Tag Archives: France

World day against cyber-censorship: France “under surveillance”

12 March 2011: The world day against cyber-censorship:

Launched by Reporters Without Borders in 2008, World Day Against Cyber-Censorship (on 12 March 2011) is intended to rally everyone in support of a single Internet without restrictions and accessible to all.

The fight for online freedom of expression is more essential than ever. By creating new spaces for exchanging ideas and information, the Internet is a force for freedom. In countries where the traditional media are controlled by the government, the only independent news and information are to be found on the Internet, which has become a forum for discussion and a refuge for those who want to express their views freely.

However, more and more governments have realised this and are reacting by trying to control the Internet. Never have so many countries been affected by some form of online censorship, whether arrests or harassment of netizens, online surveillance, website blocking or the adoption of repressive Internet laws. Netizens are being targeted by government reprisals. Around 117 of them are currently detained for expressing their views freely online, mainly in China, Iran and Vietnam.

World Day Against Cyber-Censorship pays tribute to them and their fight for Internet freedom. Reporters Without Borders will mark the occasion by issuing its latest list of “Enemies of the Internet.”

RSF produced a nice website, a report (pdf) and a rather interesting map highlighting not only the “enemies of the Internet” (which are quite easy to guess) but also “countries under surveillance“. And there is bad news for Europe:  For the first time a EU member state has made it into the ‘surveillance’ category:  So, congratulations France – unfortunately it is not a huge surprise given the French three strikes legislation. It is however a timely reminder that internet censorship is also a problem in Europe!

Enemies of the Internet: Burma, China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam

Countries ‘under surveillance’: Australia, Bahrain, Belarus, Egypt, Eritrea, France, Libya, Malaysia, Russia, South Korea, Sri Lnaka, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela

 

Tagged , , , , , , ,

EU diplomacy on Egypt: Business as usual

As the story in Egypt unfolds it is interesting (and depressing as usual) to watch EU diplomacy in practice. Especially with all the talk about the “one voice in the world” and the reforms of the Lisbon Treaty (EEAS etc.).  Well, “quiet diplomacy” in action, I suppose!

So, what happened in the EU institutions so far? High Rep Catherine Ashton gave a statement on Egypt on Thursday (pdf) and on Friday evening (pdf). On Saturday European Council President Van Rompuy also issued a statement (pdf). All statements seemed very moderate and basically called all parties to refrain from violence.  However almost none of this made it into the mainstream media. Having watched the excellent Al Jazeera live stream during the last days I think it is safe to say to most people following the event did not heard of these statements. But why is that? Apart from political and institutional disagreements we could witness a few basic public diplomacy mistakes (This post is NOT  about EU-Egypt relations! Suffice to say that Egypt is in the EU neighbourhood and is included in the ENP. The question whether the EU has a coherent and efficient policy in place is another (and very important) question that I don’t want to discuss here):

  • It was obvious on Friday afternoon around 3pm/4pm (Brussels time) what was happening in Egypt. However, no statement of Ashton in the afternoon. The statement was published in the evening – after a statement of Hillary Clinton (at least this is how I remember it).  It would have been crucial to put out a statement before Washington wakes up to the story because as long as the Americans do not react on a story all media outlets would at least consider to report the EU reaction. (Not to mention the difficulty for the US to criticise Mubarak and Obama’s failure to mention “democracy” in his speech on Friday – a real opportunity for the EU!) The first crucial reaction is important if one wants to shape the discourse and influence events!
  • The most striking EU problem has been the lack of any video footage. This is a basic PR mistake. Public diplomacy only exists if the public knows about your diplomacy. Especially in the case of the “televised” protests in Egypt it would have been a good opportunity to get Ashton on TV!  Is it really that difficult to organise an exclusive Ashton interview for Al Jazeera?  Or a press conference with Catherine Ashton, let’s  say on Friday at 5pm?  Later in the evening Clinton and Obama appeared on TV and the pictures were circulated on all major news outlets…
  • I know these criticisms might be a bit unfair given that the EU’s Foreign Affairs Council will take place on Monday 31/1  and the agenda has been changed and Egypt is now included.  However, a joint statement of all 27 EU Member States 3 days after Friday 28/1 and almost a week after 25/1 is just too late. Even if the EU manages at least to agree on one  position – nobody will take notice (I hope I am wrong on this though!) So, the timing needs to be improved.
  • It is difficult to coordinate 27 MfAs but this is the job of Ms Ashton – also on a Friday afternoon or during the weekend! We were promised that the Lisbon Treaty would make everything more efficient – well it is not happening, is it?  And statements are not (yet) policy – here the High Rep can improvise to a certain extent (there are quite a few documents on EU-Egypt relations that can be used for inspiration)! One could come to the conclusion that the lack of foreign policy expertise of Ms Ashton is part of the problem here. She does not seem to have a “feeling” for the situation. So if the EU is serious about being an actor in international politics it needs to react more quickly on major international events! It’s the media, stupid!
  • And on Saturday we also witnessed the “worst case scenario” in  EU foreign policy. A joint statement of the UK, France, Germany on Egypt. The “big three”: Angela Merkel, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy took over, issued a statement and it made it into all major news! The statement was published in German, English and French on the respective national websites:

“We are deeply concerned about the events that we are witnessing in Egypt. We recognise the moderating role President Mubarak has played over many years in the Middle East. We now urge him to show the same moderation in addressing the current situation in Egypt.”

“We call on President Mubarak to avoid at all costs the use of violence against unarmed civilians, and on the demonstrators to exercise their rights peacefully.

“It is essential that the further political, economic and social reforms President Mubarak has promised are implemented fully and quickly and meet the aspirations of the Egyptian people.

“There must be full respect for human rights and democratic freedoms, including freedom of expression and communication, including use of telephones and the internet, and the right of peaceful assembly.”

“The Egyptian people have legitimate grievances and a longing for a just and better future. We urge President Mubarak to embark on a process of transformation which should be reflected in a broad-based government and in free and fair elections.”

So, business as usual. No “common” foreign policy of the EU. The “big three” sideline the EU and dominate the headlines and the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday.  One could of course argue whether “one voice – one policy” or ” many voices – one policy” is the better strategy. However, it would be interesting to know whether they actually tried to organise a EU initiative or if the call for “free and fair elections”(arguably, the most radical part of the statement) is really contested among EU member states? Another question is if Ms Ashton knew about this initiative and whether she agreed with it…

Update 31/1/2011:  Council Conclusions on Egypt (pdf)

—–

Update 11/2/2011: Mubarak resigned – and the EU must have learnt a lesson! High Rep Ashton reacted rather quickly. (maybe an indication that the resignation was not such a surprise?) One hour after the official annoucment of Mubaraks resignation, High Rep Ashton did a live TV interview on the BBC and on Al Jazeera! She must have been the first international politician giving a statement on live TV. As a result most press coverage included Ashton’s remarks, official US statements came only several hours later. Furthermore, two hours after the resignation a press briefing in Brussels was organised and a joint statement of High Rep Ashton, European Counicl President Van Rompuy, Commission President Barroso was issued. It was quite an impressive performance of EU public diplomacy!

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Romania’s clumsy way to Schengen

Four years after its accession to the EU, Romania is facing its first big test: the accession to the Schengen zone. Part of the accession treaty, but conditioned by the fulfilment of clear technical criteria regarding border management and security, the accession of Romania and Bulgaria was scheduled to take place in March 2011. But, as we all know, the EU seldom functions by written Treaty rules only. Instead, it is all about a perpetual horse-trading, formal and informal negotiations and- not to be neglected- political games. The old Member States know this game all too well and naturally use it to their advantage. The new Member States (and I cant help wondering how much longer we will be calling them “new”, after 7 and respectively 4 years from accession) are still learning. And like in every learning process, some pupils are learning quicker than others.

Unfortunately Romania proves to be one of the slow learners and the way it is handling the Schengen accession issue is a very good illustration. After France and Germany made it clear that they would rather see Romania’s and Bulgaria’s accession postponed to a later date when the two countries will be better prepared, bringing as the strongest argument their still very corrupt justice system, Romania decided to take a strong position. That would be all perfectly justifiable, especially given the fact that technically, it is ready to join the Schengen area, if only Romanian politicians had benefited from the socialisation process in the last four years and had learned how to properly use the rules of the game in their favour. Instead, the messages Romania has been sending in the last days come across as desperate childish attempts to threaten the EU with blocking ongoing processes such as Croatia’s accession (on the pretext that any future Member States should also have a Co-operation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), like Romania and Bulgaria do) and the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty amendment allowing for the new 18 MEPs to take their seats in the European Parliament. What Romania is naively trying to achieve with this is to “hurt” France and Germany (although it is Spain that benefits the most from the additional MEPs), but such statements and, even worse, actions fit much better in a kindergarten than in the EU arena.

What Romania is proving in the last days is that:

  1. it has not learned anything in the last four years about how the EU really functions, what are the main institutional players, what is the balance of power and how can one best influence the decision-making process; and here I mostly refer to the informal mechanisms, the things one learns by doing, the product of the so called “socialisation process”, although I still have doubts about how clear the formal mechanisms are to Romanian politicians, and the latest developments are only reinforcing these doubts;
  2. it lacks a coherent strategy to reach the goal of Schengen accession; after the EU accession process was completed, the various political forces in Romania have not been able to work together to create a constructive position for Romania to assume at the EU level; instead, contradictory messages from Romanian officials kept reaching Brussels, each one defending its domestic political position, without even realising the harm they do to Romania’s image and interest. In a sense, one can say that all these inconsistencies and the lack of a clear official stance fueled the arguments against the March 2011 accession. Romania has thus shot itself in the foot, thanks to the messy internal political scene but also to the ignorance (and lack of interest) regarding the functioning of the EU and the role Romania can and should be playing in it;
  3. its officials lack tact and diplomatic skills; not that this is any news, but this situations proves once more the inability of Romanian politicians and diplomats to, first of all, prevent such incidents from occurring and, secondly, once they’ve occurred, to try to suggest reasonable solutions or at the very least (and I am really lowering my expectations here!) refrain from making ridiculous statements. Not only was it bad enough that the Foreign Minister said that Romania can, and probably should, unilaterally withdraw from the CVM, President Basescu suggested yesterday, while assuming his responsibility for the possible postponing of Schengen accession, that in case Romania is not offered a clear and definite deadline to join Schengen, the funds that were meant to be used for securing the borders should be used for other purposes, such as helping SMEs. No comment.

While, on the one hand, it does not seem fair that new conditions are added while the process is ongoing (the criteria are, after all, just of a technical nature, although, in principle, one can easily link corruption with border security), Romania should have been prepared for such a situation and should have come up with a lobbying strategy for the major EU capitals instead of the lame attempts to blackmail the big Member States with issues that can, at best, only backfire and hurt the country’s image in the EU. Unfortunately, this is just an example of Romania’s negotiation “skills” (or lack thereof) in the EU arena; if this trend continues, Romania can forget about ever exerting any influence (despite its size) in the decision-making process. The first lesson it needs to learn is how to use the power of informal mechanisms in its favour instead of falling victim to it, like in the Schengen accession story.

Update 7/1/2011:  According to EUobserver, Romania’s president Basescu announced that Romania would not take any of the proposed retaliatory measures (see above) because they could “backfire against Romania”. But Basescu  also complained about the lack of solidarity: “It was overnight and without a warning. I would have expected that one of my colleagues in the Council – either Mr Sarkozy or Ms Merkel – to say ‘look, Mr President, we will be against it.’ But they didn’t and you know that normally in the Council there is talk about solidarity.” Be that as it may, early warning  is also the task of the Romanian diplomats in Brussels…

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Kosmolinks #12

The “Kosmolinks” are finally back, and with the help of diigo I will try to make it a weekly feature! You can also watch and navigate through a slide show of all live pages of “Kosmolinks”: Just click here to start the “WebSlides”!

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

The new Eiffel Tower!?

I was quite surprised when I came across the plans to build an extension on top of the Eiffel Tower in Paris. The aim is obvious: To enlarge the capacity for the visitor platform at the top level! There are some more pictures on the website of the architects. It is not quite clear whether this is the final and approved design of the extension. But if you know more about this project feel free to leave a comment! I was also not aware of any public discussion about this rather significant change of one of the most known European landmarks! Has there been any public discourse on this issue in France?

I must admit I don’t like the new extension. It somewhat changes and thus destroys the whole structure and architectural concept of the original tower design. What is your opinion?

http://www.serero.com/projects/eiffel/text/eiffel_notes_en.htm

Update: The architects posted a clarification on their website:  “Our project for a the temporary extension of the Eiffel tower is an unsolicited proposal to the Eiffel Tower management company. We are confirming that the SETE did not organized a competition on this topic, in contrary with what was announced in the press.” (read more here)

eiffel tower

top

Tagged , , , ,

Total Denial

Total Denial is an amazing documentary about an historic lawsuit connected with the UNOCAL/TOTAL oil pipeline in Burma. One of the few screenings of the film took place in Brussels on Friday (organised by Avocats Sans Frontières), check out the official movie page here for more dates and details:

Total Denial is the story of a historic lawsuit: Fifteen villagers from the jungles of Burma bringing suit against a giant oil corporation for human-rights abuses, in U.S. courts. After ten years of fierce legal battles, the impossible victory.”

At the same time the outcome of the lawsuit will change the legal framework for corporations worldwide. For the first time a company was sued for human rights violations committed overseas. Even though this case was possible in the US under the Alien Torts Claim Act (a law introduced in 1789!) similar cases are pending in Europe (for example in France and Belgium). Here is the trailer:

After the movie the director Milena Kaneva shared her thoughts about the implications of the movie with the audience which was indeed an inspiring and very interesting experience. However, the movie is still in need for some additional funding and support (distribution, DVD production…) … so if you have a some spare money or if you know a potential funding institution go to the sponsorship section of the official homepage… (Normally I do not use this blog for fundraising purposes but this is an exception: this documentary is definitely worth it!)

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tower of Babel

Every now and then a little language war breaks out in the EU institutions. Spain lobbies for Spanish to become one of the official working languages (at the moment: English, French and German) because it is one of most spoken languages worldwide. Germany (sometimes together with Austria) claims that German became more popular after the EU Enlargement. Italy, a big and proud country also wants its language to be considered….Usually not much is happening after attempts like that. And normally these lobbying activities are also quite diplomatic…..

But now the French really exaggerated it. Following a translation mistake a while ago, it seems that Maurice Druon (a member of the Academie Francaise who was also awarded with a K.B.E!) is heading an emergency task force to save French as the universal language in the EU (which is to a certain extent English). And his arguments are really convincing:

“The Italian language is the language of song, German is good for philosophy and English for poetry, French is best at precision, it has a rigour to it. It is the safest language for legal purposes.” He argued that French should be “the authoritative” language as it is both related to Latin – in which Roman law was written – as well as the language of the Napoleonic code.

Obviously, there is quite an extensive list of songs, poetry, philosophy and literature written in all languages and it is really disgrace if such an educated man like Mr. Druon makes such a simplistic statement. Indeed, French is routed in Latin but this is also true for Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and Romanian. And besides Roman law and the Napoleonic code we have (fortunately) other legal traditions as well….

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why not a referendum? Look at the polls!

OK, I know this is not very ‘democratic’ but I am happy that someone opened up the debate on the limits of participatory democracy. Lately, the idea of holding a referendum is often presented as THE one and only democratic instrument that we have (especially by Madame Royal). Strangely enough, only relating to EU issues, never because of domestic policies. Anyway,  after the failed referenda on the EU constitutional treaty in France and the Netherlands, we could clearly see in what kind of mess you can run with holding a referendum with uninformed people that lost trust in their national politicians.  (hope this is enough provocation for some mean comments!)

So, here is some food for thought from Michel Godet via eurotopics:

If we are not careful, participatory democracy may consecrate the triumph of self-interest in the short-term (the only unfair inequalities are those that we do not benefit from!) at the expense of long-term collective interest. The courageous decisions to be taken regarding the future are rarely consensual and if forecasting needs be participatory, the strategy that it inspires is up to the elected members of Parliament. It is up to them to demonstrate will power and courage in order to avoid participatory demagogy.

Here the link to the original article in French: Démocratie ou démagogie?

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,