More YouTube Material Allowed by the Internet Gods

Finally, after a host of technical issues, the IT-gods have smiled on EuroNews. They have seen fit to allow the final press conference and debate of EuroSim 2012 to appear on

http://www.youtube.com/user/EuroSim2012/videos

If such good omens continue, tomorrow the initial press conference and town hall meeting may through good IT-mojo appear in the very same spot.

And the Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf Award for Most Ridiculous and/or Useless Propaganda Effort Goes To...

Named for Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, better known as "Comical Ali", Saddam Hussein's Minister of Information. He became infamous for his pronouncement from Baghdad of doom for American forces in the Iraq War of 2003. The most memorable was his denial, on live television, that there were any US troops in Baghdad, while in the background US tanks could clearly be seen rumbling through the city streets.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION!!!

Close-mouthed, that is to be expected from the Commission who are, after all, civil servants. But the almost Omertà-like tight-lippedness of the Commission at this summit, compounded by bungling planning of interviews and inept handling of the press, was extreme.

After this experience, one could almost imagine Barroso in the role of the only (briefly) surviving victim of the Saint Valentine's Massacre, Frank Gusenberg. Already dying when the police arrived and asked who shot him, he said, "Nobody shot me",  and died. Thus he both prevented the police from solving the crime, but immediately entered mafia lore, as witnessed in The Simpson's where local mafia don Fat Tony's henchman, Johnny Tightlips, won't answer any question - even to save his own life.

Do you see a resemblance? Perhaps not, but you will certainly hear a resemblance. Or rather you won't, 'cause he ain't saying nottin'.

And the Edward Bernays Award for Best Propaganda Effort Goes To...

The Edward Bernays Award is named after the "father of modern propaganda", Edward Louis Bernays. A nephew of Freud, he invented the use of doctors to promote bacon for breakfast (creating the modern American cooked breakfast), promoting smoking amongst women and many other "valuable" contributions to society and progress.

[DISCLAIMER! NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE ACTUAL "Edward L. Bernays Award" AWARDED BY THE "MAINE PUBLIC RELATIONS COUNCIL"]

THE ALLIANCE OF EUROPEAN NATIONALIST MOVEMENTS

They were everywhere, anytime. Even in the bathroom you couldn't escape these guys' efforts to promote their unsavoury cause. But credit where credit's due, "G&G" were omnipresent and even landed a meeting with Merkozy

The nationalist's "Dynamic Duo", Gollnish & Griffin, mounted by far the most vigorous, creative and wide-ranging press campaign. They started Twitter wars, sneaked into common NGO meetings without official invitation, tried sexual harassment, and took to if not the streets, then the toilets. The "Terror Twins" placed flyers with outrageously overblown horror stories in the summit bathrooms, thus making sure that the leaflets were at least seen. It is unknown whether someone may simply have wiped their ass with the offending flyers, or if they found them too disgusting even for that.

One of the AENM's flyers, playing to the viewer's primal fear of violence

Another example of AENM "toilet propaganda"

The Seedy Underside of High Politics

by "observers" as garnered by the editor-in-chief

Danish PM Unwittingly Sexually Harassed by Media Whores

In yet another media stunt, the media whores of the Alliance of European Nationalist Movements (AENM) tried to stage "a Berlusconi" during this weekend's summit. Nick Griffin and Bruno Gollnisch, were caught one evening outside the Wild Goose checking out Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt personal details (and we’re not talking CV here…). Déjà vue? It already happened to her in October 2011 when Silvio Berlusconi, former PM of Italy, was also interested in the Danish PM's personal attributes.

Danish Minister of Justice - A Real Don Juan?

Rumors have surfaced, that Danish Minister of Justice Morten Bødskov has been seen partying hard on the penultimate night of the summit with at least three young women. Apparently he wins them over through a combination of Barry White and perhaps a serving of the ulitmate "cop cake", which he also submitted conference attendees to; the infamous Danish "lemon moon" ("citronmåne"). Though unsure about the connections between Barry White and law enforcement, the choice of lemon moon is unsurprising, as it is a stable part of the diet of Danish policemen and -women, and Mr. Bødskov's Ministry of Justice is presiding over Danish law enforcement.

Opposite Attract or Strange Bedfellows?

Perhaps the animosity between nationalist and Front National member, Bruno Gollnisch, and Amnesty International activist, "Last-Name-Unknown" Svend Erik. Though certainly coming to verbal blows at the final press conference, Svend Erik was seen giving Mr. Gollnish a solid, perhaps friendly or collegial(?) slap on the behind after the summit. No reprimand was given and apparently no offense taken. It was certainly neither a patting down search for hidden weapons or the type of "paddling" formerly used as a corrective against children (that would have been even more inappropriate coming from an Amnesty activist). What lay behind (no pun intended) this friendly exchange of body contact is unknown, but it certainly seem to relegate their conference altercation to the category of Potemkin villages.

Eurocrat Involved With DUI?

Leaving the summit, one high-ranking Eurocrat (identity unconfirmed) supposedly remarked if there was a way to make all alcohol evaporate from a human body on a short walk to the car. Whether this individual was driving, asking a hypothetical question, or making a joke is unknown. But it is certainly worrying that the future of Europe is in the hands of persons either willing to commit DUI or joke about it.

What Really Goes On Behind the Closed Doors (and why the doors are closed)

A Commission representative made what perhaps could have been a Freudian slip, when he said that the Danish presidency had really pleased them and the Commission was pleasing itself(!) What goes on behind all those closed doors?!? Is this some kind of strange EU benefit or perk? Certainly, it is not something that the Danish presidency remarked upon, but perhaps its members are too traumatized by the experience.

Bribery to Make Up for Bad Planning

Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission was desperate to not to get any kind of negative press coverage after the" misunderstanding" (according to themselves) or rather negligence of the Commission, who did not show up for an agreed upon press meeting. He then tried to bribe the journalist with chocolate, hoping that the mistake would not be pointed out. But how can we stay silent if such persons decide our future and that of Europe as well?

FUCK THE PRESS!

This was apparently the response from the Commission when its failed press strategy and bad managing and planning cost it the prominent position in the headlines one would expect. The exact words of this headline were apparently spoken behind closed doors, and certainly the effect was evident for all to see. Besides the final press conference, the Commission apparently decided to pretend the press doesn't exist, or at least that none of its journalists were present at the summit. This of course left the Commission completely vulnerable when the Council trounced it in the final hours of the summit, and it may even have jeopardized the final policy proposal's approval by the European Parliament.

We Live and Learn...

by the editor

My pessimistic predictions regarding the final outcomes were somewhat put to shame by the final document. While the resettlement program was indeed eliminated in the final version, Dublin II left intact, and the 'ask permission before you extraordinarily close an internal Schengen border' paragraph revised to reflect the status quo, some version of a common migration policy did make it through. 

Common visa and asylum rules have been postponed (perhap indefinately), but a common system to deal with illegal immigrants (i.e. those who cannot be granted asylum) will result from this summit. The new "Safe Port" system is fairly inconsequential as it pertain to the EU "Safe Ports". Those will not require more than a new sign at the entrance to existing camps, such as the one on the Italian islet of Lampedusa. What's new is the "Safe Ports" in third countries. The system seems to have broad support from all, although some grumbles were heard from an Amnesty International activist. However, the new system certainly opens the possibility for a much clearer instrument of pressure against third countries, since funding through the European Neighbourhood Policy in its reincarnation as the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument, will now be directly and explicitly tied to third countries efforts and success in preventing migration to Europe.

Otherwise, the only major change seems to be the combining of various programmes into fewer, larger and more wide-ranging programmes through pooling.

All in all, this was perhaps the best that could be hoped for, since the Commission's initial idea of limiting national ability to extraordinarily close down internal Schengen borders probably never had a chance in the Council, and only Greece was openly championing a truly shared burden of immigration, against staunch opposition from both France, Germany, the UK and the Danish presidency.

Do not think however, that we have heard the last on such common migration policy efforts in the EU. Besides the promise of a follow-up summit to look into possible common asylum and visa procedures (this may simply be a stalling effort, allowing the issues to die quietly), Commission President Barroso remarks at the final press conference should be kept in mind. He basicly said outright that this limited initial effort is only the thin end of the wedge, and that the Commission is biding its time. In doing so, the Commission is also licking its wounds after being steam-rolled by the government delegations at the very end of the summit, when the Council outright excluded Commission representatives from their final meeting, and then went on to dictate the results to the Commission.

Thank you all!

Now that all the negotiations are finished, EuroNews would like to express its gratitude and give a BIG thank you to all the participants present at the summit for reaching a Common European Migration Policy.

The first should and do go to the Game Directors and The General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union, Uwe Corsepius, and Chef de Cabinet of the Secretary-General, Marek Mora. They have done an incredible job and had managed to deal with all unforeseen  situations that occurred along the summit (in Rumsfeld’s famous words, “the unknown unknowns”). Not only did they fulfill every need, but also in a timely and accurate fashion. We know they’ve been through tough times in the last few days, because all the eyes and complaints were directed to them.

However, we have to mention that at the beginning we were sceptical, especially as the press were the last invited. It went so far, that the editor-in-chief publicly voiced concerns over transparency within the EU’s procedures, and plans were in the offing for the press simply to focus on other topics, avoiding the very late invitation. Initial working conditions were unfortunately far from optimal with a press room without working sockets – unacceptable in our digital world. But the press always finds a way to publish. And after all, everybody can make mistakes, as witnessed by the slip-up by German Minister for the Interior, Hans-Peter Friedrich in own speech at the Press Conference of the JHA Commission. Thus the world goes on with the Commission refusing to open up to journalists, and the press making typos which can lead to sometimes humorous misunderstandings.

We also appreciate the diplomatic presence of Danish Presidency throughout the weekend, striving to reaching an agreement. We could observe the tension and the real pressure in air on the first day of negotiations, and also the curiosity that rose about the real cause of the locked doors on Saturday. Even though, at the end of the game, some voices were unsatisfied with the quality of our journalism, we would say we tried present the real picture of how meetings, lobbying and socializing played out. More than that, we appreciate the serious PR strategies especially of some of the game players.

Our last words are full of respect and appreciation for the entire Game of the 23-25 March 2012. 

Viel Geschrei und Wenig Wolle

by the editor

This German proverb probably best describes this editor's expectations to the final aggreement on a common EU migration policy.

With the heart of the initial proposal, the "resettlement/burden-sharing/solidarity" pillar, in tatters, only tightened border controls and "Safe Ports" is the only substantial outcome expected. The Dublin II Agreement will stand, much to the chagrin of Italy and Greece, and this basic faillure will probably be papered over by nice phrases about "common efforts", "brotherhood", and "united efforts".

But I may yet be surprised.

The State of Play—The Nations Speak Out

by Agnieszka Sobień

Yesterday, all the heads of state or government met for the tour de table. Here, each country had a chance to express their own opinion on Commission's proposal and give a statement on migration policy.

France stated that they had the longest history of immigration policy and that their idea of "makig Frenchman from the foreigner" was a failure. Because of the huge number of immigrants they believe the proposal is too soft and unrealistic. The French fear immigrants will always end up in "our" countries (i.e. the old western EU member states). Therefore, they believe that companies should provide contracts to their workers to travel but not to stay in other EU countries. On financial matter, however, France does believe in burden-sharing. 

Germany did not want to accept the proposal as it is right now either. They believed that burden sharing must be mandatory in order to assist countries in need. Germany argued that they tried to help Malta and Greece and they ask where other countries were at that time. Even though they think it’s necessary they don't want to feel obliged to help others as the proposal now requires.

Greece does not benefit from the status quo on migration policy and is therefore willing to discuss this issue in more detail. However, Greece feels abandoned and disappointed in supporting this proposal. They believe that burden-sharing is the only possible option in that policy. At the same time they believe that an agreement with Turkey might help to solve the problem with illegal migration. However, the Greeks also warned the EU that they already have such an agreement and that it doesn’t work in reality. Greece also stated that the EU should give Turkey a carrot, as in advanced negotiations, in order to achieve any kind of solution in that matter.

Italy was another of the countries most affected by the flow of immigrants. They argue to "restore Europe with four legs."  They want to strengthen borders and have more tight cooperation with Northern African countries. Italy is afraid that if help is voluntary other member states would not help those in need.

During the entire meeting, Poland has underlined the importance of solidarity and burden-sharing. They want to work on long-term solutions rather than only on emergency quick fixes. Poland also underlined that the EU has more borders than the Mediterranean, meaning that the eastern border should be also taken into consideration during the negotiations.

The UK stressed the responsibility of each member state separately to handle migration problem. They hoped that the resettlement issue might be alleviated by help for now, but emphasized that long term solutions will be still needed. The UK voiced its respect for human rights and supported judicial cooperation in order to prevent trafficking.

Denmark would like to find long term solutions and not only focus on the Arab Spring. Like the UK, they also focused on the issue of trafficking and opined that it should be mentioned in the final proposal. Denmark believed that a “unified interpretation of the Geneva Conventions” would solve the problem of “asylum shopping” (trying several countries to get the highest chance of approval).

NGO’s Launch Final Offensive

by Simona Ion Bădulescu

The Migration Policy Institute has warmly welcomed this proposal as a starting point for negotiations on a more systematic and comprehensive European policy on migration. However, they ask the officials to reconsider a couple of assumptions and basic principles in the proposal.

For example, the Commission’s proposal sets as its main objective the external management of the EU's borders at in the Mediterranean, neglecting the EU's common interest in negotiating a comprehensive policy which provides for the management of migratory flows at the eastern and south-eastern borders. Secondly, without future immigration, the working age population (15-64 year-olds), which is currently at 333 milion, will drop to 242 million in 2050. The number of people actually working or seeking employment will decline from 239 million to 171 million at current labour force participation levels. Thus, in the unlikely absence of immigration and considering internal EU sources a proactive migration policy will be crucial for the EU's future development.

In spite of the Commission's explicitly stated intention to enhance a more migrant-centred and rights-based approach to migration, actual and tangible  measures for effective integration of immigrants in the EU appeared over-shadowed by security and border management concerns. This is also the case for mechanisms to ensure the protection of migrant and refugee rights, perhaps due to the favouring of immediate and short-term concerns of southern EU member states. But it fails to meet the necessity of establishing long-term solutions to the migration challenges faced by the Union as a whole. Broadening the scope of a common migration policy is both an opportunity and a challenge for the Commission as well as member states in these final negotiations.

If plan A doesn’t work, the Alphabet has 25 more letters

The Alliance of European Nationalists Movements (AENM) complained of naïveté and lack of sound reasoning after its meeting with Migration Policy Institute, La Strada International, and Amnesty International, on Saturday 24 march. For instance, the idea, proposed by La Strada, that illegal immigrants already in Europe should have the possibility of being legalized. “This will obviously create a leap hole into Europe and undermine the already underpowered security system”, said AENM President Bruno Gollnisch. AENM’s general picture was one of NGO lack of realism and unrealistic demands. AENM were also concerned about tendency to overlook the threat caused by the immigrants, towards national and European culture, jobs and security.

NGOs joins for a quick pow-wow. La Strada must have felt a bit uncomfortable 

along the by now most recognizable figures of the summit, the ”Terror Twins”, Gollnisch & Griffin 

The two AENM representatives were quickly encouraged, when they were been invited by French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, for a meeting joint meeting, also including, German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. The AENM delegates were overjoyed as they could now voice their concerns directly to some of the negotiators. “Mr. Sarkozy will definitely try to make our voice to be heard, because it is also in his interest”, says Mr. Nick Griffin of the British National Party. He was indeed very proud in his moment of glory, that his “ideas are finally beginning to interest Europe”.

”G&G ” or the ”Terrible Twosome”. The nationalists of the AENM 

have certainly managed to get their share of the spotlight at the summit

The sharing of ideas is a mutual fact, as he continues to agree with the following statement: “I think Chancellor Merkel is right when she criticizes Greece for not doing enough, despite this heavy funding of 300 million euro for border protection. We can still see floods of immigrants coming to Greece and spreading to the rest of Europe as well”.

Bella Italia—We’re friends with everyone (or try to be…)

by Simona Ion Bădulescu

EuroNews managed to get hold of Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti, who has kept a decidedly low-key public appearance at this summit. One might be led to believe that he is too focused on getting his home country back on the straight and narrow to concern himself with EU politics. He also cut a remarkably relaxed figure, but whether this was due to his familiarity with EU proceedings, a sign that things are going his way, or that he is using the summit as a welcome holiday from Italian politics is an open question.

With regards to the Commission’s initial proposal for a common migration policy he said,

“I think the European Commission’s proposal is quite good and beneficial for Italy. It is our strong conviction that it covers the most important aspects that concerns Italy, namely the strengthening external borders and initiating a dialogue with Northern African countries. So basically, we are quite happy with the Commission’s proposal.”

His priorities when it comes to such policy are clear:

“First of all, our expectation is to be able to strengthen our external borders. In order to do so, we need to have a clear consensus of all member states that we can do it. So far, after this meeting we just attended, it seems like this is happening. What Italy needs, at the moment, are some additional funds and closer interagency cooperation between FRONTEX and other European agencies, to provide a surveillance of that area of the Southern Mediterranean which is the most problematic right now.”

Greece has already taken a beating over human rights violations against asylum seekers, but Mr. Monti was not too concerned about Italy’s stance on this issue:

“Italy has lately taken huge steps to handle this. In my new government which came to power in November last year we are quite concerned about this, because we are aware of the fact that in the past, perhaps conditions weren’t so good. I don’t think the case of Italy is quite comparable that of Greece, because Greece has had a longer period dealing with situations like this. We are very concerned and we are taking big steps to make it better for the people who need it. I would definitely say that I can see Italy progressing regarding this issue.”

Neither was the Italian PM concerned that the summit would fail to produce a common policy:

“As far as I can see, especially after the meeting we had, I think the proposal will pass with some comments from us. I think the only matter that we didn’t quite agree on, was the resettlement in case of asylum seekers from Africa, but the rest of the aspects were more or less agreed so I am quite optimistic.”

Friends in need? Greek PM, Papademos (left) with Monti. Two technocrats PM peas in a pod?

When asked, whether he had a common cause with fellow EU border state, Greece, Mr. Monti replied:

“Of course, Italy as well as Greece, has been one of the most affected countries – affected in terms that we registered a higher number of immigrants arriving after the Arab Spring – so, in this case I can say that, we share Greece’s pain. We know what it means to receive high number of immigrants and not know what to do in the immediate situation. This is why I think that Italy as well as Greece needs a proof of more and truer solidarity from other EU states. The only difference is, that Greece deals with immigrants coming from different parts of the world, but for sure we have a common ground in asking the member states to give us the proof of true solidarity and cooperation.”

On the troubled issue of the Dublin II Agreement, he said:

“In principle, Italy would agree to negotiate the Dublin II Convention, because that would mean that Africans won’t be forced to seek asylum in the first country they reached. As we know, most immigrants coming from North Africa are French-speaking so they would be much keener to go to France, rather than Italy. This would favor Italy, but at the same time because we want to restore our friendship and our cooperation with all our partners in the European Union. With our new government, and because I am the new Prime Minister, I think we shouldn’t put a strain on France. I think we can open up the issue and it would be favorable for Italy to renegotiate the Dublin II Convention, but at the same time we don’t want to put any of the other member states in an uncomfortable situation.”

This of course led to the question of how to get the other member states on board with the idea of burden-sharing, and if he had heard from the Commission on that topic:

“Not really and I think it’s also my responsibility to ask for a follow up, because Commission might be a little bit busy with the proposal. I am hoping that the member states will understand that the EU is not just about sharing a single currency or about the free circulation within the member states. In times of crisis, like the one that happened last year, we need to see some strong support. At the same time, in Italy with the new government we accept the errors from the past, but we are here with a new perspective. I am doing my best to convince my partners that solidarity is one of the most important things within the EU.”

Stay optimistic is aparently the watchword for former

 Eurocrat and current Italian PM Mario Monti

Finally, on his impression from his latest meeting:

“I think the last meeting was very good because it helped us clarifying where we stand with the negotiations for the Commission’s policy proposal. As far as we saw, all member states agreed more or less on the same issues. I think it was a very good thing for the Danish presidency to add trafficking to the policy proposal. Italy is also quite concerned with trafficking and we are putting a lot of focus on this. So we salute his solution from the Danish presidency and we are quite optimistic with this proposal. We were from the beginning quite satisfied with the proposal and we are happy to see that it is going to the right direction. We want Italy to be more central in the EU, because it has lately, unfortunately, been eclipsed. Now we are trying to get it back where it belongs. What I can say is, that Italy wants to be more present within the EU and we want Europe to be more present within Italy.”

Danish Presidency Cuts Resettlement Proposal Off at the Knees

Commission President Barroso is probably less 

than thrilled by the Danish rejection of resettlement 

by Rikke Brammer Buk

EuroNews managed to get a brief interview yesterday with Danish PM Helle Thorning-Schmidt.

Do you have confidence that this summit will end with a Common Migration Policy tomorrow?

“I feel very positive that we will come up with a solution. Of course, at this point, we do still see some issues of concern, some issues that we need to negotiate further. But nothing that would stop us from coming up with a policy tomorrow. How ever, we also have to take into consideration the Commission.”

What has already been agreed upon, what do you have as a certain success/achievement by now?

“What we have agreed up on among the member states is that we do not appreciate the Commission’s proposal on resettlement of successful asylum seekers. That we unilaterally agreed upon. We have also agreed that we all are willing to contribute financially to a migration policy, if we of course know what such funds are being spend on. We have an issue with Greece that have been given lots of money over 6 years to deal with their problems, and no one currently knows what that money have been going to.”

Are you confident so far, that what you have achieved will be applauded by the Danish people?

“We of course have the opt-out regarding this policy,  and so it will not be implemented at the legal level but I do believe that the Danish people will welcome the suggestions that we have agreed upon so far. In this government we would like to, in a couple years'  time, to put to a referendum our opt-outs, and hope to get rid of them. It is our belief that if we achieve this policy, the Danes will welcome it.”

How will the EU be able to secure human rights for the asylum seekers if resettlement is off the table?

“We believe that the redistribution proposal from the Commission did not do anything to secure the human rights of asylum seekers and it did not deal with rejected asylum seekers. It only dealt with already approved asylum seekers. Therefore we do not believe that this objective will compromise their human rights.”

Do you feel that the focus on the external borders addresses the long term perspectives of immigration into the EU?

“Very much so. I truly do believe that the EU's external borders should be an essential part of a common policy, because by securing our borders we also free up resources for dealing with other problems, such as human rights, in areas such as the relocation camps, that we have in our neighbour countries. Also, we free up resources to deal with integration within the EU. If we come up with a successful external border system, it will reduce the financial cost of having to deal with illegal immigrants inside our borders, and we believe that it is the best way forward.”

Do you also feel that the intense focus on the southern borders addresses the long term perspectives?

“The Council has recommended to the Commission today, that we should expand our views to include also the eastern borders. We in the Council feel that it is necessary to improve the external borders on all aspects and not just focus on the southern borders.”

Do you think that possible  negotiations with Turkey in a “carrot perspective” should be included as a means of dealing with immigration in the next round of negotiations?

“I must say that I do not have the mandate to talk about that, at the moment. This is because we do not have the ministers present to cover the legal area on that topic.”

Do you have any further statements?

“I would just like to say that after today’s tour de table, where I have described the conclusions that we have come up with so far, of course no final agreement has been made yet. We are awaiting the Commission’s response, and so we cannot conclude upon anything until tomorrow.”

With the apparent rejection of resettlement, the Commission face the collapse of a central pillar in their initial proposal

In Tomorrow’s Edition: Where Do the National Delegations Stand On the Proposal?

by Agnieszka Sobień

French immigration politics has for a long time been based on the premise "to make  Frenchman out of the foreigner", but they feel they may have failed.

Greece does not feel that status quo is beneficial for them in respect to the migration policy and they feel disappointed that other countries do not feel the same way.

Poland underlines the importance of solidarity and burden-sharing.

Germany Appologizes for Erroneous Statement

Germany would like to correct the technical error that has occurred during the press conference of JHA ministers. By absolute accident and without intention of offending somebody, Federal Minister for the Interior, Hans-Peter Friedrich, mentioned that Germany had offered 300 million euro to Greece. It is of course the European Union which actually provides such funds in order to support member states in these instances.

Amnesty International Piles In On Greece

by Simona Ion Bădulescu

The last report of Amnesty International is entitled “Greece: Irregular migrants and asylum-seekers routinely detained in substandard conditions”. In this, Amnesty strongly underlines the violation of the fundamental human rights within the borders of Greece. According to their report, asylum-seekers, refugees and irregular migrants, including unaccompanied children, are routinely detained at the country’s points of entry. “In order to go to the toilet at nights I had to step over dozens of persons, men and women, sleeping on the floor of the cell and corridor”, declared a detained woman from Afghanistan in Greek custody. Amnesty raised concerns about the failure of Greek authorities to respect international standards in the detention of all such immigrants. They also mention that prolonged detention compounds the risk of human rights violations of detainees.

In reply to the NGO’s critics, Greece points out several aspects, not always taken into consideration by human rights organizations complaining. “Greece is doing what it can, but I admit that the situation is very critical at the moment. Our country is being flooded with illegal immigrants and our asylum system is breaking down. On the one hand they criticize the fence we are building on the border between Greece and Turkey; on the other they criticize our perceived lack of respect for human rights. What they don’t understand, is that these two factors are interconnected. The reason we put up the fence is so fewer people will come. The less the inflow, the better the conditions for those who come”, says Greek Prime Minister, Lucas Papademos.

The final statement the PM wants to express is his concerns about whether new proposals will come with sufficient funding: “New initiatives without solid financial backing of the EU could result in disaster”, he says.

What should we understand from this? Is Greece only willing to receive supplementary funds from the EU and not from Germany (as it was mentioned yesterday, on the official meeting of the summit)? Why don’t they focus on how to strengthen their borders, on how to make better conditions for the human beings that arrive on their land, or simply e a clear statement of how they’re going to use the funds they might receive? Maybe this could be the way they to bring Germany on their side without trying to emphasize solidarity arguments. “The EU is all about solidarity and seeing problems as European instead of national. Germany should know that. They also have a responsibility. I also want to stress that Germany will also suffer if changes are not made to the current framework.”, continues Papademos.

Is the Commission going to listen to other voices?

Furthermore, Amnesty International wants to attract the attention on a huge human rights violation in the Commission’s preliminary: "...the Commission proposes to make special agreements with third countries by establishing common maritime patrolling teams consisting of both EU and partner experts in close cooperation with FRONTEX [...] Here, we will also have an opportunity to prevent illegal entry before vessels appear on the EU's waters".  By this, the Commission is emphasizing the possibility for member states to send back persons to their point of departure without getting into form of investigation of their claims to asylum. Such a position has already been rejected by the European Court of Human Rights, when it ruled against Italy in the case of a group of 24 persons stopped by such a maritime patrol team and sent back to persecution in Libya.

Amnesty International calls on the Commission to monitor the situation in Greece closely and ensure that the Greek government improves the country’s respect for the human rights of migrants and asylum seekers significantly. 

Is ‘Merkozy’ Tagging to the Right? Nationalists on the Move

by Rikke Brammer Buk

Today Ms. Merkel, the Federal Chancellor of Germany and Mr. Sarkozy, President of the French Republic had a meeting with both the President and the Vice-president of the Alliance of European Nationalists Movements, Mr. Bruno Gollnisch and Mr. Nick Griffin.

The background was ostensibly that ‘Merkozy’ wanted to hear the nationalists’ position with regards to the proposal on the common EU migration policy by the European Commission.

We had a chance to ask Mr. Bruno Gollnisch a few quick questions after the meeting.

Rightists on a roll. Two very excited nationalists, Nick Griffin, British National Party, (left) and Bruno Gollnisch, Front National. The nationalists had very little traction when they arrived yesterday, but are now being consulted by the two most formidable EU leaders: Merkozy

Mr. Gollnisch, your party in France the National Front, is in a state of election mode back home, just as your President, Mr. Sarkozy. Do you worry that this meeting is an attempt to steal voters from your party?

“Taking the negotiations into account, I do not think that it is a publicity stunt by the French president. We are happy that heads of government share some of our policies and are willing to deal with the immigrant problems by taking very strict border controls into account.”

Did they seem excited about your proposals?

“To a certain degree, we could find a common ground among us.”

Does this mean that you feel represented in summit now?

“Definitely, definitely! We feel that by this meeting we are making a way through and that we are actually being heard and being taken seriously. We were a bit concerned yesterday that the heads of state were going to overlook us. We consider ourselves as being watch dogs on national level, but in  this case in order to ensure the national level, we have come to some agreement with the fact that a common European policy towards a strict border control is necessary.”

The Gallic Pride Is Not to Be Humbled - Sarkozy in a fighting mood

by Rikke Brammer Buk

Mr. Sarkozy, do you feel that the summits negotiations are going in the right direction?

“The Commission’s position is too soft. It is trying to solve current European problems of European immigration, but in their proposal there are some points that are extremely unacceptable for France, for instance burden-sharing and resettlement. France already has a population of approximately 14% of foreign origin. Until they are fully integrated, France does not wish to take on any new immigrants. This is due to the fact, that France's immigration policy has always been to make a Frenchman out of the foreigner, and so that we need to accomplish that with the ones we already have.”

What outcome of this summit would you fell is needed, in order for France to move away from ideas of returning to national borders?

France is trying to introduce a more strict rule against immigrants, in the light of a new wave of immigrants due to the Arab Spring. The perfect outcome for France would be that our delegation convinces our allies and friends in the EU at both the state and institutional levels, that more strict norms against immigration are needed for the EU. This is because Europe is suffering from the economical crisis and we cannot afford more immigrants.

For instance, yesterday Poland mentioned that they needed more immigrants due to the economical growth experienced in Poland. But if these immigrants to come to Poland, the Polish government should make sure that they bind these immigrants to Poland, and make sure these immigrants do not end up in France after a few months. We have better living conditions and better wages, and so immigrants tend to come to France. If this insurance of fixation is not given to France, we will be forced to extract ourselves from the Schengen Agreement.

How do you feel about the Commission’s proposal of Safe Ports in the neighbouring states of the EU?

It is the French position that we should take of our problem outside the EU. If we bring it inside, it is always harder to solve. So the French offer is, that we can establish asylum camps outside the European borders. These asylum camps or Safe Ports should be in states such as Tunisia, Turkey, and Ukraine. We must be sure that the new resettlement camps will comply with human rights. France is not against the Geneva Convention, and we are not against the Human Rights Convention. We respect all of these rules and we should make sure that these camps for asylum seekers outside our borders follow these rules.

What do you hope to gain from today's meeting with the Alliance of European Nationalist Movements and German Federal Chancellor Merkel on the Commission’s proposal? 

We decided to meet them because the representative and the president of the national movements are French and besides the fact that they are rather radical, we decided to meet them and listen to what their positions are, towards a common EU Immigration Policy. Also what their opinions and suggestions are in the light of the Commissions proposal.

Conference Nearly Washed Away - Foul Play Suspected

Massive flooding due to 

as yet unexplained circumstances 

to blame for today’s major 

re-scheduling  and relocation efforts

by Agnieszka Sobień

Who or what caused locked doors and flooding this morning at the conference venue?

That was the question repeatedly asked by all delegation members trying unsuccessfully to access their meeting rooms.

The flooding in the conference centre was the first problem. It seems to have occurred just before Commissioners and other delegates had to face the immigration policy negotiations this morning.

There are rumors that certain interest groups might know more than they let on about these problems. The Alliance of European Nationalists Movements is one of the most audible voices of the opposition to the whole immigration policy idea. They would be in favor of keeping immigrants in camps on the borders, and preferably in their own or third countries and not have deal with that issue at all. However, would they be so determined to sabotage the summit?

 Since the Amnesty activists are closely allied with the La Strada International, and have apparently been cooperating intensively with this group, maybe the anti-traffickers could ‘help authorities with their inquiries’? La Strada certainly has no reason to be satisfied with yesterday’s vague official responses to their concerns about human trafficking. Is this a desperate bid to influence the Commission in a highly unconventional way?

Today’s dramatic events gave

 a new meaningto the word ’lockout

Should we consider other NGO's as possible culprits of the affair? Would the friendly bartenders who have been seen lobbying extensively on behalf of Amnesty International turn to such extra-parliamentary actions, to counter their unofficial status and lack understanding from the Commission, perhaps to in a hope to generate more press attention?

Other possibilities might be extremely quiet delegation of Italy. Their enormous problems with immigrants would suggest that they have to take some actions. Is this perhaps the equivalent of a horse’s head in the bed of the Danish presidency and the Commission?

Commission plays down trafficking as a non-important issue

by Agnieszka Sobień

European Union is considered as a major player and supporter of the human rights, perhaps second only to the United Nations and the Council of Europe. Thus, human rights were also heavily emphasized in the Commission’s vague proposal presented during yesterday’s Town Hall meeting. 

Nevertheless, the issue of human trafficking was not mentioned in that proposal and it seemed as if the Commission forgot about it or weren't willing to seriously talk about this particular problem. Commissioner for Home Affairs, Cecilia Malmström, tried not to lose face, but her statement on the issue was far from convincing to those, such as La Strada, concerned of the treatment of trafficking victims: "At this point, the issue of trafficking is addressed to a lesser extent only due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of irregular migration is comprised by people crossing the borders voluntarily, seeking asylum or immigration due to economic reasons." This rejection is all the more noteworthy due to the fact that even the Commission’s own expert on the area remarked upon the lack of focus on this problem. This, however, did not seem to bother the Commission that much or at least "not at this point". One must ask oneself if the EU expert was expressing her own opinions or opinions of some of the member states. Should we expect some disclaimer from the Commission today or was it just a way of sounding out the negotiations and a trial to catch some countries attention to the issue?

f one looks into the details of today's press conference, it may turn out that EU is not as focused on humanitarian issues as a quick scan of their proposal would indicate. When questioned about primary education for children in refugee camps, Commissioner for Home Affairs Cecilia Malmström’s  answer actually did not shed any light on the issue. It does not sit well with EU’s support for the UN Millennium Development Goals when the Commission does not include such an important issue in their proposal. However, vague responses and lack of specific plans characterized most of the answers as well as the proposal itself. 

An organization deeply worried about the current proposal draft is La Strada International. They are trying to influence the Commission in order to include the trafficking problem into the debate and agenda which is leading up to the finalization of a common EU migration policy. As International Coordinator Suzanne Hoff puts it, "The Commission seems to be a bit reluctant to state an opinion on it [trafficking]. If you don’t specifically include trafficking, they [trafficking victims] would just be treated as undocumented migrants and maybe criminalized if the Dublin II Agreement’s detention for 18 month, which remains in effect."

Interview with Bruno Gollnisch - The most shunned man at the summit

A smiling doom-crier.

 Bruno Gollnisch i s very concerned 

about immigrants and in 

particular those coming to France

by Simona Ion Bădulescu

Do we need a common European migration policy?

I would say we need it only to some degree, but we definitely need a national migration policy. If we can agree on a European level to be able to limit in various ways the flows of immigrants in Europe and keep it very strict, then I would say ”Yes” to a Common European Immigration Policy.

If you could insert one point in the final document, what would it be?

My point in the final document would be to make sure immigrants are dealt with outside of Europe. And if we have to take a part of burden sharing, then it should apply only to people in the utmost need of help. There are too many cases of people taking advantage of Europe and the possibilities the immigrants think they can have when entering Europe. They see it as an easy way out. Therefore, the European politicians also have a big responsibility in creating  this image of Europe being “a land of milk and honey”, where everybody can just go if they’re having any problems because Europe fixes everything. That is definitely not the idea with Europe. This creates a huge burden for nation states and of course my home country, France. Note the recent events in Toulouse.

What is the greatest obstacle to a common migration policy?

The great flows of immigrants within Europe, if it’s not dealt in a proper way. My interest group, my colleagues and I, we are all very much aware of the problem, but we want to make sure to deal with the problem outside of Europe, before taking it up within. I also think the same with too many immigrants into Europe creates greats risks and a heavy financial burden upon European citizens and upon nation states.

What are the odds of a successful summit?

They all seemed very understanding and willing to cooperate in coming to an agreement. That is definitely our opportunity and the obligation at the Alliance of European Nationalists Movements: to ensure or to be the watchdogs of the national countries and of European culture as well.

Who has most at stake at the upcoming summit?

The situation in Southern Europe is very severe but I think all of us are facing a potential crisis due to these migration problems. Of course, Italy and Greece are suffering the most. However, these problems could come to Germany, France and so on, and that is the really scary part of it. France is also suffering, especially now if we have to take into account the incidents in Toulouse. If not dealt in the right way, this summit could be the spark which sets Europe ablaze.

What will be the consequences of failure at the upcoming summit?

The honest and hard-working people of Europe, the every-day man will suffer the most from immigration. They do not deserve to be overflowed with further influxes, particularly in the urban areas.

What is the most important goal of European cooperation?

Making sure that our already unstable economy stays intact, because we cannot afford a worse situation if this outcome of the Arab Spring causes economic burdens in the European countries. We are already facing deep economic problems and this situation will only make things worse. The jobs of hard working Europeans will be threatened by these huge numbers of immigrants wanting to become permanent residents.

What do you see as the EU’s greatest achievement?

In my opinion, EU’s greatest achievement would be only if this Common European Immigration Policy will take into account the large numbers of immigrants and if it contained different measurements that would put limits regarding the flows of immigrants.

Who is your favorite European?

My favourite European? Through history you mean? Well, I am from France, so Emperor Napolen, of course. He was a genius!

Where in Europe would you most like to have lunch (and why)?

Paris, because there is no better cuisine than the French, of course. I have a favourite café in France, near Seine and it’s absolutely beautiful. French food is delicious, I would definitely recommend that cafe. However, I would like to keep the name of the cafe a secret as I don’t want people not sharing my political orientation seeking me out there. I’ll keep that to myself.

Bruno Gollnisch:

President of the Alliance of European Nationalist Movements.

A leading member of France’s Front National he holds degrees in both political science and law.

He was also fined and given a suspende 3-months prison sentence in 2007 for denying the Holocaust, saying:

”I do not question the existence of concentration camps but historians could discuss the number of deaths. As to the existence of gas chambers, it is up to historians to speak their minds ("de se déterminer")”