Europe’s youth must stand up against populists

Now it has also reached Germany. The fact that a right-wing populist party, the AfD in Germany moves into the Bundestag with official provisional results of 12, 6% is another warning for Europe. Everywhere in Europe, tendencies to close the borders, return to the nation state and abolish a common currency can be seen. The leaders in Europe have been warned sufficiently to take populists seriously and to do everything to ensure that Europe remains a one-of-a-kind entity. Europe’s youth in particular is called upon to take a stand against all positions of populists and clearly choose a free Europe without borders. We do not want to lose all the advantages that Europe has given us in the last 50 years and return to nation-states. We want to continue to be able to travel freely within the EU, pay in a common currency and be able to communicate with all people. Our goal is to maintain a free Europe and to give all people equal opportunities. That is why we launched the initiative European Youth Marathon with the slogan ‘I’m a part of Europe’. Join us and fight for the unity of a free Europe.

 

About the Author:

Prof. Dr. Manfred Pohl is CEO and founder of My Europe 2100 e.V.. Additionally, he is founder of the future think tank Frankfurter Zukunftsrat, founder and Deputy Chairman of the European Association for Banking and Financial History (EABH) as well as of the Institute for Corporate Cultural Affairs. In 2011 he was awarded with the Verdienstkreuz 1. Klasse of the Federal Republic Germany for his charitable commitment in the European banking and financial sector. Read more… 

 

Rising number of climate-refugees is one of the most important issues nowadays

What will be the big challenges regarding climate-change refugees in Europe in the next 50 years?

The topic about the refugees has always been and will be a burning problem. And, we can say that the rising number of climate-change refugees is one of the most important issues facing our society nowadays. We live in such an age where many people are free to choose a better way of living. Yet, some are forced to make the decision to leave their homes due to political clashes. “No one leaves home unless home is the mouth of shark” (Warsan Shire, 2011) – by ignoring the trend of the fleeing refugees, the world leaders have now allowed one of the largest global humanitarian crisis to unfold. Nevertheless, the situation can be kept under control by taking actions.

Let us take a look at the extreme weather events such as earthquakes, floods and hurricanes that are quite common and recurring. Climate change worsens the consequences of those events and it should not be a surprise that people strive to inhabit areas with a pleasant and temperate climate. People are suffering and have no other choice, but to leave their homes. The economies of the countries destroyed are extremely unstable and the population is more prone to fleeing. Every year around the globe millions of people are forced to move due to this major reason.  Furthermore, large segments of the population deciding to migrate are the ones with higher standard of living. Fleeing is inevitable; however the world leaders should find ways to solve the world refugee crisis. For instance, they should aim to provide the basic essentials for the suffering – for example a standard apartment meeting the basic human needs such as hot water and food.

According to the UNHCR, the people, who are forced to move, need some form of international protection since their own governments fail to keep them safe.

The refugee issue is painful to society these days – many people around the globe think that they are a “nuisance”. Not many people realize that all these refugees are actually one of us and that they are forced to leave their countries.  According to recent forecasts, the number of those likely to relocate because of the climate changes is 350 million by 2050, compared to 65.3 million in 2016. This may lead to building walls instead of opening the market between the nations. Unfortunately, most people do not approve of migration. Yet, helping the refugees requires a clear definition of the matter before taking any steps since many people do not indeed know what a climate-change refugee is facing. On the one hand, refugees are people left homeless, who are looking for a better way of living. On the other hand, in modern society’s eyes they are a nuisance, which may destroy their established world. Yet, not everyone is humane enough to face the reality and do something about the refugee issue instead of isolating them and treating them as criminals. There are many ways to integrate them into our local communities. For instance, a solution could be finding job places for them, incorporating them into local activities and dividing them out per capita in every city in the country. The result would be that no one would feel different, rejected and intimidated.

According to recent forecasts, the number of those likely to relocate because of the climate changes is 350 million by 2050, compared to 65.3 million in 2016.

We live in the 21st century and the standard of living is supposed to get better and better. With the increasing number of extreme weather and political events, a concern of the international community about the consequences of migration is also growing. Around 1,700 refugees died trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea in the period between January and April 2015. According to the UNHCR, the people, who are forced to move, need some form of international protection since their own governments fail to keep them safe. Hence, the attention is rising to the pledges such as countries like Norway or Switzerland are trying to find a better way of protection for climate change affected people. For example, Norway joined a special recognition procedure in 2005, which includes approval of eligibility of foreign qualifications provided with applications for jobs or studies. It is an attempt to integrate the refugees in the day-to-day life.

To sum up, refugees are people with a decent opportunity for a better life. The foreign governments play an important role in helping them. Unfortunately, the way all of them are treated is not the one they deserve to be. People can find many ways to make their stay more pleasant. Each of them is trying to remain alive and they are looking for a safer place where they will not be mistreated. A couple of countries have already thought of solutions to the refugees’ crisis and so can the others. And the more humane people are, the happier their lives will be.

About the author:

Zhaklin Dimitrova Yanakieva (17) took part in the My Europe Workshop in Sofia on 28-29 November 2016 and won the first prize of the writing competition.

 

Living with Donald

Donald Trump’s victory has generated a lot of different reactions in the European capitals, from big surprise, joy for some, to stupor. Some have also tried to analyse and provide a logical explanation for a better comprehension of a result that was not expected to many, not even the many polls that have failed obstreperously. For the Europeans, it is difficult to understand the changes in mind that are taking place between the American’s society. They have talked about raze, gender, age, social class and geographic distribution to try to explain this victory. From all of them, the most interesting analysis is the one related with globalization.

White middle-class working Americans have been hit hard by the Great Recession. The offshoring of big industries, which have settled in markets with more competitive prices, have left a big mass of workers unemployed and without expectations for their future. A lot of workers apprehended Barack Obama’s open and tolerant politics.

They oppose immigration and refugees’ welcomes since they fear about losing their jobs, so they hold on to the nationalist feeling to reaffirm their convictions. They also feel a deep resentment against the economic elites of their country, who they blame for the situation.

 

This analysis can also be related with the victory of the Brexit in the United Kingdoms, a very unexpected result. The message is simple: “Lets gain control back” Boris Johnson claim in the debates prior to the referendum. “Lets build a wall and make America great again” Donald Trump claimed without unobtrusive. Without coming to appreciate his histrionic and controversial person, Trump has managed to represent that resentment against the establishment. He has also awakened the hopes of those voters who, indeed, may feel that they have nothing to lose, that the system has nothing more to offer them.

The misgivings about globalization are legitimate. It has been seen in the past months in Europe, with the strong position shown by the Walloon region in the negotiations of the free trade agreement with Canada or the demonstrations that have been seen all over Europe against the TTIP. The effects these treaties may have over the working conditions of the European workers or over their environmental consequences are questionable and should be present in future debates. Nevertheless, the boom of xenophobia or the closure of frontiers won’t solve these problems but aggravates them. Climate change, for instance, can only be fought back if the States cooperate, just if they share objectives, just if they have a global vision of the problem. The isolationism and hatred cannot be the way out.

The election results, alongside with the Brexit and other events, such as the presidential elections in Austria, just confirm what several experts had predicted. We are getting into a new cultural clash that has globalization and its consequences as its sole protagonist. A new ideological conflict has come into the world’s play, between those who are in far of living in open, cosmopolitan societies and those who prefer to have close, protectionist communities, often being against cultural diversity. In this second group is where we can find Donald Trump and his populist nationalism.

What can the EU do in light of this new situation? First of all, reaffirm its willingness to integrate.

The European leaders must come up with and defend bold, and at the same time, realistic measures regarding various topics such as foreign policy, climate change and the creation of new opportunities for young people.

These leaders must bear in mind the foundational values of the EU. The European project was always based on tolerance, solidarity and respect towards cultural differences. However, the refugee crisis has put these values at stake. Therefore, the European societies need to develop their integration ability and to take advantage of the globalization process, without letting the intolerance and hate rise, nor leaving the working classes unprotected.

The challenge is immense and high levels of political skill and conviction will be required to overcome it. The populist, xenophobic speech must be fought with ideas, proposals and through a thorough, ethical debate.

Populists have already claimed two significant victories, and they could reinforce their success this year in the French presidential elections. We have proven to be incapable of noticing the dangerous parts of their speech, until seeing one of their main representatives win his way into the White House.

This quandary is surely going to be present in and heavily influence the next few years, and probably, the next few decades. Even though the future is quite uncertain, there are reasons to keep hope. Neither Brexit, nor Trump were the most voted option within the younger generations.

Hillary Clinton’s concession speech was calm and solemn. She had made mistakes during her campaign. Many have lamented the fact that she has been unable to shatter women’s last ceiling. However, we have to acknowledge she has already made history, she has already shattered plenty of ceilings. She is the first women to ever be candidate to the Presidency of the United States on behalf of one of the two main parties. Furthermore, she is the first woman to ever win the popular vote in that country. Her flaws should not cast a shadow over a career full of accomplishments.

In her speech, she thanked all people who had supported her and recognized her defeat. The former Secretary of State also made an inspiring petition to the young: “This loss hurts. But please never stop believing that fighting for what’s right is worth it”. Hillary has already left a mark on history. Now it is the time to be up to the expectations and leave ours.

 

Brussels Lockdown

alarm-959592_1920  Thirteenth of  November 2015. This date is still on the minds of many people around the globe as the dreadful day when a series of coordinated terrorist acts occurred in Paris and its northern suburb, Saint-Denis. Three suicide bombers struck near the Stade de France, followed by suicide bombings and mass shootings at cafés, restaurants and a music venue, the Bataclan theatre. The attackers killed 130 persons and injured 368. Seven of the perpetrators of the attacks also died. The attacks were the deadliest in France since World War II and the most fatal in the European Union since the Madrid train bombings in 2004.  They led French president François Hollande to declare a 3-month state of emergency and launch Opération Chammal, the most extensive French airstrike operation against ISIS to date. Counter-terrorism measures were also taken by other states in Europe and North America. In addition to triggering political reactions, the event resonated with people across the globe, especially on social media where the Twitter hashtag PrayForParis and the Facebook profile filter French Flag were launched so that people could show their support for France and the families of the victims of the attacks.

Many things can be said about the consequences of the attacks in France and elsewhere, but today I want to focus on some of the effects it has had on my home country, Belgium, and more specifically on Brussels, my hometown.

Some of the men that participated in the attacks lived in Brussels and one of the main perpetrators, Salah Abdesalam, who survived the attacks, is suspected to have crossed the French-Belgian border after the attacks. This prompted Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel to announce a lockdown on Brussels by declaring a level 4 security alert, which is defined by the National Security Council as an imminent and serious threat. As a result, subway lines, schools, universities and many shops were closed down for several days. The Winter Market, one of the biggest annual attractions held in December in the center of Brussels risked being canceled and attracted substantially fewer people than previous years. Military personnel patrolled the city, police presence was increased, streets were empty, and the overriding message was to “avoid all crowded places and stay at home if you can”.

In addition to implementation of these security measures, a total of 20 arrests were made in Molenbeek, a neighbourhood in Brussels where some of the Paris attackers lived and where they may have been radicalized. The arrests were coordinated by Belgium’s Minister of Internal Affairs, Jan Jambon, who stated that he would “clean up Molenbeek”.  Molenbeek was scrutinized by foreign media for several weeks after the raids and many European politicians criticized Belgium for its lack of security and anti-terrorism intelligence.  A headline in the famous French newspaper, le Monde, read: “For Belgians, the Abdesalam brothers did not constitute a threat” and the British daily, The Guardian, stated that “Molenbeek was becoming known as Europe’s Jihadi central”.  Donald Trump, one of the Republican Party candidates for the US presidential elections, claimed that “the capital of Belgium had been adversely affected by its lack of assimilation from their Muslim residents”.

As a Belgian living abroad, I was often asked about the state of alert in Brussels and many individuals who were eager to discuss the issue with me had narratives similar to those proposed by the media. This prompted me to read news articles on the subject and talk to my parents and relatives living in Brussels. It brought me to the following conclusion: while these allegations may have some truth to them, it is important for people to carefully analyze the context of the situation before making assumptions about the gravity of the situation in Brussels, and particularly Molenbeek.

First, with the population increasingly feeling frustrated by the lack of public transport, closed shops and closed schools, the level of alert was decreased to 3 on the 27th of November, only 6 days after imposing security level 4. The decision was made without pointing out any real change in the situation, suggesting that the threat may not have been as prominent as had been claimed in the first place.

Concerning Molenbeek, of the 20 arrests made, 16 people were interrogated and 15 were released. This suggests that the majority of those  arrested did not constitute a direct threat to security and that the intervention was carried out as a show of power. Jan Jambon’s solution was to clean up Molenbeek. This is a simplistic solution that is overused by politicians when referring to the perceived threat that neighbourhoods of lower socio-economic standing pose to the general population. It is a dangerous term because it separates the inhabitants of the said neighbourhood from the rest of the population and treats them as the “problem”. It implies that  if something had to be “cleaned up”,  it must have been “dirty” in the first place. Further alienation of a stigmatized group of people can only increase resentment and lead to more violence.

My suggestion is to urge people around the world to carefully analyze the information they are exposed to by the media and political interests when they address the problem of terrorism. They should consult multiple sources of information with differing perspectives in order to have a more informed opinion on the matter.  Increased knowledge and awareness of the factors contributing to terrorism are essential for the initial steps that will hopefully lead to its eradication.

 

 About the author:

Fiorella pic newFiorella (19) attended our Brussels Workshop as a student of Collège Saint Michel. She is currently an undergraduate student in biological science at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Fiorella is interested in politics, arts & literature, sports (climbing), guitar and travel. Her dream job is being a veterinarian for wild animals in a national park. More…

 

Europe’s role in the worst humanitarian crisis since WWII

girl-982119_1920

It is a commonly held opinion that Syria’s civil war is the worst humanitarian disaster of our time. Nowadays, it is believed that it all started in the Syrian city of Deraa where the Assad family held the power. In March 2011 locals took to the streets to protest after 15 schoolchildren were arrested and tortured for writing anti-government graffiti on a wall. The protests were peaceful, calling for the release of the children, democracy and greater freedom in the country. The government responded with the army opening fire on protesters. The opposition is split between groups of rebel fighters, political parties and people living in exile, who cannot return to their country. The war is now between those for or against President Assad. In Iraq 2014, an extremist group (Islamic State) began to take over large areas of the country (they are a radical militant group which has used violence against anyone who doesn’t agree with their point of view). Many Syrian people have been forced to leave their homes and escape to other countries with a desperate need of help. Europe has said they will accept refugees. But is this feasible ?

If Syria´s civil war is the worst humanitarian disaster since World War II, every single person should think; what are we doing wrong? If in 2015 an atrocity of that size happens, the whole world should make an effort to help and understand. In the first place, not only Europe but every single continent of the world should have an open border for anyone who needs it.

On the one hand, allowing refuges into your country is an act of humanity. As it refers to Europe; having an open border for all refuges is necessary by all means. As people may not know Syrians could bring a new culture to Europe and Europeans should accept them, regardless of their cultural and ethnical background. As there are hundreds of thousands of refugees, at least half of them are children which means an opportunity for the growing economy and an increasing number in the European population. The major European obligation come from the fact that we know that more than 11 million are forced to leave their homes, more than 220,000 have been killed, and over 12,2 million are in need of assistance, and that it is only up to us to improve their situation.

On the other hand, it is easy to be against having an open border, because people are used to seeing first the negative side of everything. For Europe, having an open border and accepting refugees in each country means having at least half of the population against them. As Syrians are coming to Europe to be safe, they do not plan anything, and they cannot bring anything, that means Europe will have to provide them food, medical assistance, homes, schools for the children, water etc. All of this has to be paid by Europeans.

Moreover, Europeans cannot feel safe in their country as a consequence of the prejudiced anti-Islamic attitude which considers Islam to be equivalent of terrorism, which makes Europeans believe that refuges will not be able to adapt to their lifestyle.

We can conclude by saying that it is a fact that when people are in front of a problem like this, they often think it is impossible to solve and leave the problems to others. I honestly believe that we should intervene in this civil war in Syria, and we have the resources to help them.

 

About the author:

Processed with VSCOcam with f2 presetPaulo Ordoñez is a 16-year old student from Spain who enjoys sports ,traveling and photography.

 

Refugee crisis

map-of-the-world-1005413_1280

“The number of people living as refugees from war or persecution exceeded 50 million in 2013, for the first time since World War Two” states a report by the UN refugee agency. Not surprisingly at all, the current refugee crisis has become one of the most widely debated issues due to its repercussion on a global scale. While everyone agrees that the origin of such crisis was the Arab Spring, a series of peaceful, pro-democracy movements that began in 2011 across the Middle East which, unfortunately, led to terrible wars in Libya and Syria, most people fail to have similar ideas regarding what should be done in order to tackle the problem of how to host millions of people.

The notion that Europe should take in a number of refugees as large as necessary has been backed up by many using the following arguments. In the first place, since the article 14 of the UDHR states that everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy asylum in other countries, the advocates of an open European border claim that it is the duty of all to host the refugees. Besides the fact that it is a basic human right, empathy makes people want to help to the extent possible to those exposed to inhumane situations; would a normal person not want help when he has been forced to abandon everything he knew, to live in harsh conditions in refugee camps, or even to attempt to cross seas with no safety measures risking his life and the lives of his loved ones? Secondly, developing regions hosted 86% of the world’s refugees. Taking into account that according to UNHCR, it would cost $20,537,705 only to finance the Syria Regional Refugee Coordination Office, it becomes clear that the costs are high. Developing countries appear to simply not be able to afford to invest the necessary money on refugee camps as opposed to European countries. Lastly, refugees have skills, talents and aspirations, and the ability to contribute socially and economically.

On the other hand, a number of European nations have made it clear they are not willing to welcome many newcomers, despite the current crisis, e.g., Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban built a barbed-wire fence along Hungary’s border with Serbia and introduced a new migratory law making any fence crossing a criminal offense. Those who agree with the Hungarian Prime Minister often argue that taking in all asylum-seekers would have a negative effect on European societies as well as economies. Refugees will not only be a “loss of capital” for the states but also a threat to their civic identity. People shudder at the sight of the potential change that the refugees might bring with them, something which contributes to the rise of an anti-immigration feeling. Illustrating this point, Orban stated: “Is it not worrying in itself that European Christianity is now barely able to keep Europe Christian?”

In conclusion, the EU has announced an emergency quota system that will spread out the influx of refugees across its member states, aiming to improve the situation and avoid irrevocable mistakes. I strongly support the opinion of having open European borders for all Syrians and Afghans and honestly believe that the European Union should be realistic about the number of refugees that will arrive in the near future to our continent as to handle the crisis appropriately.

 

About the author:

Photo Mónica Martínez Jorge is 16-year-old student from Spain who is interested in politics.