henceforward we shall have to make concessions in terms of pur-chasing power. The case for wage index-ation thus collapses.However, there is also a consensus in the world of economics about the fact that a certain level of wage indexation needs to be maintained to support consumer demand. Indeed, an entirely non-compensated infla-tion could create a negative demand shock, indirectly affect production and then induce job losses. But the amplitude of this index-ation must be decided each year and needs to be evaluated as one origin of inflation. Often the economists estimate that an ex-ogenous cause of inflation must be reflected in wage indexation, although this is subject to debate.This strengthens the conclusion that the negative effect is not the indexation princi-ple itself, but its automatic nature. We think that an ad hoc indexation mechanism should be promoted in our economic context. At the end of the day, European leaders might like to keep in mind that the most suitable solution is to prevent inflation, thus averting the need for indexation altogether.This topic is quite sensitive in Europe at the moment, especially in Belgium, where inno-vation in the design of the indexation system is considered taboo by the labour unions. However, we should be keen on understand-ing that our own economic and social model of the state will need to be remodelled in order to face the challenges of globalisation. We need to use our imaginations and sense of competitiveness to create a new and sus-tainable model for European economies.

The scope of the concept is simply defined: the common price level is almost permanently increasing – you only need to think about what you could do with €5 a decade ago and what the same money will buy today. This is due to a well-known phe-nomenon called inflation. As a consequence of this, under a wage indexation mechanism the government forces companies to adjust the wages of their employees to match the rising cost of living. People’s salaries thus follow the market value of goods, especially for families with revenues close to the base income. By such measures the government aims to preserve the consumer’s purchase power. The general idea seems to make sense and partly follows certain logic of social justice. But, like many concepts in economics the matter is not as simple as it appears. We mean to show by the following arguments that the wage indexation mechanism causes more problems than it provides solutions.First of all, this mechanism is generally pre-sented as a solution to the inflation problem, as it offsets it by preserving purchasing power. In reality we must be more cautious, for in fact the indexation mechanism actually

Anaïs Mattez and Guillaume Dos Santos

Bullseye 19

reports

Young Politicians – The fuel for think-tanksIf you check some dictionaries about the meaning of ‘think-tank’ or-ganisations, you’ll most likely see the following description: “A group or institution for intensive research and solving problems, especially in the areas of technology, social or political strategy”. This is true. Sort of.

erate on this basis. Many huge international corporations such as Apple, Google and Shell have groups with the same function and aim: creating tomorrow’s ideas, today.Many of you are probably asking why all that matters. It matters because people like you, who are reading this magazine and participating in youth organisations such as EDS, are the world’s think-tank fuel. We are too young to remember the World Wars and old enough to be shaped by 9/11, and very soon the time will come when our generation must step up to face mankind’s challenges. Therefore, youth political organisations and non-government organisations are nothing but a part of the world’s think-tank, mainly because their projects and ideas will one day be implemented by tomorrow’s leaders. The reason for this is because those having the ideas will in years hence be part of the next generation of national and European politi-cians.However, think-tanks remain concentrated in the private sector and used by well-devel-oped companies. This indicates that different states and governments (especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America) should encour-age the establishment of such structures. According to recent studies, public admin-istrations often significantly improve their ef-ficiency and cost-optimisation as a result of the work of think-tanks. But successful and competitive economies

Andrey Novakov

In real life, think-tanks are something beyond frames and traditions. Actually, they are absolutely opposite. However, they are not new. Many managers in the early Eight-ies understood that the creation of such brainstorming groups is a very effective ap-proach to solving problems of an economic, political, military or other nature.According to the “Go to Global Think Tank Rankings” report, produced by the University of Pennsylvania, in today’s world there are exactly 6545 active think-tanks. Most of them are situated in the USA, UK and Western Eu-rope. In recent years there has been a consid-erable increase in the establishment of such non-governmental entities in Eastern Europe.In many countries there also exist govern-ment think-tanks. They have a degree of in-dependence in the course of their work and often are the main policy maker in a given political sphere. Actually, one of the first think-tanks was the Institute for Defence and Security Studies, established in London in 1831. But there is something that cannot be found in dictionaries and statistics. Even then, a hundred years ago, people who were involved in these organisations were very young. Bear with me. The youth section of a politi-cal party is the major “bank of ideas”, and in the same time they are the people who will implement those ideas after a given period of time. It is not only political parties that op-

need more creative projects, entrepreneurs and high-growth small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Besides proper policy for encouraging the development and imple-mentation of ideas, a much more entrepre-neurial mind set is needed in countries which want to compete successfully on the global economic and political scene. At the same time, most of the government think-tanks in the US are concentrated in the fields of national security and defence. This includes the Institute for National Strategic Studies, the Institute for Homeland Security Studies and the Center for Technology and National Security Policy.It is important to say that there is an un-breakable link between knowledge-based economies, innovation and think-tanks. They are interrelated and complementary areas that will determine the future devel-opment of nations.In conclusion, we can say that the challenge of creating a modern social order is taking shape already. The pieces of the puzzle are innovation, knowledge-based economy, busi-ness incubators and, last but not least, think-tanks. Traditional technologies and policy approaches increasingly seem to have run their course. Policymakers need new ways of making decision and generating ideas, because if one thing is certain it is that in a rapidly-changing world those who fail to adapt are doomed to fall behind.

20

Young Politicians – The fuel for think-tanks

I’m not just talking about Russia, Ukraine, Serbia, and other places that have a well-known – and well-deserved – reputation for being hotbeds of racism and discrimination. In these countries people of ethnic minorities face daily prejudice and regular violence. Some even lose their lives.But for this piece, I’m talking about states within the EU; countries we would like to think of as being – dare I say it – ‘civilised’, modern and open-minded. Well guess what? In these coun-tries, people from ethnic minorities face daily prejudice and regular violence. Some even lose their lives.In many EU member states, particularly those that once lay east of the Iron Curtain, it is still relatively rare to see non-whites, particularly outside the major cities. In most of these coun-tries, racism is still overt and unsubtle, and can also tip over into violence. Poland (alongside Ukraine) was flagged up as major concern ahead of the European Football Championships last summer, with many fan groups warning their non-white supporters to stay home out of fear for their safety.Think about that: an EU member state in 21st Century Europe. Yet ethnic minorities are afraid to attend football matches for fear of being mur-dered.However, the situation in the old west is also troubling. Italy and Greece seem to be relishing

Europe is a racist continent

Matt Lewis

As a disclaimer, I should inform you that this opinion piece contains some strongly held views; but then this is an issue where such an approach is warranted.

laughingly by most supporters. These are nor-mal men, women and children, with respect-able lives and jobs, out supporting their team and enjoying a bit of casual racism.Remember when Denmark striker Nicklas Bendtner celebrated a goal by showing off underpants emblazoned with a sponsor’s name? He was fined Đ100,000 for that. Re-cent fans handed out for fans’ racist chanting include Spain in 2004 (£45,000), Serbia in 2007 (£16,500) and Croatia in 2008 (£10,000).What do you say to that? Is it appalling, sicken-ing? Does it make you angry, or are you just sat there shrugging your shoulders?I understand. It’s just the yobs at football match-es. The narrow-minded and uneducated. It’s not those like you. It’s not your society. Well, it is. And worse, it’s probably your government as well.There is not yet any Hungarian legislation that expressly enables the racist or other biased mo-tives of the offender to be taken into account by the courts as an aggravating circumstance when sentencing. Some of their laws are even down-right discriminatory. Jobbik, a thoroughly repul-sive political party, is the country’s third largest.In 2009, France forcibly deported 10,000 Roma. These deportations were widely supported by the populace and political classes alike. I have had conversations with French delegates at EDS who tell me these people are dirty, unedu-cated criminals who leach from society, contrib-ute nothing and care only for themselves.I’ll be honest with you; hearing those words from people I considered to be bright, young individuals embodying everything I love about Europe made me shudder.Racism is not only brutal beatings, offensive chants and mass deportations. Racism can be subtle, disguised; it can come from the mouths of the respectable and the educated. For instance, we often talk about Judaeo-Christian values be-ing the bedrock of EDS. These values are seen by many member organisations as giving a legiti-mate mandate to suppress certain other mem-ber and potential member organisations. On several occasions in my final year as an EDS delegate, discussion in council meetings left be shell-shocked. Was this the youth of the EPP, or the AENM?Racism in Europe is alive and well. It is nour-ished and fanned by the indifference of our poli-ticians, by the anonymity of numbers, and the inaction of you and I. We are all to blame, not just those club-wielding thugs or politicians of the extreme fringe. Perhaps you feel I have in-sulted your country? Your political organisation? Even you yourself? Good, I meant to.The scourge of racism on our continent will remain until each and every one of us is too of-fended to allow it to continue.

ally a little behind their allies and neighbours. Fine then, let’s take Germany; in April 2006 a 37-year-old Ethiopian engineer was beaten into a coma in Potsdam. This is not a one-off: such attacks are increas-ingly common in the country. Police are making increasing numbers of arrests in connexion with such brutal attacks on Africans and other dark-skinned people in Berlin, Wisner and other cit-ies. It is known, particularly to immigrants from Africa, that certain areas in the eastern part of Berlin, such as Marzahn and Hellersdorf, are “no-go” areas where they are certain to be at-tacked or even killed.Police statistics show a 19 per cent increase in racist violence by people described as members of the far right. In 2009 there were 958 such acts, up from 776 in 2004. Even more troubling than the prevalence of rac-ism in 21st Century Europe is the fact that both the authorities and the public seem unwilling to accept the depth of racism in our society. As a result, those who should speak frankly about it are not very eager to do so. The situation is so bad that many Africans who spoke to the press about racism in Germany refused to give their full names for fear of reprisals.Even in the United Kingdom, probably Europe’s most multi-cultural country, racism rears its ugly head. Notable incidents at football matches involving players and fans abusing other play-

ers have received large amounts of publicity re-cently. Former England national team captain John Terry was found guilty by the Football As-sociation of racially abus-ing Anton Ferdinand, an English mixed-race play-ers, for which he later lost the national captaincy, whilst Liverpool FC’s Luis Saurez received an un-precedented eight match ban for his racial insult directed at Manchester

United’s black player Patrice Evra. Saurez’s defence was that the term he used is commonplace in his native Uruguay. Well here’s a newsflash, chum: you’re in Merseyside, not Montevideo.It is heartening to see action taken against these transgressors, and fans in general rose up in revulsion, but still the fact remains that there was a need for punishment. Over in Spain meanwhile, football is also the backdrop to racist incident. From national team coaches to fans on the terraces, everybody is as it. Monkey chants aimed at black players are joined in with

reports

a return to their rivalry of antiquity, but these days in place of a desire to dominate the world they compete to bring shame upon themselves. Witness in Greece the dramatic increases in the number of racist incidents and the electoral rise of the far right, most obviously in the form of Golden Dawn. See how in Italy racist chants are commonplace at football games, while the fines meted out to rich clubs amount to less than half a footballer’s weekly wage.But, I hear you say, Italy and Greece have al-ways been a little bit backward; ‘western’ in Cold War terms but economically and cultur-

Bullseye 21

theme

Ana Tamási

es and enhance mutual trust, with the aim of strengthening the role and activities of the V4 countries within the EaP and individual Eastern partners. It also serves to foster further Inter-national Visegrad Found programmemes in the EaP framework. The new V4 EaP programme is starting with flagship projects in the following areas of: Democratisation and Transformation process; Regional co-operation; and Support for civil society.Providing access to the V4 countries’ experi-ence this new programme with four pillars of the Flagship Projects, Standard Grants, Viseg-rad University Studies Grants and Scholarship Programme should also contribute to accel-eration of political association and further economic integration between the Eastern European partners and European Union.

FLAGSHiP PRoJECTSThe aim of the Flagship Projects within the Visegrad 4 Eastern Partnership programme is to support long-term projects of strategic

V4EaP programme aims at further strength-ening of co-operation among civic societies in both regions, generating synergies with the Eastern Partnership programme, providing support to successful transformation of the countries. The V4 countries share the strong commitment to strengthen the political as-sociation and further economic integration of Eastern European partners with the EU as well as to accelerate the process leading to a visa free regime. Since its launch two years ago the Eastern Partnership has provided an ambitious and forward-looking vehicle to achieve these com-mon goals. Lessons from building civil society in the V4 countries and their inclusion in gover-nance processes are also crucial for the East-ern partners. The partners committed to deep democratic reforms will benefit the most from the Eastern Partnership. In addition, the co-operation with and among neighbours allows those involved to tackle mutual regional chal-lenges in the most effective way, save resourc-

he programme was established in or-der to support political and socio-economic reforms in the partner countries, facilitating comprehensive approximation towards the European Union, strengthening the regional cooperation among between the Visegrad re-gion and the countries of the Eastern Partner-ship - Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine – and enhancing insti-tutional capacity and civil society. The aim is to strengthen Visegrad cooperation in the Eastern Partnership framework through joint activities and projects within the EaP multi-lateral dimension, including by reviewing the objectives and resources of the International Visegrad Fund.The main aims are facilitating the unique know-how of the Visegrad countries with so-cial and economic transformation, democra-tization and regional cooperation particularly through the development of civil society and support of cooperation among local govern-ments, universities and individual citizens. The

VISEGRAD 4 EASTERN PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME The Prime Ministers of Visegrad 4 at their summit in Bratislava on June 16 2011 decided to strengthen Visegrad cooperation in the Eastern Partnership (EaP) framework through joint activities and projects within the EaP multilateral dimension. It was agreed to support the establish-ment of a new programme “Visegrad 4 Eastern Partnership” within the International Visegrad Fund aiming to support one of the EU’s main long-term priority foreign policy, the Eastern Partnership project.

22

theme

character that significantly contribute to pro-viding access to the unique experience and know-how of the Visegrad Group countries with the processes of democra-tic trans-formation and integration and with regional cooperation. Flagship Projects support reform processes, political association and economic integration with the EU, strengthen the insti-tutional capacity, contribute to the develop-ment of civil society and the overall transfor-mation of the Eastern Partnership countries. Projects submitted to the Fund must involve grantees and project partners from all four V4 countries, as well as with at least two EaP countries. Annual budget for Flagship Projects is €600,000.

STANDARD GRANTS FoR EASTERN PARTNERSHiP (EAP)Similar to the original Standard Grant pro-gramme, this programme is suitable for shorter-term (max. 1 year) grant projects of smaller scope (average supported sum is ca. €10,000) that involve the cooperation of at least 2 grantees in the V4 region and 1 in the EaP region. Standard Grants—EaP are similar to the existing Standard Grants programme. Projects must involve grantees or project part-ners from at least two Visegrad Group countries and at least one country of the Eastern Partnership. Projects submitted within Standard Grants should aim at supporting the reform pro-cesses, political association and economic integration with the EU, strengthening in-stitutional capacity, the development of civil society and transformation of the EaP countries. Projects submit-ted by non-profit and non-governmental organizations, public educational, cultural and research institutions and municipalities or local governments are preferred.

ViSEGRAD UNiVERSiTy STUDiES GRANTS FoR EAPThis programme is specifically targeting col-leges and universities in the EaP region. The grant is intended as a support for the develop-ment, accreditation and launching of universi-ty courses or whole degree programmes that deal with specific phenomena related to the V4 countries experience with transformation, democratization, human rights, EU accession, etc. The Visegrad University Studies Grants (VUSG) programme targeting the countries of the Eastern Partnership offers grant fund-ing to projects developing university courses of degree programmes that will be launched at colleges and universities accredited in the EaP countries.

The programme enables these colleges, uni-versities or their legal units (schools, facul-ties) to apply with proposals for courses or programmes of various academic fields that focus on sharing specific V4 experience with democratization and transformation process, regional cooperation, the EU accession pro-cess, etc. The programme or course is ex-pected to secure for each semester of its en-rolment at least two or three relevant guest lecturers from two V4 countries.

ViSEGRAD SCHoLARSHiPS FoR EAPThe Grant is to promote and support the development and launching of outstanding University courses or degree programmes. The course shall be a series of lessons or lectures (seminars, etc.) on a particular sub-ject focused on sharing of the Visegrad Group countries’ experience.

EASTERN PARTNERSHiP wiTHiN THE V4 PRESiDENCy PRoGRAMMESBoth the current Polish Presidency (2012-2013) and the upcoming Hungarian Presi-dency (2013-2014) handling the V4 EaP Pro-gramme as a priority policy of Visegrad 4. One of the top priorities of Poland’s V4 Presidency is to further promote and enhance V4 coop-eration to cover tasks and projects which support the development and implementation of the Eastern Partnership. The Presidency is planning to broaden the V4+EaP cooperation formats to include sectoral meetings on se-lected issues and to enlarge, in line with ac-cepted practices, the number of participants by inviting other EU countries which have an interest in EaP development. The Hungarian Presidency also will give top priority to the new EaP Programme, namely to maintain the political dialogue in order to encourage the democracy building process and the struc-tural reforms in order to help the EaP coun-tries to come closer to the European practice. The most important elements of the EaP V4 dialogue are the followings:• democratic governance and stability, legis-

lative reform• mobility and visa liberalization• cross border cooperation, regional develop-

ment• economic integration, financial cooperation• relations building between civil society and

citizensThe next meeting concerning the Visegrad 4 Eastern Partnership Programme will be held 17. 05. 2013 in Cracow, Wieliczka where the Ministers of Foreign Affairs in the V4 + EaP format will discuss the future initiatives and measures of the Programme.

VISEGRAD 4 EASTERN PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME

Bullseye 23

theme

Jacob Schrot is the founder of the Initiative of Young Trans-Atlantics (Initiative junger Transatlan-tiker), who aim to foster a stronger level of coop-eration between Germany and the U.S.

Jacob SchrotDimitar Keranov

tell us a little bit about yourself.I was born in 1990 in the German Democratic Republic, which was neither democratic nor a republic. I always had a special relationship to America: Without the United States, my grand-parents would not have been freed from the ter-ror of National Socialism, nor would they have survived the period of economic depression after World War II. When my parents were cel-ebrating the German Day of Unity, after having lived in the GDR under both political and person-al oppression, they knew that without the sup-port of George H.W. Bush and his administration they would not have been able to clasp their beloved family members from West Germany in their arms once more. Transatlantic relations is nothing abstract, it is a partnership that affects people‘s everyday life.

How did you come to tHeidea of creating tHis organiZation? There was a lack for an organization which focuses on the future of the transatlantic partnership. In Germany, we usually talk about the “good old times” and are afraid of the so called “U.S.-Pivot to Asia”. We need to show that this partnership is not an exclusive matter of the Cold War period. It is about the future. The Initiative of Young Trans-Atlantics promotes a closer and more intensified coop-eration between the United States of Amer-ica and Germany – on the societal, cultural, and political level. Members of the initiative vehemently oppose all kind of anti-American views and strongly support the common val-ues of the transatlantic relation. Young peo-ple encourage other young people to work for a closer transatlantic partnership – this is the DNA of our initiative.

wHat is iyt all about? wHat

public actiVities do you organiZe? Or initiative comes out of the heart of soci-ety – young people who campaign for a bet-ter American-German understanding in our generation. With projects as for example our essay competition about Obama´s time in office, a panel discussion with Minister of Defense, Thomas de Maizière, on the topic “Does Germany need a Veterans Day like the U.S.? ” and an event commemorating the victims of 9/11 in front of the Brandenburger Tor, we show solidarity of our two countries. Recently, we launched our essay competi-tion “Transatlantic Heroes” which deals with the influence of Germans in America and Americans in Germany. We want to re-member those who have fostered the trans-atlantic relations in an extraordinary way. At the same time, we focus our efforts on the future of this unique partnership. The Ger-man Chancellor Willy Brandt once said: “Let the memory of the past become our mission for the future” - and that‘s it.

How would you assess tHe german-american relations? wHat is tHe neXt step? wHat could be done in order to strengtHen our cooperation witH tHe usa?All in all, the discussion about the future of the transatlantic partnership lacks a sense of proportion. The “Rise of China” and the relative gain of regional power of the BRIC’s have become a thought-terminating cliché, which obscures the potential for a deep-ened and expanded transatlantic partner-ship. Reorganizing NATO according to the 2012 Chicago Summit, creating a trans-atlantic free trade zone, remembering the historical connections which have lasted for centuries and overcoming national ego-ism are the right answers to the global shift towards multipolarity. Transatlantic relations are not important despite of new powers on the world stage, but important because of new powers on the world stage. Nevertheless, strengthening transatlantic cooperation requires a clear definition of priorities, focal points and the term itself. Sharing values alone will not guarantee an enduring partnership - a common approach to a policy agenda that secures peace, pros-perity and security, will. We will participate in the great effort to move the people on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean closer to-gether. In the end, the people define what the partnership should look like.For more information, visit the organization’s website: http://junge-transatlantiker.de/

INTERVIEW

24

theme

Cross-border cooperation and youth opportunities

Anaïs Mattez

“I congratulate you, young people of Germany, you are the children of a great people”, said Charles de Gaulle to a public of thousands of young Germans in Berlin in 1962. The general had the most inspiring speech, one that marked the be-ginning of an extraordinary reconciliation. It was quite revolutionary at the time for the great General to admit the eastern side of the Rhine as equal to the West in culture and language. Nor is the date random or inconsequen-tial. Remember that in the 1950s Germa-

ny’s economy was barely recovering from financing two of the deadliest wars in the history and from the scandalous and pu-nitive damages the Allies had demanded as reparation. The two men seemed to have nothing in common at first. But Konrad Adenauer was the uncontested master in Germany. He managed to bring democracy in the new Federal Republic, which witnesses an amazing economic growth. He had also been the enemy of Nazism since its very beginning and is the man who had never lost his faith in Christian democracy. This remarkability forced the respect of Charles de Gaulle. He called him a Homme d’État, which was the best qualifying name he could ever match to a politician he esteemed.The Treaty marked the renunciation of several attempts to réciproque domina-tion. Frenchmen and Germans trusted each other to move on from old rancour. The Treaty was later called the “Friend-ship Treaty”, an undeniable sign that the work at the Elysée was a franc success. Adenauer would later express these very hopes at a press conference: “Without

this Treaty, there would be no European unity”, he said, in French.What does the Treaty have to do with us, young people of today? In our eyes the Treaty is of remarkable importance, considering that it was the first time that the youth was taken into account as builder of the two nations’ future. The Eu-ropean Economic Community already ex-isted since 1957, but that union crucially lacked both vision and humanity. We were eager for friendship, the subtle but vital ingredient that would make the con-

cept of the Union come true. Moreover, these elder statemen knew how they had to trust in youth. That faith gave Europe the confidence to move forward in bet-ter comprehension and integration.We kept on walking on their path: crossing borders and growing together in a stronger Union. Indeed, we have seen the emergence of the Erasmus program, which is one perfect example of a European success story: close

to 3 million students have participated since it was initiated in 1987. Now, the annual budget exceeds 450 million euro and more than 4,000 higher education in-stitutions in 33 countries participate, and more are willing to join.The enthusiasm also contaminated the Lisbon Treaty. Since 1993, the Treaty establishing the European Community includes a provision on youth that estab-lished the basis for youth policy. The new and extended article 165 TFUE declares that the EU action shall be aimed at “encouraging the development of youth exchanges and of exchanges of socio-educational instructors, and encourag-ing the participation of young people in democratic life in Europe”. This legal structure is the key proof that multilin-gualism, culture exchange and young public investment are the milestones of European prosperity.While politicians were acting, they had no idea they were making history. De Gaulle and Adenauer’s dream transcended their lifetime and became one they share with us: our generation of dynamic youngsters and hopefully, many to come.

Turning enemies into friends and turning the youth into the future. This was the purpose of the Elysée Treaty signed fi fty years ago. True European friendship, across borders and wartime memories, came from two great statesmen: Konrad Adenauer and Charles de Gaulle. When France and Germany got together to sign the Treaty the 22nd January 1963, they could have had no idea its concept would work so well and survive through many generations to be

Bullseye 25

Miroslav HajnošMr. Miroslav Hajnoš has become a symbol of an active pro-European approach to education and the student worlds that overlap in many European countries. For a long time he has served as president of Erasmus Student Network in Slovakia. He was also a member of the Student Council for Higher Education Slovak Republic, part of the European Student Union and Member of the Council for Erasmus Programme in Slovak Academic Association for International Cooperation. Right now he is working as a volunteer in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. On his website (www.hajnos.eu) he brings daily news related to the lives of young Europeans, their attitudes, opinions on current European issues.

Miroslav Jurčišin

theme

How did you come to do wHat you do now?When I started my university I also joined a university senate, because I wanted to im-prove student rights at my university; and I still think that it is obligatory for students to fight for their rights. After my Erasmus ex-change programme I have levelled up and established an ESN section at my university, to care about international students, orga-nize events, seminars, projects and to start representing my university in National UnionOf course, when I was more active I saw more problems that I wanted to change and improve. This is the reason why I candidat-ed [sic] for the position of president at ESN Slovakia in 2011. During more than 2 years of my presidency I have attended many conferences, seminars and participated in many projects. It was nice time, I had to work hard, but I also enjoyed it, because I did something important not only for me but also for the student society. Now, after my studies, I still continue with active work, I have established a new project European Dialogue of Perspective Attitude.

How many countries HaVe you Visited during your actiVe work?Many countries, I remember that for exam-ple during April 2012 I had almost 10 flights and each week I was in different country. I t was really interesting, but also amazing time.

it Has been written about pro-posal erasmus for all. can you tell us sometHing about it?At the moment, a budget for years 2007-2013 is finishing. The European

Commission is preparing new proposal for years 2014 – 2020. One of propos-als which has been discussed for last couple of months is called “Erasmus for all”. The European Commission focused on entire re-formation of all current edu-cational programmes structure, without reference to specific group of people. It should unite all educational programmes such as Erasmus, Leonardo, Grundtvig; together with non-formal education such as Youth in Action and European Voluntary Service.However, the Committee for Education in the European Parliament has different opin-ion on the new proposal. One of them is inadequate name of the new proposal. For them, it would be more appropriate to name the proposal “YES Europe”, by means of “Youth, Education and Sport Europe.” There is also disagreement about integration of formal and non-formal education.

INTERVIEWsome people tHink tHat studying abroad is all about HaVing fun. wHat do you tHink?I disagree with this statement, because everything depends on a student. If one re-ally wants to learn something new during exchange studies or not. How do you motivate people who hesitate to study abroad?Why is it important to go abroad? Firstly, it will open your mind! It has language, cul-tural and educational benefits for you from the European area also called “best prac-tises”. What is important here is that you gain specific skills as well as good qualifica-tion during your studies. During your study abroad you will study on various interesting fields, you will meet people from different side of Europe and you will gain experiences for your future career. Therefore, if you are interested in acquiring all of these experi-ences, do not hesitate, go for it!

introduce to us your proJect european dialogue, wHicH led you to it.During my studies I have attended a range variety of educational exchanges, confer-ences, seminars, I know a great many people, I have learned a lot from them and I have found that every single person gives me a motivation and energy for life. And I would like the motivation to be moved on, I would like my friends, students, and citizens to be active, so that together we can built a European company, which will be built on the pillars of solidarity, democracy and un-derstanding. European Dialogue prospective attitude is an informal forum for the purpose of developing and promoting a European identity in the present, when the European Union is going through a difficult time.

26

EDS meets in Slovakia“Living Together in Diverse Societies - A Youth Approach to the Intercultural Dialogue with the Roma Minority.”

Between the 4 and 9 of December EDS gathered in Trnava, Slovakia for a seminar organized by its full member, Občiansko-demokratická mládež (ODM) and supported by the Council of Europe under the title “Living To-gether in Diverse Societies - A Youth Approach to the Intercultural Dialogue with the Roma Mi-nority”. The second event of EDS’ working year was dedicated to one of todays’ Europe’s most important and relevant issues, namely Roma integration. The aim of the event was to learn

Anna Tamási

more about Roma people, their living condi-tions, traditions, history and situation in Europe thus helping mutual understanding and also fostering the integration process of the Roma minority.In order to create a proper base for the work dur-ing the week the participants started the event with an opening session on the history of Roma people, since the understanding of the situa-tion of Roma people can’t be complete without fully understanding their background. Another important component for the successful work of the delegates was the discussion of the meaning of the three key terms of stereotype, prejudice and discrimination. These introductory parts were followed by a group sessions which was aiming to answer the questions:“What do we know of the Roma minority – prejudices vs. facts?”Finding out about the prejudices living in us and facing them served asa good start on which next activities could build upon.Before looking at the wider picture the partici-pants first learned about the Roma situation in Slovakia. The speaker of the panel was MU Dr. PéterHunčik, a psychiatric professional in na-tional cohabitation and former advisor of Presi-dent Havel. Dr Hunčik has been involved for a long time in training people to overcome ethnic tension. In his opinion ethnic tension is caused by a lack of information about the other ethnical group on both sides. Therefore training was cre-

ated in which he trained certain ethnic groups to create self-knowledge, to learn to commu-nicate thus they can integrate better to the mainstream society. Mr Hunčik’s speech raised many questions and many EDS delegates talked about their experience with Roma minority in their countries, presented the current policies and proposed some possible solutions.The delegates had the opportunity to see a success story which was presented as a short video presentation. The short film showed how Roma teenagers were involved in the proj-ect Youth in Action, but after several years of participation they were left without a possibil-ity to participate again. This was done in order to help them to find their potential inside and understand that they are capable enough to make their own projects. Those young people managed to start initiatives of their first ex-change project. The stories of Romani who are advanced in the process of integration were instrumental by understanding that these poli-cies of European institutions and organisations are working. The story was also useful by un-derstanding the situation and potential of Roma people in European society.At the end of the week a joint session of all participants was held where they shared their new experiences and ideas gained during the event and with their amendments they formed the conference resolution under the title “United in Diversity – A Youth Contribution to the Policy of Integration of the Roma Minority”. The con-ference resolution underlined the relevance of the topic in today’s Europe, and the importance of Roma integration and as a student EDS also highlighted the value of education within the integration process. The conference resolution was presented at the formal session of the Council of EDS, where the Council unanimously adopted the resolution.The event was closed with the meeting with Mr Euduard Kukan MEP, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Slovakia, who shared his thoughts and experiences about the Roma integration. Mr Kukan underlined how European institutions and EU countries have a joint responsibility to improve the social inclusion and integration of Roma by using all the respective instruments and policies for which they are responsible. In many Member States, Roma represent a signifi-cant and growing proportion of the school age population and future workers, thus Mr Kukan underlined the importance of education within the integration process: “It is therefore of crucial importance to invest in the education of Roma children to allow them to successfully enter the labour market.” Access to education is one of the four crucial areas for Roma integration in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy..

eVents

Between the 4 and 9 of December EDS Between the 4 and 9 of December EDS gathered in Trnava, Slovakia for a seminar organized by its full member, Občiansko-

thus helping mutual understanding and also fostering the integration process of the Roma minority.In order to create a proper base for the work dur-ing the week the participants started the event with an opening session on the history of Roma people, since the understanding of the situa-tion of Roma people can’t be complete without fully understanding their background. Another important component for the successful work of the delegates was the discussion of the meaning of the three key terms of stereotype, prejudice and discrimination. These introductory parts were followed by a group sessions which was aiming to answer the questions:“What do we know of the Roma minority – prejudices vs. facts?”Finding out about the prejudices living in us and facing them served asa good start on which next activities could build upon.Before looking at the wider picture the partici-pants first learned about the Roma situation in

“Living Together in Diverse Societies - A Youth Approach to the Intercultural Dialogue with the Roma Minority.”

more about Roma people, their living condi-tions, traditions, history and situation in Europe thus helping mutual understanding and also

many questions and many EDS delegates talked about their experience with Roma minority in their countries, presented the current policies and proposed some possible solutions.The delegates had the opportunity to see a success story which was presented as a short video presentation. The short film showed how Roma teenagers were involved in the proj-ect Youth in Action, but after several years of participation they were left without a possibil-ity to participate again. This was done in order to help them to find their potential inside and understand that they are capable enough to make their own projects. Those young people managed to start initiatives of their first ex-change project. The stories of Romani who are advanced in the process of integration were instrumental by understanding that these poli-cies of European institutions and organisations are working. The story was also useful by un-derstanding the situation and potential of Roma people in European society.At the end of the week a joint session of all participants was held where they shared their new experiences and ideas gained during the event and with their amendments they formed the conference resolution under the title “United in Diversity – A Youth Contribution to the Policy

more about Roma people, their living condi-tions, traditions, history and situation in Europe thus helping mutual understanding and also

Bullseye 27

The University of BurgundyBurgundy is internationally known for its gas-tronomy and wine. This climate attracts many tourists but also many students from across France and abroad. The University of Burgun-dy, founded in 1722, is startnig to establish itself in France and in Europe.

uniVersities

Amélie Pommier

The recent reforms made under Sarkozy by minister of higher education and research Valérie Pécresse showed results in this French university. The reforms provided the power to build a new future, especially regarding the effectiveness of the university budget.

The University of Burgundy counts 27,000 stu-dents across all the different branches in Dijon and five other cities in Burgundy, including 3100 international students. The university is divided into 10 faculties, 3 engineering schools, 3 tech-nical institutes and 10 schools and institutes.

The University

The University of Burgundy counts 27,000 stu-dents across all the different branches in Dijon and five other cities in Burgundy, including 3100 international students. The university is divided into 10 faculties, 3 engineering schools, 3 tech-nical institutes and 10 schools and institutes.

28

AN AMERiCAN-STyLE CAMPUS The main site of the university is the capital of Burgundy, Dijon. The university complex there is often compared to an American campus on a French model, which might mean smaller. Indeed the campus is not in the city centre itself and lies on a vast area further out. This provides a very good quality of life to stu-dents. Courses are delivered in the same area with a very large library and different special-ised libraries and many student halls stand in this very green campus. The university main campus offers everything needed by students and can easily be reached by public transpor-tation or car.

AN iNTERNATioNAL ViSioNIn order to attract more international students and to provide more opportunities to its own students the University of Burgundy has de-veloped different European and international programmes. The university cares for stu-dents to have opportunities to go abroad for studying, doing research or doing an intern-ship. Of course Erasmus is an important tool but the University of Burgundy developed very interesting programmes. This is how a Re-search Master’s degree in Computer Vision and Robotics was launched with the Herriot Watt University (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) and the University of Girona (Spain). Of course one of the institutes in the univer-sity which attracts international students a lot is the one specialised in grape cultivation and wine production. The university institute which delivers courses on this field is interna-tionally recognised. The University of Burgundy has developed a special curriculum with the University of Mainz (Germany). Students from both universities have the opportunity to study at both universi-ties in most taught programmes. The important aspect of this programme is that when they complete their diploma they get both German and French university diplomas. This successful programme was even extended to a third di-ploma possibility with the University of Bologna (Italy) or a university in Quebec (Canada). So in a three years Bachelor’s degree a student has the possibility to study in three different coun-tries and to get his bachelor’s degree in these three universities. This can also be applied to some master’s degrees. The University of Burgundy offers also many French classes for international students to learn or improve their skills in French. Tutoring is provided as well as long as needed.

iNCREASiNG THE iMPoRTANCE oF RESEARCH

The University of Burgundy

EXCELLENCE FoR ANyoNEThe University of Burgundy developed new branches for vocational studies in order to of-fer more to those students who do not pursue academic studies. This is how a Training Cen-tre in Higher Education was opened. These centres did not propose any programme after baccalaureate. Noting the need for such pro-grammes for students who want to transfer to vocational studies, the CFA du Supérieur de Bourgogne was created, and has been a real success. From 2008k, when it was opened, to today the number of students has been multiplied by three. It also shows that for many students it is important to study and practice at the same time. Every year more vocational degrees – mostly Bachelor degrees – are created to train stu-dents to new fields and skills. The demand for part-time degrees with training continues to increase. Students trust these degrees more as they afford the chance to practice and have better chances to get a job afterwards. The University of Burgundy is also involved in lifelong learning programmes, and offers many academic classes for anyone who which to at-tend into the so-called “University for all”.

For competing on a higher level and increas-ing the quality of researches and the needs or researchers the University of Burgundy merged with the University of Franche Comté (neighbouring region to the east) into a PRES (Poles of Research and Higher Education). The creation of PRES was also due to Pécresse’s policies and gave the opportunity to univer-sities to merge some activities and means. PRES were created to make French universi-ties more important on a European and global level, to provide them with more means for success and make them more recognized. The laboratories get more funds that way and increase the quantity and the quality of their research. Indeed as research material is more and more expensive such organization is more efficient for researchers and research in general. Research on cancer and inflammato-ry diseases treatments, as well as on micro- and nanotechnologies make the University of Burgundy’s research well recognised on the European and international levels.

EXCELLENCE iN SPoRTSThe University of Burgundy has been distin-guished for the environment it provides to professional, semi-professional and future professional sportsmen. Each Olympic Games show university students or former students in the race. The sports activities for handi-capped people are also highly developed.

NEw DiPLoMAS To BECoME A TEACHERLearning how to become a teacher in France was not done by the universities but by special schools called IUFM. These IUFM were highly criticized for their costly organisation and a lack of results for the future teachers and the IUFM students. the training was provided after any bachelor degree and was two years long. For secondary school teachers no training or course was offered after the bachelor degree. It was decided under Sarkozy presidency that these schools would be closed and these courses become master degrees delivered by universities for both primary and second-ary schools teachers. This was also to adapt the system to most European countries. Pro-fessors have not really changed but courses and practice have improved. The level of the courses provided to students is higher than the one given by the former IUFM. This is still a new challenge for French universities to pro-vide good education to future teachers and especially adapt the courses to the reality of teaching in 21st century France. The University of Burgundy exploit the ben-efits of its geographical position in Europe for its future development.

uniVersities

EXCELLENCE FoR ANyoNEThe University of Burgundy developed new branches for vocational studies in order to of-fer more to those students who do not pursue academic studies. This is how a Training Cen-tre in Higher Education was opened. These centres did not propose any programme after baccalaureate. Noting the need for such pro-grammes for students who want to transfer to vocational studies, the CFA du Supérieur de Bourgogne was created, and has been a real success. From 2008k, when it was opened, to today the number of students has been multiplied by three. It also shows that for many students it is important to study and practice at the same time. Every year more vocational degrees – mostly Bachelor degrees – are created to train stu-dents to new fields and skills. The demand for part-time degrees with training continues to increase. Students trust these degrees more as they afford the chance to practice and have better chances to get a job afterwards. The University of Burgundy is also involved in lifelong learning programmes, and offers many academic classes for anyone who which to at-tend into the so-called “University for all”.

Bullseye 29

CounCil of europe

The Council of Europe trust young EuropeansThe Council of Europe is one of the organisations which have involved young people the most, and have done so for a long time now. Indeed the Council of Europe founded the European Youth Centre in Strasbourg and the European Youth Foundation in 1972. They celebrated last year the 40th anniversary of this achievement. In between another Youth Centre was opened in Budapest. The Council of Europe is one of the organisations which have involved young people the most, and have done so for a long time now. Indeed the Council of Europe founded the European Youth Centre in Strasbourg and the European Youth Foundation in 1972. They celebrated last year the 40th anniversary of this achieve-ment. In between another Youth Centre was opened in Budapest.

An important aspect of the Council of Europe’s policies towards young people is that they are mainly made and decided by young people themselves. That is why the Council of Europe can appear as a pioneer in the question of youth involvement. It is the only organisation in the world which gives as much importance to young people as governments representatives in the decision making process.Young Europeans are heard through different youth organisations (all NGOs) and constitute the Advisory Council of Youth. Ministries in charge of youth questions formed the European Steering Committee for Youth. Both the Council

Amélie Pommier

and the Committee meet in the Joint Council on Youth to discuss youth issues in Europe and take decisions. One of the main objectives for the Council of Europe is that young Europeans know about human rights, democracy, and freedom and integrate these European values. The Council of Europe has also a role in promoting the impor-tance of education and make sure that young people can have access to it. The Council of Europe clearly maintain a list of priorities towards young European. The first group concerns human rights and democracy. This is important to educate young people

about human rights, to make them par-ticipating to the society especially by using their right to vote. Gender equality is also an important point to be told in order to prevent any kind

of discrimination and violence. Environment became an important point as well towards sustainable development. Young people need to have access to any information and advice they would need. To integrate young people into the European community it is important to promote the cul-tural diversity which has always been shap-ing Europe and to make it understandable. Of course fighting against racism or discrimina-tion is crucial but building respect, peace and solidarity is the proper goal for the Council of Europe. Integration also needs a good social cohesion. That is why it is important to promote education and help young people to access to the world of work believing that this is crucial for youth well-being, autonomy and integration. These are all the priorities the Council of Europe listed for his actions towards young people. Over the past forty years the Council of Europe launched different campaigns like one against racism, xenophobia and intolerance and one towards young Roma for them to act against their issues. To make these priorities become true the Coun-cil of Europe provides books on education to human rights and gender issue and different events. The most important activity towards young people is to support youth European or-ganisations events when they come to talk and educate their public about the Council of Europe fixed priorities for youth. For that the Council of Europe allows a large budget for these dis-cussions and provides specialists to talk about these topics. EDS often has events organised together with the Council of Europe and fo-cussed on these issues. The last event was the second Council Meeting of the year 2012-2013 hold in Trnava, Slovakia. This event was on the issue cultural diversity and was named “Living together in diverse societies: a youth approach to the intercultural dialogue with the Roma mi-nority”. European Youth Foundation was found-ed in 1972 to finance activities such as these.

EDUCATioN iS A KEyEducation is of course seen as a key to Europe-an integration and to Europeans internalising Eu-ropean values. The Council of Europe, together with young people, recognised the importance of recognising non-formal education and to pro-mote the importance of quality in education and non-formal education. To achieve its goals the Council of Europe provides trainings to those who want to act in these directions. To have more detailed information about this long process towards European youth you can read the following Council of Europe publication : The Council of Europe and Youth: Thirty Years’ Experience (2002).

30

The Council of Europe trust young Europeans

Ann-Sofi e PAUWE-LYN (CDS Belgium) is EDS Secretary-General. She assists the Chairman and the whole Bureau in the day-to-day work. She is the main contact to all EDS organisa-tions and assure the good process of EDS activities. She also represents EDS in many meetings held in Brussels.

Juraj ANTAL (ODM Slovakia) achieves a second mandate as EDS Chairman. He leads the whole team and represents EDS in most events EDS is in-vited. His activities are mainly to make EDS more known on the European level and to keep connections with organisations and de-cision makers. He also looks for more sup-port to EDS in order to push forwards EDS adopted policies.

Gintarė NARK-EVICIUTE (JKL Lithuania) is another experienced bureau member. This year she is building the programme of EDS work and is responsi-ble to set down EDS long term strategies.

Stelios GEORGIOU (FPK Protoporia Cy-prus) is in charge of statutory questions and fundraising. Be-sides he is respon-sible for helping the three different work-ing groups in their activities, providing them with training and support when needed.

Andrey NOVAKOV (MGERB Bulgaria) is in charge of output and input strate-gies. He makes the policy work stronger through increased research activity. For that matter he organises EDS re-search activity with EDS Research offi cer Balint BALOGH. He is also responsible for all EDS Confer-ence resolutions and take part of the 2014 Higher Education and Research project.

Ingrid HOPP (HSF Norway) was already Vice-chairman last year and is responsible for communications and external relations. She communicates daily on EDS actions and views, in particular through the social medias. She develops new ways to communicate EDS actions and policies. Moreover she leads the Higher Education and Research year project for the 2014 European elections.

Anna TAMASI (Fidesz Hungary) supervises all EDS events this year. She helps the local organisers and is responsible for raising the standards of events. She also has the responsibil-ity for EDS alumni in order to maintain good links with part members who will always be our repre-sentatives.

Eva MAJEWSKI (RCDS Germany) is responsible for membership ques-tions and external representation. She has been represented EDS in many events. Moreover she takes part of the EDS policy work together with Andrey NOVAKOV to write notes on higher education and re-search questions.

Avram CRISAN (OTPD-L Romania) is EDS Vice-chairman. He was assisting the policy team as Policy Director and will carry on that way. He is now also responsible for designing EDS newsletter.

Anna MASNA (USA Ukraine) is EDS Di-rector in charge of European integration and helps EDS to get in touch with other organisations.

Amélie POMMIER (UNI-MET France) works on the campaigns and promotion of EDS. Be-sides she is in charge of EDS publications, which comprise mostly of BullsEye magazine and EDS monthly newsletter. She will also develop other sort of publication for EDS and participate to the elaboration of the 2014 Higher Edu-cation and Research programme together with Ingrid HOPP and Andrey NOVAKOV.

Dace SPELMANE is Deputy Secretary General for her sec-ond year. She is EDS’ only employee, based in Brussels. She as-sists the Bureau in its day-to-day manage-ment.

EDS has elected a new bureau for this year during the last Summer University held in Sopron, Hungary. Avram CRISAN has been elect-ed during the fi rst EDS Council Meeting of the year on the 19th of October in Bucharest, Romania.

EDS Bureau 2012-2013Amélie Pommier

Bureau

Bullseye 31

BullsEye