Union européenne

Une polémique d’une violence inouïe se déroule sur les réseaux sociaux en Espagne, surtout via Twitter : elle a trait à un enfant, l’objet de messages haineux. Adrian a 8 ans, il souffre d’un cancer très grave, probablement incurable. Ce qui ne l’empêche pas de rêver, un jour, de devenir torero. Or de nombreux « animalistes anticorrida» se déchaînent pour souhaiter le pire à l’enfant. 

Today the Council of the European Union meets in Luxembourg to debate about the Commission proposals for an effort-sharing on LULUCF regulation, concerning land use, land use change and forestry.

LULUCF regulation aims to set emission reduction targets for each member state in terms of land use and forestry sector.

This legislative instrument together with the emission trading system are considered as the main measures to accomplish EU’s to the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Another important point on the agenda is the adoption of conclusions on sustainable water management. EU water management emphasizes current challenges related to climate change, land use and sustainable development. These challenges are considered as the most important ones included in the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Finally, the Council will also discuss conclusions in matters of biodiversity and will adopt further regulation items, such as debating on two proposals on greenhouse gas reductions in the sectors not covered by the EU emissions trading system.

Classé dans:Uncategorized

Général : Cette semaine, les députés présenteront leurs recommandations autour de la création d’une union de la défense et poursuivront leur enquête sur la mesure des émissions automobiles. Le défenseur français des droits Jacques Toubon échangera avec les députés autour de la situation à Calais. Le Président du Parlement Martin Schulz s’adressera aux dirigeants européens à l’ouverture d’un sommet consacré à l’immigration, au commerce et aux relations avec la Russie.

Source : © Union européenne, 2016 - PE

La proposition de limiter progressivement les biocarburants a été prise sur la base de l’opinion publique, admet un fonctionnaire européen.

Elections tendues et émaillées de violences au Monténégro ce 16 octobre, le tout petit pays candidat à l’entrée dans l’Union européenne et l’Otan est dirigé depuis 27 ans par le même homme, Milo Djukanovic. Son parti arrive en tête du scrutin sans pour autant remporter la majorité absolue.

Les partisans de Pegida ont manifesté ce dimanche 16 octobre à Dresde, dans l’est de l’Allemagne, pour marquer le deuxième anniversaire du mouvement anti-islam et anti-immigrés. Si la mobilisation était inférieure à l’année dernière, le soutien pour les idées que véhicule le mouvement ne va pas en diminuant.

Le Grand Bazar est l’un des endroits les plus célèbres d'Istanbul. C’est même l’un des lieux les plus fréquentés au monde, avec près de 100 millions de visiteurs par an. Mais le Grand Bazar est en crise. Ses commerçants tirent la sonnette d'alarme. Certains ont déjà mis la clé sous la porte en raison de la chute du nombre de visiteurs.

Une vingtaine d’enfants actuellement réfugiés dans la « Jungle » de Calais seront accueillis la semaine prochaine au Royaume-Uni. Les autorités britanniques et françaises disent avoir commencé à recenser dans le camp les enfants non accompagnés qui en vertu du regroupement familial ont le droit de venir en Grande-Bretagne. Ce samedi 15 octobre, un rassemblement avait lieu devant le Parlement de Westminster pour intensifier la pression sur le gouvernement de Theresa May.

Le Pape François canonise ce dimanche 19 octobre sept bienheureux, parmi lesquels, pour la première fois, un de ses compatriotes argentins, un Mexicain, mort lors de la guerre civile des Cristeros (1926-1939), un évêque espagnol et deux religieux italiens. Mais parmi les nouveaux saints figurent également deux Français, Salomon Leclercq et Elisabeth de la Trinité.

C’est une découverte exceptionnelle qui s’est produite au Pays basque, plus exactement dans la localité de Lekeitio, en Biscaye, tout près de la mer de Cantabrie : dans une grotte connue pour son occupation datant du Paléolithique ont été découvertes 50 fresques de 14 000 ans d'ancienneté. Le fruit d'un effort de la région basque.

La police espagnole a annoncé samedi 15 octobre avoir démantelé un réseau de passeurs ayant fait entrer clandestinement dans le pays 500 migrants africains en 2016, avant de les envoyer vers la France, l'Allemagne et la Suisse.

REUTERS/Benoit Tessier

« J’étais manifestement attendu. Dès que le garde-frontière de l’aéroport de Montréal a vu mon nom, il m’a emmené dans les locaux des services de l’immigration. Il était 17 heures mardi. J’en suis ressorti six heures plus tard sans mon passeport et avec un ordre de quitter le territoire mercredi après-midi », raconte José Bové, que j’ai joint par téléphone. « J’ai loupé mon meeting sur le CETA, l’accord de libre-échange entre l’Union et le Canada, mais j’ai pu au moins dormir à l’hôtel ». Le gouvernement canadien ne voulait manifestement pas que le député européen participe à une série de rencontres sur le CETA avec la société civile et les syndicats agricoles québécois, à quinze jours de sa signature en grande pompe à Bruxelles par Justin Trudeau, le Premier ministre canadien, et les responsables européens. Devant la bronca suscitée par cette expulsion, Ottawa a finalement décidé, mercredi à 18 heures, de laisser José Bové entrer au Québec. Il faut dire que Manuel Valls, le Premier ministre français, rencontre à Ottawa, jeudi, le chef du gouvernement canadien, et qu’il valait mieux éteindre ce qui menaçait de dégénérer en incendie. « Le gouvernement canadien est dingue : s’il avait voulu se tirer une balle dans le pied, il ne s’y serait pas pris autrement. Au moins c’est clair, ce qui compte pour lui, ce sont les marchandises, pas les hommes », s’indigne José Bové.

Il faut dire que cet incident diplomatique, en dépit du rétropédalage du gouvernement Trudeau, est une première avec une démocratie avancée, comme on l’explique au Parlement européen : « certes, Israël a déjà bloqué des eurodéputés qui voulaient se rendre dans les territoires occupés, mais à part ce pays un peu particulier, les seuls autres problèmes ont eu lieu avec la Russie de Poutine ou le Maroc… » Le groupe des Verts et plusieurs socialistes français se sont d’ailleurs immédiatement indignés de cette expulsion : « médusé par cet acte absolument antidémocratique », a tweeté le socialiste français Guillaume Balas, « hallucinant » a gazouillé son collègue Emmanuel Maurel. Auditionné, par hasard, au même moment par la commission commerce international du Parlement, l’ambassadeur canadien auprès de l’UE a été interpellé par la verte allemande Ska Kelle : il n’a pas su quoi répondre, ses autorités ayant manifestement oublié de le prévenir…

La décision du gouvernement fédéral canadien, le contrôle des frontières extérieures ne relevant pas des provinces, a été motivée, selon José Bové, par ses condamnations pénales, notamment pour le démontage du MacDo de Millau et une série d’actes anti-OGM. L’Agence des services frontaliers du Canada, saisi par Libération via l’ambassade canadienne à Bruxelles, a reconnu, tout en refusant de donner les motivations de sa décision, que « plusieurs facteurs servent à déterminer l’admissibilité, comme la participation à des activités criminelles, la santé et la situation financière ».

Le problème est que le député européen s’est rendu à plusieurs reprises au Canada depuis ses condamnations sans jamais être inquiété : « j’y ai même été un an après avoir été incarcéré pour l’affaire du MacDo », rappelle-t-il. En outre, comme il le remarque, Alain Juppé, après sa condamnation en 2004 dans l’affaire des emplois fictifs de la mairie de Paris à 14 mois de prison avec sursis et à un an d’inéligibilité, a pu enseigner en 2005-2006 à Montréal sans que les autorités fédérales trouvent à y redire. De là à penser que, pour Ottawa, le détournement d’argent public est moins grave que les préjudices subis par McDonald ou Monsanto, il n’y a qu’un pas qui ne plaide pas précisément en faveur d’un CETA perçu comme un cheval de Troie du TAFTA ou TTIP. « Si le Canada avait refoulé Marine Le Pen, il aurait gagné une centaine de voix. En s’attaquant à José Bové, il vient d’en perdre le même nombre », se marre un haut fonctionnaire du Parlement européen sidéré par l’amateurisme canadien. Ottawa semble avoir oublié que le CETA doit être ratifié non seulement par les 28 parlements nationaux de l’Union (ainsi que par les parlements régionaux dans les pays fédéraux), mais aussi par le Parlement de Strasbourg. Que l’on malmène ainsi l’un de ses membres ne va pas le mettre dans les meilleures dispositions d’esprit…

Général : Les jeunes Européens pourront-ils bientôt voyager gratuitement dans toute l’Europe pendant une durée d’un mois ? Le Parlement a récemment débattu d’une nouvelle proposition visant à offrir à tous les jeunes un billet de train InterRail à leurs 18 ans. Qu’est-ce que ce pass et dans quels pays peut-on l’utiliser ? Consultez notre infographie pour en savoir plus.

Source : © Union européenne, 2016 - PE

Le traité de libre-échange entre l'Union européenne et le Canada pourra-t-il être signé le 27 octobre à Bruxelles ? Rien n'est moins sûr. Alors que les négociations pour l'accord de libre-échange entre les Etats-Unis et l'Europe (TTIP/TAFTA) sont au point mort, le CETA pourrait bien subir le même sort. Le feu vert de la Belgique semble sérieusement compromis, tandis que la Cour constitutionnelle allemande vient de le valider, mais avec de lourdes conditions. La France est quant à elle déterminée à conduire les négociations à leur terme.

Eurasia: the EU and Russia in their shared neighbourhood

The first speaker, Laure Delcour, a French scientific coordinator of the EU-FP7 project CASCADE, argued that Russia and the EU were today competing to keep or gain influence on countries situated in their shared neighbourhood, notably Ukraine, Moldovia and Kazakhstan.

For her, the two blocs have continuously failed to cooperate because of their incompatible identities. Theoretically, the EU portrays itself as a ‘normative power’ (Manners, 2002). Likewise, they claim to rely on soft power and norms diffusion to influence foreign policy. On the contrary, Russia is often perceived as a non-normative or a realpolitik oriented power (Casier, 2013). It is often seen as a regional hegemon seeking to limit the influence of other actors through hard power and coercion.

Yet, Ms Delcour argued that the EU has not always acted as a normative power, the case of Azerbaijan being one in many examples. For her, the EU has always been acting in its own interest hiding its true motives behind its normative discourse.

As Torbakov (2013) described it, we can better understand the relationship between Russia and the EU if we see it as one between a neo imperial EU and a post imperial Russia.

Secondly, it is often argued that both blocs compete because of their aim. Yet it has become increasingly obvious that the EU and Russia have the same aims in the region, namely stability and security.

The only thing distinguishing them is their approach; the EU seeks to have a transformative power where the adoption of EU norms would eventually bring prosperity and stability. This approach is meant to be costly in the short term with long term benefits.

On the contrary, Russia’s influence works through a lesser degree of institutionalisation. Russia is able and willing to tailor its instruments to the context of each country and is able to react shortly, in order to get short and long term benefits.

Ms Delcour concluded her remark by arguing that the EU’s interaction with Russia has been characterised by “failed attempts to cooperate”. Russia has always refused the European neighbourhood policy (ENP) and the “normative” conditionality attached to it. She explained that it is why the Common space on external security that both actors have been negotiating upon for year never actually materialised.

The ENP, instead of bringing the two actors closer, isolated the EU from Russia and reinforced the centric nature of most of the EU external policies. Illustratively, the EU ignored the existing interdependence between Russia and other countries situated in their common zone of influence which increasingly raised Russian concerns and scepticism.

This rivalry has already had negative impacts for six of the countries located between the actors, notably Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Georgia. For Ms Delcour, the EU needs to be less Euro centric and adjust to the regional realities if it wants to have a working relationship with Russia, in order to have a positive impact on the international scene.

The second speaker, Vsevolod Samokhvalov, an Ukrainian researcher at the University of Cambridge, argued that the EU/Russia relationship was based on misunderstandings.  He explained that the EU did not understand how important the Black sea region was for Russians. Historically, culturally and strategically, Crimea notably had in fact always been seen as a “blessed” area, vital for Russia’s survival.

Furthermore, he explained that the countries situated between Russia and the EU are mainly former Russian colonies. Russian officials hence believed it was only legitimate that Russia would keep its influence on this zone. In the early 2000s, Russia offered the EU the possibility to deal with those countries as a “shared project”. The EU’s refusal showed that officials at the time were probably too arrogant to understand they needed Russian’s cooperation to positively develop the region.

The Crisis in Ukraine is for Samokhvalov, the best illustration of those misunderstandings. The protests in Ukraine were for him not about the EU but about the corruptive and authoritarian tendencies of the government. The fact that the EU decided to negotiate with a corrupted president gave Russia more ground to criticise the EU. Russia completely stopped believing in the EU’s normative discourse.

Samokhvalov concluded by arguing that Chinese officials were in fact more skilful in dealing with Russian sensitivity than their European counterparts. They understood that perceptions, symbols and respect mattered for Russian officials, and visited Russia 11 times over the past 4 years. For Samokhvalov, the EU needs to adapt to different countries and needs to accept that the alleged “normative superiority” of the EU is over. The EU needs to understand that mutual learning rather than arrogance is a key to achieve good diplomacy.

The 3rd speaker, Timofei Bordachev, Russian director of the centre for Comprehensive European and international studies (CCEIS) in Moscow argued that Russia and the EU could not cooperate because of their identical aims.

For him, both blocs want their neighbourhood to be stable and prosperous. The problem is that they also both want access to cheap labour force and economic market. The example of Ukraine is for Bordachev striking; both Russia and the EU offered the country an integration model and forced Ukraine to choose the way in which the country would open its market.

Comparing the EU/Russia relationship with the Russia/China relationship can help us understand why both actors have failed to cooperate in the past years. Chinese and Russian interests are not identical: they are complementary, Russia wants integration, China wants to invest.

Furthermore, Russians have all reasons to believe that the TTIP will happen sooner or later, which renders cooperation with China extremely important if both actors want to have a say in the global economic government.

Bordachev concluded his remark by explaining that before 2003, the idea of a common space was influential. However, Russia grew increasingly sceptical of the EU after the colour revolutions and the emergence of the “Eastern Partnership”. Only then did Russia start to negatively equate the EU with other western organisations such as NATO. He argued, as did Ms Delcour and Mr Samokhvalov, that the EU urgently needed to get rid of their false normative discourse, and treat other actors on an equal footing.

The Middle East and North Africa (MENA): the EU, Turkey and the Gulf States in their shared neighbourhood

The second session focused primarily on the relationship between the EU, Turkey and Gulf states and the current balance of power in the Middle East and North Africa.

The first speaker, Tobias Schumacher, a Chairholder of the European Neighbourhood Policy Chair, discussed the relationship between the EU and Golf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, namely, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. He noted this Arab neighbourhood is characterized by an absence of equity and varying foreign policy strategies. He argues GCC members and the EU have in common their objective of “milieu shaping”, which refers the ambition of actors to ensure or maintain the rules of the game that depends on the determination of the actors to use their resources. Although the EU and GCC members have both engaged in the Union for the Mediterranean, they have largely acted in an uncooperative fashion, with the exception of actions concerning the Syrian crisis.

He identifies the lack of cooperation and rather “mutual ignorance” arises from issues of identity and self-conception and more particularly, how the EU and GCC members view themselves shapes how they perceive their neighbourhood. While the EU’s identity draws from liberal principles, GCC members are rather embedded into the realist paradigm and influenced by zero sum consideration, and hard power. GCC members’ actions are driven by geopolitical and security concerns, as well as regime security concerns. GCC members and especially Saudi Arabia and Bahrain perceive their neighbourhood through a sectarian prism, which pushes them to conceive “milieu shaping” as a toll against what they perceive as Shiite Iranian expansion. GCC members are also driven by regime security and have the ambition to contain negative spillovers, such as Muslim brotherhood and Islamism, which could undermine their already fragile legitimacy. For instance, they attempt to silence domestic islamists through anti-Assad and anti-Iranian moves in order to appear unite behind this alleged shiite threat.

In contrast to the GCC’s realist logic, the EU aims at turning its Mediterranean neighbourhood into a peaceful area through the adoption of a liberal and normative orientation and focuses on long-term milieu shaping strategy. Schumacher thus argued their relationship relies on the way those actors look at their neighbourhood.

The EU policy towards the Middle East and North African region has recently shifted towards stabilization strategy and realist concerns, thus moving away from its traditional normative approach. Nonetheless, he argues this convergence between EU and GCC policies will not lead to cooperation, and points four reasons:

1. The EU and the GCC share different conceptions of what neighbourhood entails. For GCC members, the Arab middle east is a distant place and is therefore not their ultimate foreign policy, while it is for the EU.
2. Even if the Arab middle east was the ultimate foreign policy priority for GCC members, they are looking for direct gains.
3. The EU remains a fragmented and divided union, therefore EU members prioritize their own domestic agenda and lack of commitments.
4. Both GCC and EU members institutionalized their cooperation in a bilateral fashion rather than at the EU level.

Resulting from this lack of common ground, Schumacher concluded it was not realistic to assume cooperation was possible in the near future.

The second speaker, Louise Fawcett, a professor of International Relations at Oxford University, discussed the current relationship between the EU and Middle Eastern powers especially Turkey, as well as the role of the EU in the MENA region. She identified the challenge faced by the EU in defining the neighbourhood and engaging with its major power as the MENA region does not have a well-established hegemon and supranational institution. The lack of cooperation of the EU with the Middle East therefore lies in the issue of definition. While the promotion of a major power in each region is crucial for the engagement of the EU within a region, the MENA area comprises states that do not identify with the other such as Israel, Iran, Turkey and Egypt. Arab states’ fragmented identity and absence of regional power dynamic results in a lack of collective enterprise or states acting as a major power, which jeopardize the capacity of the EU to engage in the region.

The recent events and developments that occurred in the Middle East further complicate the engagement of the EU within the region. Egypt, which had previously been identified by the European community as a key regional partner, is in decline since the Arab spring and the following domestic tensions and disturbance. Turkey is increasingly perceived by the EU as a bridge state and a regional stabiliser arising from its popularity among the region. Nevertheless, Turkey’s internal issues and recent tensions with the EU questions the extent of cooperation between the two.

On the other hand, the EU is not a single and homogenous actor, although it has in the past proved it is able to centralize and align on issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict. The multiple agenda of EU’s Member States combined with the blurred definition of what is conceived as the ‘Middle East’, compromise prospects of partnership and cooperation between the EU and its Middle Eastern neighbourhood. Louise Fawcett concluded the EU is not adopting enough to changes in the region and therefore needs to adapt to new regional realities in order to enhance its cooperation with the region.

The last speaker of the session, Ozlem Terzi, a professor at Istanbul University and a visiting scholar at the College of Europe discussed the two speakers’ presentation. She argued that while the EU was initially created to overcome realism, the current EU’s relationship with the MENA region leads commentators to argue the EU might have to go back to realism. Geopolitical and economic interests, as well as historical ties are tools the EU should use in its relationship towards the region.

She also argued there was an ideological game within Islam taking place in the MENA region and explained that if the EU wanted to take part in it, it might do so through entering an ideological debate as opposed to a geopolitical one. She indeed argued the EU had to play a normative role and promote its values and principles, otherwise the EU will loose the game against Russia and the Middle East.

To conclude, professor Terzi argued the EU’s future relationship and rayonnement among its Middle Eastern neighbourhood was contingent on its capacity to play the normative game and promote its values and principles, instead of letting itself dragged into power games. It is only by playing on its liberal and universal principles and values that the EU will strengthen its regional relation and cooperation with the MENA region.

Asia: China and India in their shared neighbourhood

The third session was about the shared neighbourhood of India and China. According to Carla Freeman, India doesn’t accept China’s leadership and tensions continue to define the relationship between the two countries. The development in the region is hampered by the security dilemma and the competition for power. China wants to act as a paymaster and promote its vision of regional connectivity but India doesn’t want to compromise on security matters nor be a junior partner

Rahul Roy-Chaudhury, the second speaker of the session, reminded us that India is the 2nd largest country after China but it will soon overcome this country in terms of population. India’s economy is the 9th largest in the world and the 3rd largest armed forces but it’s pace of growth is the fastest in the world so India has a clear view on its place in the Asian neighbourhood.

China and India have fought in the past, the current conflict is about the length of the border. China blocked a move that India started at the UN and India blocked the China’s membership to an important nuclear device.

The two countries are important trade partner’s, 20% of India’s exportations are from China. its exportations. These partnerships are expected to increase as India has joined China’s led investment and development bank. However, India remains the hegemon in South Asia in terms of its territory, hard power and soft power. Pakistan is also an important power in the region, with a nuclear arm. It is starting to turn to China, and the corridor opened by this bilateral partnership could lead to projects of 15 billion dollars. India has publicly shown its opposition to this partnership because it would go through its contested territories.

The Indian ocean is important for India’s foreign policy. With the United States they are doing exercises without China because it wants to be a security profiler for the Indian ocean. In this regard, it also has renewed relations with Japan, Australia and Vietnam: many India ships pass through the China sea.

Lessons the EU could draw from this relationship is that dialogue is important because both countries have managed their issues, it is more important to manage the dispute rather than solving it. According to the speaker, it is not time to resolve their problems.

The situation in Pakistan is important in the China India relationship. China and India do not accept each other’s normativity and moral ground. Both countries see themselves as exceptional, although China is not seeing its neighbours as equals. However, the Chinese government is being more pragmatic towards India since this poor country has developed so fast.

The Americas: Brazil and the United States in their shared neighbourhood

Finally, the fourth session focused on the America’s. Any Freitas opened the discussion by an analyse of Brazil and the United States’ relationship, which have moved from cooperation to competition. It seems lately that both countries don’t understand each other anymore which creates a distance. Brazil considers itself as a big and rich country and thinks in this respect that it should have a say on the international scene. It distanced itself from the US and increased its relation with other countries so as to gain power and access to markets. This strategy is pragmatic: the aim is not to oppose the US. From the US perspective, the Brazilian search for more autonomy was perceived as a challenge, there has been growing suspicion over the country reliability.

Brazil is not a leader in South America, many of these countries have China as their main partner. Latin Americans feel empowered by the economic changes.

The seconde speaker, Tom Long, focused his speech on the concept of asymmetry: between the United States and Brazil, the United States and other Latin American countries and between Brazil and its neighbours.

The literature on South American has four major trends. Either they present regionalism as being a US led hegemonic project, or more recently researchers talk about post hegemonic regionalism. A part a literature also affirms that South America is a Brazil led space whereas the fourth trend identifies a US-Brazil and South American nexus.

The relationship between the US and Brazil has its ties historically during the Cold War where they were both anti-communist countries. Recent fluctuation show a shift from Latin American to South America where Brazil is trying to move the narrative to South America in order to reduce Mexican claims to the region. There also a shift in the use of Mercosur that is more focused on political integration and identity. Alongside a new regional institution was created in 2008: UNASUR (Union of South American Nations). Thus, the US is less engaged economically and politically in the region.

In the asymmetrical theory, asymmetry must not be confused with hierarchy: in this relationship the smaller state has more exposure that in a hierarchical model. Tom Long presented four models shaped by triangles that represents four different kinds of relationships. One of these triangles is a relationship between Brazil, US and Venezuela where Brazil tries to play the “pivot” in romantic triangle, Venezuala is included in Mercosur but there’s a refusal to denounce deteriorating conditions. Another triangle is a “ménage a trois” between Brazil, the US and Uruguay  where Brazil tries to pull Uruguay closer.

According to Malamud, the Brazilian strategy of institutionalising its relationships had an ideational and ideological appeal but lacks the material resources. The US retains a significant latent and structural power. This asymmetry is fundamental and needs to be managed. The Brazilian crisis has diminished its regional influence and other actors appeared on the scene such as China, which reduced the effectiveness of the US coercive power.

The third speaker’s thesis was that the US was never interested in Latin American because they are far from any burning theatre. According to Allado, in the Americas the US was never a global power. The pan American union was the first idea of a regional union: the US needed some legitimacy to be the policeman of the Caribbean and the other countries needed a framework to set up the rule of law. The US took a more interventionist stance during the Cold War and relaunched its strategy after the Cold War: as long as energy migration and cocaine were under control, the US were satisfied.

Brazil can be an annoying problem for the US but is not a burning one. For a long time, Brazil was freeriding the US security framework. Brazil is rather obsessed with its domestic development and not in their Hispanic neighbours. They managed the neighbourhood in the 70’s-80’s but didn’t wan to get involved in the domestic affairs. Furthermore, with the Cold War and the dictatorship, a new generation came to power that was opposed to America.

Lula was very good friends with Bush but the main Brazilian priority was not South American but to become a global player by playing the US and the EU against each other for trading agreements. However, to be a global player Brazil had to demonstrate its leadership in the region but no other country wanted to be a leader so Brazil was fighting over its weight. When Dilma came to power, she abandoned the global power goal, the came back to traditional policy with traditional strategies and a day to day management of the domestic affairs.

Latin America is a very fragmented space: they share a same language but a divided nations. No one sees Brazil as a leader and wants to be a follower. There’s not a South-North divide in America but rather a South-West divide: Chilli and Mexico are trying to get integrated in the global world by having agreements the US.

Brazil does not want to integrate, it just wants to avoid the emergence of another regional leader. It is a very different way to look at regionalism. In contrary to the EU, Brazil doesn’t want to integrate in all those regional groups. What counts is that there are a lot of institutions where all countries can talk and avoid hegemonies coming in the region. So the lessons the EU could learn from this is to stop trying to export its model: Mercosur will not be the same as the EU. The EU needs to be pragmatic, South America is one the last region with some similar values and ways of dealing so the EU has to be careful with that.

The EU needs to reconcile its norms and interests: a new theoretic pragmatic principle. There’s a need for more intercultural understanding, the dialogue needs to be political and not technocratic. For Allado, efforts must be done to put in place stronger forms of institutionalisation.

Concluding remarks

Michael Reiterer, the principal advisor at the Asia and Pacific department in the European External action service, concluded the conference.

He explained that the criticisms he heard during the day were in lines with all the criticism the external service had received during the past year as part of the ongoing review process. A special website had been opened for any European citizens to express the changes he or she wished to see happening in the way the European Union was dealing with its foreign affairs.

The first conclusions of this year long review will be published in October, followed by a new road map for the external service in November. The new strategy will  be based on two main themes: security and prosperity. Furthermore, the external service will now focus on a more functional approach. The “One size fits all” strategy will not be relevant anymore as the review has shown that it led to high expectations and negative results. He also explained the old strategy, which aimed to export the EU model through conditionality, would be not part of the new road map. The EU will now be pragmatic and look at the world the way it is and not the way it wants it to be.

He argued that the strategy will now be based mainly on two forms of diplomacy: economic diplomacy and cultural diplomacy. Through these sorts of diplomacy he said the External service hoped to gain leverage on the international scene. Instead of waiting for changes through conditionality based on the European Normative model, he said the EU had to act as other international actors do if they really want to have an impact.

The EU only publishing a “very concern statement” whenever an other actors acts in a way that violates European values will also end. From now on, through economic diplomacy and cultural diplomacy, the external service hopes to pull out different kinds of leverage and have more influence. He concluded his remark by explaining that this review has helped the EU to combine realism with idealism. This new model is meant to help the EU adapt to the reality of the world without giving up completely on the promotion of European values.

Kim Chardon, Elisa Neufkens, Emma Aubert

Classé dans:Accords et politiques de coopération, RELATIONS EXTERIEURES

The British High Court declared on Thursday that May’s government has not legal authority to start the Brexit process without prior parliamentary approval.

The Parliament is the only body empowered to use royal prérogatives in order to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, i.e. the mechanism for the voluntary and unilateral withdrawal of a country from the European Union.

Yesterday, three senior judges started a hearing process that could legally challenge Brexit outcomes.

David Pannick, a distinguished British barrister, pleaded before the court that “prerogative powers may not be used by the minister to remove rights established by the act of parliament.”

Therefore, only the parliament can change the European Communities Act away through the enactment of a new legislation.

The hearing will continue until next week and any possible High Court’s decision will be appealed and sent to the Supreme Court, which will begin a hearing in December.

Classé dans:Uncategorized

La fameuse pâte à tartiner est en rupture de stock sur le site internet de la chaîne de supermarchés britannique Tesco qui refuse l’augmentation de prix demandé par son fabricant à cause de la chute de la livre.

Les députés de la commission de l’Environnement proposent l’interdiction du commerce de l’ivoire et de corne de rhinoceros et appellent à des sanctions communes contre le trafic d’espèces sauvages, dans une résolution adoptée ce jeudi. Ce trafic pèse environ 20 milliards d’euros par an, selon les estimations, et devient l’une des principales et des plus lucratives formes de crime organisé transnational.
Commission de l'environnement, de la santé publique et de la sécurité alimentaire

Source : © Union européenne, 2016 - PE

In link with the classification of the Russian non-governmental organisation International Historical and Human Rights Society (IHHRS) 'Memorial' as 'a foreign agent', the Chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights of the European Parliament, Elena Valenciano (S&D, ES) made the following statement:

Speaking on behalf of the European Parliament's Subcommittee on Human Rights, I denounce the decision taken by the Russian authorities which is another attempt to silence an independent organisation that promotes and protects human rights through peaceful advocacy work.

Full statement
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

In link with the classification of the Russian non-governmental organisation International Historical and Human Rights Society (IHHRS) ‘Memorial’ as ‘a foreign agent’, the Chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights of the European Parliament, Elena Valenciano (S&D, ES) made the following statement:
Speaking on behalf of the European Parliament's Subcommittee on Human Rights, I denounce the decision taken by the Russian authorities which is another attempt to silence an independent organisation that promotes and protects human rights through peaceful advocacy work. The reiterated labelling of this organization as a 'foreign agent' is discriminatory and stigmatizing.
Further information
Full statement
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP