Mediaboss Marketing

When did the relationship between the European Union and Turkey go completely off the rails? Its hard to say. Turkeys democratic backsliding has certainly contributed to the fracture in relations. In May 2019, the European Union released its latest report on Turkeys progress towards E.U. membership. On numerous topics the judicial system, corruption, the economy, and human rights the European Union found there was either limited progress or serious backsliding. And after decades of advancing relations with Turkey, any influence the European Union may once have had over the democratic trajectory of the country appears to be faltering. As long as the European Union fails to address its own institutional deficiencies in migration management, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will exploit rising anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe for the sake of political opportunism.

Turkey: A Frontline State to the War in Syria

Similar to other popular uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, demands for democratic reforms, economic opportunities, and an end to corruption and a tradition of impunity could be heard across Syria in the spring of 2011. Instead of introducing liberalizing reforms, President Bashar al-Assad followed in the footsteps of his father, Hafez al-Assad, and authorized Syrias security-intelligence apparatus to crush the civilian-led movement for a democratic state structure. Since the conflict mushroomed into a civil war, the magnitude of suffering borne by civilians has been enormous and unprecedented. More than 11 million Syrians have fled fighting and repression, to other parts of the country or to neighboring frontline states: Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. Over 500,000 people have been killed, wounded or disabled as a direct result of the war. Hundreds of thousands have been subjected to abduction, detention, and systematic torture by the Syrian regime.

Just across Syrias northern border, Turkey pursued an open-door policy for Syrian refugees, allowing them to enter its territory without official documents. Under the auspices of the Ministry of the Presidency, the Disaster and Emergency Management Authority and the Turkish Red Crescent delivered humanitarian aid and constructed temporary accommodation centers for those escaping the war in provinces located along the Turkish-Syrian border. In 2014, Turkey passed Law no. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection to regulate the legal parameters of protection and assistance. A special temporary protection status granted recipients access to public healthcare facilities, the state education system, and social services. Two years later, in 2016, Turkey eased the entry of Syrians registered under temporary protection into the formal labor market.

Yet, despite these modifications to Turkeys immigration policy, there is no comprehensive rights-based structure for asylum seekers; Turkeys geographic stipulation to the 1951 Geneva Convention means that it only grants full refugee status to citizens from countries within the Council of Europe, which excludes Syria. The economic integration and social inclusion of Syrian refugees were hampered by discrimination, particularly in the labor market, and protracted poverty. Some Syrians believed they could live a more dignified life in Europe. In 2015, reports indicated that up to 2,000 irregular migrants were crossing the Aegean Sea from Turkey to the Greek islands every day, with the intent of reaching mainland Europe. Images of refugees and migrants risking unimaginable journeys in the media posed a moral dilemma for Europe.

Refugees as Pawns: Turkeys Shift in Policy

By 2015, Turkeys governing Justice and Development Party had intensified the use of hard power mechanisms in its engagement with Syria. The overthrow of the Assad regime, aiding opposition militias, eliminating the threat of ISIL, and preventing the Peoples Protection Units from establishing an area of dominance along its border overshadowed attempts to establish a rights-based approach to the economic integration and social inclusion of Syrian refugees in Turkey. It is now eight years since the start of the war, and anti-refugee sentiment is intensifying across the political spectrum in Turkey. In a recent address to an audience of Justice and Development Party supporters a few days after the latest military incursion in Syria, Erdogan reduced human life to a commodity, to be bartered for his own political gains. He claimed he would, open the doors and send 3.6 million migrants, to Europe if Operation Peace Spring was questioned and categorized as an invasion.

The pressure to send refugees back to Syria is also mounting. A study conducted by Istanbul Bilgi Universitys Center for Migration Research revealed that more than 85 percent of respondents favored the repatriation of refugees from Turkey. This is extremely worrying. For the time being, the safe and dignified voluntary return of internally displaced people and refugees is not a viable prospect. Arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, the widespread use of torture, military conscription, and dire humanitarian conditions still pose a daily risk to civilians in Syria.

Alarmingly, Amnesty International reported that Turkish authorities have increased arbitrary arrests, detentions, and deportations of Syrian refugees from Turkey to Syria. Ankaras plan to establish a safe zone and repatriate at least one million Syrian refugees in northeastern Syria is nothing more than a project in ethnic re-engineering. Operation Peace Spring has displaced more than 200,000 people and significantly strained access to humanitarian assistance. Civilian casualties are multiplying, with reports of more than 200 civilian deaths and 650 wounded. According to a United Nations Human Rights Commissioner spokesman, Turkey may be held responsible for war crimes committed by its proxy militias that fall under the banner of the Syrian National Army, after video footage appeared to show Kurdish captives being executed. Turkey is also known to have used white phosphorous munitions over non-combatant areas in Syria.

European Union-Turkey Humanitarian Arrangement: Well-Intentioned But Inadequate

Amidst rising anti-immigrant sentiment and the increasing popularity of the authoritarian far-right, the European Union was compelled to devise a new action plan on migration. In 2016, the European Union proposed to strengthen cooperation with Turkey and intensify interventions to decrease irregular migration from Turkey to Europe. To do this, the European Union indicated it would designate funding to assist with the humanitarian response, advance the Visa Liberalization Dialogue for Turkish citizens traveling to Europe, reinvigorate negotiations over the European Union accession process, and accelerate the modernization of its customs union with Turkey. For Turkeys part, the government agreed to strengthen its border-management capacity, especially on the shores of the Aegean Sea, and accept any new irregular migrants who arrived in Greece from Turkey and whose applications for asylum in Greece were rejected. Finally, European Union member states were supposed to accept a designated number of refugees directly from Turkey, as an incentive for asylum seekers to register with the Turkish government and operate within formal immigration procedures. However, the proposal never fully materialized, and three member states, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland, refused to comply with the European Union asylum quota system as proposed by the European Commission.

Despite evolving into the most comprehensive humanitarian endeavor in the history of the European Union, this effort was never intended to address the core factor instigating the humanitarian crisis: the war in Syria. The European Union and its member states should have invested every ounce of influence available to promote an inclusive political settlement at the onset of the war. Instead, the European Union launched two main initiatives, the European Union Regional Trust Fund in Response to the Syrian Crisis (the Madad Fund) and the Facility for Refugees, to funnel more than 6 billion for humanitarian relief and development assistance.

In spending this money, the European Union emphasized livelihoods security to maximize the impact of assistance, prioritizing skills development, employment generation, entrepreneurship, and private-sector development. While these programming elements appeared positive, it is difficult to ascertain their overall impact in the absence of robust monitoring, verification, and evaluation systems. Donors should designate sufficient funding for implementing partners, especially smaller non-governmental organizations, to either develop the institutional capacity necessary to conduct robust assessments of their work or collaborate with firms that specialize in measuring the effectiveness of humanitarian and development assistance.

Furthermore, although some solicitations for development programming included requirements for recipient organizations to adopt conflict-sensitive approaches in their programming, there was usually no formal monitoring mechanism in place. It is important that implementing partners have an in-depth knowledge of local dynamics and political sensitivities in the areas in which they are operating, and of how their interventions impact communities. For instance, only including Syrian refugees in project activities could trigger negative sentiment among host communities that would be difficult to resolve. In an attempt to avoid the negative consequences of their programming, some organizations also recruited members from host communities. However, as I wrote in a piece in early 2019, if local cultural dynamics are not fully understood, such a simple adjustment in operations might still prevent organizations from properly addressing grievances and from pursuing inclusive practices, especially in multicultural and multi-ethnic communities. Equipped with the knowledge of how activities might impact local communities, implementing organizations can adjust their operations in order to prevent negative impacts and maximize positive ones.

Maximizing E.U. Leverage for Syrian Refugees

The European Union no longer has as much influence over Turkeys democratic trajectory as it once had at the height of the customs union and accession processes. With what leverage remains, the European Union should require recipients of funds from the European Union Regional Trust Fund in Response to the Syrian Crisis and the Facility for Refugees to adopt conflict-sensitive approaches in their programming. It is critical that implementing organizations understand how aid impacts the multidimensional layers of society in order to avoid any unintended negative consequences. Despite the absence of robust monitoring, verification, and evaluation systems, local administrations and civil society in Turkey have performed exceptionally well. Since the attempted coup in 2016, many organizations, including municipalities located in the south-east, have been operating under severe stress due to government crackdowns, restrictions on their functions, and increased pressure to operate without adequate resources.

Syrian refugees are still waiting. The political solution that remains the most viable path to reconciliation, justice, and sustainable peace is elusive. Unable to return home, Syrians have become victims of an increasingly authoritarian Turkey and its failing relationship with the European Union. Using its remaining leverage over humanitarian spending to ensure that Syrian refugees get the most out of humanitarian assistance is the best way for the European Union to move forward.

Christina Bache is a Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science, IDEAS and Chair of the United Nations Principles for Responsible Management Education, Business for Peace working group. Up until March of this year, she was a Visiting Fellow at the Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies, the official political think tank of the European Peoples Party in Brussels.

Image: President of Turkey

Read more:
Refugees at Risk: Managing the European Union's Declining Power in Turkey - War on the Rocks

Larry Elliott expresses support for Brexit on the basis that the EU is pro-business, anti working people, and the embodiment of neoliberal ideas (Inside the Guardian, 9 November). However, he does not confront the fact that his decision to vote leave has provided support for an even more extreme form of neoliberalism promoted by the leave campaign of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and the ERG. Out of the frying pan into the fire might be the appropriate observation.Charlie MasonHermon, Pembrokeshire

If the EU is as Larry Elliott says pro big business, anti working people, undemocratic, neoliberal then why are rightwing neoliberals in the UK, across politics, economics and the media, passionate leavers? Surely they should be very happy in the EU?Richard MiddletonCrossmichael, Dumfries and Galloway

Join the debate email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

Read more Guardian letters click here to visit gu.com/letters

Do you have a photo youd like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and well publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition

Visit link:
Neoliberalism and the European Union - The Guardian

The European Unions recent decision to freeze any further enlargement into the Balkans made me think of a moment from a quarter of a century ago, when I saw the EU flag for the first time. I was a 16-year-old Bosnian refugee, standing in dirt, holding a humanitarian aid package in my arms. The box I had received contained rice, flour and other relief items that were supposed to last me two weeks. I took out a can of corned beef and on the side saw a dazzling circle of gold stars on a blue background. The text beneath the EU flag read: Donated by the European Community.

This was not how we had imagined our future relationship with the European Union. Its flag was supposed to represent our aspiration for a higher state of existence, close to our heritage as Europes most diverse country. It was not the corned beef, but the dream of joining a community of tolerance and open borders that kept many of us going through rough times. It gave us hope because, deep inside, we knew that we belonged. This belief in what the EU represented was practically coded in our national DNA.

But now the doors seem to have shut in our faces following the decision by EU leaders to block the start of accession talks with North Macedonia and Albania.

To describe this decision as harmful for the western Balkans is an understatement. It is a blow for progressive political forces throughout our region, who have been working hard to build our EU future. Now we know that investing immense political capital to end longstanding disputes, take on difficult reforms, and make painful compromises even to the point of changing your countrys name, as Macedonia did recently to appease Greece will not gain us admission to Fortress Europe. The EU has sent us the message we feared the most: the EU no longer cares. It certainly does not care enough.

Worse than just keeping us outside the club, freezing the EU integration process risks fostering populism, contributing to instability and placing the region in a geopolitical limbo. The consequences will have to be mitigated through some smart EU policies and increased engagement in the region. For Bosnia in particular, this may be the only way out of its dire current predicament.

It might not seem apparent to current EU leaders, but the European Union and Bosnia were built on similar values and born at the same time. The EU (replacing the European Communities) was legally established by the Maastricht Treaty, signed on 7 February 1992. Only three weeks later, Bosnia voted in a referendum to become an independent state. In Bosnia, we saw this as the intertwining of our joint destinies. Just like the founders of Europe, we saw strength in our diversity, and were inspired by the optimism spreading across the continent. Our young nation was built on the narrative that we would eventually join the EU. This was our origin story, and we never imagined an alternative future.

Instead, decades of stagnation, ethnic tensions and failed attempts at reform followed our devastating war. In the past four years alone, 5% of our citizens have left the country. The national parliament has not held a single meeting this year, while the government has still not formed, more than a year after the last elections. The rhetoric of secession and war are pervasive. Bosnia has drifted further away than ever from the EU, and is now in full-blown political and existential crisis, at risk of disintegration. It is, according to President Macron, a time-bomb ticking on the borders of the EU.

Our leaders carry part of the blame. They have certainly lacked the vision, capacity and integrity to take our country forward. Many Bosnians remain entrenched in ethnic divisions and keep electing the same nationalist parties. However, ineffective politicians and a largely myopic electorate are a consequence, rather than the root cause, of the problem. The fault lies squarely with the system within which they operate, and which by default produces such outcomes.

The governance system created by annex 4 of the Dayton peace agreement our constitution is notorious for its complexity, ineffectiveness and discriminatory impact. A population of 3 million is governed by three presidents, 14 prime ministers, about 180 appointed ministers and more than 700 lawmakers, sitting in 14 different parliaments. Ethnic-based elections and appointments perpetuate tensions by continuously pitting the three main groups against each other. Blocking decisions has become the main political tool, and impasse long ago became the norm. Around 15% of the population, including all Jews and Roma, are effectively second-class citizens, unable to run for high political offices.

After more than two decades of sticking-plaster solutions, it is high time we recognised that the Dayton agreement was a valuable tool to end a war, but it created an unjust and unsustainable system. The crisis is real, but Macrons assessment of the situation is decidedly unhelpful. The EU must help Bosnia to lay a new constitutional foundation and rebuild its political structure from the bottom up.

This will be met with resistance from Bosnias governing elite, the only group that stands to lose in the process. Thousands of families are supported by the corrupt and inefficient system, and the political class will be understandably reluctant to let go. This loss has to be acknowledged and carefully managed, through a mix of incentives, pressures and safety nets that should accompany the constitutional makeover.

The process also entails serious risks; reopening a landmark peace agreement and rebalancing historic compromises at a time when Bosnia finds itself in an increasingly precarious geopolitical situation.

But the risk of doing nothing is greater still. Business as usual will lead to Bosnias leadership pivoting to the Gulf states, China and Russia, which will further jeopardise the countrys cohesiveness and its EU future, especially now, when the only national consensus that existed the hope of EU integration appears to be indefinitely postponed. It will become ever harder for Bosnia to avoid becoming a testing ground in a new cold war.

The European council and the new commission should be braver and more ambitious. Our common values and stability are at stake. Otherwise, all we may be left with is a failed state on the EUs doorstep and EU flags on humanitarian relief items sad reminders of a never-realised dream.

Boria Falatar is a Bosnian economist who lectures at Sciences Po, Paris. He stood in Bosnias 2018 presidential election for Naa Stranka, a member party of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe

Read more:
Bosnia is at risk of becoming a failed state. Does the EU want that on its doorstep? - The Guardian

The United States trade representative is receiving a chilly response to his efforts to broker a deal with the European Union to send more lobsters to Europe.

The American lobster industry is in the midst of a challenging time in part because of tariffs with China and the EU. U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer has asked EU officials to consider reducing tariffs on lobster, which is popular in many European nations, especially around Christmas.

A letter from EU trade commissioner Cecilia Malmstrm dated Nov. 6 said the European Union could potentially be interested in a broader trade package. However, Malmstrm balked at the idea of quickly approving a limited package of tariff cuts.

Such a deal should be part of a wider agreement to liberalize tariffs bilaterally for industries and products, including fisheries, Malmstrm wrote.

Neither Lighthizer nor Malmstrm responded to requests for comment.

Lighthizers attempt to roll back tariffs is coming as American lobster exports to Europe are falling. Canada, which exports the same species of lobster to Europe, brokered a new trade deal with the EU in 2017 that puts the U.S. at a disadvantage.

U.S. exports to France, valued at nearly $36 million in 2013, fell to less than $13 million last year. U.S. exports to China also have cratered due to trade hostilities between the two countries. And the American lobster fishery, based in Maine, is currently in the midst of a slower season than it has been accustomed to this decade, leading to some anxiety in the industry.

Three members of Maines congressional delegation sent a letter to Lighthizer on Thursday encouraging him to keep pushing for the elimination of the 8 percent tariff on live lobsters. The members Democratic Rep. Chellie Pingree, Republican Sen. Susan Collins and independent Sen. Angus King wrote that Maine lobster producers and dealers must find new customers for our states most iconic product.

Jeff Bennett, the senior trade specialist at Maine International Trade Center, said hes not surprised the EU isnt on board with a new tariff deal solely based on lobsters.

The EU has generally taken a broader approach than one off or standalone type agreements, Bennett said.

Previous

Next

The rest is here:
European Union rebuffs American pitch to reduce tariffs on lobsters - Press Herald

What happened?

Mario Draghi has recently come out to call for a unified fiscal stimulus effort by the Eurozone members. So did the newly elected ECB president Christine Lagarde. As Lagarde takes over on the December 12th ECB meeting, this might move markets a lot, were she to call for a more coordinated approach to fiscal policy between the member countries and move one step further.

Generally, the economy is moved significantly by two forces, or policies. Monetary policy, and fiscal policy. Monetary policy is pursued by the central banks of the country, whereas fiscal policy is the job of the federal government. Fiscal policy includes developing certain areas of the economy, creating jobs, growth-promoting projects, etc. This can be extremely stimulative for the economy, and this is why many economies try to pursue fiscal as well as monetary easing policies during recessions. Fiscal policy does create debt problems, as many times countries run a budget deficit and have to borrow to cover their expenses, however as we will see, the situation within the EU just might be right for such action.

The European Union and Eurozone economies, with some exceptions, have been rather stagnant throughout the last decade. Economic growth has been minimal, unemployment rather high, the equity markets generally underperformed compared to the S&P 500 of the US. The German yield curve is all but below zero, and while that is a concern, it also raises interesting opportunities for the Euro Area as a whole.

The opportunity lies within the ability to borrow at dirt-cheap costs (in Germanys case you borrow you get paid). So, in this sense, both Draghi and Lagarde are absolutely right. Fiscal stimulus can help Europe immensely in fighting the economic slowdown. Think of it this way: Japans Debt to GDP ratio is 250%. Many hedge fund managers have been calling for a debt crisis in Japan for years. However, it has not happened. So, what matters is not only the whole debt burden but also the interest rate at which you borrow. If you can create profitable projects that bring a return of more than what you pay for borrowed money, you will repay your debts in the long run and you will grow.

Bearing this in mind, and also the ever-increasing negative-yielding debt market, why not take the opportunity and borrow to fuel the economy by way of fiscal policy (Euro Areas Debt to GDP ratio is around 86%)? You will certainly find projects that are more profitable than 0%. While such borrowing is bound to increase the costs of debt in the future, as yields will rise as a result, there is an advantage to be taken of here.

This why I think there is big potential in such a policy. And Lagarde has already mentioned this as a viable option. How would markets react if this were to come to reality? Due to the increased supply of bonds, bond prices would fall, yields would rise. Equities, on the other hand, would rally. This would be definitely a stimulative action that could result in long term growth for the economies. That would also create jobs, and with that, profitability for companies. Moreover, since the European equity markets have been underperforming the US counterpart, there is much room for improvement. Take the FTSEurofirst 300 for example.

Source: The Financial Times

It has not even touched the heights of the two previous tops within the 2000 and 2007 equity rally. Whereas the S&P500 is reaching new highs as of late. There is quite a lot of room for growth.

This also comes with a striking difference between the situation in the US and the EU. Eurozone countries generally have more room for fiscal policy, whereas the US still has some room for monetary easing to spur growth in the economy and the equity markets.

See the rest here:
Fiscal Policy in the European Union - Tradimo