European leaders are set to gather in Brussels Nov 7 to try and agree to a consensus ahead of a global financial summit to address reforms to international financial institutions.
France, which holds the rotating European Union presidency this year, said in a brief statement Friday that the informal meeting of EU heads of state and government will prepare the EU's 27 member-states for an upcoming financial summit Nov 15 in Washington on the global financial crisis.
The summit was announced by the White House after a meeting last weekend between US President George W. Bush, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.
The White House said President Bush would host leaders of 20 of the world's richest nations and biggest emerging economies, including India and China.
At an emergency EU Summit Oct 15-16 here, EU leaders had agreed that a massive overhaul of the world's financial system is needed to prevent another financial crisis and asked Sarkozy and Barroso to hold further discussions with the US administration.
The European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, however, failed to answer questions from journalists over what preparations were in place for the Nov 7 summit.
Commission spokesperson Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen said European Commission members are to meet Oct 29 to prepare for the upcoming global summit in the US.
The US-hosted talks are expected to draw leaders from the Group of 20: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, Britain, the US, and the European Union.
Showing posts with label France. Show all posts
Showing posts with label France. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Missed opportunities at the EU India Summit
September 29, the sunny environs of Marseille in Southern France were the perfect setting to provide a strong impetus to the lackluster Europe-India relations but half a day of talks were overshadowed by French focus on Franco-Indian bilateral Summit the next day. The latter did culminate in France with India signing a nuclear co-operation deal.
Rising from the ashes of two World Wars and expanding to include 27 Member States with more in the waiting, the EU today is a bastion of peace, harmony and prosperity. On the other hand, India, with 28 States and seven Union Territories, has emerged over last six decades in a buoyant mood thanks to its democratic principles, freedom of speech and its new found economic strengths.
Fresh from the historic nuclear deal with the US, India is in a bargaining mood while the EU is still far from making the necessary efforts needed to shift its continuing bridge building with China to India as an important global and regional democratic player.
Political ties can not go far without financial bonds and a look at the trade figures from recent past show that its time to inject much needed momentum into an uninspiring trade relationship. At the Marseille Summit, the EU and India were unable to conclude a trade accord by the end of this year, as once hoped, and remain at loggerheads on key issues in the Doha talks on liberalising world trade.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told journalists, at the joint press conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, "We have agreed to achieve an annual bilateral trade turnover of 100 billion Euro within the next five years and to work towards the conclusion of the India-EU Broad-Based Trade and Investment Agreement by end-2009."
The 27 nation bloc’s trade with India amounted to just less than 56 billion Euro last year. Earlier the trade statistics shifted a gear from a meagre less than five billion Euro in 1980 to a respectable more than 45 billion Euro in 2006. Although trade with the EU is 20 percent of India’s import-export business, making the EU India’s largest trading partner in 2006, India’s share is only 1.8 percent of total EU trade.
In the context of the ongoing negotiations in the EU-India Free Trade Agreement, there are some stumbling blocks that need to be addressed on both sides. According to reliable sources, the major hurdle is in the fields of agriculture which is a protected sector in the EU which earmarks 40 percent of its total budget to this sector where there are subsidies galore.
COMMISSION HOPES
In May, Peter Power, spokesperson for EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson had told journalists in Brussels, “I can confirm that we have received the document from India. I can confirm that it is certainly a useful and worthwhile opening bid for negotiations will have to go further and deeper,” lamenting that the time-frame for the talks to conclude is “not solely in our hands.” “We would like to see this particular negotiation making progress as rapidly as possible. I think the opening bid is not bad, but a lot of work remains to be done to have an agreement that would be worthy of support by both sides,” he noted. “I think at this stage it would be unwise of me to put a timetable, but certainly we should hope to see substantial movement in the next year to 18 months,” added Power.
India formally launched negotiations in June 2007 with the EU for a comprehensive FTA aimed at removing barriers across all sectors including investment and services.
The EU has, in recent times, accepted the fact that Indian import tariffs have been substantially reduced but it complains they are still high by international standards. The EU calls it a “complex and non-transparent” system as it points at additional duties, taxes, and charges that are levied on top of the basic customs duties.
Pointing to the “non-tariff” barriers, the EU lists quantitative restrictions, mandatory testing, import licensing, certification for a large number of products and a complicated procedural modus operandi as the major speed breakers for a smooth trade relationship. With Indians finding the EU institutions bewildering and complex, India has its own set of complaints, foremost being in recent times the frequent use of anti-dumping duties on its exports including footwear.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate Change is another major sticking factor in the relationship equation, as India negates EU calls for a stricter binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emission, while Delhi argues that as a developing country it can not be expected to slow down its pace of industrialisation.
The EU has allotted 470 million Euro between 2007-2013 to tackle cooperation in the energy sector and environmental concerns while making efforts to reach its Millennium Development Goals.
Indian Premier Singh, noting that the EU-India summit had produced agreement on co-operation in clean coal technologies and solar energy, told journalists: “I am extremely satisfied . . . The holding of annual summits reflects the great importance both sides place on this strategic relationship.”
NUCLEAR INITIATIVE
The best bet of all was the EU-Indian nuclear initiative taking shape as the US House of Representatives and the US Senate cleared the way for India to buy nuclear power plants, technology and fuel in the US.
India, officially a nuclear weapons power since 1998, has been denied access to civilian nuclear technology for more than 30 years because of its test of a nuclear device in 1974 and its refusal to sign the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Like the US administration, the EU views now India, as a friendly democracy sharing many common values and argues Delhi should not be ostracised but encouraged to develop civilian nuclear energy and to assume its responsibilities as one of the world’s nuclear powers. “France has confidence in India,” Sarkozy said.
France, current holder of the EU presidency, is the member state with the most extensive experience of civilian nuclear power. It is keen to exploit the commercial opportunities presented by India’s need for new sources of energy to fuel its rapid economic expansion.
OTHER SECTORS
The EU and India said they planned to boost their joint work in the international thermonuclear experimental reactor (ITER) project, a French-based scheme to test environment-friendly, electricity-producing fusion power plants. They also said they would sign a separate agreement between Delhi and Euratom, the EU’s atomic energy agency, on fusion energy research.
On the question of EU aspirations to issue work permits to skilled professionals, the Commission President Barroso told journalists that the EU is aware of the difficulties faced by skilled professionals from India and other non-EU countries to come to the continent and was working on the “Blue Card” initiative on the lines of the more famous “Green Card” system of the US.
With the EU-India Free Trade Agreement in the pipeline along with other fields of cooperation being explored, both India and the EU are ready for taking a qualitative leap forward in relations, but the political leaderships on both sides have to transform all the talk of shared values of democracy, diversity and multilateralism into concrete pragmatic actions, thus making an effective and cohesive EU-India Strategic Partnership out of the present patchwork of sectoral cooperation.
Last but not the least, there was a complete lack of information from the Indian mission in Brussels where the EU is seated. European journalists pointed to “no press release,” “no media briefing,” “no pertinent information on the Embassy website,” nor a “call back to provide information from the Indian Ambassador’s office in Brussels.”
Rising from the ashes of two World Wars and expanding to include 27 Member States with more in the waiting, the EU today is a bastion of peace, harmony and prosperity. On the other hand, India, with 28 States and seven Union Territories, has emerged over last six decades in a buoyant mood thanks to its democratic principles, freedom of speech and its new found economic strengths.
Fresh from the historic nuclear deal with the US, India is in a bargaining mood while the EU is still far from making the necessary efforts needed to shift its continuing bridge building with China to India as an important global and regional democratic player.
Political ties can not go far without financial bonds and a look at the trade figures from recent past show that its time to inject much needed momentum into an uninspiring trade relationship. At the Marseille Summit, the EU and India were unable to conclude a trade accord by the end of this year, as once hoped, and remain at loggerheads on key issues in the Doha talks on liberalising world trade.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told journalists, at the joint press conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, "We have agreed to achieve an annual bilateral trade turnover of 100 billion Euro within the next five years and to work towards the conclusion of the India-EU Broad-Based Trade and Investment Agreement by end-2009."
The 27 nation bloc’s trade with India amounted to just less than 56 billion Euro last year. Earlier the trade statistics shifted a gear from a meagre less than five billion Euro in 1980 to a respectable more than 45 billion Euro in 2006. Although trade with the EU is 20 percent of India’s import-export business, making the EU India’s largest trading partner in 2006, India’s share is only 1.8 percent of total EU trade.
In the context of the ongoing negotiations in the EU-India Free Trade Agreement, there are some stumbling blocks that need to be addressed on both sides. According to reliable sources, the major hurdle is in the fields of agriculture which is a protected sector in the EU which earmarks 40 percent of its total budget to this sector where there are subsidies galore.
COMMISSION HOPES
In May, Peter Power, spokesperson for EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson had told journalists in Brussels, “I can confirm that we have received the document from India. I can confirm that it is certainly a useful and worthwhile opening bid for negotiations will have to go further and deeper,” lamenting that the time-frame for the talks to conclude is “not solely in our hands.” “We would like to see this particular negotiation making progress as rapidly as possible. I think the opening bid is not bad, but a lot of work remains to be done to have an agreement that would be worthy of support by both sides,” he noted. “I think at this stage it would be unwise of me to put a timetable, but certainly we should hope to see substantial movement in the next year to 18 months,” added Power.
India formally launched negotiations in June 2007 with the EU for a comprehensive FTA aimed at removing barriers across all sectors including investment and services.
The EU has, in recent times, accepted the fact that Indian import tariffs have been substantially reduced but it complains they are still high by international standards. The EU calls it a “complex and non-transparent” system as it points at additional duties, taxes, and charges that are levied on top of the basic customs duties.
Pointing to the “non-tariff” barriers, the EU lists quantitative restrictions, mandatory testing, import licensing, certification for a large number of products and a complicated procedural modus operandi as the major speed breakers for a smooth trade relationship. With Indians finding the EU institutions bewildering and complex, India has its own set of complaints, foremost being in recent times the frequent use of anti-dumping duties on its exports including footwear.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate Change is another major sticking factor in the relationship equation, as India negates EU calls for a stricter binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emission, while Delhi argues that as a developing country it can not be expected to slow down its pace of industrialisation.
The EU has allotted 470 million Euro between 2007-2013 to tackle cooperation in the energy sector and environmental concerns while making efforts to reach its Millennium Development Goals.
Indian Premier Singh, noting that the EU-India summit had produced agreement on co-operation in clean coal technologies and solar energy, told journalists: “I am extremely satisfied . . . The holding of annual summits reflects the great importance both sides place on this strategic relationship.”
NUCLEAR INITIATIVE
The best bet of all was the EU-Indian nuclear initiative taking shape as the US House of Representatives and the US Senate cleared the way for India to buy nuclear power plants, technology and fuel in the US.
India, officially a nuclear weapons power since 1998, has been denied access to civilian nuclear technology for more than 30 years because of its test of a nuclear device in 1974 and its refusal to sign the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Like the US administration, the EU views now India, as a friendly democracy sharing many common values and argues Delhi should not be ostracised but encouraged to develop civilian nuclear energy and to assume its responsibilities as one of the world’s nuclear powers. “France has confidence in India,” Sarkozy said.
France, current holder of the EU presidency, is the member state with the most extensive experience of civilian nuclear power. It is keen to exploit the commercial opportunities presented by India’s need for new sources of energy to fuel its rapid economic expansion.
OTHER SECTORS
The EU and India said they planned to boost their joint work in the international thermonuclear experimental reactor (ITER) project, a French-based scheme to test environment-friendly, electricity-producing fusion power plants. They also said they would sign a separate agreement between Delhi and Euratom, the EU’s atomic energy agency, on fusion energy research.
On the question of EU aspirations to issue work permits to skilled professionals, the Commission President Barroso told journalists that the EU is aware of the difficulties faced by skilled professionals from India and other non-EU countries to come to the continent and was working on the “Blue Card” initiative on the lines of the more famous “Green Card” system of the US.
With the EU-India Free Trade Agreement in the pipeline along with other fields of cooperation being explored, both India and the EU are ready for taking a qualitative leap forward in relations, but the political leaderships on both sides have to transform all the talk of shared values of democracy, diversity and multilateralism into concrete pragmatic actions, thus making an effective and cohesive EU-India Strategic Partnership out of the present patchwork of sectoral cooperation.
Last but not the least, there was a complete lack of information from the Indian mission in Brussels where the EU is seated. European journalists pointed to “no press release,” “no media briefing,” “no pertinent information on the Embassy website,” nor a “call back to provide information from the Indian Ambassador’s office in Brussels.”
(Published in www.neurope.eu)
Saturday, September 6, 2008
EU aims to become a bastion of equality
Patients could travel abroad for treatment
Brussels, July 7 - Patients will be able to seek healthcare abroad and get reimbursed up to the level their governments normally would have paid in their own country, the European Commission announced. As part of the overall Renewed Social Agenda for the benefit of EU citizens, the Commission reiterated what the European Court of Justice in its several rulings over a period of time has confirmed - that the EU Treaty gives individual patients the right to seek healthcare in other Member States and be reimbursed at home. Announcing the proposals, Androulla Vassiliou, European Health Commissioner told journalists: “Patients will be able to receive treatment in any member state, which will be reimbursed at home up to the level of the same or similar treatment in their health system,” adding, “There will be a fair and quick reimbursement.”
Saying, “They will not need prior authorisation,” the Commissioner added, “Patients from any country will enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of the country in which they are being treated and cannot be discriminated against.” The Commissioner stressed that the directive was aimed at the patients in small cities or towns on border areas and also in specified specialised cases. To calm the doubts raised by the Member States, the Commissioner said, “However, if unpredictable cross-border healthcare becomes a problem, the system could put into place a system of prior authorisation to safeguard the system.” She added: “It will allow excessive demand from one country to be met by excessive capacity in another country.
This is the essence of the co-operation,” but it was also clarified that in countries with long waiting lists, patients from abroad will have to join the queue. Moreover, the new measures will allow the Member States to require that the citizens get prior authorisation for hospital treatment abroad and the Member States will have to deal with them on a case by case basis with provisions for “right to review” and explanations to justify any denial of such requests. On the part of the host Member State, the quality and safety standards of the treatment will be their responsibility while the new directive is set to facilitate European cooperation on healthcare.
The Commissioner said, “All Member States should define standards and those should be made public and ensured that they are effectively implemented.” Around one percent of treatment is currently provided abroad in Europe and the number is very low, the Commission said. Today, the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) provides only emergency care across the European Union in case a traveling EU citizen falls ill while abroad but has health insurance in the home country. “This is about patient’s rights. Patients should be entitled to treatment in another EU member state if necessary, with no worry about costs, safety and quality.
Whereas today complex rules and legal uncertainty can be a barrier for people without many resources, this directive will ensure equal access for all patients to cross border health services,” said Jules Maaten, a Member of the European Parliament from the Netherlands. Covering other broad range of subjects like old age, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and disability the overall legal proposals promised all equal treatment. Launching the Renewed Social Agenda, Vladimir Spidla, European Commissioner for Equal Opportunities told journalists, “There is an inequality in (EU) legislation because people are protected from discrimination outside the workplace only on grounds of gender and race or ethnic origin.
We must ensure equal treatment for all grounds.” Aiming to ensure equality in all fields and sectors, the Commission said in a statement that the proposal should “ensure equal treatment in the areas of social protection, including social security and health care; education; and access to and supply of goods and services which are commercially available to the public, including housing.” Clarifying doubts raised by journalists, the Commission officials said under the new rules, for example, a hotel will not be able to refuse a room to a gay couple because of their sexuality or other facilities like restaurants which refused to provide adequate access for wheelchair-bound customers will have to do so under the new legislation.
There will, however be no imposition in cases of sensitive subjects like teaching about homosexuality in the school curricula or the ban on religious symbols. As a result, the intolerant behaviour of countries like France, which since 2004 banned the open showing of religious symbols such as Christian crosses, Muslim headscarves or Sikh turbans in state schools on the grounds of state secularism, could not be forced to change their laws. The proposals under this new directive must now be examined by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers before becoming EU law.
Brussels, July 7 - Patients will be able to seek healthcare abroad and get reimbursed up to the level their governments normally would have paid in their own country, the European Commission announced. As part of the overall Renewed Social Agenda for the benefit of EU citizens, the Commission reiterated what the European Court of Justice in its several rulings over a period of time has confirmed - that the EU Treaty gives individual patients the right to seek healthcare in other Member States and be reimbursed at home. Announcing the proposals, Androulla Vassiliou, European Health Commissioner told journalists: “Patients will be able to receive treatment in any member state, which will be reimbursed at home up to the level of the same or similar treatment in their health system,” adding, “There will be a fair and quick reimbursement.”
Saying, “They will not need prior authorisation,” the Commissioner added, “Patients from any country will enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of the country in which they are being treated and cannot be discriminated against.” The Commissioner stressed that the directive was aimed at the patients in small cities or towns on border areas and also in specified specialised cases. To calm the doubts raised by the Member States, the Commissioner said, “However, if unpredictable cross-border healthcare becomes a problem, the system could put into place a system of prior authorisation to safeguard the system.” She added: “It will allow excessive demand from one country to be met by excessive capacity in another country.
This is the essence of the co-operation,” but it was also clarified that in countries with long waiting lists, patients from abroad will have to join the queue. Moreover, the new measures will allow the Member States to require that the citizens get prior authorisation for hospital treatment abroad and the Member States will have to deal with them on a case by case basis with provisions for “right to review” and explanations to justify any denial of such requests. On the part of the host Member State, the quality and safety standards of the treatment will be their responsibility while the new directive is set to facilitate European cooperation on healthcare.
The Commissioner said, “All Member States should define standards and those should be made public and ensured that they are effectively implemented.” Around one percent of treatment is currently provided abroad in Europe and the number is very low, the Commission said. Today, the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) provides only emergency care across the European Union in case a traveling EU citizen falls ill while abroad but has health insurance in the home country. “This is about patient’s rights. Patients should be entitled to treatment in another EU member state if necessary, with no worry about costs, safety and quality.
Whereas today complex rules and legal uncertainty can be a barrier for people without many resources, this directive will ensure equal access for all patients to cross border health services,” said Jules Maaten, a Member of the European Parliament from the Netherlands. Covering other broad range of subjects like old age, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and disability the overall legal proposals promised all equal treatment. Launching the Renewed Social Agenda, Vladimir Spidla, European Commissioner for Equal Opportunities told journalists, “There is an inequality in (EU) legislation because people are protected from discrimination outside the workplace only on grounds of gender and race or ethnic origin.
We must ensure equal treatment for all grounds.” Aiming to ensure equality in all fields and sectors, the Commission said in a statement that the proposal should “ensure equal treatment in the areas of social protection, including social security and health care; education; and access to and supply of goods and services which are commercially available to the public, including housing.” Clarifying doubts raised by journalists, the Commission officials said under the new rules, for example, a hotel will not be able to refuse a room to a gay couple because of their sexuality or other facilities like restaurants which refused to provide adequate access for wheelchair-bound customers will have to do so under the new legislation.
There will, however be no imposition in cases of sensitive subjects like teaching about homosexuality in the school curricula or the ban on religious symbols. As a result, the intolerant behaviour of countries like France, which since 2004 banned the open showing of religious symbols such as Christian crosses, Muslim headscarves or Sikh turbans in state schools on the grounds of state secularism, could not be forced to change their laws. The proposals under this new directive must now be examined by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers before becoming EU law.
NATO contemplates future with Russia and the EU
Brussels, June 16 - The European Union and NATO can pool their resources together to face the present-day global challenges, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, recently told a conference in Brussels, titled “NATO in the Next Decade.”
Citing cooperation in fields like transportation, cooperation on research and development, and harmonising force structures and training methods, De Hoop Scheffer warned both organisations will suffer “if we cannot bring them closer together.” Highlighting threats like climate change and energy shortages to the global security in modern times, De Hoop Scheffer insisted the alliance must look to a new “strategic horizon” to face the newer realities and challenges. Addressing the conference, the NATO Secretary General said, “Climate change could confront us with a whole range of unpleasant developments – developments which no single nation state has the power to contain.
“It will sharpen the competition over resources, notably water. It will increase the risks to coastal regions. It will provoke disputes over territory and farming land. It will spur migration and it will make fragile states even more fragile. The scarcity of fossil fuels is already leading to a renaissance of civilian nuclear energy – and this poses its very own proliferation problems. The next decade will see continuously rising energy prices and a scramble for energy resources,” he said.
“This will put a premium on energy security. And it will also put a premium on the political stability of the world’s major oil and gas producing countries.” Calling for more often contact between the North Atlantic Council and the EU’s Political Security Committee to brainstorm on the global flash points, the Secretary General welcomed ongoing instances of cooperation among the Western powers like pooling resources to fund a C-17 for strategic airlift which can be also done for the A400M.
He also cited the UKFrench initiative to upgrade helicopters and train pilots as a good example of common funding, negating the longstanding method of financing, which says “costs lie where they fall.”
The Cold War seems never to have gone completely cold as was evident when NATO Secretary General admitted that there were issues where NATO and Russia did not “see eye to eye,” such as Kosovo and Russia’s decision to suspend its participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. Calling Russia’s decision to send soldiers into Abkhazia in Georgia as “not helpful,” he stressed that it was important to engage with Russia because “I cannot see how NATO can do without Russia or how Russia can do without NATO.”
On the other hand, Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s ambassador to NATO lambasted the Western Military Alliance for misleading information on missile defence. Rogozin told the audience, “We are told that we should not fear plans to install missile defences in Poland and the Czech Republic as it is directed at the bad guys in Iran.”
“If NATO considers the threats are coming from the south, why are you enlarging to the east? Do you have a problem with the compass? We can install our missile defences in Cuba or Venezuela to protect our territory against the bad guys from Jamaica,” the Russian ambassador asked.
On the positive side, Rogozin agreed that cooperation between Russia and NATO works better at the military level than at the political or diplomatic level, and hinted at strengthening military cooperation in Afghanistan. Moreover, in the light of political agreement reached between Russia and the EU in April, Rogozin pointed to the Russian offer of helicopters for the EU’s ongoing peacekeeping mission in Chad.
Citing cooperation in fields like transportation, cooperation on research and development, and harmonising force structures and training methods, De Hoop Scheffer warned both organisations will suffer “if we cannot bring them closer together.” Highlighting threats like climate change and energy shortages to the global security in modern times, De Hoop Scheffer insisted the alliance must look to a new “strategic horizon” to face the newer realities and challenges. Addressing the conference, the NATO Secretary General said, “Climate change could confront us with a whole range of unpleasant developments – developments which no single nation state has the power to contain.
“It will sharpen the competition over resources, notably water. It will increase the risks to coastal regions. It will provoke disputes over territory and farming land. It will spur migration and it will make fragile states even more fragile. The scarcity of fossil fuels is already leading to a renaissance of civilian nuclear energy – and this poses its very own proliferation problems. The next decade will see continuously rising energy prices and a scramble for energy resources,” he said.
“This will put a premium on energy security. And it will also put a premium on the political stability of the world’s major oil and gas producing countries.” Calling for more often contact between the North Atlantic Council and the EU’s Political Security Committee to brainstorm on the global flash points, the Secretary General welcomed ongoing instances of cooperation among the Western powers like pooling resources to fund a C-17 for strategic airlift which can be also done for the A400M.
He also cited the UKFrench initiative to upgrade helicopters and train pilots as a good example of common funding, negating the longstanding method of financing, which says “costs lie where they fall.”
The Cold War seems never to have gone completely cold as was evident when NATO Secretary General admitted that there were issues where NATO and Russia did not “see eye to eye,” such as Kosovo and Russia’s decision to suspend its participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. Calling Russia’s decision to send soldiers into Abkhazia in Georgia as “not helpful,” he stressed that it was important to engage with Russia because “I cannot see how NATO can do without Russia or how Russia can do without NATO.”
On the other hand, Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s ambassador to NATO lambasted the Western Military Alliance for misleading information on missile defence. Rogozin told the audience, “We are told that we should not fear plans to install missile defences in Poland and the Czech Republic as it is directed at the bad guys in Iran.”
“If NATO considers the threats are coming from the south, why are you enlarging to the east? Do you have a problem with the compass? We can install our missile defences in Cuba or Venezuela to protect our territory against the bad guys from Jamaica,” the Russian ambassador asked.
On the positive side, Rogozin agreed that cooperation between Russia and NATO works better at the military level than at the political or diplomatic level, and hinted at strengthening military cooperation in Afghanistan. Moreover, in the light of political agreement reached between Russia and the EU in April, Rogozin pointed to the Russian offer of helicopters for the EU’s ongoing peacekeeping mission in Chad.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Leaked documents suggest CAP reform just a whitewash
Big farms get taken care of, dairy farmers unhappy
European Union agriculture ministers meeting this week in Brussels are set to rubber stamp a middle path of not antagonising major beneficiaries like Germany and France while keeping the hopes of free market advocates like United Kingdom alive with cosmetic reform proposals to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
The alarm for urgent need for CAP modification was sounded earlier last week when Joaquin Almunia, European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs said prior to a meeting of Eurozone finance ministers: “For the weakest sector of our society, inflation is the main problem. They are suffering a loss of purchasing power, and must pay more for food and other necessary goods.”
Among the measures that governments can take to help their poorest citizens is an improvement to “the functioning of our common agricultural policy (CAP),” he told journalists, adding that the EU should also promote measures aimed at tackling “tension” on the international commodity markets.
The CAP, one of the most hotly-debated policies in the EU, is going to pay out nearly 43 billion Euro in 2009, which amounts to more than one-third of all payments going out of EU coffers. Although there was a CAP reform in 2003 to slash subsidies, but with food prices in the 15-member Eurozone now rising at an annual rate of six percent, market analysts predict dire straits ahead.
According to leaked documents ready for presentation at the “Health Check” of CAP on May 20, “First indications from the assessment of the 2003 reform are in general positive, and indicate that a fundamental reform of the CAP for the remaining horizon of the present financial perspectives (until 2013) is neither necessary nor desirable.”
Another two major areas of concern directly affecting farmers are “set-aside obligation” and “milk quotas.”
The document states: “Removal of the set-aside obligation would likely bring back into production an area corresponding to roughly half the area currently under mandatory set-aside. It has been suggested that the environmental benefits of set aside could be retained by introducing a fixed percentage of total area as an “environmental compensation/priority” area, containing certain landscape features.
According to a reliable source who wanted to remain anonymous, there is allegedly a compromise on the ceiling of individual farmers earning more than 300,000 Euro where the beneficiary stands to lose 70 percent of the subsidies while those earning lower amounts will lose far less.
The earlier proposal was to drastically cut the subsidies to big farms but the pressure from lobby groups seems to have paid off, the source pointed out.
On the subject of milk quotas, the document is more critical saying, “Milk quotas hold back the sector from achieving the objectives of CAP reform since they still reflect concerns of two decades back, instead of responding to present opportunities.” “In terms of agricultural markets, the phasing out of milk quotas and removal of set-aside will allow the farmers to better respond to market situations.”
The milk farmers claim that they will lose up to 300 million Euro from these cuts and they want the system to continue, but there is also friction between old 15 and new 10 farmer lobbies and that is affecting the proposals.
Moreover, on the subject of disposal of pesticides to farmers, the European farmers are facing tough challenges as the number of active substances is going down with the new REACH regulations coming in whereby companies are reluctant to do the necessary tests for all pesticides as its cost and time consuming.
The agriculture insiders predicted that even with compromises already agreed, the ministers are set to have a bitter political battle as each side tries to prove that the food crisis makes its preferred policy the only safe one to adopt.
The two divergent view point were crystal clear as the British Finance Minister Alistair Darling wrote to EU counterparts saying it is “unacceptable that, at a time of significant food price inflation, the EU continues to apply very high import tariffs to many agricultural commodities,” while Germany’s Agriculture Minister, Horst Seehofer, argued that “we have to make sure that we can provide this continent with food sustainability. This cannot be done by taking away subsidies from European farmers.”
The CAP, a complex and expensive system of subsidies designed to protect European farmers’ interests, has often been blamed for keeping European food prices artificially high.
With world markets booming, it is time for Europe to remove quota system and go for liberalisation of the European markets which in turn will help bring down the prices but the documents said, “The continuation of present CAP policies shows that the current policy framework, as reformed in 2003, contributes positively to fulfilling the principal CAP objectives.”
European Union agriculture ministers meeting this week in Brussels are set to rubber stamp a middle path of not antagonising major beneficiaries like Germany and France while keeping the hopes of free market advocates like United Kingdom alive with cosmetic reform proposals to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
The alarm for urgent need for CAP modification was sounded earlier last week when Joaquin Almunia, European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs said prior to a meeting of Eurozone finance ministers: “For the weakest sector of our society, inflation is the main problem. They are suffering a loss of purchasing power, and must pay more for food and other necessary goods.”
Among the measures that governments can take to help their poorest citizens is an improvement to “the functioning of our common agricultural policy (CAP),” he told journalists, adding that the EU should also promote measures aimed at tackling “tension” on the international commodity markets.
The CAP, one of the most hotly-debated policies in the EU, is going to pay out nearly 43 billion Euro in 2009, which amounts to more than one-third of all payments going out of EU coffers. Although there was a CAP reform in 2003 to slash subsidies, but with food prices in the 15-member Eurozone now rising at an annual rate of six percent, market analysts predict dire straits ahead.
According to leaked documents ready for presentation at the “Health Check” of CAP on May 20, “First indications from the assessment of the 2003 reform are in general positive, and indicate that a fundamental reform of the CAP for the remaining horizon of the present financial perspectives (until 2013) is neither necessary nor desirable.”
Another two major areas of concern directly affecting farmers are “set-aside obligation” and “milk quotas.”
The document states: “Removal of the set-aside obligation would likely bring back into production an area corresponding to roughly half the area currently under mandatory set-aside. It has been suggested that the environmental benefits of set aside could be retained by introducing a fixed percentage of total area as an “environmental compensation/priority” area, containing certain landscape features.
According to a reliable source who wanted to remain anonymous, there is allegedly a compromise on the ceiling of individual farmers earning more than 300,000 Euro where the beneficiary stands to lose 70 percent of the subsidies while those earning lower amounts will lose far less.
The earlier proposal was to drastically cut the subsidies to big farms but the pressure from lobby groups seems to have paid off, the source pointed out.
On the subject of milk quotas, the document is more critical saying, “Milk quotas hold back the sector from achieving the objectives of CAP reform since they still reflect concerns of two decades back, instead of responding to present opportunities.” “In terms of agricultural markets, the phasing out of milk quotas and removal of set-aside will allow the farmers to better respond to market situations.”
The milk farmers claim that they will lose up to 300 million Euro from these cuts and they want the system to continue, but there is also friction between old 15 and new 10 farmer lobbies and that is affecting the proposals.
Moreover, on the subject of disposal of pesticides to farmers, the European farmers are facing tough challenges as the number of active substances is going down with the new REACH regulations coming in whereby companies are reluctant to do the necessary tests for all pesticides as its cost and time consuming.
The agriculture insiders predicted that even with compromises already agreed, the ministers are set to have a bitter political battle as each side tries to prove that the food crisis makes its preferred policy the only safe one to adopt.
The two divergent view point were crystal clear as the British Finance Minister Alistair Darling wrote to EU counterparts saying it is “unacceptable that, at a time of significant food price inflation, the EU continues to apply very high import tariffs to many agricultural commodities,” while Germany’s Agriculture Minister, Horst Seehofer, argued that “we have to make sure that we can provide this continent with food sustainability. This cannot be done by taking away subsidies from European farmers.”
The CAP, a complex and expensive system of subsidies designed to protect European farmers’ interests, has often been blamed for keeping European food prices artificially high.
With world markets booming, it is time for Europe to remove quota system and go for liberalisation of the European markets which in turn will help bring down the prices but the documents said, “The continuation of present CAP policies shows that the current policy framework, as reformed in 2003, contributes positively to fulfilling the principal CAP objectives.”
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Interview with: Pavan Duggal; Advocate, Supreme Court of India
A warning against the Internet’s dangers
Cybercrimes ranging – from child pornography and racism to identity theft, fraud and cyber terrorism – were addressed at a Council of Europe conference in Strasbourg on April 1 – 2.
More than 200 participating experts from all over the world, as well as representatives of governments, police forces and the Internet industry – including Microsoft, eBay, Symantec and McAfee – interacted in a series of workshops while reviewing the effectiveness of current cybercrime legislation, identifying new threats and trends and discussing ways to improve international co-operation and the functioning of the 24/7 contact points.
The guidelines were floated based on the existing Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime and call for formal partnerships between internet service providers (ISPs) and law enforcement.
On the sidelines of the Conference, Pavan Duggal, Advocate, Supreme Court of India; President, Cyberlaws.Net; President, Cyberlaw Asia; Member, .org Advisory Council, spoke to Tejinder Singh, Editor-in-Chief of New Europe about his experience and vision on the subject.
Q.
The guidelines adopted at the Conference are voluntary for ISPs and law enforcement, and are intended to be a set of best practices to supplement a particular country’s existing laws against cybercrime. Do you find these enough to face the growing menace of cybercrime?
A.
The guidelines adopted at the conference are a very interesting way to deal with the emerging menace of cybercrime. Considering the fact that different countries across the world have different national legislations that impact cyber crimes in one way or the other, it is extremely important to come across a common platform of understanding which should encapsulate the best practices pertaining to cooperation and sharing of information between the law enforcement agencies and the network service providers.
In this regard, the guidelines that have been approved at the conference are a tremendous move forward. The said guidelines are the repository of all prevailing international best practices pertaining to cooperation between law enforcement agencies and the Internet service providers.
Although these are voluntary in nature, these become the starting point for developing a healthy cooperative relationship between the police and the network service providers. The said guidelines cover in detailed and minute manner, the various nuances that are essential for a healthier relationship between the law enforcement agencies and the service providers.
I personally see the guidelines adopted at the conference as a great step forward and subsequent attempts will only try to better the existing body of knowledge that has been so encapsulated in the best practices that have been so encapsulated in the said guidelines.
Q.
What are the legislative avenues available to law enforcement officials to tackle cyber crime?
A.
There are various legislative avenues that are available to law enforcement officials to tackle cybercrimes. The said legislative avenues depend upon nation to nation and depend upon the various prevailing laws that have been so legislated and prevailing at the relevant time in the concerned national jurisdictions. For example, to take the case of India, India has got a distinct law relating to the electronic environment which has detailed provisions on various cyber crimes and the punishments of the same.
Q.
Being a cross-border crime, what do you see the future at the global level?
A.
The future belongs to Cybercrime. The last decade has shown that while technology has developed on a neck breaking speed, the law is invariably behind technology when it comes to regulating cyber crime. That explains the reason why, despite having the best of intentions, nations are not able to keep abreast. Their existing laws are still not able to tackle cybercrime and the cutting edge level. In the coming times, I have reason to believe that cybercrime is going to grow extremely rapidly, who will become extremely sophisticated and will become far more pervasive in the relevant years.
Q.
According to some experts, France, UK and US have good legislation while rest of the world including rest of Europe is still struggling to get a hold on the situation? How do you see the progress being made in this sector?
A.
The progress in the area of having appropriate national legislations to regulate cybercrime has been very erratic. There have been some nations which have come across with good legislations to prevent and regulate cyber crimes. However the vast majority of the nations still have no clue on how to effectively deal with cyber crimes. I think the progress in this area, progress will also be in fits and starts. We are not likely to have a uniform trend of all countries simultaneously coming up with good legislations to cover cyber crimes.
Q.
India, a vibrant democracy and open society is on a fast track to the Virtual World. How do you perceive the Indian government handling the situation arising out of this?
A.
The Indian government has been alive to the need for regulating various kinds of kinds of cyber crimes. Despite the fact that the Indian Information Technology Act 2000 is an ecommerce enabling legislation, still the Indian government inserted various provisions concerning different cyber crimes and the punishment in order to effectively regulate emerging cyber crimes in India.
Various provisions concerning different cyber crimes were inserted in the Indian Information Technology Act 2000. The cyber crimes covered include the offence of hacking, damage to computer source code, publishing obscene electronic information, breach of protected system, breach of confidentiality and misuse of Digital Signature certificates.
Q.
Indian police are still considered a baton-wielding, tobaccochewing and rough-handling force so how do you see it coming to grips with cybercrime?
A.
This is one of the big challenge areas. It is true that the Indian police has to change itself radically in order to come to grips with cybercrime. A majority of people in the Indian police do not even have knowledge of computers and their functionality.
Under the Indian cyberlaw, since cyber crimes are perceived to be specialised crimes, they can only be investigated by police officer not below rank of a Deputy Superintendent of police.
However, practical experience has shown that DSPs invariably do not have the time to investigate cyber crimes. It is high time that the Government comes up with a dedicated budget on creating more awareness and training on cybercrimes.
Q.
As you are actively involved at domestic level in the prosecution of Cybercrime, please give some examples of how it was tackled and what you expect in future?
A.
I am involved on a very active level at the domestic level in India. I was the counsel for the complainant in India’s first cyber crime conviction that took place in 2003. This is a case where my client was a big multi-national electronics company and on its own website, a call centre executive had misused the credit card number of an American lady who had no knowledge of the transaction. The Central Bureau of Investigation registered the case of the complainant and thereafter arrested the call centre executive, who was convicted for online cheating. Thereafter there has been only one the conviction pertaining to cyber crime in India.
Q.
Moreover, how these experiences can be shared at global level?
A.
The experiences of India can be shared on a global level. India can also become a model leader, if it comes up with adequate and effective provisions which are a deterrent against the commission of cyber crimes. In addition, these experiences can be shared at the global level for developing countries, who have not enacted any cyber laws, and/or laws on cyber crimes in order to not reinvent the wheel but leapfrog keeping in mind the experiences of nations like India in regulating cybercrimes.
Q.
What are your recommendations to Indian federal and state governments when it comes to dragging their feet while making legislation on this subject?
A.
My recommendation to the Indian federal and state governments is that India as a nation needs to act very fast when it comes to the area of the regulating cyber crimes. In India, it will be imperative to have an appropriate dedicated legislation specifically dedicated to cyber crime, which should supplement the Indian Penal Court.
Q.
How vulnerable we are today in the growing social technical world?
A.
We today are extremely vulnerable in the growing social technical world. The Web 2.0 phenomenon has brought in social networking as the norm of the day. People are getting onto the social networking bandwagon without any application of mind and without thinking the potential consequences of revealing all their personal information on such networks. If people today are not careful about placing their personal information on the Internet, they may have to repent for a lifetime for the same. Unfortunately people have no clue about what kinds of information is being targeted and misused by Cyber criminals. People need to be extremely careful about the dangers of Internet as they emerge.
Q.
How has your experience been enhanced by attending this Council of Europe Conference on Cybercrime?
A.
The Octopus Conference on Cybercrime organised by the Council of Europe has been a unique learning opportunity. The quality of speakers, the variety of subjects covered and the depth of the discussion that has taken place, has been remarkable and the said conference has immensely increased enhanced my perspectives on various nuances of different emerging cyber crimes and its related trends across the world.
This conference has provided not just an opportunity to listen and interact with the best minds working in this area but also has provided a platform to share about the ongoing developments pertaining to Cybercrime legislation that exists in India.
This conference has also enabled me to update the members of the world community about the various developments that are taking place in India pertaining to regulation and prevention of Cybercrime.
All said and done, this conference has been an excellent opportunity for learning, interaction and more importantly for expanding the midstream horizons and discussing about newlyemerging trends and thought processes concerning cyber crime across the world.
Cybercrimes ranging – from child pornography and racism to identity theft, fraud and cyber terrorism – were addressed at a Council of Europe conference in Strasbourg on April 1 – 2.
More than 200 participating experts from all over the world, as well as representatives of governments, police forces and the Internet industry – including Microsoft, eBay, Symantec and McAfee – interacted in a series of workshops while reviewing the effectiveness of current cybercrime legislation, identifying new threats and trends and discussing ways to improve international co-operation and the functioning of the 24/7 contact points.
The guidelines were floated based on the existing Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime and call for formal partnerships between internet service providers (ISPs) and law enforcement.
On the sidelines of the Conference, Pavan Duggal, Advocate, Supreme Court of India; President, Cyberlaws.Net; President, Cyberlaw Asia; Member, .org Advisory Council, spoke to Tejinder Singh, Editor-in-Chief of New Europe about his experience and vision on the subject.
Q.
The guidelines adopted at the Conference are voluntary for ISPs and law enforcement, and are intended to be a set of best practices to supplement a particular country’s existing laws against cybercrime. Do you find these enough to face the growing menace of cybercrime?
A.
The guidelines adopted at the conference are a very interesting way to deal with the emerging menace of cybercrime. Considering the fact that different countries across the world have different national legislations that impact cyber crimes in one way or the other, it is extremely important to come across a common platform of understanding which should encapsulate the best practices pertaining to cooperation and sharing of information between the law enforcement agencies and the network service providers.
In this regard, the guidelines that have been approved at the conference are a tremendous move forward. The said guidelines are the repository of all prevailing international best practices pertaining to cooperation between law enforcement agencies and the Internet service providers.
Although these are voluntary in nature, these become the starting point for developing a healthy cooperative relationship between the police and the network service providers. The said guidelines cover in detailed and minute manner, the various nuances that are essential for a healthier relationship between the law enforcement agencies and the service providers.
I personally see the guidelines adopted at the conference as a great step forward and subsequent attempts will only try to better the existing body of knowledge that has been so encapsulated in the best practices that have been so encapsulated in the said guidelines.
Q.
What are the legislative avenues available to law enforcement officials to tackle cyber crime?
A.
There are various legislative avenues that are available to law enforcement officials to tackle cybercrimes. The said legislative avenues depend upon nation to nation and depend upon the various prevailing laws that have been so legislated and prevailing at the relevant time in the concerned national jurisdictions. For example, to take the case of India, India has got a distinct law relating to the electronic environment which has detailed provisions on various cyber crimes and the punishments of the same.
Q.
Being a cross-border crime, what do you see the future at the global level?
A.
The future belongs to Cybercrime. The last decade has shown that while technology has developed on a neck breaking speed, the law is invariably behind technology when it comes to regulating cyber crime. That explains the reason why, despite having the best of intentions, nations are not able to keep abreast. Their existing laws are still not able to tackle cybercrime and the cutting edge level. In the coming times, I have reason to believe that cybercrime is going to grow extremely rapidly, who will become extremely sophisticated and will become far more pervasive in the relevant years.
Q.
According to some experts, France, UK and US have good legislation while rest of the world including rest of Europe is still struggling to get a hold on the situation? How do you see the progress being made in this sector?
A.
The progress in the area of having appropriate national legislations to regulate cybercrime has been very erratic. There have been some nations which have come across with good legislations to prevent and regulate cyber crimes. However the vast majority of the nations still have no clue on how to effectively deal with cyber crimes. I think the progress in this area, progress will also be in fits and starts. We are not likely to have a uniform trend of all countries simultaneously coming up with good legislations to cover cyber crimes.
Q.
India, a vibrant democracy and open society is on a fast track to the Virtual World. How do you perceive the Indian government handling the situation arising out of this?
A.
The Indian government has been alive to the need for regulating various kinds of kinds of cyber crimes. Despite the fact that the Indian Information Technology Act 2000 is an ecommerce enabling legislation, still the Indian government inserted various provisions concerning different cyber crimes and the punishment in order to effectively regulate emerging cyber crimes in India.
Various provisions concerning different cyber crimes were inserted in the Indian Information Technology Act 2000. The cyber crimes covered include the offence of hacking, damage to computer source code, publishing obscene electronic information, breach of protected system, breach of confidentiality and misuse of Digital Signature certificates.
Q.
Indian police are still considered a baton-wielding, tobaccochewing and rough-handling force so how do you see it coming to grips with cybercrime?
A.
This is one of the big challenge areas. It is true that the Indian police has to change itself radically in order to come to grips with cybercrime. A majority of people in the Indian police do not even have knowledge of computers and their functionality.
Under the Indian cyberlaw, since cyber crimes are perceived to be specialised crimes, they can only be investigated by police officer not below rank of a Deputy Superintendent of police.
However, practical experience has shown that DSPs invariably do not have the time to investigate cyber crimes. It is high time that the Government comes up with a dedicated budget on creating more awareness and training on cybercrimes.
Q.
As you are actively involved at domestic level in the prosecution of Cybercrime, please give some examples of how it was tackled and what you expect in future?
A.
I am involved on a very active level at the domestic level in India. I was the counsel for the complainant in India’s first cyber crime conviction that took place in 2003. This is a case where my client was a big multi-national electronics company and on its own website, a call centre executive had misused the credit card number of an American lady who had no knowledge of the transaction. The Central Bureau of Investigation registered the case of the complainant and thereafter arrested the call centre executive, who was convicted for online cheating. Thereafter there has been only one the conviction pertaining to cyber crime in India.
Q.
Moreover, how these experiences can be shared at global level?
A.
The experiences of India can be shared on a global level. India can also become a model leader, if it comes up with adequate and effective provisions which are a deterrent against the commission of cyber crimes. In addition, these experiences can be shared at the global level for developing countries, who have not enacted any cyber laws, and/or laws on cyber crimes in order to not reinvent the wheel but leapfrog keeping in mind the experiences of nations like India in regulating cybercrimes.
Q.
What are your recommendations to Indian federal and state governments when it comes to dragging their feet while making legislation on this subject?
A.
My recommendation to the Indian federal and state governments is that India as a nation needs to act very fast when it comes to the area of the regulating cyber crimes. In India, it will be imperative to have an appropriate dedicated legislation specifically dedicated to cyber crime, which should supplement the Indian Penal Court.
Q.
How vulnerable we are today in the growing social technical world?
A.
We today are extremely vulnerable in the growing social technical world. The Web 2.0 phenomenon has brought in social networking as the norm of the day. People are getting onto the social networking bandwagon without any application of mind and without thinking the potential consequences of revealing all their personal information on such networks. If people today are not careful about placing their personal information on the Internet, they may have to repent for a lifetime for the same. Unfortunately people have no clue about what kinds of information is being targeted and misused by Cyber criminals. People need to be extremely careful about the dangers of Internet as they emerge.
Q.
How has your experience been enhanced by attending this Council of Europe Conference on Cybercrime?
A.
The Octopus Conference on Cybercrime organised by the Council of Europe has been a unique learning opportunity. The quality of speakers, the variety of subjects covered and the depth of the discussion that has taken place, has been remarkable and the said conference has immensely increased enhanced my perspectives on various nuances of different emerging cyber crimes and its related trends across the world.
This conference has provided not just an opportunity to listen and interact with the best minds working in this area but also has provided a platform to share about the ongoing developments pertaining to Cybercrime legislation that exists in India.
This conference has also enabled me to update the members of the world community about the various developments that are taking place in India pertaining to regulation and prevention of Cybercrime.
All said and done, this conference has been an excellent opportunity for learning, interaction and more importantly for expanding the midstream horizons and discussing about newlyemerging trends and thought processes concerning cyber crime across the world.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Kosovo independence fallout
Basque welcomes rights of self-determination across Europe
Interview with: Joseba Azkarraga Rodero, Minister, Department of Justice, Employment and Social Security, Basque Country
The Basque region of Spain hit the headlines recently with the fatal shooting of two Spanish Civil Guards, Raul Centeno and Fernando Trapero in Capbreton, in southwest France. It is the first such attack by ETA, an acronym for Euskadi Ta Askatasuna, or Basque Homeland and Freedom, in France since 1976. ETA members want an independent Basque state in northwest Spain and southwest France. The Basque country has its own government and police force and enjoys considerable autonomy from Spain. With the status determination of Kosovo being closely watched by all, especially regions with inspirations for independence Joseba Azkarraga Rodero, Basque Minister for Justice, Employment and Social Security, spoke to Tejinder Singh in Brussels about his assessment of the situation and its fallout on other simmering conflicts.
What is your opinion on the ongoing Kosovo demands for independence and related subjects?
Positive! It’s basically positive for all the people. Fighting for self-determination is the right of the people. We support the rights of self-determination of Scottish and Kosovo people through peaceful and democratic means to reach such ends.
How do you view the upcoming referendum in your region next year?
The deal by the (regional) premier Juan Jose Ibarretxe calling for a referendum is positive on behalf of three political parties including his. It calls for rights of people to self-determination. It is the will of the Basque government to go ahead and see the will of the people. We do not understand why there is opposition from Spanish government for this referendum. Are they afraid of what the result may be? What people want should be given as a right to determination.
If the referendum gives a yes vote, will your party press for independence?
The referendum is actually not for independence. My opinion and that of my party is that there are questions that are being put to people. There is the ethical question to Basque society if it wants to reject violent scenes. And then there is the democratic concept asking people what do they require of Basque parties in order to define their relationship with Spain. Thus this referendum is on these two major issues.
So how do you expect society to react?
Looking at results of recent elections, we can see thinking of people. In those elections people clearly voted for parties who go for independence. As there is a trend in position of society towards freedom, it shows the fear in Madrid.
What is the position of the Basque language and culture today?
Basque language and culture is suffering under the shadow of Spain. Earlier, also a Basque leader spoke in Basque in the European parliament and I believe that it was a very important sign to all. I will also speak in Basque language. Moreover, we are confident in running a good tax administration with good collections and then invest in uplifting of Basque culture. Spain defends its nationality in the Senate as Spanish is only spoken and Catalan or Basque can not be spoken. Spain talks of plural nationalities but does not practice.
Is it because Basque is a rich region, you are aspiring for independence?
No! It is not correct that Basque is aspiring for independence because of richness. Probably if they were poor they will become rich through independence.
But your region is rich?
True, we have a good situation. We have full employment in Basque country and industries are generating wealth. People now want to go towards independence because it’s positive for citizens.
Can you visualise a time frame for Basque independence if Kosovo gets independence?
There is talk of independence not because of Kosovo and it’s not only the process of Kosovo. People have been fighting for their own states. Large states talk of borders and that is not correct. We can see cases of Kosovo and Scotland – similar cases where people are fighting for self determination.
So have you contacted those like-minded people fighting for self-determination?
Yes, there are talks and cooperation but relationships are not at state level. These are more at party level like with Scottish Nationalist Party and others. There are no platforms yet but at the EU level, there is an active European Free Alliance.
What is your reaction to the incident in France resulting in the death of two police personnel?
First of all, we need to clear up what happened with the presence of the civil guards. This being one further step of ETA as there was no attack outside Spanish territory till now. ETA is a setback to dialogue and democratic ways to self-determination.
In case of independence will ETA be a part of the new government?
No! ETA is a negative factor and negative influence over Basque independence efforts. ETA is dramatic and it has no right to kill on behalf of Basque people. They do not do politics; they only know how to kill. Batsuana (political wing of ETA) will be considered for inclusion as it is doing political work.
Talking of Batsuana, your party is demanding the appearance of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Interior minister Alfredo Perez Rubaleaba and conservative former premier Jose Maria Aznar to appear as witness for cases against your regional premier Juan Jose Ibarretxe. Will you comment on that?
Legislature is influenced by political factors as the question arises why the Spanish Prime Minister can speak with ETA and its ok, while the Basque political leadership can not even talk with Batsuana for political dialogue. We have to make clear that majority of judges are very professional but there are instances of particular cases where political influences take place and these are weakening the judicial system.
What is your message?
I really do believe that there is a worsening image of Basque people who are hardworking and are seeking independence through democratic means. Self-determination is a right of all people.
Interview with: Joseba Azkarraga Rodero, Minister, Department of Justice, Employment and Social Security, Basque Country
The Basque region of Spain hit the headlines recently with the fatal shooting of two Spanish Civil Guards, Raul Centeno and Fernando Trapero in Capbreton, in southwest France. It is the first such attack by ETA, an acronym for Euskadi Ta Askatasuna, or Basque Homeland and Freedom, in France since 1976. ETA members want an independent Basque state in northwest Spain and southwest France. The Basque country has its own government and police force and enjoys considerable autonomy from Spain. With the status determination of Kosovo being closely watched by all, especially regions with inspirations for independence Joseba Azkarraga Rodero, Basque Minister for Justice, Employment and Social Security, spoke to Tejinder Singh in Brussels about his assessment of the situation and its fallout on other simmering conflicts.
What is your opinion on the ongoing Kosovo demands for independence and related subjects?
Positive! It’s basically positive for all the people. Fighting for self-determination is the right of the people. We support the rights of self-determination of Scottish and Kosovo people through peaceful and democratic means to reach such ends.
How do you view the upcoming referendum in your region next year?
The deal by the (regional) premier Juan Jose Ibarretxe calling for a referendum is positive on behalf of three political parties including his. It calls for rights of people to self-determination. It is the will of the Basque government to go ahead and see the will of the people. We do not understand why there is opposition from Spanish government for this referendum. Are they afraid of what the result may be? What people want should be given as a right to determination.
If the referendum gives a yes vote, will your party press for independence?
The referendum is actually not for independence. My opinion and that of my party is that there are questions that are being put to people. There is the ethical question to Basque society if it wants to reject violent scenes. And then there is the democratic concept asking people what do they require of Basque parties in order to define their relationship with Spain. Thus this referendum is on these two major issues.
So how do you expect society to react?
Looking at results of recent elections, we can see thinking of people. In those elections people clearly voted for parties who go for independence. As there is a trend in position of society towards freedom, it shows the fear in Madrid.
What is the position of the Basque language and culture today?
Basque language and culture is suffering under the shadow of Spain. Earlier, also a Basque leader spoke in Basque in the European parliament and I believe that it was a very important sign to all. I will also speak in Basque language. Moreover, we are confident in running a good tax administration with good collections and then invest in uplifting of Basque culture. Spain defends its nationality in the Senate as Spanish is only spoken and Catalan or Basque can not be spoken. Spain talks of plural nationalities but does not practice.
Is it because Basque is a rich region, you are aspiring for independence?
No! It is not correct that Basque is aspiring for independence because of richness. Probably if they were poor they will become rich through independence.
But your region is rich?
True, we have a good situation. We have full employment in Basque country and industries are generating wealth. People now want to go towards independence because it’s positive for citizens.
Can you visualise a time frame for Basque independence if Kosovo gets independence?
There is talk of independence not because of Kosovo and it’s not only the process of Kosovo. People have been fighting for their own states. Large states talk of borders and that is not correct. We can see cases of Kosovo and Scotland – similar cases where people are fighting for self determination.
So have you contacted those like-minded people fighting for self-determination?
Yes, there are talks and cooperation but relationships are not at state level. These are more at party level like with Scottish Nationalist Party and others. There are no platforms yet but at the EU level, there is an active European Free Alliance.
What is your reaction to the incident in France resulting in the death of two police personnel?
First of all, we need to clear up what happened with the presence of the civil guards. This being one further step of ETA as there was no attack outside Spanish territory till now. ETA is a setback to dialogue and democratic ways to self-determination.
In case of independence will ETA be a part of the new government?
No! ETA is a negative factor and negative influence over Basque independence efforts. ETA is dramatic and it has no right to kill on behalf of Basque people. They do not do politics; they only know how to kill. Batsuana (political wing of ETA) will be considered for inclusion as it is doing political work.
Talking of Batsuana, your party is demanding the appearance of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Interior minister Alfredo Perez Rubaleaba and conservative former premier Jose Maria Aznar to appear as witness for cases against your regional premier Juan Jose Ibarretxe. Will you comment on that?
Legislature is influenced by political factors as the question arises why the Spanish Prime Minister can speak with ETA and its ok, while the Basque political leadership can not even talk with Batsuana for political dialogue. We have to make clear that majority of judges are very professional but there are instances of particular cases where political influences take place and these are weakening the judicial system.
What is your message?
I really do believe that there is a worsening image of Basque people who are hardworking and are seeking independence through democratic means. Self-determination is a right of all people.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Ryanair sues EU over French aid
Ryanair knocked on the gates of the European Court of First Instance with a legal case against the European Commission, accusing it of not preventing alleged illegal French state aid for Air France.
“Ryanair... today (Thursday, November 8, 2007), (exactly 18 months after its original complaint), lodged a case in the European Court of First Instance against the European Commission’s failure to act on Ryanair’s complaint about one billion Euro worth of State to Air France in the form of unlawful reduced domestic airport charges in France,” Ryanair said in a statement.
Confirming the legal action, Michele Cercone, spokesperson for the European Commissioner for transport, Jacques Barrot told New Europe, “The Commission is aware that Ryanair has launched an action under Article 232 for failure to act in connection will an allegation of state aid to Air France.” Ryanair added, “... (Ryanair) has called on the Commission several times to investigate this obvious abuse of EU competition rules, but the Commission has repeatedly failed to do so.”
Commenting on the subject, Cercone said, “The complaint is that by means of a differentiated system of airport charging in France where lower charges are imposed on operators flying routes inside France that the French authorities have favoured Air France.”
“While the Commission has not yet seen the content of the case lodged by Ryanair, it is confident that this action for failure to act will not be upheld. Ryanair’s complaint dates from May 8, 2006 (there was a supplementary submission on May 30, 2006).
“On receipt of the complaint the Commission services have taken action and have written to the French authorities to request information and clarifications on June 21, 2006, January 30, 2007, April 27, 2007 and June 28, 2007. Replies have been received on August 24, 2006, May 11, 2007 and August 29, 2007 and are being examined,” explained commission spokesman.
Announcing the launch of the latest proceedings Michael O’Leary, Ryanair’s CEO, said in a statement: “This is just another example of the Commission’s unevenhanded application of the State aid rules. They apply one rule to flag carriers by ignoring blatant State aid to Air France, Alitalia, Olympic, Lufthansa among others, while at the same time wasting time and money investigating baseless complaints from flag carrier airlines against open market commercial deals at regional and secondary airports.
“The French Government’s operation of massively discounted domestic airport fees in France – almost all of which supports Air France – amounts to approximately one billion Euro of illegal State aid to the benefit of Air France, yet the Commission has refused to do anything about this for the last 18 months! The Commission has previously outlawed differentiated domestic/intra EU airport charges in Finland, Portugal, the UK and Ireland, so why should France be any different?” asked Ryanair’s CEO.
Getting into the technicality of the subject, Cercone, the European Commission spokesman said, “In this connection it is the intention of the Commission services to examine this complaint both under the combined provisions of Article 49 of the Treaty and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 and under the State aid rules. To this end the Commission has on October 23, 2007 issued a letter of formal notice under Article 226 to France concerning discriminatory charges levied at French airports. “The Commission is also examining any possible advantage given in the context of State aid investigation into airport charging systems in airports in France and inquiries in relation to one such airport are already at an advanced stage,” Cercone added.
The Ryanair CEO in his statement called for fair competition saying, “It appears that the Commission applies different rules for the high fare flag carrier airlines compared to low fares airlines. We are calling on the Commission to start promoting competition and stop protecting flag carrier airlines who continue to receive unlawful State aid.”
Dublin-based Ryanair is currently involved in a number of separate legal challenges. It is challenging a European Commission decision to block its bid for fellow Irish airline Aer Lingus, and is fighting planned flight cuts at Rome’s Ciampino airport. Ryanair is also challenging the French government’s demand that the airline applies French working practices for its staff working in France.
“Ryanair... today (Thursday, November 8, 2007), (exactly 18 months after its original complaint), lodged a case in the European Court of First Instance against the European Commission’s failure to act on Ryanair’s complaint about one billion Euro worth of State to Air France in the form of unlawful reduced domestic airport charges in France,” Ryanair said in a statement.
Confirming the legal action, Michele Cercone, spokesperson for the European Commissioner for transport, Jacques Barrot told New Europe, “The Commission is aware that Ryanair has launched an action under Article 232 for failure to act in connection will an allegation of state aid to Air France.” Ryanair added, “... (Ryanair) has called on the Commission several times to investigate this obvious abuse of EU competition rules, but the Commission has repeatedly failed to do so.”
Commenting on the subject, Cercone said, “The complaint is that by means of a differentiated system of airport charging in France where lower charges are imposed on operators flying routes inside France that the French authorities have favoured Air France.”
“While the Commission has not yet seen the content of the case lodged by Ryanair, it is confident that this action for failure to act will not be upheld. Ryanair’s complaint dates from May 8, 2006 (there was a supplementary submission on May 30, 2006).
“On receipt of the complaint the Commission services have taken action and have written to the French authorities to request information and clarifications on June 21, 2006, January 30, 2007, April 27, 2007 and June 28, 2007. Replies have been received on August 24, 2006, May 11, 2007 and August 29, 2007 and are being examined,” explained commission spokesman.
Announcing the launch of the latest proceedings Michael O’Leary, Ryanair’s CEO, said in a statement: “This is just another example of the Commission’s unevenhanded application of the State aid rules. They apply one rule to flag carriers by ignoring blatant State aid to Air France, Alitalia, Olympic, Lufthansa among others, while at the same time wasting time and money investigating baseless complaints from flag carrier airlines against open market commercial deals at regional and secondary airports.
“The French Government’s operation of massively discounted domestic airport fees in France – almost all of which supports Air France – amounts to approximately one billion Euro of illegal State aid to the benefit of Air France, yet the Commission has refused to do anything about this for the last 18 months! The Commission has previously outlawed differentiated domestic/intra EU airport charges in Finland, Portugal, the UK and Ireland, so why should France be any different?” asked Ryanair’s CEO.
Getting into the technicality of the subject, Cercone, the European Commission spokesman said, “In this connection it is the intention of the Commission services to examine this complaint both under the combined provisions of Article 49 of the Treaty and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 and under the State aid rules. To this end the Commission has on October 23, 2007 issued a letter of formal notice under Article 226 to France concerning discriminatory charges levied at French airports. “The Commission is also examining any possible advantage given in the context of State aid investigation into airport charging systems in airports in France and inquiries in relation to one such airport are already at an advanced stage,” Cercone added.
The Ryanair CEO in his statement called for fair competition saying, “It appears that the Commission applies different rules for the high fare flag carrier airlines compared to low fares airlines. We are calling on the Commission to start promoting competition and stop protecting flag carrier airlines who continue to receive unlawful State aid.”
Dublin-based Ryanair is currently involved in a number of separate legal challenges. It is challenging a European Commission decision to block its bid for fellow Irish airline Aer Lingus, and is fighting planned flight cuts at Rome’s Ciampino airport. Ryanair is also challenging the French government’s demand that the airline applies French working practices for its staff working in France.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
