Let Fidel Castro to the judgement of history

Contemporary man should abstain from easy condemnations: is the alternative to the Cuban model so credible and human?

Opinions

Fidel was a dictator. The democratic United States and the free world have no dictators. They buy them. They make business with them. They put them at the government and they overthrow them according to the convenience of the moment: it is different! In a country like Cuba only one man can rule, or at least one single party can, the only one allowed. In the world of good lobby spokespersons are alternated each other. Also this is different, and it doesn’t change the fact Fidel was evil while all the other always have been good. They were so good that they condemned an entire island to starvation for decades. How can define the embargo imposed on Cuba in different way? And could we? All right, all right, Cuba is in trouble with freedoms, respect of human rights and civil rights. Maybe the world of good and freedoms is free of problems? Do black people and minorities have the same rights of other people? Do they receive equal treatment compared to the rest of the society? Are black people and minorities not discriminated? Do the poors get assistance? The electric chair was replaced by the lethal injection: in civilized countries the good kill with respect and dignity.
 
Missiles, rockets, bombs, airstrikes, tanks and contractors allowed the export of democracy: good are imperalists, never ever dictator! In Cuba minors go to school or to get in prostitution, while in the rest of the world they work in order to satisfy the false need of consumism having in return some professional skills and few money: it is called welfare, something unknown in dictatorship. Anyway, the dictator is dead. The evil is no loger there. On the contrary, Guantanamo is still there as it is Abu Ghraib, to remind us that principles and rules change according to the different colors of uniform. Be on the right side and everything will be permitted and forgiven, be on the wrong side and nothing will be tolerated. My imprisonments will be never like yours, my crimes will be never comparable with yours: that’s how it works. Fidel was a dictator and history will judge. History will do that. And us? Are we really in the position of judging?

Semaine de la bière - Beer week

(click to enlarge)

Irritated Ukraine called Europe to deliver

EU unable to give Kyiv what was agreed, criticised Poroshenko. The Ukrainian leader set the agenda: free visas to be granted immediately, no further delays in association agreement

Petro Poroshenko (left) with Jean-Claude Juncker (right)

by Emanuele Bonini

Formally the EU-Ukraine summit relaunched the strategic partnership between the two sides, in practice it showed all the Ukrainian frustration for the incapacity of Europe in keeping the promises. The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement is blocked by the Netherlands and it cannot be ratified, the free visa regime is not granted yet, in energy the Europeans keep making deals with Russia. Too little achievements for the Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko, who claimed what he believes has to be granted with no further ado. The European counterparts offered optimism and a new financial package aimed to sustain the path of the reforms in the country. Not to much, but it is all what could be offered.

Summit achievement
The 18th EU-Ukraine summit reiterated the condemnation of the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia. EU still defends the territorial integrity of Ukraine and respects the principle of maintaining sanctions, whose imposition is linked to the full respect of the Minsk agreements. This is nothing new in the bilateral relations. The summit was also the occasion to sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU) for cooperation in the energy sector. This is not something of new at all, since the the MoU replaces the one signed in 2005. The two sides decided to review their cooperation extending it in a wider range of areas (research, energy efficiency, energy security, decarbonization, interconnectivity). At the Summit, a €15 million programme to fight corruption has been signed, together with a €104 million programme in support of public administration reform, and a €52.5 million programme to foster the rule of law are in the pipeline for later in the year.

EU-Turkey ties endangered after anti-Erdogan vote

The European Parliament called for a freeze of the accession process. Kurtulmuş: «They are not a reliable partner»

by Emanuele Bonini

Time of dialogue maybe is not over yet, but time for negotiations is. The European Parliament voted in favour of a temporary freeze of EU accession talks with Turkey, in a resolution approved today at large majority (479 votes to 37, with 107 abstentions). Although the resolution is not legally binding, Europe sent a strong political message to the Turkish authorities: there will be no steps forward in the EU membership negotiations until the country will be back in line with the EU values. Ankara reacted by strongly condemning the vote. MEPs criticized particularly the «disproportionate repressive measures» taken by the Turkish government since the failed coup attempt in July 2016. According to them, these measures «violate basic rights and freedoms protected by the Turkish Constitution» itself. Furthermore, the resolution rehiterated that the capital punishment is the red line not to be crossed. A re-introduction of the death penalty by the Turkish government would lead to a formal suspension of the accession process, said MEPs.

No doubts amongst groups
The three major political groups voted togetherin favour of halting the accession process. «The disproportionate repression measures taken by Erdoğan forced us to urge the Commission and Council to temporary freeze the accession talks with Turkey, because we can no longer remain silent in the face of Erdoğan's outrage and the evident breaches of the rule of law and human rights in Turkey», said the president of S&D group, Gianni Pittella. «This resolution is a clear political message to Erdoğan that should not be misinterpreted: we want Turkey to be anchored to Europe, to democracy and to rule of law». Mafred Weber, the president of EPP group, defined the decision taken by the Plenary «a strong signal for the protection of fundamental values and rule of law». The same kind oof message came from the ALDE Group leader, Guy Verhofstadt. «Turkey is an essential partner for the European Union when it comes to energy security, stabilising the region around Syria and Iraq and the fight against terrorism. However it is wrong to pretend that we can advance on any of these fields by trampling on European values and principles, by closing our eyes as President Erdogan closes down independent media outlets, jails journalists and criminalises members of his Parliament».

«Trump is a clown», said ALDE group chief

Guy Verhofstadt criticised the next US president by attacking the father of Brexit

Guy Verhofstadt

by Emanuele Bonini

The president elected of the United State is a «clown», the president of ALDE group said yesterday in Strasbourg. The European Union didn't welcome Donald Trump's victory in the US presidential election, but instead of accepting the reality by congratulating with the next occupant of the White House, offensive declarations and attacks go on. In this case it can be said Guy Verhofstadt could be justified by some Trump's statements seen as a sort of provocation for the EU. Trump suggested the prime minister of the United Kingdom to appoint Nigel Farage as next UK ambassador in the United States. Nigel Farage pushed for Brexit, and this is something not acceptable for people like Verhofstadt. «I do believe one clown in Washington is more than enough», said the ALDE leader. He was referring to Farage and the possibility of a post as ambassador, but he expressed a judgement on the upcoming US president as well.


Related articles:
- No EU relevance makes Juncker frustrated

«Our relationship with Turkey is at a crossroad because Turkey is at a crossroad».
Federica Mogherini, High Representative of EU for foreign affairs and security policy (Strasbourg, 22th of November, 2016)

Erdogan thinking to join the Shanghai Pact

Turkey tempted to redesign the global order leaving the Western block for the Eastern one

The Shanghai Pact (Click to enlarge)

by Emanuele Bonini

Turkey watches more and more east. After decades invested to find a place in the European block, it is time to reconsider policies and abandon the unfruitful relationship with the Western block. In practical terms the republic led by Recep Tayipp Erdogan got the only benefit in joining the NATO, since on the EU side never happened and nothing is supposed to happen. The accession process is still pending, and the European Parliament has announced the intention of freezing the negotiations. Turkey is now considering to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (also known as Shanghai Pact), the Eurasian political, economic, and military organisation founded in 1996 by China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and joined by Uzbekistan in 2001. It means saying farewell to Europe and write a new chapter of the geopolitical order, considering also that the two nuclear powers India and Pakistan already applied for the membership on June this year .

The European veto to the EU membership
In order to become a member of the European Union the unanimous consensus of the Member States is required. After that it the European Parliament called to express an opinion through a vote. The European Parliament decides on enlargement and the two biggest groups - the EPP and the S&D - both decided the negotiations should be frozen in light of the breaches of the rule of law followed by the attempted coup in Turkey. Erdogan realized the free-visa regime will be never granted, as well as he understood there will be never any improvement in the negotiations. His country got less than expected, so he decided to change alliances. Erdogan knows that a part of the population wanted to join the EU. The fact he cannot guarantee it any longer put pressure on his leadership. He said he might hold a referendum, but it could be a dangerous tool in case of electoral defeat. He knows he could be forced to keep negotiating and he hopes to put pressure on Europe.

Geopolitics
«Turkey must feel at ease. It mustn't say "for me it's the European Union at all costs". That's my view», Erdogan was quoted by the Hurriyet newspaper. The Turkish alternative to the EU could be the block of countries formed by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, revealed Erdogan. «Why shouldn't Turkey be in the Shanghai Pact?» Becoming part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) would mean reshape the geopolitical order. In such a scenario Turkey would quit the Western block to join the Eastern one and superpowers such as Russia and China could count on Turkey, the second biggest NATO member. That would be a problem for Europe, of course.

No EU relevance makes Juncker frustrated

Anti-Trump statements explained by the lack of consideration  for the European Union, which has not attribution in foreign affairs matters

by Emanuele Bonini

What is there behind the "Juncker case"? Stress, mental sickness of any kind, rudeness? Frustration. The right explanation is frustration. The European Union has no foreign policy relevance, because it is foreseen it has not to have. Let's rewind the tape and start from the beginning. Commenting Donald Trump's victory in the US presidential elections, the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, said that with the next occupant of the White House «we'll waste time for two years while Mr. Trump tours a world that he is completely unaware of». There is a motivation for such a statement. Immediately after Juncker sent a letter to the president elected to congratulate with him and to invite him to Brussels. As fas as everybody knows that letter never got an answer.  Considering the European Commission is constantly under the attack of the EU Member States, it appears clear the sense of frustration of the Commission's chief. Juncker and the body he is responsible for, got little consideration at home and none abroad.

Having said that, there is the possibility Mr. Trump knows really well the world. The impression is he's aware that in foreign policy the EU never existed. By treaties the foreign affairs are competence of the Member States.  When it comes to set strategies and take decisions, national governments are the true plenipotentiary players. Showing a pragmatic approach and a clear sense of realpolitik, it is undeniable that the fist thing to do is to deal with single European leaders. The EU is not a priority because it simply can't be. Who does Federica Mogherini represent? The EU has an external action, but not a foreign affairs office. It is true that the EU is in charge of negotiating trade agreements, but Trump seems not to have the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) in the list of his priorities. Juncker is the president of a body with limited powers. Until the European Union will have not attributions in foreign affairs policies, it can't surprise if leaders from the rest of the world will decide to bypass the EU. It is not a question of dividing Europe, it is just a question of the nature of the EU. And then, let's be honest: Europe has never been unite in foreign affairs.

Quotes

«Globalization was mismanaged».
Carlo Calenda, Italian minister of Economic Development (Brussels, 11th of November, 2016)

End of a dream

Anti-establishment players and populists swept away the myth of globalization, followed by a new season of nationalism

Opinions

Where there hadn't to be limits, there are fences; where there had to be free trade, there is protectionism; and where there was supposed to be the global village, there are nation-States. Something went wrong. The model chosen, decided and in somehow imposed, has finished to don't work: instead of globalization there is nationalism. It can't be! How is that possible? That's exactly what millions of people in Europe and worldwide thought on June 23rd after Brexit, that's exactly what millions of people in Europe and worldwide thought immediately after having watched Donald Trump becoming the 45th president of the United States of America. Unbelievable, isn't it? Nobody was ready to believe Trump could do it, but he did. It can't be! How is that possible? The answer is simple: voters were called to choose between two opponents, and they made their choice. It is called democracy. Looking at what happened in the latest American elections, somebody - and even more than somebody - is considering democracy as an epic fail. Points of view, of course. It can be said that Democrats chose the wrong candidate, it can be said that Americans are out of mind, a lot of things can be said. Considerations, opinions, analysis, are all elements which have to take into account one thing: a model has collapsed.

It failed the idea that globalization without neither rules nor ethics could bring wealth and prosperity. On the contrary, wealth and prosperity have been transferred from a country to another, as well as people. Poorest countries saw their living conditions improving, while countries once with good economic and social standards saw the deterioration of the domestic tissue. In name of competitiveness social dumping was promoted, corporations were given carte blanche, the idea of a flexible labour market was translated in precarity. No more rights and less money. Finance did the rest. While millions Dollar cannot be created with strokes of a magic wand, they can be instantly burned on the stock markets. Unreal economy forgot the real world, where the survival instinct was the answer to all of that. Incredible choices produced unpredictable results. The rise of uncompromising and populist movements is nothing but the result of a system which has become no longer sustainable. Marine Le Pen, Beppe Grillo, Geert Wilders, they are all the expression of the general discontent. In time of uncertainty, economic crisis, weakness, they offered (well, they promised to do so) the alternative to the contemporary world. Asking for no Europe, no free trade agreements, no immigrants and no foreigners, isn't perhaps a clear call for putting an end to the globalisation? The one which was offered is a national recipe rather than global.

About the USA and the 45th president

(Obama back to be a citizen just like any other)

«Brain drain harms Italy's competitiveness»

The European Commission's warning in the 2016 report on Education

by Emanuele Bonini

Italy should care of national high-skill workers, since the migration of professionally valid people risks to harshly hit the country in terms of loss of competitiveness, the European Commission warned today. In its 2016 edition of the Education and Training Monitor report, the EU body stressed that in Italy «transition from education to work is difficult, even for highly qualified people» and «this is causing a "brain drain"». National authorities have not to underestimate the impact of such a phenomenon, but it appears the country is not putting in place neither measures nor wider policies to address the matter. In other terms the Italian education system is a good one, but completely incapable of keeping those who are ready for the labour market.

Problem with no solutions
The number of Italian citizens with a tertiary education degree leaving the country has been rapidly increasing since 2010. «This has not been compensated by inflows of equally well qualified Italians returning to the country». This means governments couldn't react, and not only that. There is not only a lack of political action. As the European Commission observed, the increasing emigration reflects better job opportunities and conditions abroad. As underlined in the report, survey data show that compared with their peers working in Italy, young Italian graduates working abroad earn higher and more rapidly increasing salaries, work more frequently under open-ended contracts and consider their formal qualification more appropriate for their job. Furthermore, Italians with a doctoral degree working abroad report having both better job opportunities and significantly higher earnings. «This may explain why highly qualified Italian workers have very little inclination to return to their home country. The emigration of highly qualified Italian workers therefore does not qualify as "brain circulation"» (i.e. when people temporarily go abroad to study or work, but then go back to their home country).

FACT SHEET/ Clinton's-Trump's programme

Click to enlarge.
Source: metro Belgique. Click here to read the original copy

Migrants, refugees, asylum seekers: who they are

Differences between people moving from their place to another

by Emanuele Bonini

Migrants are not all the same. When it comes to migration flows, words and definitions need to be accurate, because a refugee is not an asylum seekers and not all migrants are refugees. Sometimes these people are mixed up, but generalizations or inaccuracies are not allowed, as depending on the category of persons their legal status changes as well as their legal treatment. This is right the way national governments focus their attention on migration and their decisions on accepting foreign people. Here's a distinctions of categories, realized after a little reworking of the one realized by Amnesty International.

- Refugee. A refugee is a person who has fled from their own country because they have a well-founded fear of persecution and their government cannot or will not protect them. Under international law, being a refugee is a fact-based status, and arises before the official, legal grant of asylum. Asylum procedures are designed to determine whether someone meets the legal definition of a refugee. When a country recognizes someone as a refugee, it gives them international protection as a substitute for the protection of their country of origin. Refugee is generally a person with a legal status of protection recognised by governments, and he is entitled to remain in the country.

- Asylum seeker. An asylum-seeker is someone who has left their country seeking protection but has yet to be recognized as a refugee. Not all the asylum-seekers are refugees, but they all are entitled to stay temporarily in another country until their requests are not assessed. During the time that their asylum claim is being examined, the asylum-seeker must not be forced to return to their country of origin.

FACT SHEET/ MFF contributions for migration

(click to enlarge)

Europe in economic troubles with migrants

Not enough in the EU budget to deal with the current crisis. Adding money not an easy task

by Emanuele Bonini

Migration is not only a matter of political approach and will, it is also a matter of money. Despite the different political ideas, the European Union need resources which are not there. The EU in the sense of the Member States should revise the common budget in order to put new, fresh money with the aim of better addressing a situation otherwise impossible to solve. This is the only way out, and of course it is not an easy one. Far-right populist movements are rising up all across Europe, the European Union opted for strict fiscal rules, and amongst the governments there are those who neither can't nor don't want to invest on migration. There is still the possibility of changing the current Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF), the single EU budget for the 2014-2020 period, but it is unclear how such a possibility will be used by the Member States.

Resources made available
The EU can spend for migration €9,26 billion, which are the resources foreseen in the heading 3 («Security and Citizenship»). These money are mainly channelled through the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF, €3,1 billion), the Internal Security Fund (ISF, €3,8 billion) and the main EU Home Affairs agencies involved (Frontex, Easo, Europol, that got €2,36 billion). In addition, under humanitarian aid and development cooperation, the EU budget and EU Trust Funds, as well as, outside the EU budget, the European Development Fund (EDF), address migration and asylum both geographically and thematically. As a new element at the end of 2015, the €3 billion Refugee Facility for Turkey was set up under the EU-Turkey deal on migration, with €1 billion coming from the EU budget.