nEUwsletter 18/11/2019

Massive protests over Czech’s anniversary of Revolution

By Mathilde Flamant

Demonstrators wave Czech flags as others gather below for anti-government rally, a day ahead of the 30th anniversary of the 1989 Velvet Revolution - Reuters

This 17th November 2019, on the eve of the 30th anniversary of Revolution ending communism in Czech Republic, Prague has faced massive protests.

On the 17th November 1989, a student’s demonstration against communism was violently scattered by the police. The following day, a general strike emerged in the country, leading to the collapse of the communist government. This event, known as the velvet revolution marks the fall of the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) in what was then Czechoslovakia.

Thirty years after this decisive turn for the Czechs, Prague’s ghosts of communism are still hanging over the city. Indeed, the city was invaded by almost 250 000 protesters according to the Czech’s Home Secretary Jan Hamacek. The demonstration took place in Letna Park, where most of the rallies of November 1989 occurred. The protesters were calling for Andrej Babis, the Czech’s Prime Minister, to resign over allegations of fraud.

Mr Babis is the fifth biggest fortune of the country, according to Forbes. He is leading the populist centrism political movement that he created, ANO, based on the former movement Action of Dissatisfied Citizens. As he has a minority alliance with the socio-democrats, the Prime Minister is backed by the communist party in Parliament. Meanwhile his political role, Mr Babis is also the owner of the Agrofert conglomerate, a Czech conglomerate holding company, and Mafra media group.

Former communist, the Prime Minister is confronted to many accusations of corruption and to an inquiry of the European Commission over conflicts of interest within his holding Agrofert. The group that organized the protest, Million Moments for Democracy Association, wants the resignation of Mr Babis, even though he still leads the poll with more than 30% of the votes.

The frightening WHO's report on prisoner's health around Europe

By Hélène Veysseyre

The WHO report said prisoners are most at risk of suicide, self-harm and drug overdoses shortly after they are released (AFP Photo/Philippe LOPEZ)

On November 21th 2019, the World Health Organization published a new report called “WHO status report on prison health in the WHO European Region”. Notwithstanding the fact that in 2017, European countries spent 20,2 billion on prisons, the report shows that the healthcare situation is still alarming in some parts of Europe, as the situation is fluctuation according to the countries. Indeed, among the analysis of data collected in prisons around 39 countries in Europe, the report describes two main weaknesses of the prison health, namely the lack of health professionals as well as overcrowded prisons.

Regarding the issue of professionals the results are irregular. As an example, in Portugal, there are only 8,6 caregivers, one of whom is a doctor, for 1000 prisoners. In Russia, there are 32,1 caregivers for 1000 prisoners but only 11,5 doctors among those 32,1 caregivers. In comparison, in France, the amount of caregivers is higher with 49,9 caregivers for 1000 prisoners, but among those 49,9 caregivers, there are only 3,4 doctors. Those numbers are really significant, as the average of doctors in Europe is 10 for 1000 prisoners and the average of caregivers is 31 for 1000 prisoners.

Also, overcrowded prison is a factor of weakness. The Council of Europe points out 8 countries in Europe, including North Macedonia, Russia, France, Poland and UK. In North Macedonia, there are 122 prisoners for 100 places, whereas the average in Europe is 91 prisoners for 100 places.

Those weaknesses are corroborated by the mental health issue, either during and after prison. According to data, 14% of deaths while in detention are caused by suicide. After the release of prisoners, the amount of former prisoners committing suicide or overdose is two times higher in Eastern Europe than in Western Europe, counting 500 deads for 100 000 former prisoners. That number is especially serious, as in comparison, the world average is 10 deads for 100 000 former prisoners.

Those results are dramatic for prisoners as well as for the countries because as the healthcare access is diminished in prison, it will have a negative impact on countries’ economy afterward as prisoners who did not have access to health care while in prison will wait until their release, causing aggravation to their health, and additional expensive care.

Denmark and France Working in Tandem for the Amendment of the European Asylum and Refugee Policy

By Nomfundo Ndlwana

Credits: Michel Euler / AP

On Monday the 18th November, the Danish Prime Minister, Mette Fredericksen and the French President, Emmanuel Macron gleefully hugged and kissed in Paris in the consolidation of their plan to amend the EU migration policy. They propose a remodelling of the current EU policy, which Fredericksen asserts is ill-suited for securing the integrity of the European borders. This proposal is likely to harm refugees and asylum seekers dearly. Though they fell short of verbalising such as an intended objective, it is beggars belief that it isn’t. This proposal is Macron’s initiative, for months he has been applying pressure for the extensive revision of the EU migrant policy, summoning for an imposition of tighter measures that strengthen the EU borders. Macron has already established these changes in his domestic French policy, where migrant workers' quotas are set to be introduced next summer. In Frederickson, Macron has received an EU ally that supports his initiative.

In their meeting on Monday, Frederickson and Macron explored avenues for overhauling Europe’s immigration policies. They emphatically called for more unified EU rules on granting asylum, which they believe is the best strategy for the realisation of controlled immigration into Europe. Paradoxically and without elaborating, Frederickson described the current asylum system as inhumane, with Macron approving that a revised plan is requisite. The irony in Frederickson’s description of the current asylum system is that by tightening the borders, the ultimate of victims to the venom of these proposed measures will be the asylum seekers and refugees. Macron has even begun to win over right-wing voters in his plan for the future promulgation of stricter EU immigration policies that will place a limit on the asylum and refugee status in the rest of Europe. He lusts after the prioritisation of the protection of the Europeans borders; and a ‘fair’ distribution of asylum seekers throughout the EU. Macron is very cognisant of the disparities in the carrying capacity amongst the EU member States, hence, his proposal is not cogent. Last month in the assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, Macron put forth his argument that while the right to asylum is foundational in western democracy, this right will cease to exist if it is continuously abused.

An educated guess would be it is because of the free movement policy of the EU that Macron wants to impose his domestic immigration policy on the rest of Europe. Macron’s Prime Minister, Edouard Phillippe, has recently emphasised the decision to take back control of their domestic immigration policies, going further to state they will open their borders only where they see it advantageous for France and restrict it where it isn’t. France has also pledged to relocate the encampments of up to 3000 migrants at the northern border of Paris by the end of this year. Macron hopes to exploit the rightwing sentiments embodied by the Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National Party (RNP) to build a strong base of support among white French voters because of its anti-immigration stance. The RNP has been expressing its feelings of resentment towards excessive immigration for a while, especially by Muslims from North Africa.

The Ukrainian conflict explained

By Alexandre Capel

Credits: iStock

Ukraine has always been torn between Europe on the west and Russia on the east. This division appeared even more clearly within the country in November 2013 after President Viktor Yanukovych’s decision to withdraw unilaterally from an EU economic deal which provided a greater integration. Indeed, demonstrations were immediately organized by EU supporters in various Ukrainian cities and especially in Kyiv where many protestors have unfortunately been victims of repression. This violent crackdown by state security forces drew an even greater number of protestors and escalated the conflict. To such an extent that, the Ukrainian president fled the country in February 2014. He was then dismissed by parliament and replaced by an interim president.

However, the regions of eastern Ukraine (Crimea…), mostly Russian-speaking and opposed to the EU supporting movement, do not recognize the new institutions and the new head of State. In response to that, the Ukrainian parliament decided to withdraw the status of official languages from regional languages, including Russian. Therefore, it was the beginning of the troubles.

In March 2014, Putin’s troops took control of Ukraine’s Crimean region, before formally annexing the peninsula after Crimeans voted to join the Russian Federation in a disputed local referendum. The crisis heightened ethnic divisions, and factions started to fight each other.

In July 2014, the situation in Ukraine escalated into an international crisis and put the United States and the European Union (EU) at odds with Russia when a Malaysian Airlines flight was shot down over Ukrainian airspace, killing all 298 onboard.

Since, February 2015, France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine have attempted to broker a cessation in violence through the Minsk Accords.

EU in the US-China trade war

By Ruiling Zhang

Credits: Shutterstock

At present, Europe is transfixed by Brexit and its potential consequences, but it is not the only threat that European leaders are currently grappling with. The US-China trade war and its influence on the global trading system are also of concern, with the hypothesis of a short-term disruption and a medium/long-term threat to the global system.

For the Sino-US trade war, it seems that no one can benefit from it. One-third of the world's total economy is contributed by the United States and China. The negative development of economic relations between the two countries will bring risks to the trend of the world economy. The EU may also become an indirect hapless as it cannot protect itself and may only control the scale of the loss. In the next five years, there will be a decline in economic growth, leading, among others, to an increase of unemployment.

Trump announced the imposition of punitive tariffs on steel and aluminum, targeting all trading partners. On that point, the EU and China have largely stood on the same side. Although the United States is seeking the EU as an ally of its trade war with China, the EU still needs to wait for the United States to continue exempting the tariff on steel and aluminum products. This can be clearly observed from the fact that the leaders of France and Germany have not achieved the expected results from the successive visits to the United States at the end of April. On the issue of EU trade surplus with the US, Trump will confuse the demands of the NATO allies on military spending with the tariff hazard.

In today's world political landscape, the countries that can be referred to as "global players" are undoubtedly the United States, Russia and China. Although the process of European integration has been going on for more than half a century, the EU seems unable to compete with China and the United States in the political economy or the military field, let alone a single EU country. In the international politics that always pay attention to interests, involving the Sino-US trade disputes, the EU is mainly concerned with its own interests, so it will not and will not easily fall to either side.