Our World in 2017

www.neweurope.eu
24 TH YEAR OF PUBLICATION NUMBER 1193 JANUARY 2017 € 5
Our World in 2017
EPA/FRANCK ROBICHON
Mónica
Aspe
Dimitris
Avramopoulos
Gabriela
Cuevas Barron
Diane
M. Bryant
Ömer
Çelik
Corina
Crețu
David Luna
Sanchéz
Huebner
Danuta-Maria
Caroline
Jenner
Christine
Lagarde
MORE THAN 100
LEADING THINKERS
VISUALISE OUR
WORLD IN 2017
Antonio Lopez
Istúriz White
Juan Manuel
Santos
Monica
Macovei
Maroš
Šefčovič
Gina
Miller
Maria
Spyraki
Tibor
Navracsics
Christos
Stylianides
Gianni
Pittella
Donald
Tusk
Thomasz
Piotr Poręba
Manfred
Weber
Robert W.
Quinn, Jr.
Jan
Zahradil
www.neweurope.eu/2017

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-02
www.neweurope.eu
NEW EUROPE
EDITOR
Alexandros Koronakis
a@neweurope.eu
PRINCIPAL EDITORIAL ADVISOR
Theodoros Benakis (Print ed.)
tb@neweurope.eu
SENIOR EDITORIAL TEAM
Kostis Geropoulos
(Energy & Russian Affairs)
kg@neweurope.eu
Dan Alexe (EU Affairs)
da@neweurope.eu
Irene Kostaki (EU Affairs)
ik@neweurope.eu
Louise Kissa (Fashion)
lk@neweurope.eu
EXECUTIVE LAYOUT PRODUCER
Suman Haque
sh@neweurope.eu
ISSN NUMBER: 1106-8299
NEW EUROPE MEDIA CEO
Basil A. Coronakis
coronakis@neweurope.eu
LEGAL AFFAIRS DIRECTOR
Ariti Alamanou (Legal Affairs)
aa@neweurope.eu
SUBSCRIPTIONS & DISTRIBUTION
subscriptions@neweurope.eu
Subscriptions are available worldwide
INDEPENDENCE
New Europe is a privately owned
independent publication, and is not
subsidised or financed in any way by
any EU institution or other entity.
BRUSSELS HEADQUARTERS
Av. de Tervuren/Tervurenlaan 96,
1040 Brussels, Belgium
Tel. +32 2 5390039
Fax +32 2 5390339
info@neweurope.eu
New Europe (print and digital) accepts external contributions for publication under the
conditions of no financial or other obligation, no obligation for publishing and no obligation to
return manuscripts photographs or videos.
Signed Contributions express solely the views of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the
opinion of the newspaper. NE is printed on recycled paper.
© 2017 New Europe all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored
in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or otherwise, without
express permission. The Publishers accept no liability for third party views published, nor
damage caused by reading, viewing or using our content. All information is correct at the time
of going to print, we accept no liabilities for consequent changes.
On the front cover, a woman (C) poses
for photographs in Japanese painter
Shigeki Matsuyama's art installation
'Narcissism: Dazzle room' during the
'rooms 33' fashion and design trade
show at Yoyogi National Stadium
in Tokyo, Japan, 14 September
2016. Photograph by EPA/Franck
Robichon.
Choosing a photo for the front cover
took hours of debate and discussion.
The photo to be used had to be hopeful
but not too much so, interesting yet
not not straight-forward, with enough
lack of definition to make the year
to come still within our grasp of
creation. ‘Narcissism: Dazzle room’
mystified us, caught our attention in
different ways, and left us wanting the
artwork to come alive and tell us more
about itself. The black and white, like
a child’s colouring book, suddenly
became Our World in 2017, with
different colours seeking a chance to
colour it’s spaces as history unfolds.
We hope you enjoy this edition, and
the over 100 authors that have come
together to make it a reality, each one
adding his own shade of colour and
defining line in the year to come. It is
our dream that each of you will have
www.neweurope.eu
24 TH YEAR OF PUBLICATION NUMBER 1193 JANUARY 2017 € 5
Our World in 2017
Mónica
Aspe
Dimitris
Avramopoulos
Gabriela
Cuevas Barron
MORE THAN 100
LEADING THINKERS
VISUALISE OUR
WORLD IN 2017
www.neweurope.eu/2017
Diane
M. Bryant
Antonio Lopez
Istúriz White
Juan Manuel
Santos
Ömer
Çelik
Monica
Macovei
Maroš
Šefčovič
Corina
Crețu
Gina
Miller
Maria
Spyraki
David Luna
Sanchéz
Tibor
Navracsics
Christos
Stylianides
Huebner
Danuta-Maria
Gianni
Pittella
Donald
Tusk
Caroline
Jenner
Thomasz
Piotr Poręba
Manfred
Weber
Christine
Lagarde
Robert W.
Quinn, Jr.
Jan
Zahradil
your life be affected by at least one idea of what you
have read in Our World, and that you too will shape
our common future, one day at a time in 2017, as
our authors have done, one word at a time in the
120 pages of this edition..
EPA/FRANCK ROBICHON
Rue du Trône 4, 1000 Brussels +32 (0) 228 06 039 info@acreurope.eu www.acreurope.eu @ACREurope ACREurope

We do not wait to see
what the future holds.
We act.
Investing in our future is our responsibility as national
CSR leaders. We were the first company in Serbia to publish
a Sustainable Development report in 2011 year, and 2016
was the year of HSE in our company.
It is our responsibility to set an example for Serbia, our
industry and our region as a whole by meeting the highest
environmental and operational standards.
Today, we are proud to be nominated as one of Serbia’s
national champions.
National
Champion
2016/17
We plan, we build, we live the future today.
Find out how you can vote for us at the European Business Awards
www.nis.eu/en

INDEX
04
JANUARY 2017 | ISSUE#1193 NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
www.neweurope.eu
QUO VADIS EUROPA?
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The year of confusion
by Basil A. Coronakis
New Europe Media founder & CEO.
The winter of our discontent
by Antonio Lopez Istúriz White
Secretary General of the European People‘s Party, and Member
of the European Parliament from Spain.
Europe’s values are its best defense
by Donald Tusk
President of the European Council, was Prime Minister of
Poland (2007-2014).
The year of all crossroads
by Corina Crețu
European Commissioner for Regional Policy.
An open and safe Europe
by Dimitris Avramopoulos
European Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and
Citizenship.
We struggle, we overcome
by Mikuláš Dzurinda
Mikuláš Dzurinda is President of the Wilfried Martens Centre
for European Studies.
Eight points to preserve
the European way of life
by Manfred Weber
Chairman of the Group of the European People’s Party.
A new chapter for the EU parliament
by Gianni Pittella
Chairman of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists
and Democrats in the European Parliament.
‘Europe must work for everyone’
by Jan Zahradil
President of the Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in
Europe (ACRE) and Member of the European Parliament.
The impact of the CAP on the
development of the European farming
by Jarosław Kalinowski
Member of the European Parliament from Poland.
2017 can be a year of hope and delivery
by Huebner Danuta-Maria
Member of the European Parliament from Poland.
Call for a European public
prosecutor’s office
by Monica Macovei
Member of the European Parliament from Romania.
Why enlargement still matters
by Knut Fleckenstein
Member of the European Parliament from Germany.
From challenges to changes
by Elisabetta Gardini
Member of the European Parliament from Italy.
The close of the year
and future directions
by Neena Gill
Member of the European Parliament from the United Kingdom.
Elections will continue to
dominate politics in 2017
by Ulrike Trebesius
Member of the European Parliament from Germany.
The unity of the EU and the trust of
citizens in the EU must be restored!
by Tokia Saïfi
Member of the European Parliament from France.
26
27
28
29
30
32
33
34
36
37
38
40
41
42
Bring back solidarity in EU
by Annie Schreijer-Pierik
Member of the European Parliament from the Netherlands.
Interreligious dialogue
by Marian Apostol
Member of General Secretariat, EPP Group.
From Trump to Europe
by Elen Wasylina
President International Geostrategic Maritime Observatory.
Myopia or utopia?
by Ralf Grahn
Euroblogger and lawyer based in Finland.
The new way
by Francisco Jaime Quesado
General Manager of the Innovation and
Knowledge Society in Portugal.
EXERCISING LEADERSHIP
35
43
Re-inventing political leadership:
10 qualities political leaders need
by Alberto Alemanno
Jean Monnet Professor of Law, HEC Paris.
Five leadership priorities for 2017
by Klaus Schwab
Founder and Executive Chairman of the
World Economic Forum.
Welcome to the year of the man on
the street, not the man in the suit
by Séamus Conboy
Director of Campaigns & EU Affairs at Red Flag.
Doing nothing is not an option
by Rob Worthington
Director, Head of International and Political Advisory Practices,
Brussels Office of Project Associates.
The dangers of the western path
by Foteini Kalantzi
Economist, International & European
Relations Specialist.
Saving the center
by Tony Blair
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2007, is
Chairman of the Africa Governance Initiative.
Shattering the filthy glass ceiling
by Alexandros Koronakis
The Editor , New Europe.
SOCIETY IN BLOOM
2016 was the best year in human
history, and 2017 will be better yet
by Daniel Hannan
Member of the European Parliament from the United Kingdom.
Humanitarian priorities
for the EU in 2017
by Christos Stylianides
European Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid & Crisis Management.
Open society needs defending
by George Soros
Chairman of Soros Fund Management and of the Open Society Foundations,
is the author of The Tragedy of the European Union.
There is no path to social inclusion
Social inclusion is the path
by Luk Zelderloo
Secretary General of the European Association of Service providers for
Persons with Disabilities (EASPD).
44
45
49
50
51
53
54
56
57
58
59
65
66
The new idealism: A new
year’s resolution for 2017
by Vibeke Sorensen
Chair, School of Art, Design and Media College of Humanities, Arts, &
Social Sciences at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.
Democracy, inclusion, and prosperity
by Raghuram Rajan
A former Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, is Professor of
Finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.
THE AGE OF POPULISM
48
52
The age of Trump
by Joseph E. Stiglitz
A Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor at Columbia
University and Chief Economist at the Roosevelt Institute.
The emergence of a post-fact world
by Francis Fukuyama
A senior fellow and Mosbacher Director of Stanford University’s
Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law.
Meeting the populist challenge
by Dominic Barton
Global Managing Partner of McKinsey & Company.
“Brave new world”
by Peter Niedermüller
Member of the European Parliament from Hungary.
The new year and the new populism
by Margaret MacMillan
Warden of St. Antony’s College, Oxford University.
Lessons from the populist revolt
by Michael J. Sandel
Teaches political philosophy at Harvard University.
Populism and the future
of central banking
by Lucrezia Reichlin
A former director of research at the ECB.
THE DIGITAL REVOLUTION
Is the European digital sector
catching up in 2017?
by Fátima Barros
Professor of Economics and the Head of the Portuguese
National Regulatory Authority for Communications since May 2012.
New skills for a changing world
by Martina Dlabajová
Member of the European Parliament from the Czech Republic.
Crossing the threshold
of the AI revolution
by Diane M. Bryant
Executive vice president and general manager of the Data
Center Group for Intel Corporation.
Next wave revolution:
Age of the internet of things
by Robert W. Quinn, Jr.
Senior Executive Vice President, External and Legislative
Affairs, and chair of the AT&T Foundation.
GLOBAL VS LOCAL WORLDS
Time for EU to reflect on the
significance of Turkey
by Ömer Çelik
Minister of European Union Affairs,Turkish.
The foreign policy priorities of the
Kyrgyz Republic in the EU direction
by Erlan Abdyldaev
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kyrgyz Republic.

INDEX
www.neweurope.eu NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
JANUARY 2017 | ISSUE#1193
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
76
77
78
79
80
82
83
Does geography shape destiny?
by David Bakradze
Georgia’s appointed Ambassador to the United States.
A Trustworthy and solid partner for the
euro-atlantic agenda in the balkans
by Ilir Meta
Speaker of the Albanian Parliament.
Post-crisis greece
by George Papaconstantinou
Former Greek Finance Minister between 2009 and 2011.
2017. Between risk and hope
by Pablo Casado
Spokeperson of the ruling Spanish Partido Popular and Vice-President of
the Committee of European Affairs in the Spanish Congress.
A Government committed to
delivering the “people’s manifesto”
by Thomasz Piotr Poręba
President of New Direction and Member of the European Parliament
from Poland.
Italy’s great efforts
in terms of innovation
by Massimiliano Salini
Member of the European Parliament from Italy.
White christian identity politics and
foreign policy in the United States
by Lincoln Mitchell
A Political consultant.
The brief life of the idea for the
creation of NATO black sea fleet
by Yordan Bozhilov
President of Sofia Security Forum.
We took Theresa May’s
government to court to protect
British parliamentary sovereignty
and democracy
75 by Ivo Ilic Gabara & Gina Miller
Corruption as a buttress
of jihadist ‘states’
by Theodoros Benakis
Managing Editor, New Europe.
Civil society- key driver of change
in eastern partnership countries
by Rasa Uzdavinyte
Project coordinator of Eastern Partnership Index.
Fast Media, slow problems
by Irene Kostaki
Journalist with New Europe based in Brussels.
The tilting balance of local
politics and global policies
by Ilia Roubanis
Political scientist.
Italy desperately needs stability in 2017
by Federico Grandesso
Widely published fashion, cinema and European Affairs expert.
TRANSFORMING LATIN AMERICA
Future-focused solutions in latin
America and around the globe
by Jeffrey McElfresh
President, DIRECTV Latin America.
The making of a peacemaker
Interview with Juan Manuel Santos
President of the Republic of Colombia.
84
85
86
87
88
89
92
93
94
95
96
98
99
100
101
102
2017 in LatAm: recovery
with greater risks
by Ricardo Villela Marino
Ricardo Villela Marino is currently partner of Itaú Unibanco and CEO
for Itaú Latam operations.
Why social civic entrepreneurship is the
antidote to human crisis in Latin America
by Patricia Villela Marino
President of Humanitas 360 Institute.
Bridging All Gaps: The transformation of
Mexico´s telecommunication sector
by Mónica Aspe
Undersecretary of Communications at the Mexican Ministry.
Mexico´s new intermestic challenge
by Gabriela Cuevas Barron
Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs
Committee at the Mexican Senate.
Towards sustainable growth and
climate-change adaptation
by Simón Gaviria Muñoz
A Colombian economist and politician currently serving as
Director General of the National Planning Department (DNP)
A country in a digital transformation
by David Luna Sanchéz
Minister of Information and Communications Technologies of
Colombia.
THE NEW ECONOMY
Getting past the globalization
bogeyman
by Angus Deaton
The 2015 Nobel laureate in economics, is Professor of Economics.
The challenge of
economic inclusion
by Christine Lagarde
Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund.
Economic impossibilities
for our grandchildren?
by Kaushik Basu
Formerly Chief Economist at the World Bank.
Towards an industrial policy that
includes all great paths of development
by Gaetano Maccaferri
Chairman of S.E.C.I. SpA, holding company
of the Maccaferri Industrial Group.
Which way for emerging
markets in 2017?
by Jim O’Neill
A former chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management.
ENERGY & CLIMATE
Gazing into the energy
crystal ball for 2017
by Kostis Geropoulos
Energy and Russian Affairs Editor, New Europe.
Building the Energy union
on stable foundations
by Maroš Šefčovič
Vice-President of the European Commission for the Energy Union.
Tackling energy poverty - combining
the Juncker plan with cohesion funds
by Maria Spyraki
Member of the European Parliament from Greece.
Between competition
and responsibility
by Nadežda Kokotović
Chief of Staff to the CEO and Representative in Brussels NIS, Serbia.
Climate change is the biggest
challenge of our times
by Benedek Jávor
Member of the European Parliament from Hungary.
103
104
106
107
108
109
110
112
113
114
05
Europe should adopt the 4th Real
Driving Emissions package in 2017
by Eickhout Bas
Member of the European Parliament from the Netherlands.
European gas market 2016:
Russians are coming!
by Konstantin Simonov
General Director, National Energy Security Fund.
THE NEXT GENERATIONS
How would Europe score on a
“Future preparedness” index?
by Caroline Jenner
CEO of JA Europe.
Europe’s future is its youth
by Tibor Navracsics
European Commissioner for Education, Culture, Youth and
Sport.
Global challenges for
the world in 2017
by Jacobo Pombo García
President of the Global Youth Leadership Forum (Spain).
Rolling-up our sleeves: the
centre-right in 2017 and beyond
by Andrianos Giannou
Vice-president of the Youth of the European People’s Party.
The only path to successful European
integration is through the proper education
and training of the youth of Europe
by Spyridon Flogaitis
Professor of public law at the University of Athens and
Director of the European Public Law Organization
THE ROLE OF MEDIA
IN VIOLENT CONFLICT
The role of the media in violent
conflicts in the digital age
by Gadi Wolfsfeld
Why study social media in
conflict-ridden societies
by Dimitra Dimitrakopoulou
As NGOs fill the gaps in conflict
news, should we be worried?
by Christoph Meyer &
Eric Sangar
News and conflict
by Abit Hoxha &
Thomas Hanitzsch
115
Political communication
in the age of post-truth
by Marc Jungblut
116
Ethnocentric coverage: Audiences
comfy zone in Macedonia
by Snezana Trpevska
117
Why the Israeli- Palestinian conflict
is a poor guide for understanding
other conflicts
118 by Christian Baden & Keren Tenenboim-Weinblatt
Burundian journalism in crisis
by Marie-Soleil Frère
119

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
QUO VADIS EUROPA?
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-09
www.neweurope.eu
by Basil A. Coronakis
The Year of Confusion
New Europe Media founder & CEO.
BELGIUM - BRUSSELS
This year, will be a bad year for the European
Union. It will be a year of generalised
confusion, contradictions, confrontations,
lies and the repetition of the same mistakes.
The problems and issues that should
be centrally addressed by the European
Union and the European Commission are
many and different in nature. All of them,
however, have a common denominator.
They must all be politically addressed.
Unfortunately, in our Europe, politics is
missing to a large extent.
In the Member States, political leaders
are few and these few are in countries with
no real power – not to say that this category
of leaders cannot be classified within the
conventional democratic spectrum, but
rather they are identified in the margins of
the extremes.
Many of our problems should be
addressed by the European Commission. In
this case, we need to consider two elements.
Problems like immigration and
unemployment involve large numbers of
people. This implies a different than usual
approach necessary for their solution. In
mathematics, there is a field dealing with
mathematics of large numbers. It is called
logic.
In immigration and unemployment, we
are not talking about the tens of thousands
of farmers who march to Brussels each year
for a peaceful demonstration that ends with
a vague promise and a party with hot dogs
and beers in rond-point Schuman. We are
talking about 25 million young unemployed
scattered throughout the Union and who
have completed excellent studies and have
brilliant minds, but are angry, hungry and
frustrated. Their only possession in their
pocket is a smartphone. All of them – the
offspring of austerity and over-regulation,
which kills every small initiative before it
can start – are potential cyber-terrorists.
Thus, if one day Europe wakes up in chaos,
with its main networks down, do not be
surprised. One out of these 25 million is
enough.
About immigration, the question is how
the European Commission can handle this
unprecedented challenge if no agreement
among Member States can be reached.
But there are other problems of pure
political nature which the European
Commission should be able to easily handle,
but does not because politicians are kept
out and issues are handled by technocrats.
Regrettably, it is not the Commissioners
who rule, but their cabinets. Just think
that even the President of the European
Commission Jean Claude Juncker – a man
of values who has a great political career in
a very politicised country – does not even
control his own correspondence.
Problems like immigration and unemployment
involve large numbers of people. This implies a
different than usual approach necessary for their
solution. In mathematics, there is a field dealing with
mathematics of large numbers. It is called logic
The European Commission invested
a lot in the British referendum and it lost
because this highly political matter was
handled by linear thinking administrators
and incompetent communicators.
Britain voted to get out of the EU.
However, it remains to be seen if, how and
when. As a matter of fact, what Europeans
initially thought would spell catastrophe
for Britain has turned out to be a great
opportunity for London to gain more
concessions in negotiating the way out.
Thus, Brexit could become a new status
of participation for the United Kingdom
in the EU, with much more benefits. The
explanation is simple. Brits are politicians.
Finally speaking about real politics. The
rise of the far right in Europe.
France is facing the most imminent
problem as François Fillon, who is likely
to be elected President of France in the
upcoming elections, may well prove more
far right than Marine Le Pen because he
must consolidate his electorate.
The far right is striving all over Europe
and in certain EU countries will be
democratically elected to power, as Adolf
Hitler was democratically elected German
Chancellor in 1933.
There is not one single solution for all
our problems. However, there is a common
starting point.
Photo credit - ALEXANDROS MICHAILIDIS
In life, everything is politics. Whatever
you do or do not do is politics. Politics is
the common starting point.
Liberate people and let them be free to
produce, create and hope.
Deregulation, the abolishment of
austerity, freezing of debt for 100 years
and 5% annual inflation will be sufficient
to revitalise the economy, give jobs to the
jobless and see people’s faith in the future
restored.
And possibly, one more courageous step
forward, is to abolish the Euro currency.
Yes, let’s do it in an orderly fashion
before the far-rightists and neo-communists
do it in a chaotic disorderly way.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
QUO VADIS EUROPA?
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-10
www.neweurope.eu
The winter of our discontent
by Antonio Lopez Istúriz White
Secretary General of the European
People's Party, and Member of the
European Parliament from Spain.
BELGIUM -BRUSSELS
I believe in politics. This would be an obvious
statement for a politician if only liberal
democracies would not be under siege. I
guess this thought positions me as part of
those hatred elites stigmatized by populists
throughout the globe. I’m not alone. First
bankers, then entrepreneurs, next any
administrative function, all representatives
of public authority and finally free press keep
me company in this peculiar demonized
circle.
Also the semantics have changed. There
are two new words that have especially
dominated the political debate during the
last months. Those are ‘polycrisis’ and ‘posttruth’.
The former concept, polycrisis, refers to
a situation where there is no single problem
causing a chaos. In the European context,
it can be understood as an ensemble of
events which could eventually harm the
European integration process. In 2017, we
will go through many other tipping political
events which have already been extensively
commented, and which I will not discuss
here in more detail.
It’s good to prepare for crises, but only
as long as we don’t fall into a self-fulfilling
prophecy trap. More attention should be
put on the roots of these crises. One can’t
help at wonder, how have the tectonic plates
moved so as to produce this seismic activity
in politics? I think that the main reason has
been fear. And in some cases, a legitimate
fear.
The fear at the root of the polycrisis has
been, first of all, that of the middle classes
to see their status quo being threatened.
Technological changes are affecting the way
we live, study, communicate and trade, but
also the way we work. Unacceptably high
rates of unemployment, radical changes
in the labour market and stagnation when
not decrease in wages has made a growing
mass of lower and middle class workers feel
concerned by these changes and anxious
about their future.
The other aspect of fear is related to the
new challenges in security. In the last decades,
peace in Europe has been, for good and for
bad, taken for granted. Illegal migrations, EU
border control vulnerabilities and jihadist
terrorism, however, are starting to fill in in
the gap of the war angst, becoming, together
with unemployment, one of the biggest
concerns in our societies.
And finally the fear of losing one’s identity.
Many see their national identities melted in
the cauldron of candid multiculturalism,
which has been sacralized by the left bien
pensante. One of the perversions of the dogoodism
narrative of the left in recent years
has been to create the moral panic of defining
one’s identity in permanent opposition to
Stock traders check data on several screens at the stock exchange in Frankfurt, German. Traders were quoted by German business newspapers as saying that
investors are now clearing their tense security aquisitions following the Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi's referendum defeat on 04 December. EPA/BORIS ROESSLER
The European centre-right should
develop a new Europeanism
inspired by the vision of its
founding fathers. A stronger
integration in defense area, foreign
policy and border control should
be advocated, while putting higher
emphasis on decentralisation,
national autonomy, economic
reforms and cultural traditions
the other’s.
An amalgam of far-right and far-left, antiglobalisation
and anti-capitalist movements,
strait-laced nationalists and anti-system -,
and by extension, anti-EU - movements have
found a field of frustration to feed on. They
are fertilised by the people’s fears and water
themselves with plain lies.
But the ultimate fear that the responsible
politicians in Europe need to confront is the
fear of the European project not responding
to their concerns.
And that brings us to the second
concept which has been on everyone’s
lips last year. The concept of ‘post-truth’:
the instrumentalisation of fear to access
the power. Populist movements oppose
opportunistic thinking to dystopia created
by well-rooted social anxieties.
The consequences of policies of
populistic parties have resulted in: social
division, lack of trust from the markets and
global allies, protectionism and ultimately, in
the lack of free trade which has a devastating
impact on the economy.
Rather sooner than later, populist
movements all across the world will come
across the biggest challenge they can possibly
face: to survive themselves. The problem is
what world would we shape in between the
rise and the fall of populism.
What are the antidotes to all those fears?
Peace and security, prosperity, and identity
politics are at the core of the political
solutions which are meant to stop and
reverse populist drifts in Europe.
The solutions, like the problems
themselves, are not as simple as populists
depict them to be. We must reform our
markets, and ensure the sustainability of the
health and social security systems. We must
reform our education systems and invest
in research and development to keep the
competitivity of our labour force. We must
achieve an energy union that underpins the
energy security and a real capital markets
union that prevents us from the distortions
experienced in the past. We must reinforce
our military defense capabilities and
intelligence coordination to be able to show
deterrence to any threat to the European
stability, and particularly to those coming
from Putin’s Russia.
The antidote in a word, is not European
uniformisation , but European unity.
The European centre-right should
develop a new Europeanism inspired by
the vision of its founding fathers. A stronger
integration in defense area, foreign policy and
border control should be advocated, while
putting higher emphasis on decentralisation,
national autonomy, economic reforms and
cultural traditions.
The centre-right is showing its
preparedness to shape the world as it is
evolving and carrying reforms with vision
and political courage. Countries like Ireland,
Spain, Cyprus are showing that responsible
politics of the centre-right do bring results
in adjusting imbalances and restoring
competitiveness.
With a democratically perilous drift
to extremism and a politically wounded
socialist party all over Europe, in the EPP
we hear clear and loud, more than ever
before, the outspoken determination for
remaining the party of stability, moderation
and responsibility.
A springing hope must follow the winter
of our discontent. But hope based in more
than empty promises. Hope based in action,
in value-based political action.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
QUO VADIS EUROPA?
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-11
www.neweurope.eu
Europe’s Values
by Donald Tusk
President of the European Council, was
Prime Minister of Poland (2007-2014).
Are Its Best Defense
BELGIUM - BRUSSELS
The year 2016 will go down in European
history as a time of striving to maintain the
political, systemic, and social unity of the
European Union as a community of countries,
people, and values. It was a time of uncertainty
and highly visible failures. But it was also a year
marked by real achievements.
Above all, the United Kingdom’s vote
in June to exit the EU stands out as a bitter
disappointment. And yet a new pan-European
consensus on the protection of the EU’s
external borders, together with the conclusion
of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade
Agreement (CETA) with Canada, warrants
cautious optimism.
Most of the problems the EU has been
grappling with for some time now have not
been fully resolved. The migration crisis,
tensions with Russia over Ukraine, and other
external and internal security threats continue
to test our unity and efficiency – and will
continue to do so in the year ahead.
What we know from 2016 is that great
change lies ahead – disconcerting, still
unidentified, but nonetheless clearly palpable
change. Indeed, the type of change that has
been happening, and will happen in the future,
is baffling political forecasters. It has been
a long time since reality made such a cruel
mockery of pundits and pollsters’ predictions,
even in the short-term context of upcoming
elections or referenda. Politics has become as
unpredictable as the weather in Brussels. And,
as with weather forecasts, if any predictions are
proved correct, they are the pessimistic ones.
The political tectonic shifts (and what
else can one call a huge island’s sudden lurch
away from the continent?) now occurring
are not just aftershocks of the 2008 financial
crisis. Their source and essence are deeper
than the anger of unemployed youth or the
dissatisfaction with stagnant economic growth
among European and American middle
classes, although no sensible person would
downplay these sentiments. But we all feel
that these tremors may signal a more profound
change: the end of an era, which in Europe
could be called the Era of Great Stabilization.
It is an era that has lasted 70 years, sustained
by three pillars. The first is an international
order that, defined by the West’s ability to
command respect for rules and agreements,
has protected Europe against global conflict.
The second is liberal democracy. And the third
is the relative prosperity of European societies.
The widespread anticipation of change
should not frighten or, still less, paralyze us. As
historians know all too well, it is stability, rather
than crisis, that is transitional and short-lived.
And, just as it is beyond our power to prevent
crises (which are, by nature, inevitable), it is
not in our interest to cling to the status quo,
as stabilization sooner or later enters a phase
of stagnation, when expectation of change
Protestors hold a banner with a slogan reading: 'Right to Stay for All' during a protest against the deportation of rejected asylum seekers from Germany, at the
theater square in Dresden, Germany, 17 December 2016.
EPA/ARNO BURGI
The foundations of European solidarity remain
fragile, and the real tests lie ahead. Without
solidarity, Europe will have no influence over the
direction of future changes, becoming their victim
rather than their coauthor
becomes universal. This does not necessarily
lead to catastrophe. But it may.
Everything depends on our collective
ability to navigate stormy seas. The first
prerequisite is to maintain the EU’s basic unity.
I will repeat this like a mantra: an internally
broken EU will be incapable of rising to any
of the challenges it faces, as will its member
countries, including the largest.
The foundations of European solidarity
remain fragile, and the real tests lie ahead.
Without solidarity, Europe will have no
influence over the direction of future changes,
becoming their victim rather than their coauthor.
In order to avoid this bleak scenario,
we must once again seek what connects us,
what we have in common, what we are ready
to defend with full determination, equal to
that demonstrated by our opponents. We
must once again define our territory, not
geographically, but in a civilizational, cultural,
and perhaps even symbolic sense.
What we are observing today is that people,
nations, and states are discovering the power of
myth and simplification. This may foreshadow
a politics that is more brutal – closer to nature
than to culture. The most important thing
will be to distinguish accurately between
what is shallow and unimportant in European
tradition and what is lasting, valuable, and
unique – what the historian Jacob Burckhardt
called the freedom of spirit.
It is in culture and freedom, where we
will rediscover the essence of Europe. In
politics, this means that we must be prepared
for change, on the condition that it does not
restrict freedom as a core value. Before we
overhaul the EU’s structure, before we start
solving fundamental dilemmas about the
extent of integration, we must all agree that we
want to carry the ideal of Europe as a continent
of freedom from the past and into the future.
Today’s world is full of barbarians, for whom
freedom and culture, as we understand them,
have become targets to attack. Europeans will be
able to overcome their current challenges only
when we agree that we will not compromise in
this confrontation. Symptoms of barbarity are
around us, among us, and within us. If we give
in to external pressure and internal weakness,
the coming changes may thwart Europe’s most
important political realization: that together –
and only together – can majority rule, the rule of
law, and limited government guarantee human
freedom and civil rights. This is why we must
bravely and consistently defy those who stand
against our freedoms, whether from within or
without.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2016.
www.project-syndicate.org

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
QUO VADIS EUROPA?
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-12
www.neweurope.eu
The year
by Corina Crețu
European Commissioner for Regional
Policy.
of all crossroads
Participants march with banners and placards during the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party rally tittled 'protect borders, provide social security', in Erfurt, Germany, 21 September 2016.
EPA/MARTIN SCHUTT
BELGIUM -BRUSSELS
"Il faut laisser du temps au temps" (Let's
give time time). Former French President
François Mitterand famously gave this
Cervantes' maxim a second youth. It carries
scents of wisdom, patience, sensibility. Yet,
I am not sure that in 2017 we will have the
luxury to give time time: the vital issues that
are facing us show little patience. I believe
we will even have to hurry time…
Climate change and populism have two
things in common: first, if left unaddressed
they both create havoc in the long-term;
second, to tackle them requires working
on their root causes and then acting fast.
Take climate for instance: these last years'
achievements - COP 21 and 22, Sustainable
Development Goals, HABITAT III, helped
the world agree on measures to fight the
rise of sea levels, increased desertification
and global warming in general. The "climate
crossroads" in 2017 will be whether we are
able to go "beyond speeches": 2017 will be
about implementing, taking measures to
defeat climate change in the long run! The
clock is ticking, we cannot afford to give
time time anymore.
Then the "populism crossroads" in
2017. These last years have seen the rise
of politicians feeding negative slogans to
voters in order to feed from voters' reactions
to those same slogans. The economic crisis,
desperate Syrian refugees knocking at
our door, violence from terror groups all
combine to convince many voters that they
are better off following those who shout
At a time when the private
sector's trust in national
budgets is low, the EU budget
- and more specifically
regional policy, is seen
as a guarantee of sound
investment for all
loudest, those claiming that the solution to
all problems is to pull-up the drawbridge
and erect watchtowers! Though history
shows that no country has ever made any
sort of progress by retreating in its shell,
the perception is there. Therefore we must
address it. In 2017. We cannot give more
time to time…
The biggest crossroads in 2017 will be
on countering those whose programme
limits itself to a handful of punchy slogans.
And here communication will be the key.
Institutions, including traditional media,
have been slow to react to the technological
and societal revolution that has engulfed
the world. Yesterday, the average citizens
had to rely on politicians' statements and
journalists' editorial choices to find the
information; today, and even more so in
2017, voters become direct producers and
consumers of information through the rise
of social media.
Europe is good news, however it is not
always perceived as such. The conclusion
is therefore that we are failing to share the
good news with Europeans. This is the
communication crossroads ahead of us in
2017.
Less reliance on traditional ways
to communicate such as press releases
and press conferences, more direct
contact with Europeans via social media,
but as importantly: more meaningful
communication with half a billion
Europeans. Less protocol ("I had a meeting
with someone"), more relevant messages
("we agreed to simplify the rules").
The way I see it, in 2017 the famous
aphorism " Not only must Justice be done;
it must also be seen to be done" should be
reworded in "Not only must the European
Union work for 500 million Europeans, it
must also be seen to work".
Thus, 2017 must be the year to
empower all those who benefit from
regional policy to make their voice heard,
from cities and regions to small and
medium enterprises, universities, NGOs,
young people, hospitals… And this both in
net beneficiaries member states who need
regional policy's investments and in net
contributors member states who benefit
from regional policy via access to more
customers in other states for instance.
At a time when the private sector's trust
in national budgets is low, the EU budget
- and more specifically regional policy, is
seen as a guarantee of sound investment
for all.
Convincing our fellow Europeans
of this must be our priority in 2017. By
securing a solid, efficient regional policy
for all in the post 2020 financial period, by
simplifying access to EU funds, by making
it more flexible and thus readier to react
to unforeseeable events, but above all by
communicating better with European
citizens.
A stronger regional policy means a
stronger Europe.
And a stronger Europe means less
populism, fewer short-sighted nationalist
reflexes.
If we succeed on this, we will have
successfully negotiated 2017, the year of
all crossroads.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
QUO VADIS EUROPA?
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-13
www.neweurope.eu
by Dimitris Avramopoulos
An open and safe Europe
European Commissioner for Migration,
Home Affairs and Citizenship.
BELGIUM -BRUSSELS
As 2016 draws to a close in the shadow
of the Berlin attack, Europe's cohesion
and resilience are put into question once
again. Migration and terrorism continue
to be the two most important issues for
European citizens today. At the same time,
the vast majority of European citizens ask for
European and common solutions for their
concerns. In fact, 81% of European citizens
want to maintain free movement so they can
live, work, study and do business anywhere
in the EU.
While Schengen is one of the greatest
achievements of European integration, it
is also at the heart of both the migration
challenges and terrorist threat that we face
today.
After the Berlin suspect was found and
neutralised in Italy just before Christmas,
there were many voices questioning the
viability of Schengen's open borders
today.
But closing borders will not stop
terrorism. Instead, we have to better
coordinate, better exchange information,
better use all our systems and our rules.
There is no use in creating additional rules
or systems if we don't connect all the dots.
Terrorism knows no borders – instead we
have to work across them. This is what the
EU's Security Union is about – and at the
essence of it is more trust.
We want to make sure that people don't
radicalise in the first place, by learning
from all the thousands of practitioners
on the ground across Europe through the
Radicalisation Awareness Network. As
Daesh is losing ground territorially, the
fight against radicalisation and terrorist
propaganda increasingly shifts to the online
world. Intensified collaboration with internet
companies through the Internet Forum is
now more important than ever.
We want to make sure that potential
terrorists don't get the training, financial tools
or help to travel so as not to commit terrorist
acts. This is what we will achieve now that the
EU's Terrorism Directive has been agreed.
We want to make sure that those who
may wish us harm cannot easily get hold
of dangerous firearms – by making the
acquisition and trafficking of illegal firearms
impossible in the first place. This is what our
revised Firearms Directive will do, and why
we are also intensifying our cooperation with
the Western Balkans.
We also want to make sure that potential
terrorist suspects don't cross our borders
unnoticed. In the last few months, we have
tremendously beefed up the security of our
external border management.
The creation of the European Border and
Coast Guard was a milestone in how from
Flowers, posters and stuffed animals were placed to commemorate the victims of the Nice truck attack at the French embassy in Berlin, Germany, 18 July 2016.
EPA/MAURIZIO GAMBARINI
But closing borders will not stop terrorism. Instead, we
have to better coordinate, better exchange information,
better use all our systems and our rules. There is no use in
creating additional rules or systems if we don't connect all
the dots. This is what the EU's Security Union is about –
and at the essence of it is more trust
now onwards we legally and operationally
perceive and manage the external border of
one Member State as the external border of all
Member States. Systematic checks will now
also be carried out for all those who cross our
external borders, regardless of nationality. In
addition, we have proposed an EU Entry-
Exit System to better monitor third-country
national overstayers, and a European Travel
Information and Authorisation System
to check for potential security but also
migration threats under visa-free thirdcountry
nationals coming to the EU.
Recently, the European Commission
has also proposed to strengthen the
Schengen Information System to better
fight terrorism, but also cross-border crime
and irregular migration by introducing the
obligation to create an alert in cases related
to terrorist offences as well as for "unknown
wanted persons" and return decisions. In
the future, no critical information should
ever be lost on potential terrorist suspects
or irregular migrants crossing our Schengen
borders. On top of that, we also want to better
support Member States in combatting travel
document fraud both in terrorism but also in
irregular migration circumstances.
In all of this, Europol and the European
Counter Terrorism Centre will play a crucial
role in collecting and exchanging information,
as well as operationally supporting Member
States in counter-terrorism investigations.
European citizens today want more safety
and more security. They don't want isolation;
they don't want less freedom. In fact, the
majority of European citizens today see the
EU as a place of stability in a troubled world.
This means that while we must continue our
work to make the EU, but also the world, a
safer place, these efforts must never come at
the expense of our openness – neither our
physical openness through our Schengen
borders, nor our mental openness based
on our fundamental values of freedom and
tolerance.
In times of increasing mobility and
globalisation, the only way forward is
together. There is no single frontline in the
global war on terror. All our actions are
interconnected. From working towards peace
and stability in the neighbourhood and better
managing regional migration flows to fighting
terrorism.
These challenges are not just European,
but global. This is why cooperation with
partner countries such as Turkey, the Western
Balkans, Northern Africa but also the United
States is quintessential now and in the future.
As xenophobia and nationalism are
on the rise, 2017 will be a year where the
European project will continue to be tested.
The past year, with an ongoing refugee crisis
and several terrorist attacks on European
soil, has proven how resilient Europe can be.
Compared to the absence of a comprehensive
security and migration policy before, in less
than a year, the European Union has taken
leaps forward.
When the memory of the aftermath of
the Second World War starts to fade, we
must never forget the initial raison d'être of
the European Union: peace and stability –
precisely what the majority of Europeans still
believe in today.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
QUO VADIS EUROPA?
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-14
www.neweurope.eu
by Mikuláš Dzurinda
We struggle, we overcome
Mikuláš Dzurinda is President of the
Wilfried Martens Centre for European
Studies. He is the former Prime Minister
of Slovakia (1998-2006).
BELGIUM -BRUSSELS
The beginning of a new year is the right time
to look back at what the last year has brought,
but especially to think of what lies ahead of us.
It cannot be questioned that Europe has
changed dramatically. A few years ago, we
would never have suspected that we would
be facing such problems as the economic
crisis, widening social disparities and high
unemployment rates - especially among the
youth - and most importantly, we did not
foresee such challenges as the massive wave
of migration and terrorism.
A number of questions are being raised
about the future of the European Community
especially after the Britons have decided to
leave the European Union. No matter how
difficult the talks on a new partnership with
the UK may be, we should always remember
that there are many more unifying themes
between continental Europe and the UK, than
there are divisions. We should not forget that
when we were united in the past, we succeeded
in overcoming even more difficult challenges
than Brexit.
We were caught off guard also by the
outcome of US election. The feeling that, at
any time, Europe could turn to and rely on
a strong transatlantic alliance has weakened.
But the alliance with the United States should
remain our strategic interest. The new reality
should encourage us to take ever greater
responsibility for tackling the problems of
security, especially in our neighbourhood. We
are still looking for an answer to the question
of how to avoid new immigration influxes in
the future. On how to strike the right balance
between humanism and solidarity on the one
hand and our possibilities and security on the
other.
Moreover, the impact of the financial and
economic crisis has not yet been fully dealt
with. We may note with satisfaction that the
measures taken to safeguard the euro area
proved to be correct. Step by step, we are
making corrections to our European house.
However, this is not enough. We should go
beyond mere corrections and strengthen the
building and the development of our reunited
Europe. We must do it in a manner that will
provide all of us living in our common house
with a better understanding of one another.
That will make all of us feel at ease in our
house. Europe needs to be more united that
it is in these days.
We can be proud on the achievements
that have been reached untill now. The EU is
a good place to live. But the world is changing
fast.
Looking at the challenges we face in this
fast globalising world, I think it is clear that the
EU needs a new dynamism, needs action and
a lot of courage.
The EU needs to start a serious process of
self-reflection, and then implement concrete
changes and reforms based on it.
Chairman ofthe EUMC Communication office, Giovanni Ramunno walks through the picture as representatives of European Union Military Committee
(EUMC) members line up for a family picture in Brussels, Belgium, 08 November 2016. The EUMC is the highest military body set up within the EU Council
and composed of the member states' Chiefs of Defence.
We should realise that the EU is and will remain a community
of states, not a unitary state. That we need to be more united,
rather than more unified. This means we have to prevent any
tendency towards centralisation and to strongly encourage
cutting the bureaucratic burden, the process of decentralisation
and the rigorous application of the subsidiarity principle
First of all, we should realise that the EU
is and will remain a community of states,
not a unitary state. That we need to be more
united, rather than more unified. This means
we have to prevent any tendency towards
centralisation and to strongly encourage
cutting the bureaucratic burden, the process of
decentralisation and the rigorous application
of the subsidiarity principle. We need to
promote fundamental structural reforms of
individual national economies. Regarding
the fast development of technologies, I don’t
think this is the time to build protective walls
around our countries or to close ourselves
to the world. But even if we wanted, it is
not possible to build a wall high enough to
protect us from expanding international
trade. We should consider globalisation and
technological advances as an opportunity and
not a threat or a disaster.
On the other hand we should be more
united in foreign policy area and defence
as well. We need to speak with one voice
more than before. It means that we also
need a common foreign policy with clearly
stated priorities, clearly defined European
foreign policy interests, and a united stance
when pursuing these priorities. Of course,
we need effective tools for safeguarding and
promoting our foreign policy priorities and
for safeguarding common European interests,
in particular security, the protection of our
external borders, immigration control. The
EU needs a common defence union that will
constitute a stronger and equal European pillar
of NATO, capable of independent action, but
always acting in concert with the U.S. The
traditional European soft power should be
complemented by hard power as well.
We should perceive all these challenges as
an opportunity to implement these changes.
The EU can only continue if it is attractive,
strong and confident and if it brings added
value to its individual members. European
integration has four goals: peace is its political
goal; security is its geopolitical goal; prosperity
is its economic goal; and the preservation of
Europe’s identity is its civilizational goal. These
goals are as essential today as they were seventy
years ago, and we should never forget them
when discussing the future of our union.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
QUO VADIS EUROPA?
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-15
www.neweurope.eu
Eight points to preserve
by Manfred Weber
Chairman of the Group of the European
People’s Party in the European
Parliament.
the European way of life
BELGIUM - BRUSSELS
The unity of Europe, once reserved for
ceremonial speeches, has become a reality.
On no other continent in the world, do
people enjoy a comparable degree of peace,
freedom, security and prosperity. Although the
honeymoon is over and the Union has entered
its daily routine: today, the European Union is
more relevant than ever. Nothing less is at stake
than the self-assertion of the continent and its
values. Digitalisation is changing the world’s
business and social models at an unprecedented
speed. Today’s leading innovations are coming
from Silicon Valley. The new economic giants
are no longer car builders or even banks, but
Internet companies. We can simply not afford
to further lose track: we have to stand at the
forefront of the digital revolution. This is the
only way that we can create the jobs of the
future and secure our European standards and
values in the world.
At the same time, the world is getting
smaller. China, once a closed-off country,
has become the factory of the world and the
leading export nation. Migration flows are
at unprecedented heights. Climate change
is endangering the basis of life. Autocrats
are threatening our political order. Islamic
terrorism is challenging our open societies.
All these challenges cannot be solved by
one nation alone, but only with European
unity. Europe must use its economic power
to shape globalisation otherwise, the world’s
developments will simply sweep away most of
what is dear to us in Europe.
We need a Europe that works to provide
the right solutions for its people. In order to
preserve our European way of life, we have to
make the following eight efforts in 2017:
1. Acknowledge Europe’s successes: our
continent used to be the most war-plagued
place in the world. Today there is peace and
prosperity. Without Europe, the world would
not have agreed upon far reaching goals
for climate protection. Europe stands for
diplomacy and disarmament, a strategy that
led to the success of the nuclear deal with Iran.
Let us be proud of these achievements.
2. Do not act along with national
egoism: today’s biggest mistake would be to
copy populists. Populists have no solutions to
our common problems such as security, the
migration crisis, globalisation and the fight
against climate change. These problems can
only be solved if we act together. Europe is
more than the sum of national interests. Each
EU Member State needs to do its bit and share
the burden of the common challenges. Italy
and Greece cannot be left alone to deal with
the migration crisis.
3. Take the rules seriously: Europe is a
legal community, not a self-service counter.
The trust in rules is the basis of every
community.
4. Be open to change: only those who
A view of the Berlaymont building, house of the European Commission headquarters, in Brussels, Belgium, 21 December 2016.
Europe is a community of values. We draw our true
strength from our values, rooted in the Christian image
of humanity. The European Social Model, developed
from this image, is a unique European achievement that
has to be preserved
quickly detect and address change will be
able to master it. We have to leave the standby
mode in Europe for once and for all
and take up the fight. This means shaping
digitalisation, softening climate change with
technical innovations, setting clear limits for
globalisation.
5. Assume responsibility: democracy
cannot succeed by shying away. In Brussels,
almost no decision is taken without the
consent of the national governments.
Ministers have to stop raising their hands
in Brussels and then permanently criticise
their own decisions when they return to their
national capitals. Citizens have to be able to
choose between clear political alternatives.
This begins with personnel.
We need full parliamentary democracy
in Europe with a strong and directly-elected
European Parliament, a political European
Commission fully accountable to this
Parliament, and a Commission President who
puts himself to the vote of the people, as top
candidate of his political party family.
6. Draw up clear borders for Europe:
people are afraid of an ever-bigger Europe,
getting lost in details and bureaucracy. Europe
needs clear borders: Turkey cannot be a
member of the European Union. Brussels shall
only be in charge where necessary and in a way
that people understand it.
7. Do not build up false contradictions:
being a good Bavarian, German or European
is not a contradiction; for me, they belong
together. He who is a true patriot must also
be a convinced European.
8. Let us defend Europe’s values: we
have to make sure that Europe preserves
its soul. Europe is more than a marriage of
convenience or a sheer community of interests.
Europe is a community of values. We draw our
true strength from our values, rooted in the
Christian image of humanity. The European
Social Model, developed from this image, is a
unique European achievement that has to be
preserved.
EPA/OLIVIER HOSLET
Let us live Europe and not just manage
it. This is how we will master the challenges
ahead and continue on the path of European
success - despite all the difficulties of the dayto-day
work.
By acting, we give new vision, justification
and acceptance of Europe.
The demagogues are preaching the return
to nationalism, to times that we thought were
long gone. Their alleged solutions only lead
to dead ends. Instead of regaining national
grandness, people would only witness
irrelevance, fading wealth and loss of control
with them.
Europe, more than ever, stands for the
preservation and recovery of sovereignty
for its citizens and of the public capacity
to act. Europe stands for democratic selfdetermination
and for the self-assertion of
our values.
Europe is our life insurance in a globalised
world. Let us work together in 2017 to make
Europe and our future a success.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
POLITICS
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-16
www.neweurope.eu
by Gianni Pittella
Chairman of the Group of the Progressive
Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in
the European Parliament.
A new chapter for the
European Parliament
A man stands in the courtyard of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, 22 November 2016.
EPA
BELGIUM - BRUSSELS
My candidature for President of the
European Parliament has real change at its
core. My candidature is offering an answer
to the need for change and the opening of a
new phase in the European Parliament and
the EU institutions.
Why?
Simply because the world in 2017
is not the same as when we started the
legislature in the European Parliament.
It is not the same and as such it would be
foolish to continue with the same formula
that has in recent years ruled the European
Parliament: The legislative cooperation
with the European People's Party (EPP).
This has now come to an end and
regardless of the result of the European
Parliament Presidential election, there is
no possibility to restore this cooperation.
As president of the Parliament, I would
like to begin a new phase where all groups,
large and small, are going to have equal
dignity and equal rights while shaping
the decisions of this house. As President
of the EU parliament, it will be my job to
increase the transparency and democracy of
the decision-making process. Only through
authentic debates and constructive political
clashes, the Parliament and all its members
will be able to deliver concrete answers to
We have to learn a lesson that comes from all the
important changes in the world: let's open the
institutions to the civil society. Let's open the parliament
to the citizens with its fears, hopes and requests. We
don't want to be under siege by our citizens
the real problems of our citizens.
We must learn the lesson that comes
from important changes in the world. After
the victory of Donald Trump the world has
changed. Europe changed with Brexit, the
migrant crisis, the great popularity crisis
of the institutions, the rise of xenophobic
and radical political forces in Europe and
the end of the Renzi government in Italy.
The only way to positively react to these
turning points is to open the institutions to
the civil society. Let's open the parliament
to the citizens; to their fears, their hopes
and their requests. We cannot lock
ourselves into a kind of fortress, as the
EPP has obsessively proposed, out of fear
of being defeated by radical political forces.
We do not want to live under siege by our
own citizens. The European Parliament
represents half a billion European citizens.
Discussion and the political debate are the
pillars of democracy and the only way to
reach a shared compromise and practical
solutions to improve people's lives.
With this new phase, it's not the
intention of the Group of the Progressive
Alliance of Socialists & Democrats in the
European Parliament to put into question
our collaboration with the European
Commission of Jean-Claude Juncker.
Our approach will remain constructive.
If Juncker will keep on working to change
Europe, despite the austerity “hard liners”
seated in the Commission, then my
parliament will be his best ally. Otherwise,
we will have to drastically revise our
position even though I'm confident it will
not be the case.
Those who know me know that my
door is always open to dialogue with all
political forces. As the new president, I
will be "a leader among equals", willing to
listen and work with everyone. I mean, all
political groups, except the xenophobes.
Each MEP will star in the legislative process
and in determining a new season of change.
I sincerely hope that my main contender,
Antonio Tajani, will openly announce
that he will not accept any support from
extremist groups in the Parliament. To date,
to be honest, I have not yet heard any clear
position from Tajani on this critical issue.
However, I believe and hope that Tajani
also shares the idea that it would be very
dangerous if the new European Parliament
president would be elected with the votes
of the xenophobic forces.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
QUO VADIS EUROPA?
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-17
www.neweurope.eu
by Jan Zahradil
President of the Alliance of Conservatives
and Reformists in Europe (ACRE) and
Member of the European Parliament
from the Czech Republic in the European
Conservatives and Reformists Group.
‘Europe must work
for everyone’
US Paratroopers assigned to Company B, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment (Airborne), 173rd Airborne Brigade land within the 'Bayonet Strike' airborne maneuvers in Adazi, Latvia, 12 September 2016.
The 173rd Airborne Brigade, based in Vicenza, Italy, is the Army Contingency Response Force in Europe, and is capable of projecting forces to conduct full of range of military operations across the United States
European, Central and Africa Commands areas of responsibility within 18 hours.
BELGIUM - BRUSSELS
ACRE’s driving mission in 2017 is to help
build a Europe that works for everyone, not
just the privileged few.
The British referendum in June 2016
was not just a vote to leave the EU: it was
about something much broader. It was
about a deep, justified sense that for many
people the world works well for a privileged
few but not for them.
European democracy should work for
everyone, but if you’ve been trying to say
things need to change for years and your
complaints fall on deaf ears, it doesn’t feel
like it’s working for you.
The European economy should work
for everyone, but if you are struggling out
of work, or if your pay has stagnated for
several years in a row, it doesn’t feel like it’s
working for you.
This needs to change. The European
Union should be at the service of all. In
practice this means:
Europe must remain open for
business. We need an outward-looking,
globally-minded, flexible and dynamic
Europe. That means, cutting and simplifying
taxes for individuals and businesses. That
means signing free-trade deals with the
fastest growing economies in the world.
That means reducing regulations and
burdens so our companies can compete.
It also means dropping protectionist
tariffs, which make it difficult for third
countries to add value, enter the global
market and achieve sustainable, marketbased
development. Why do we find it so
hard to accept the economic consensus?
Free trade is always mutually beneficial –
and therefore also a moral project.
Europe must adopt a genuinely
fair refugee policy. 2016 has been a
catastrophically violent year. It is our moral
duty to offer support to those fleeing wars
and persecution. We must demonstrate our
values in practice.
Europe must get migration under
control. The EU needs to control the
numbers of economic migrants coming
from around the world. Unemployment
is very high in many parts of Europe,
particularly amongst our young people.
Economic migration policy should be
managed according to economic need.
Europe must adopt a proper
industrial strategy. Europe needs to
identify the industries that are of strategic
value to our shared economy, and to
support and promote them through
trade, tax, infrastructure, and research and
development policies.
We must reduce the costs of European
governance in real terms. This means
a freeze on the EU budget, and an end
to wasteful bureaucracy. In many areas
the EU is doing too much, and its use of
money is not sufficiently cost-effective. The
second Strasbourg seat at €114 million is a
lamentable and indicative example.
Every EU member state of NATO
should meet its 2% target. NATO is
the foundation of European security. It is
essential that members meet their spending
targets. We should resist the introduction
of an EU Army, which would make a
feeble and distracting alternative. We must
unequivocally support all our NATO allies,
when facing threats to their internal or
external security.
Last and perhaps most of all: European
governance needs to be devolved. The
greatest flaw of the European project is
the distance felt between governed and
government. So long as our citizens don’t
feel in control over the decisions being
made over them, European democracy will
fail. Our principle of subsidiarity seeks the
exercise of power at the lowest practicable
level – by the individual where possible, by
local or national authorities in preference
to supranational bodies. The people of
Europe do not want a federal United States
of Europe. A multi-layered union should
be considered, in recognition of varying
preparedness for European integration. The
process of any such arrangement should
recognise the nation-state as still the most
legitimate level of governance.
We must not be so naïve as to ignore the
possibility another member-state voting to
leave our Union. Rather, we must address
the possibility head-on by working to
reform the EU into a Union that truly works
for everyone.
The greatest flaw
of the European
project is the
distance felt
between governed
and government. So
long as our citizens
don’t feel in control
over the decisions
being made over
them, European
democracy will fail

y Jarosław Kalinowski
Member of the European Parliament from
Poland in the Group of the European
People’s Party. Previously, he was deputy
Prime Minister of Poland and Minister of
Agriculture.
ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
QUO VADIS EUROPA?
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-18
www.neweurope.eu
The impact of the CAP on the
development of the European farming
BELGIUM -BRUSSELS
The Common Agricultural Policy
started functioning in 1962 and was the
first collective policy of the European
Community. Its main idea is the partnership
of the agricultural sector with the citizens, of
Europe with its farmers. The main objectives
of the CAP are to increase the agricultural
efficiency in order to secure a reliable and
constant access to food for all consumers,
as well as to guarantee European farmers a
proper income for their work. Today, over 50
years since the CAP came into force, the EU
is still facing new challenges, among them
ensuring food security, mitigating climate
change, sustainable management of natural
resources and care for the development of
rural areas.
We have over 500 million consumers in
the EU, who expect to always have safe and
high quality food at their disposal. Farming
and food producing are fundamental
elements of the economy in all 28 Member
States. Creating agricultural policy at the
European level guarantees common rules
for single market and allows for applying
common trade policy (without which
the EU would not be able to speak as one
when it comes to trade negotiations with
third countries). Without the CAP, every
Member State would conduct its own policy
that would most probably differ between
each other in the scope and level of public
interventions.
The measures supporting European
farmers are implemented in the framework
of a two-pillar structure of the CAP. The first
pillar consists mainly of the so-called direct
payments, distributed through the Single
Payment Scheme or - as is the case of Poland
- the Single Area Payment Scheme. In most
cases this aid is not linked to production,
however, in specific countries, the level of
support is based on historical production
volume (e.g. of cereals). Granting direct
support is subject to meeting the terms of
the cross-compliance mechanism, which
encompasses environmental standards,
animal welfare rules and other criteria. Apart
from direct payments, the first pillar of the
CAP also includes market intervention
measures, such as customs duties, export
support or production quotas.
The level of direct payments has always
been a controversial issue, not only in Poland
but also at the international level. There are
still big discrepancies between Member
States when it comes to the amounts of
this aid. The support Polish farmers receive
in this financial perspective (up to 2020)
is at the average EU level, which is about
250 EUR per hectare. At the same time,
farmers from the Netherlands or Belgium
Workers catch carp fish at a fish farm in Samokleski, Lublin province, Poland, 10 December 2016.
The Rural
Development
Programme – the
second pillar funding
plan in Poland – is for
my country and our
rural areas of utmost
importance. In the
current financial
perspective Poland
with receive 55 billion
EUR for this aim.
get about 400 - 450 EUR per hectare,
whereas Lithuanians or Estonians get about
100 - 150 EUR per hectare. Meanwhile,
the production costs (energy, fertilizers,
machinery), have changed over the years and
they are now equal across the EU. That is
why we should finally level out the amounts
of direct payments across the Union. In
fact, that is one of the aims of the Treaty on
the Functioning of the European Union,
which states not to distort the common
competition rules. Fortunately, on the 27th
of October 2016 the European Parliament
passed a report on job creation in rural
areas, which includes my call to even out
the amounts of direct aid. This is absolutely
essential to guarantee a level playing field
for all farmers in the European Single
Market. For the first time in the history of
the European Parliament, the majority of
Members officially supported this idea.
The main objective of the second pillar
of the CAP is to support rural areas. These
projects are funded through the European
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.
EAFRD helps to increase competitiveness
of the agricultural and forestry sector,
maintain the environment and landscapes,
improve the quality of life in rural areas,
as well as to diversify local economies. It
complements the national, regional and
local measures which support the UE
priorities. The European Commission
together with Member Sates are responsible
for compatibility and coherence of this aid
with any other community funding.
The Rural Development Programme
– the second pillar funding plan in Poland
– is for my country and our rural areas of
utmost importance. In the current financial
perspective Poland with receive 55 billion
EUR for this aim. This money is and will
be spent on measures connected to e.g.
development of the activities outside of
agriculture, in order to increase farms'
incomes. It will also support knowledge
transfer or simplification of the food supply
chain, in order to grant consumers access
to high quality food at reasonable prices.
In the programme's framework aid can also
be granted to young farmers who start their
carrier. Another important aim of the project
EPA/WOJCIECH PACEWICZ
is helping farmers who opt for organic
production.
Undoubtedly, the Common Agricultural
Policy funding is indispensable in improving
living standards on rural areas. New roads,
pavements, walkways and parks are being
constructed, monuments and historical
buildings are being renovated, and new
shops, schools and healthcare facilities are
being built.
More and more young people choose to
live in the countryside, which is especially
noticeable in villages close to large urban
areas – where the countryside is suburb of a
big city. People, often with higher education,
move away from the city in order to escape
the noise and air pollution.
To summarize, professional farmers
play one of the most important roles in the
European Union and the Community has to
do everything in order not to lose them. We
have to be aware that the basic framing skills
cannot be learned through books and the
best way to acquire them is by passing them
from generation to generation. Nearly half
of the EU territory is classified as farming
land, which makes agriculture crucial in
mitigating climate change. Farmers not only
produce food but through land management
they also protect the environment and
conserve landscapes, thus acting for all of
us, delivering the so-called public goods.
The Common Agricultural Policy is vital to
our existence; we cannot forget that without
proper funding European rural areas would
not evolve properly and would not become
as modern as they are.
We, farmers (since I am a farmer myself),
receive huge support from the EU, it is only
up to us how efficiently we use it.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
QUO VADIS EUROPA?
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-19
www.neweurope.eu
2017 can be a year
by Huebner Danuta-Maria
Member of the European Parliament from
Poland in the Group of the European
People's Party. Previously, she was European
Commissioner for Regional Policy.
of hope and delivery
BELGIUM -BRUSSELS
The year 2017 will mark the 60th
anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of
Rome establishing the European Economic
Community, a laying stone for European
Union as we know it. It will therefore
be, from the constitutional perspective,
a very good opportunity to look back at
all our amazing achievements but also an
opportunity to reaffirm the commitment to
a stronger Union with the involvement of all
the EU Member States that share the need
to continue on the path to integration based
on the set of shared values, ideas and hopes
of the Founding Fathers.
Jean Monnet once said: “Europe will
be forged in crises, and will be the sum of
the solutions adopted for those crises.” The
challenge for EU leaders is to prove him
right.
EU’s present difficulties are
multidimensional and more acute than ever.
We all know them: the refugee and migration
crisis, growing external insecurities, the rise
of anti-EU populism, youth unemployment
and low economic growth, to name but a few.
The Union must stop drifting. We need a
long term vision that would offer a direction
in which we should move.
The impression is that, over the last
years, similarly to a shoal of ice in the ocean,
we have been controlled by the underlying
currents.
There are moments when a vision is the
only way to get citizens on board as they
need a sense of direction, a feeling which
way we take them forward. Then populists
can become less attractive as they lack a sense
of direction and rather limit themselves to
destruction of what exists.
From the constitutional point of view, it
is a moment to rethink the way we integrate
and to reflect on a new, differentiated but not
discriminatory, type of European integration.
The institutional future of the EU lies in
differentiated integration.
We should accept this, accept that
diversified integration is an established fact
resulting from long-term trends and from the
sheer number of Member States.
However, we should build the necessary
safeguards to protect the EU-wide policies
(to be conducted at 27 or 28 Member States).
The most prominent of these policies is the
single market, which is why the integrity of
our single market should be preserved.
Consistency of the policies between the
euro and non-euro are countries must also
be ensured.
Also, with the departure of the UK and
given that the remaining non euro member
States constitute a heterogeneous group of
small and medium economies, it might be
the case that they may face discrimination
EU council President Donald Tusk (L), European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker (C) and President of Eurogroup Jeroen Dijsselbloem (R) leave
after giving a final press conference at the end of Eurozone leader summit on the Greek crisis, at the European Council headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, 13
July 2015. EPA/OLIVIER HOSLET
If the EU falls apart, it will disintegrate into 28 globally
irrelevant nation states, absolutely unable to address the
concerns of citizens such as terrorism, climate change,
sustainable economic growth and financial stability
from the block of euro area members.
Therefore, we also need safeguards to
prevent discrimination among Member
States. These safeguards should be under
the control of the European Commission,
as guardian of the treaties.
The architecture for the governance
of the euro area is incomplete and further
work and reforms are necessary to make
it effective. It is clear that what we need is
further integration among euro area member
States, and the Commission is due to come
up this spring with a white paper exposing
the next steps towards this fully-fledged
economic and monetary union.
Obvious steps to be taken are the
finalisation of the Banking Union, with
the creation of a fiscal backstop protecting
the Single Resolution Fund and with a
European Deposit Insurance Scheme, as well
as reflections on a budgetary capacity that
should be designed cleverly enough in order
to help cushion shocks without creating
permanent transfers and moral hazard.
This would have to lead to necessary
institutional changes (such as a European
Minister of Finance and a European
Treasury).
The coordination of macroeconomic
policies should be made more effective, with
proper mechanisms to incentivise structural
reforms and, crucially, ensure their national
ownership, without which we would risk
more Brussels-bashing.
2016 was marked by the emergence
of a so-called post-fact democracy, where
politicians can win elections based on lies
and false promises.
In 2017, three, maybe four, of the six
founding countries of the EU will hold
general elections.
These elections bear a risk that the
populist forces will dominate over the
mainstream forces in Europe.
The absence of a positive narrative in
political discourse is highly worrying. The
belief in the strength of the Union is no
longer what it used to be. We still have not
delivered on our promises, there are too
many unfinished businesses.
However 2017 can be a year of hope
and delivery. If the EU falls apart, it will
disintegrate into 28 globally irrelevant
nation states, absolutely unable to address
the concerns of citizens such as terrorism,
climate change, sustainable economic
growth and financial stability.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
QUO VADIS EUROPA?
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-20
www.neweurope.eu
Call for a European Public
by Monica Macovei
Member of the European Parliament from
Romania in the European Conservatives
and Reformists Group. Previously she was
Minister of Justice.
BELGIUM -BRUSSELS
Fraud with EU money is estimated at over 500
million euros each year. In the last 10 years, the
prosecution rate for this has climbed to 31%
of the hundreds of judicial recommendations
made by OLAF.
Frauding the EU budget should be made
a criminal offense throughout Europe. The
same goes for the VAT carousel fraud with EU
money. Therefore, we need the institution of
an European Prosecutor, given that in Member
States, these crimes are not prosecuted or
are not followed by serious condemnations.
In addition, it is necessary to harmonise the
prescription period for the investigation and
the prosecution of these acts of corruption,
money laundering and fraud.
The European Prosecutor should
oversee the investigation of all crimes
defined in the PIF Directive (Directive
on Fight against fraud to the Union's
financial interests by means of criminal
law, 2012/0193), by also including the
VAT carousel fraud. Also, the European
Prosecutor must have access to sufficient
means of investigation. In parallel, the
rights of suspects and accused persons
must be protected. The European Public
Prosecutor should have a clear mission, with
powers of investigation anywhere in the EU
and to be able to send in front of the judges all
criminal cases against the Union budget. Fully
respecting the Charter of Fundamental Rights
in its investigations, the Bureau of European
Prosecutor will work in cooperation with law
enforcement institutions in the Member States
and will prosecute those accused of fraud, in
order to make sure they are tried by competent
courts, in compliance with the laws of the
Member States.
The law enforcement authorities (the
prosecutors) in the Member States will not
be replaced or pushed aside, but supported
in the investigation of the cases of fraud. The
benefits are clear: criminal investigations and
indictments would be harmonised at the EU
level, bringing together the expertise and
the resources in such cases. The European
Prosecutor's Office will exchange information
and evidence quickly, by dispensing with
the lengthy and sometimes cumbersome
procedures when it comes to mutual legal
assistance between Member States.
Prosecutor’s Office
One of demonstrators holds a t-shirt reading 'Stop to banking fraud. The strength of consumers', as
several people wait to access the court to attend the first session of the mega-trial against Spanish savings
bank Caja Madrid for the mass selling of preferred shares and subordinated debt in Madrid, Spain, 14
July 2016.
EPA/CHEMA MOYA

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
QUO VADIS EUROPA?
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-21
www.neweurope.eu
Why enlargement still matters
by Knut Fleckenstein
Member of the European Parliament from
Germany and Vice-Chair of the Group of
the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and
BELGIUM Democrats. -BRUSSELS
Half of EU citizens support EU enlargement.
Thirteen years ago, around the time of the
much referred to European Council in
Thessaloniki, there was still a clear majority
in favour of new members joining the Union.
What has happened since? And why does it
not mean we should stop EU enlargement, but
instead focus on a more ambitious and more
political enlargement policy?
Since the 1990’s the perception of EU
enlargement has changed. At the time,
enlargement to the East was advocated as a
political duty to the countries that had been cut
off from their Western European neighbours
by the Iron Curtain. Today, the perspective
of further accessions is often portrayed as an
economic and social burden.
But even today, many EU citizens still
support the principle idea of enlargement.
When discussing with people from my
constituency, I feel that they do remain open
to arguments about the political benefits
of EU enlargement policy. However, they
are increasingly sceptical about the EU’s
capacity to cope with the economic and social
challenges of future EU accessions. This is not
a negative development per se. It means we
must put more attention and more resources
into shaping and maintaining an enlargement
policy that effectively addresses these
challenges - both in the EU member states
and in the candidate countries for accession.
At its June 2003 summit in Thessaloniki
the EU Heads of State and Government
promised a ‘European perspective’ to the
countries of the Western Balkans and clearly
stated that “the future of the Balkans is
within the European Union”. However, at
the beginning of the current Commission’s
mandate, President Juncker’s statement
according to which no further enlargement
would take place during the years 2014-2019
caused some unease to the public opinion
in the Western Balkans. Politics, especially
European reform-oriented political forces, and
society in the Western Balkans were alarmed
about the potential effects on the EU’s hitherto
committed enlargement policy.
The EU needs an active enlargement
strategy that keeps the enlargement countries
firmly engaged and promotes and strengthens
the accession process in the Western
Balkans. Without an ambitious and effective
enlargement policy, the EU will not be able to
maintain its influence over the democratisation
and stabilisation process.
In the past, the necessity of an “ambitious”
enlargement policy has often meant that the
accession process became more and more
technically sophisticated. Accession criteria
became more detailed, the number of
dialogue fora increased and more intermediary
steps on the way to opening or closing
accession negotiations were determined.
Sometimes it seems that the more detailed
the accession criteria became, the more the
Commissioner for European Neighborhood Policy & Enlargement Johannes Hahn (L) and Prime Minister of the Republic of Kosovo Isa Mustafa (R)
addressing media following their meeting in Pristina, Kosovo, 11 November 2016.
EPA/VALDRIN XHEMAJ
While a successful EU
enlargement policy requires
strict accession criteria and
easily verifiable benchmarks
for progress, it also requires the
European Commission to play
an active role in shaping the
accession process
EU’s commitment towards Western Balkans’
EU accession was put into question in the
countries themselves.
Therefore, today, the EU’s enlargement
policy finds itself caught in a permanent
balancing act between a comprehensive
bureaucratic process and political
considerations. While a successful EU
enlargement policy requires strict accession
criteria and easily verifiable benchmarks
for progress, it also requires the European
Commission to play an active role in shaping
the accession process.
The Western Balkans will need additional
support in order to maintain the reform
momentum over the coming years. It is not
EU accession criteria that help alter a political
culture where political compromises are often
seen as negative, where strong leadership is
favoured by some over broad participation and
where parliamentary boycotts are sometimes a
popular move of opposition parties. Albania is
an example of a candidate country where the
EU has accepted to give substantial support
to bringing about a comprehensive judiciary
reform. Ultimately, however, it is up to the
candidate countries to continue implementing
their ambitious reform packages and not to
lose track of their objective - EU membership.
In the end, the European integration of
the Western Balkan countries will only be
successful if EU accession and the related
political and economic reforms will be
perceived as political, economic and social
progress by the citizens and will thus meet
their support. The fight against corruption and
organised crime require an independent and
effective judiciary as well as well-functioning
mechanisms for regional cooperation. Despite
pressing economic and social challenges
- such as high levels of unemployment
especially among the youth or the necessity
to consolidate public finances - the promotion
of democracy and rule of law and the
strengthening of democratic institutions
must continue likewise, including in the area
of media freedom and transparency.
However, it is not enough to prepare the
Western Balkan countries individually for EU
accession. As future EU Members they will
have to cooperate together on a daily basis
inside and outside the EU institutions. Good
neighbourly relations are the cornerstone of
European integration. The EU’s enlargement
policy as well as the candidate and potential
candidate countries can therefore only benefit
from an even stronger focus on regional
cooperation. The accession process is only
the starting point of a much more complex
process in which the Western Balkans will
contribute to the yet continuing integration
project between 28 and more EU Member
States. European integration should lead to
political, economic and social progress and
should be expressed through the will of those
in government to cooperate in advancing the
EU's political integration project, to share
economic prosperity and solidarity with
neighbouring countries and to speak together
with one voice on the international scene.
These are important tasks for all those
who are committed to European reforms,
EU accession and continuing the European
integration project. The integration of the
Western Balkans into the EU can only be
successful if the necessary reforms in the
candidate countries bring political, economic
and social progress. For the EU, enlargement
policy can only remain a success story if we
manage to address the same concerns of
economic and social progress of today’s EU
citizens. Therefore we need uncompromised
commitment for accession-related reforms in
the candidate countries and for an ambitious
enlargement policy in the EU institutions and
among the EU member states.
We are well aware that all this needs time.
But sometimes all this time and the lengthy
processes can diminish the citizens’ enthusiasm
in the candidate countries. Therefore the EU,
and especially the European Parliament,
should come up with additional measures
to clearly demonstrate to the citizens: We do
want you in the EU and we do already support
you today.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
QUO VADIS EUROPA?
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-22
www.neweurope.eu
by Elisabetta Gardini
Member of the European Parliament
from Italy in the Group of the European
People's Party.
From challenges to changes
BELGIUM-BRUSSELS
2016 will certainly be remembered as the
“Brexit year,” but not only. All the unresolved
challenges facing the European Union
came up during this year, starting with the
migration crisis, which has enlarged the
divisions between the member states after
the proposals (or threats) by some to build
walls, and calls for the Schengen treaty to
be put under review. Let’s not forget the
terrorist threat that has put the sharing of
data and information at the centre of the
EU agenda.
After this, Turkey, one of our Nato
partners, as an exchange for managing the
migrant influx from Syria, has asked for the
abolition of visas and the re-launch of the
negotiations for its EU membership. At the
same time, after the failed “coup,” Ankara
has accelerated acts of repression and antidemocratic
reforms.
On the economic treaties side,
we observed the temporary stop of
the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership) with the US and
the complicated “signing” of the CETA
(Comprehensive Economic and Trade
Agreement) with Canada.
Moreover, 2016 was the year in which,
thanks to the ever-present economic crisis,
for the first time someone confronted
a specific idea of Europe based on
bureaucrats, economists, technocrats and
supporters of a “0 policy”. Europe seems to
have lost its common points of reference
and the project of the founding fathers De
Gasperi, Schuman and Adenauer.
Europe has to make a key choice: it
has to find a way to reach the hearts of
the EU citizens and give them once again
the hope of a future based on peace and
prosperity, but also the awareness of their
active participation in building the EU
project. The support for this idea is growing
throughout the continent, but incredibly
during these discussions we observed the
rise, not of the three EPP founding fathers’
project, but of the one formulated by
Altiero Spinelli.
The shift, from a media point of view,
took place in my country, Italy, when the
former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi
described Spinelli as an ideological EU point
of reference. Renzi took French President
Hollande and German Chancellor Angela
Merkel to Ventotene, where Spinelli,
imprisoned during the Second World War,
wrote what a political manifesto calling for
a free and united Europe.
Now, with all my respect for Spinelli
as a politician and for his contribution to
the birth of the EU, for his political and
human path, which he paid for in prison
during Fascism, my idea of Europe is very
different from his.
Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi (C), French President Francois Hollande (L) and German Chancellor Angela Merkel (R) during a press conference at the
end of their meeting on the Italian military ship 'Garibaldi' near Ventotene Island, Tirreno sea, Italy, 22 August 2016.
As we are inside the EU institution representing our
citizens, we have to work hard to ensure Europe once
again becomes a point of reference and a sense of hope
that is close to the citizens and the EU’s common ideals
But I also believe that the negative
elements of the EU, which are critical,
are closer to Spinelli's idea more than the
one of the three founding fathers. If we
read the famous “manifesto of Ventotene,”
it is clearly presented a Europe without
nations, key point of his ideology, which has
forgotten its (Christian) roots. Spinelli, in
his manifesto, speaks about “class struggles,”
“revolutionary movement,” “revolutionary
party,” and even refers to the “abolition of
the private property” of the production
tools, “tolerated only if temporary when
really needed”. There is no liberalism in
Spinelli’s political thinking.
The two visions of Europe, the one
of Spinelli and the one of the three
“founding fathers” were born to overcome
the horror of the two world wars and the
totalitarian ideologies which devastated our
populations.
There is a difference between these two
ideas of Europe: while the three founding
fathers were deeply convinced that the
European people had in their roots, values,
ideals, history, traditions and culture, the
strength to overcome the horror and build
up a Europe based on peace and prosperity,
Spinelli, on the other side, wants to cancel
all this because he finds in this ideology
the roots of the bad/evil that devastated
our continent.
But, as a former Italian minister once
said: “If the EU will decide to renounce
its traditions, cultures, roots, popular
sentiments and commune sense; it will
have no future”.
As we are inside the EU institution
representing our citizens, we have to work
hard to ensure Europe once again becomes
a point of reference and a sense of hope
that is close to the citizens and the EU’s
common ideals.
2017 will be key due to two important
elections that will be held in the two most
important political and economic countries
in the EU.
In May 2017, elections will take place
in France where observers already foresee
a too-close-to-call result between pro-EU
political forces and the Euro-sceptics. In
September 2017, we will have elections in
Germany where in the last local elections
we saw some signs that could serve as a
prelude to possible changes.
Also in 2017, the UK should concretely
trigger the famous article 50 of the Lisbon
Treaty that sets out the path for leaving the
EU. In this case as well, we don't know what
will happen. We don’t know if it will be a
hard or soft Brexit, if London will remain
in the EU market paying a quota and if
Scotland will try to find a way out of the
UK.
In the end, for our dear old Europe, it
will be a period of difficult tests but it could
also be the year finally giving a start to the
changes that everyone is more and more
urgently invoking.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
QUO VADIS EUROPA?
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-23
www.neweurope.eu
by Neena Gill
Member of the European Parliament
from the United Kingdom in the Group of
the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and
Democrats. The article is in conjunction
with the ‘Born Free Foundation’.
The close of the year
and future directions
BELGIUM -BRUSSELS
At the close of a year which firmly coined
the words ‘Brexit’ and ‘Post-Truth’ in our
daily lives and dictionaries, it is important to
look back and draw lessons from what went
wrong - but even more important to look
ahead, think strategically, and act decisively.
Following the result of the UK referendum,
the elections taking place next year in France,
Germany, the Netherlands and potentially
Italy will have a determining impact on the
future of Europe.
We face the arduous task of regaining
citizens’ support for the European project
and taking decisive action to create jobs and
growth, combat climate change and manage
the influx of refugees in a proper and humane
way. This will require the EU to look inwards
(not on institutional balance/structures)
and engage in self-reflection on disconnect
with the citizens and push through effective
reform that increases its effectiveness.
Of equal importance, however, is the
broader context in which this effort is taking
place. However logical this may sound, so
far this wider dimension has not captured
the attention of citizens, civil society and
political leaders to the required extent.
Of course I am not referring to the advent
of Trump as President-Elect for the US
given speculation about the implications of
his presidency - for our ability to stand our
ground against Russia, effectively combat
climate change, find a solution to the crises
in Syria and elsewhere - have vastly occupied
the minds of politicians and newspaper’s
headlines alike.
The future direction to be taken by the
US is a question of crucial importance - but
it only tells half the story. Over the past years,
actors in another region of major strategic
importance, Asia, have been increasingly
asserting themselves on the world stage and
working their way to the top decision table
on global governance - China, India and
South East Asian countries chief among
them. The more isolationist approach
heralded by Trump potentially means more
room for these major actors to step up such
efforts - and impact the rest of the world.
The EU however has yet to step up
engagement vis à vis the region. This is of
concern given changes in the global political
landscape are taking place at a time when we
find ourselves in a particularly vulnerable
position; when the UK departs, it will take
with it a permanent seat on the UN Security
Council, its financial centre that plays a key
role in the implementation of sanctions as
vital foreign policy instrument, and much
needed contributions to the European
policies on development and defence.
Several issues linked to Asia have been
covered in the comprehensive global
Demonstrator dressed as bloody butchers take part in protests against the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), a trade deal between the
EU and Canada, in front of the EU Council building, in Brussels, Belgium, 30 October 2016.
EPA/ARIS OIKONOMOU
strategy presented by HRVP Mogherini
in June. But when it comes to priorities
for implementation, it will be the mood
amongst citizens, civil society and political
leaders that sets the agenda. Apart from the
fact that Asia currently is not exactly high
up there, it also appears there is growing
push back against free trade and policies
connected to globalisation in general - an
area in which this region, to the contrary, is
rapidly moving forward.
Many of the concerns that are being
formulated in the context of negotiations on
TTIP or ratification of CETA are certainly
justified; it is of vital importance to ensure
that the benefits of free trade are shared in an
equal manner across society and that those
who carry the burdens are compensated; it
is equally crucial to ensure we can uphold
high standards on labour, health, human
rights and the environment.
Yet apart from getting our own house in
order on this, it is also key to reflect on the
impact of developments in this field in Asia
on our ability to protect these interests.
With the prospect of US withdrawal
from TPP and TTIP negotiations similarly
in stormy weather, it is increasingly looking
like the next big thing in town will be the
EU Japan trade agreement and possibly
the Regional Comprehensive Economic
Partnership (RCEP), a pan-Pacific trade pact
pushed forward by China.
RCEP however sets the bar considerably
lower on social and environmental
protection compared to both TTIP and TPP.
Given the China-driven pact would include
many of the booming ASEAN economies,
other major players such as Australia, India,
Japan, Korea and New Zealand, its ability
to weigh on the global trade agenda would
be significant. The impact of an agreement
that creates the world’s largest free trade bloc,
accounting for almost half of the world’s
population, nearly a third of global GDP
and over a quarter of exports, would almost
certainly be difficult for Europe to escape.
In this context, it would be wise to step
up engagement with governments and civil
society in the region in order to ensure our
interests are taken on board to the highest
extent possible.
This however will require some clout.
Therefore it is worthwhile to simultaneously
explore possibilities how to keep open all our
trade negotiations, harnessing the important
steps taken forward in stalled TTIP on
reformed investment protection system - a
result of joint pressure by the public and
progressives in the parliament.
Scoping possibilities to uphold high
standards in other fields would be equally
advisable - even in the absence of clarity
on the appetite for the US to move closer
towards the EU on these issues under a
Republican leadership with a deregulation
agenda. Simultaneously playing on rising
public pressure on both sides of the US
political spectrum to make trade more fair
and Trump’s eagerness to thwart China could
help us a long way in making this possible.
A second motivation to move the EU
trade agenda forward across the globe
is to fight the perception amongst key
Asian actors that the EU cannot deliver -
a challenge already existing in the region
and one that certainly is not in our interest
to enhance. Negotiations on a trade and
investment agreement with India, to cite
one example, have been ongoing for nearly
a decade, and the implication of the failure
to achieve a breakthrough is increasingly
becoming apparent as India is moving
closer to its Chinese adversary under
RCEP. This would mean a lost opportunity
to strengthen ties and create leverage with a
country that combines the titles of world’s
largest democracy and fastest growing major
economy - a capacity that entails significant
potential to shape the global agenda on trade,
investment and governance in general.
Moving our trade agenda forward is not
only important to create jobs and growth and
protect high standards; it is one of the few
instruments available to the EU to put itself
on the map as a partner of value in the region.
As tensions are rising in the South China
Sea and the Indian Ocean, both of which
harbour maritime routes that are crucial for
our trade, defending our interests will not be
possible unless we step into the void that is
likely to be created by the Trump Presidency.
As 2016 with all its change and upheaval
is coming to a close, we have a lot of food
for thought.
The impact of developments in and
relations with Asia on our ability to make the
EU deliver is one more element we should
add to the list. There is no time to lose to
start creating and strengthening those links,
given with Brexit upon us the EU stands to
lose a country that traditionally played the
role of bridgehead to Europe for many Asian
countries - especially those who are part of
the Commonwealth.
Stepping up engagement with the region
will be an important ingredient to help
ensure that at the close of the year in 2017
we will be able to toast to more jobs, growth
and a stronger EU.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
QUO VADIS EUROPA?
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-24
www.neweurope.eu
Elections will continue to
by Ulrike Trebesius
Member of the European Parliament from
Germany in the European Conservatives
and Reformists Group.
dominate politics in 2017
BELGIUM - BRUSSELS
2017 will be a crucial year for the EU. The
popular votes on the Brexit and the choice
for Trump as the new US President have
rattled the establishment in the EU. The
vote against Renzi and his reform agenda
in Italy was regarded by many as an anti-
EU vote as well. With elections in the
Netherlands, France and Germany coming
up there is potential for more turmoil. The
migration crisis is not under control, as even
president Juncker admitted recently. While
many member states depend on the EU for
transfer payments, most do not want the
EU to interfere with their internal matters.
The refusal of the Visegrad countries to
take in migrants was a clear statement that
was quietly welcomed by many in Western
Europe as well.
The EU is not in a good shape and there
are many voices that question its ability to
survive. To even ask this kind of question was
unthinkable just a few years ago, but with the
Euro-crisis festering for almost a decade now,
frustration is high and patience is running
out. Much of the damage done was caused
by the Euro-system. If this system fails the EU
is in grave danger as well as there was much
political capital spent by the EU on saving
this dysfunctional monetary union.
A central problem will be the future of
Italy. Italy is the third biggest economy of
the Euro-zone and it is burdened by too
much regulation non-performing loans in
the private sector. It has not mustered the
political will to overcome its problems and
perhaps by now the problems are too great to
overcome on its own. While overregulation
could in theory be dealt with, someone will
have to pay for the non-performing loans.
The Italian government is not ready to
let any of the bigger banks go under because
this would hurt many small private investors
who are holding junior bonds in these banks.
It took the EU years to implement the new
European banking regulation and regulation
for the banking union which forbid state-aid
to banks, but it seems that these rules will be
already abandoned.
The fear of Beppe Grillo and his fivestar
movement profiting from any bail-in
is too great in Rome and in Brussels. In the
end Italy wants to socialize the cost of bank
restructuring in Europe.
The EU is prepared to go along with this
but instead of going for a one-time debt relief
it wants to implement permanent transfer
systems and reign in the member states
whose economic policy it no longer trusts.
If this plan was successful, the EU would gain
more power and reduce the member states
to provinces in regards to economic policy.
These ideas are outlined in the 5-Presidents
report, the Bresso-Brok and the Verhofstadt
reports.
M5S leader Beppe Grillo during his speech at the end of the demonstration staged by the anti-establishment Five-Star Movement (M5S) to support 'No' at in the
04 December Constitutional reform referendum, in Turin, Italy, 02 December 2016. EPA/ALESSANDRO DI MARCO
As a German, these days I have to rely on smaller
countries to save us from the vision of the European
super-state. In any case I believe that it will be elections
that dominate 2017. Perhaps only in 2018 these results
will translate into politics
But are these ideas credible? Is there
enough support in the member states for this
kind of European integration at a time when
anti-EU forces gain ground everywhere? I
very much doubt this.
Some countries, like France, want
transfer systems but at the same time keep
their political independence and countries
such as the Netherlands or Austria will be
unwilling to pay. With hundreds of breaches
of the Stability and Growth pact, trust in the
rule of law on the EU level has suffered and
nobody knows if any new promises would
be kept.
As we know from EU-Commission
President Juncker, the EU does not even
expect countries such as France to respect the
rules and has resigned itself to tolerate this
behaviour. Unless the EU wants to leave the
entire economic problem to the ECB and its
printing press, it will need German support
and German money. In the past few years
the crisis has lead to many political casualties
and many in the EU believe that Merkel is
the only leader left in Europe who has the
political will and financial power to deal with
the problems.
I personally have little doubt that for
the sake of the Euro-system Merkel and her
minister of finance Wolfgang Schäuble are
prepared to pay for the problems in southern
Europe after the election to the German
Bundestag at the end of September. Plans
of European centralization and additional
transfer systems will be supported by the
Social Democrats, Greens, and the Left.
The potential SPD nominee Martin Schulz
has even called for giving the European
Parliament the power to raise taxes in order
to finance “many wonderful projects”.
Merkel is not a conservative at heart
and she might join forces with those parties
that want more centralization and transfer
systems.
While Merkel is damaged politically due
to her handling of the migration crisis, for
both her and Schäuble the coming election
is their last one.
None of them seems to care much about
the fate of their own party, the CDU, which
after the Merkel years does not have much
personnel left and could be terminally
damaged by such a rescue operation for the
Euro system.
As a German, these days I have to rely on
smaller countries to save us from the vision
of the European super-state. In any case I
believe that it will be elections that dominate
2017. Perhaps only in 2018 these results will
translate into politics.

y Tokia Saïfi
Member of the European Parliament
from France in the Group of the European
People's Party.
ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
QUO VADIS EUROPA?
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-25
www.neweurope.eu
The unity of the EU and the trust of
citizens in the EU must be restored!
BELGIUM - BRUSSELS
After a turbulent 2016 in international trade
(questioning of the TTIP on both Atlantic
coasts, Wallonia blocking the CETA signature
process etc.), 2017 promises to be equally
dense and will oblige us to define which
European trade policy we want.
First of all, it is worth remembering that
the EU trade policy is one of the founding
policies of the Union. All the criticisms, which
the EU trade policy is facing, certainly reflect
the current questions that the European
citizens have about the European Union, its
values and its objectives.
However, in the context of contested
international trading practices and beyond
the whole process of globalization, the figures
point out that one in seven jobs in Europe
depends on exports and that we cannot ignore
the key role of trade in our economy.
Where will we seek out European growth
and jobs if we turn our back on our trade
policy?
International trade has intensified for
several years, but at the same time, the WTO
is losing momentum and experiencing a
crisis that is akin to a deadlock. Any reform
or relaunch appear to be compromised and
several WTO members, including the EU,
have therefore chosen to negotiate free trade
agreements on a bilateral basis in order to
develop their trade relations.
The opening of new markets is an
opportunity for our economic players,
especially our SMEs, and can contribute to
enhance the European economic growth as
well as to create new jobs.
Furthermore, at a time when Asia gains,
everyday, more and more economic power,
the European Union cannot be left out of
this international dynamic. For many years,
Europe has set exemplary standards ensuring
better consumer safety and guaranteeing the
competitiveness of our companies. Why
should the EU not use its experience and
these trade negotiations as an opportunity to
fix European standards as global references?
Future international trade practices and rules
cannot be minimum standards, the EU must
move forward and share its expertise.
However, the intensification of trade
negotiations in recent years has raised fears
and questions.
Discourses have created and strengthened
the feeling that trade agreements would
modify the European social model.
As a member of the European Parliament,
I would like to clarify this point: we will
never accept a trade agreement which opens
the EU market to chlorinated chicken, nor
which would allow the destruction of our
agricultural model or which would endanger
our public services. The European Union is
based on common values and every European
A double exposure of the Wallon region cock fight flag and Paul Magnette, Minister-President of the French-speaking region of Wallonia giving a speech on the
latest developments on CETA during a plennary session of the Wallon region parliament in Namur, Belgium, 28 October 2016.
EPA/OLIVIER HOSLET
The Walloon episode
has undermined
the credibility of the
European Union on
the international
stage. The long and
complex procedures
of mixed agreements
may endanger the
credibility of our
policy.
policy must respect them and promote them.
The European model cannot be sacrificed
on the altar of free trade. Trade agreements
cannot be concluded at any price and the
negotiations must be conducted in a spirit of
reciprocity and mutual benefits.
In order to counter these discourses
that intend to destroy any perspective of
trade, negotiations need to be made more
transparent. Each actor must fulfill its
role and contribute to a constructive and
inclusive dialogue. Hence, it is fundamental
that negotiating mandates are published in
order to be able to assimilate the objectives
of each negotiation and the basis on which it
is established.
The European Commission must
disseminate more information on the
ongoing negotiations and create a dialogue
with civil society and businesses. At the
same time, Member States have a role to
play in the transmission of information at the
national level and must cease their doublespeaks
which prevent any clarification of
the debate, sow trouble and cause a loss of
public confidence. Moreover, the European
Parliament and national parliaments must also
be kept informed.
The Walloon episode has undermined
the credibility of the European Union on the
international stage. The long and complex
procedures of mixed agreements may
endanger the credibility of our policy. How
would a trading partner agree to negotiate
with us if the European Union can at the last
moment destroy an ambitious and balanced
agreement after several years of negotiation?
The unity of the European Union and the
trust of citizens in the EU must be restored
as soon as possible. There is also a need to
communicate more about the benefits of
trade agreements; for example, the effects of
the agreement with Korea are widely ignored
and yet : since the trade deal entered into
force, EU exports to Korea have increased by
55%. This type of information is too often left
behind in favor of discourses which distort
reality.
Finally, the European Union trade
policy cannot be summarized merely by the
negotiation of free trade agreements. Europe
also aims, through this policy, to fight against
any unfair competition that our companies
could face. The current trade defense
instruments of the European Union have been
established more than twenty years ago and
there is an urgent need for them to be more
reactive, more efficient and more accessible,
in particular for our SMEs. In this context,
the debate on the question of China's market
economy status reminds us how the EU
should act in order to protect the European
industry.
In the face of so many cases of dumping,
Europe must stop being naive and must be
offensive. China is not a market economy and
we must firmly arm our businesses to fight
against any case of unfair competition, from
any country. Unfair trading practices must not
harm our economy and our jobs.
And the EU trade policy is also about
promoting a more responsible, fair and
balanced trade. Consumers want to know
more about the production methods, the
actors involved in the supply chain and
the origin of the different components of
any product in the EU market. Again, the
European Union must provide information
and ensure that our trade practices meet the
values that we defend and promote to our
partners. However, all this must be achieved
without harming our businesses and ensuring
that their competitiveness on the international
scene.
At a crossroads of questions about
the relevance of the European Union and
globalization, our trade policy must be able
to renew itself.
It is by standing for clear and shared
objectives in accordance with our values and
interests that the European Union will be
able to prove that its project is still useful and
crucial for Europeans and for the rest of the
world.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
QUO VADIS EUROPA?
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-26
www.neweurope.eu
by Annie Schreijer-Pierik
Member of the European Parliament
from the Netherlands in the Group of the
European People's Party.
Bring back solidarity in EU
Handle EU with more care, please
Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May leaves at the end of an European Summit in Brussels, Belgium, 15 December 2016.
EPA/OLIVIER HOSLET
BELGIUM - BRUSSELS
Europe seems almost to crumble over the
large number of crises. The Brexit, Greek
debt, TTIP, problems with ratification
of the EU- Ukraine-treaty and CETA, as
well as a number of eurosceptic politicians
entering national governments.
This is not a very positive mid-term
review of the EU-politics.
But let us realize that we are dealing with
practical problems of current cooperation.
The EU in total has a wonderful track
record: More peace, security, freedom of
expression and adequate work and food.
These goals have been achieved during
more than 60 years. The problem is that
too much people take these benefits for
granted: as if peace and prosperity naturally
will also remain without the EU.
The reality is that we cannot and should
not throw EU cooperation overboard. Do
not believe those political arsonists who set
the EU House on fire and then do not know
how to control the fire or rebuild the house.
The British already face great
uncertainty in anticipation of the end of
its EU-membership around 2019. British
Prime Minister Theresa May preliminary
asked for a guarantee so UK residents
would be allowed to continue live in the
EU: a very clear "no" was the answer from
the EU: “first start negotiating, then we will
see about your rights”. Businesses in Britain
are in limbo: If the EU imposes import
tariffs on British products, this will hurt
British companies even more.
It is clear: without the EU, we all lose
a lot. Not only does the EU facilitate trade
on the continent, it is also a tremendous
cost saving that Brussels officials are doing
the work for officials in 28 EU countries.
Only the EU has the power to stand up to
mobile operators and abolish its roaming
charges; Only the EU has the power to
stand up to foreign multinationals who try
to avoid paying reasonable taxes; Only the
EU could agree with Turkey on managing
the refugee influx. And only the EU has the
power to introduce a free InterRail card for
18 year olds in so many countries.
Handle with care
The EU is a good thing. It needs to be
handled with more care. Most importantly,
a feeling of solidarity should return among
the governments of the EU countries. Too
often we see the attitude of "every man for
himself ". But this attitude does not bring
anyone further in the long term: like cyclists
facing headwind, we know that it is better
to form a group instead of facing the wind
alone.
So, the EU-agreements should be fairer
for everyone. Leaders should comply with
the agreements, who says "yes" in Brussels
cannot say "no" back in the Member State.
It is bad for EU-credibility when leaders
agree that diesel vehicles must emit less
harmful substances, but in the meantime
do otherwise. Also, it does not look good
if Member States compete with each
other on secretive national tax deals with
multinationals.
Christianity
The founding fathers of the EU had a
Christian vision of sharing, trusting and
reaching out to nations in need. I am
reminded by this, every time I see the EUflag
with its twelve stars: its design was
inspired by a Biblical description of the holy
virgin Maria surrounded by twelve stars.
Although Christianity might be in
decline, and the EU may face problems, I
am of the opinion that solidarity should
remain. EU-countries must stand together,
right now there is even an urgent need.
Anyone can see that Russian power and
influence is growing. The new American
president Donald Trump seems not to
bother about helping Europe or NATO.
So the EU itself must provide a solid
defense, internet safety and peace. That
goes for the European continent, but also
for nearby Ukraine and the Middle East.
A bishop from Iraq, whom I invited
to Brussels for a conference on Christian
persecution, told me he was impressed by
the terrorist attacks on the Brussels airport
and subway. "Madam, we see such attacks
three times a day," the Bishop told me.
I do not want Europe to become such a
world. Amid the worldwide problems, the
bickering about the EU looks futile. let us
realise: EU countries are prosperous and
peaceful because we removed barriers for
people and business.
Only through European cooperation,
we maintain that peace, security, freedom
of expression, enough work and food.
Although
Christianity might
be in decline, and
the EU may face
problems, I am of
the opinion that
solidarity should
remain. EUcountries
must
stand together,
right now there
is even an urgent
need

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
QUO VADIS EUROPA?
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-27
www.neweurope.eu
by Marian Apostol
Interreligious dialogue at all levels
Member of General Secretariat,
EPP Group.
BELGIUM-BRUSSELS
The concept of the interreligious dialogue
more often infiltrates into politics,
especially into international politics. It is
so because it seems to be an important
instrument of cooperation, establishing
new relations between representatives of
different religions and meetings which are
attended by leading national politicians and
politicians of international institutions. The
dialogue is very often inspired by them. It
seeks peaceful solutions of coexsistence of
different religions and faiths. Its aim is the
mutual recognition and the understanding
of spiritual leaders and familiarizing the
politicians with spiritual principles and
different positions taken by religions on their
current problems. The dialogue assumes
openness and respect to other humans and
their religions. In the dialogue one seeks
the truth, but simultaneously he is allowed
to strengthen himself in his own indentity
and faith. It teaches humility to others and
bolsters the ability of listening to them.
Essentially, we understand the
interreligious dialogue as the dialogue
between the Catholic Church with the
confessors of non-Christian religions. It
was initialised during the Second Vatican
Council in the sixties. The pope Paul VI had
supported the dialogue between Catholic
and Jews, which resulted in the creation
of International Catholic-Jewish Liaison
Committee (ILC). At that time was issued
the “Nostra Aetate”, which specified the
conditions of the dialogue with Judaism:
mutual respect for the diversity and tradition
and the recognition of different elements
of the two religions. The dialogue was
afterwards developed by the pope Jan Paul
II and emphasized by his historical visit
to the Great Synagogue of Rome in 1986
when he was talking about mutual heritage
of Jews and Christians, which results from
the Evangel and from the spirituality of the
Old Testament.
The Holy See established the Pontifical
Commission for Religious Relations with
the Jews, which implements the abovementioned
Declaration “Nostra Aetate”.
Despite two thousand years of coexistence,
establishing the official relations is some kind
of novelty and an invitation to developing the
dialogue intending to create mutual respect
and the recognition of one's freedoms.
These relations allow to reach to the
sources and the beginnings of the Christian
faith described in the Bible. The meetings
and conversations took the name “dialogue”.
This openness of the Catholic Church
to other religions and the intention to
establishing good relations is a merit of
the Second Vatican Council. The dialogue
therefore has become not only some kind
of meetings and collaborations, but the
Pope Francis greets faithful during the Angelus prayer in St. Peter's Square, Vatican City, 11 August 2013.
Pope Francis on 11 August called Muslims 'our brothers' as he sent greetings to them after the recent end
of their fasting month of Ramadan. He said he hoped 'Christians and Muslims strive to promote respect
for one another, particularly through the education of new generations.' EPA/MAURIZIO BRAMBATTI
necessity and the right attitude in the
brutal world. The significance and role
of this dialogue is increasing, especially in
Europe. It is important for Churches and
politicians. The Vatican Secretary for non-
Christians and Papal Council for Dialogue
keep relations with others religions: Judaism,
Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc. It expresses
solidarity and helps the Yazidi persecuted by
the Islamic State.
The Catholic Church conducts friendly
relations with the Orthodox Church and
other Christian Churches in the world. We
call this kind of relations an Ecumenism.
It is an appropriate name, because its
target is an unification of all Christians:
Catholics, Orthodox, Greco-Catholics,
Greco-Orthodox, Protestants, Lutherans,
Copts, Assyrians etc. Cooperation with
the Orthodox Church is an attempt to find
a common road lost by a Great Schism
1000 years ago. The pope John Paul II was
a big follower of developing movement of
ecumenical unification of the Christians
and then of applying this approach to other
religions. This approach is the interreligious
dialogue, the relations between the
independent entities.
This open position of the Catholic
Church resulted in establishing dynamic
relations especially with Jewish and
Muslims. The special prayer meetings were
inspired by the Pope John Paul II in Assisi in
1986. The religious leaders prayed together
for the peace in the world. Trough the
dialogue the religions can emphasize their
role and mission with respect to the others
and without proselytizing. Each religions
is different which cause a lot of difficulties
in the negotiations. Dialogue respects the
sovereignty of each subject and does not
permit to blend the rites and practices which
would lead to the syncretism.
Each religion is independent and can
play the special role of reconciliation and
peacebuilding between the people and the
nations in the present world. The Pope
Franciscus appeals to the hostile parts
to take up a peaceful dialogue. He said:
”Interreligious dialogue is a necessary
condition of peacebuilding in the world.
Only trough the dialogue we can eliminate
the intolerance and discrimination”.
The dialogue must move from the level
of the pope, patriarchs, bishops, rabbis,
imams, etc. to the individuals. It is a duty of
each person to respect the dignity and life of
the others, it is a human right.
At present the European politicians
observe and try to participate in this dialogue.
They have an official instrument, article 17
of the TFUE. The Lisbon Treaty confirm
relations with churches: “The EU [...]
recognizing their identity and their specific
contribution, the Union shall maintain
an open transparent and regular dialogue
with the churches and organizations”. EU
politicians know that the Churches and
religious communities have an important
influence over the society. For keeping a
good European project it is important to
keep proper relations with the Churches. It
is a common program of human values of
the democratic states.
The leaders of the EPP (European
People's Party) have understood this
principle 20 years ago. They began the first
dialogue with the Catholic and Orthodox
Churches, then with Jewish and Muslims.
The dialogue with the Orthodox Church
allows to keep good relations with East
Europe orthodox countries, members and
not-members of the EU.
This action made possible the better
integration in the EU and better relations
with its neighbours. Small Department for
Interreligious Dialogue prepares each year
a lot of conferences, Working Groups and
meetings with different religious leaders.
This activities permit to analyse a lot of
difficult issues of social, economic and
politic ground. The conferences often refer
to human rights violations and, especially, to
persecution of Christians and other religious
and ethnic minorities.
The subjects of this conferences are
present European and world problems:
migrations, terrorism, war in the Middle
East, security etc. Definitely not the easiest
questions. In this case, to resolve a very
difficult problem, there is a deep need of
the dialogue with Islam. It is a dialogue
very difficult, but feasible. Feassible with a
moderate Islam.
This dialogue would open the better
relations, especially with the Mediterranean,
neighbourly countries. The Christians'
leaders help in this dialogue for the interest
of the both. Both Christianity and Islam
are monotheist religions, they share some
similarities and experience big differences.
Both are the missionary religions, however
the Christianity have a hierarchy and Islam
does not. Each Imam is independent and
can interpret the Koran according to its own
education.
The dialog touches a very delicate matter.
Delicate when it comes to the religious side
and delicate in a politic way.
The EPP members are conscious of
this fragility but they aim to defend the
EU and human values which are often
being threatened by extremism forces and
recurrent crises in the world. The members
of the EPP can – with other colleagues,
if necessary – adopt the appropriate
resolution, in the form of the European
Parliament act. They did it in the past. It is
a prestigious document, important in the
international relationships. This atypical
act expresses the power of will and moral
position of the Parliament. This important
signal can reach the European diplomacy
and the Members in order to adopt a
common political act.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
QUO VADIS EUROPA?
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-28
www.neweurope.eu
by Elen Wasylina
President International Geostrategic
Maritime Observatory.
BELGIUM - BRUSSELS
Europe is in a fragile state, unable to understand
let alone harness the forces of change. The fall
of the Berlin Wall, the dissolution of the Soviet
Union, and the technological disruption
triggered by the internet revolution have
catalyzed globalisation. And that is only the
beginning. Climate change combines with a
demographic explosion, conflict, and poverty
to add to migration flows from the Middle
East and Africa, which have only just begun.
The Arab Spring that promised to end
authoritarianism in the Middle East has led
to the dissolution and weakening of states
in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, allowing Islamic
State to raise and threaten Europe. Angela
Merkel’s (Mutti’s) promise to take in 1
million migrants has weakened her politically
both at home and in the European Union,
where unemployment is high, especially
for young people. The peoples and leaders
of Europe appear overwhelmed, especially
when one adds unemployment into this
mixture of compounding challenges. These
factors undermine the project of European
Integration, from the periphery to the core,
as governments are seen unable to stand up
to the challenges, resolutely and efficiently.
After an “almost Grexit,” we are now faced
with Brexit, and we face the threat of Italexit
and perhaps Frexit.
The common denominator in BREXIT,
Donald Trump’s victory in the United States
and the unlikely victory of François Fillon in
the centre-right primaries in France is their
social base of support. Brexit voters were to
be found in the former industrial heartland of
the North of England, as well as the former
mining towns. The cleavage is both economic
and cultural.
The blue-collar turns against the whitecollar
and the college-educated against the
masses of the less educated. Those who feel
entrapped in their locality turn against the
passport-holding cosmopolitans. In some
respects, the middle-aged and elderly vote
in the hope of making a change, while the
young of all political persuasions abstain
unless they are the socially empowered elites
of Oxford and Cambridge. The former and
rapidly declining national centres of industrial
development, like Glasgow, East Yorkshire,
and Northern Lincolnshire, seem ages and
cultures apart from the service-based, global,
and EU integrated metropolis of London.
Similarly, Donald Trump transformed the
Republican Party into a vehicle for the fight
against globalisation. He led a movement
promoting an anti-liberal answer to several
divisive issues, which, in turn, brought to the
fore the broad division of the country along
the lines of income, religion, ethnicity, and
gender. Again, there are direct comparisons
with Brexit experience that underscore the
social foundation of the Trump movement.
From Trump to Europe
Losing confidence in the ability of liberal
democracy to deliver for the common man
Former French Prime Minister and candidate of the 2017 presidential elections, Francois Fillon at Maison de la Chimie in Paris, France, 27 November 2016.
EPA/YOAN VALAT
Trump represented the America left behind
by globalisation. Like in the Brexit vote,
education is a good indicator of voting
preference, with Trump emerging as the
champion of the non-College educated
whites, who are older and feel can’t catch up
with the rapidly changing and globalising
economy. Uniquely, Trump also accentuated
a gender gap in voting, representing men
more than women.
The significance of the Trump presidency
in Europe, especially after Brexit, can bolster
the momentum of the populist far right,
although Austria recently avoided crossing
the Rubicon, opting for the pro-European
Alexander Van der Bellen. However, Matteo
Renzi resigned after a failed constitutional
referendum in Italy and the future of the third
largest economy in the Eurozone is uncertain.
50% of Italy’s youth is faced with the inability
of socialist governments to generate jobs.
France voted to extend the state of
emergency for six more months, to cover
the national holiday ( July 14) and the
forthcoming Presidential elections. Over the
last year, Paris is no longer the second most
visited city in the world as visitor numbers
have tumbled by 50% since the Paris attacks
on November 13, 2015. The incumbent
President, François Hollande, has reached
an abysmal 4% in the polls; Manuel Valls will
contest for the nomination of the Socialist
Party, but his appeal is in the single digits.
Leading the polls at this point is the
winner of the centre-right primaries, François
Fillon. Fillion emerged as the underdog of the
centre-right primaries to convincingly beat
the Mayor of Bordeaux and former Prime
Minister, Alain Juppé, as well as former
President Nicolas Sarkozy. He is running
on a platform of radical reforms and job
creation that will take precedence over public
spending. His primary opponent is Marine
Le Pen of the Front National, leaving the
rest of the race to the left-leaning Emmanuel
Macron. The most likely scenario currently
is that the far-right candidate will be defeated
by François Fillon, while the Socialists will
suffer a detrimental defeat. However, it is
astounding that Le Pen is expected to secure
as much as a 44% share of the vote. And that
is hardly surprising given that the political
agenda over the last 18 months has been
dominated by successive terrorist attacks
and the lack of security. Public opinion
is extremely concerned about Jihadism,
terrorism, migration and unemployment, a
mixture that imbues the electoral campaign
with some of the socio-cultural traits of the
US Presidential elections. In sum, it is fair to
say that France goes to the polls with concerns
similar to those of the British and American
electorates.
Is our faith in democracy waning? Yascha
Monk thinks so, as he pointed out in a study
reviewed by the New York Times, democracy
is in danger. And I agree. As I wrote in a
book published in 2014 – Ukraine: prémices
de guerrefroideen Europe? – living in a
democracy appears to be less significant than
security of all kinds:
“Ainsi l’ordre mondial va changer sur le plan
géopolitique, économique et la balance of power,
même le centre du pouvoir va être transférer des
économies matures vers des économies émergentes
ou émergées. La plus grosse erreur de l’Ouest et de
la communauté internationale serait de pousser
la Russie à se tourner vers des États totalitaires,
qui ensemble, créeront un bloc d’États solidaires
et homogènes sur le plan de la gouvernance, où les
règles du jeux changeront pour favoriser le droit
du plus fort et non le respect de l’état de droit,
ce qui changera considérablement les acteurs
dominants, ceux qui siègent aussi bien au Conseil
de Sécurité que dans les instances internationales,
mais aussi sur les marchés financières et
économiques. Une nouvelle guerre froide entre
les grandes puissances sera une guerre nucléaire
sans retour, une guerre d’énergie et de l’eau. Celui
qui dominera, qui occupera l’espace du Rimland
sera celui qui aurait des ressources militaires,
financières, énergétiques et humaines ainsi que
les infrastructures performantes et efficientes.”

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
QUO VADIS EUROPA?
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-29
www.neweurope.eu
by Ralf Grahn
Myopia or utopia?
Lawyer based in Finland
and euroblogger.
FINLAND-HELSINKI
For the citizens of the European Union,
Russia has turned more aggressive, China
more assertive, the United States more
unpredictable, NATO less reassuring,
the United Kingdom more self-absorbed,
Turkey more authoritarian, the Middle East
and North Africa more threatening, internal
trust more elusive, visions more limited,
expectations more negative, leadership
more scarce, solidarity more rare and the
forces of darkness more menacing.
Briand plan
A united Europe was not achieved and we
had war, said the French foreign minister
Robert Schuman on the original EU Europe
Day, 9 May 1950.
Schuman evoked the 5 September
1929 call by prime minister and foreign
minister Aristide Briand to the Assembly
of the League of Nations for some sort of
federal link among the peoples of Europe
and the more detailed presentation of the
initiative in the 1 May 1930 Quai d’Orsay
memorandum (by Alexis Leger).
The regional association with permanent
institutions among the 27 European
members of the League, potentially leading
to a federal European union, would have
prepared the institutional framework and
a cooperation programme consisting of
political, economic, social and other issues.
In the Briand plan brave aspirations for
the European union competed with modest
beginnings in contradictory wording: a
federation based on the idea of union, not
unification (unité), in other words flexible
enough to respect the independence and
national sovereignty of each state, while
ensuring them all the benefits of the
collective solidarity.
Under political auspices, bringing the
economies closer might lead to a permanent
customs agreement and the establishment
of a common market, with the progressive
liberalisation and easing of the movement
of goods, capital and persons. - Section
IV contained an imposing list of issues
for further study, but the memorandum
underlined the need to make a modest start.
Even these precautions were not
enough. Jealous of their sovereignty, the
myopic national governments effected a
silent burial of the French proposal, but
almost all of the states suffered torment
and devastation, even annihilation, during
the Second World War, many of them reemerging
from occupation and dictatorship
only in the 1990’s.
Myopia always?
In addition to the external threats and
internal weaknesses already mentioned, the
Eurozone remains fragile, growth prospects
Supporters of three opposition parties Dialogue for Hungary (PM), Together and Politic Can Be Different attend a demonstration organised against corruption
and to express solidarity with Hungarian political daily Nepszabadsag in downtown Budapest, Hungary, 16 October 2016.
EPA/MOHAI BALAZS
slack and EU countries feel overwhelmed
by refugees and migrants.
The intergovernmental Euro area and
the European Council demonstrate absence
of vision and paucity of solutions. Without
ownership or hope, disillusioned citizens
turn to reactionary sirens on the Right and
Left.
Exceptionalists inside member states
and even some governments - able to
act with impunity - have rejected the EU
membership criteria, the founding values
of the union and the idea of solidarity as a
two way street. Outside forces try to profit
by aiding the process of disintegration.
The time has come for some hard EU
questions.
Is it worth bragging about the soft
power of the ball kicked around by global
players with hard power and by chaotic
neighbours?
When intergovernmental paralysis
among heads of state or government leads
to growing disillusionment among citizens
and continuing disintegration ensuing from
even less relevant business than usual, is
this worth describing as new realism, not
to mention an ambitious union?
Is political Europe steering through
Myopia to disaster, again?
Utopia is realism
As Alexander Hamilton wrote in the
late 18th century about the US federal
Constitution: Not to confer in each case
a degree of power commensurate to the
end, would be to violate the most obvious
rules of prudence and propriety, and
improvidently to trust the great interests of
the nation to hands which are disabled from
managing them with vigor and success.
In 21st century Europe, democracy
and sufficient powers at the European
level should be obvious next steps to defeat
populism, exceptionalism, protectionism
and secessionism, no hope and no growth.
The alternative?
In harmony with the prospering of
our planet and humanity, the European
republic should be able to ensure higher
standards of democracy, fundamental rights
and the rule of law.
Instead of treaty gridlock, a state of the
art Basic Law would allow future reforms
of the legislature, the government and the
judiciary, as well as their tasks.
Under one democratic government,
foreign policy and defence would start to
make sense, with a unified army. Modern
trade and investment agreements could
unleash prospects for jobs and growth,
globally and in Europe.
A unified single market for goods,
digital, financial and other services,
telecommunications, energy and
transport infrastructure and related
services, as well as intellectual property
rights and public procurement, could turn
the market economy more competitive
and less socially excluding than decades of
piecemeal approximation.
Within the republic people would be
free to study, work and settle wherever
they want.
With research, higher education and
qualifications, family and criminal law,
immigration and citizenship legislated by
the republic, the practical difficulties would
diminish. Building a coherent system of
social contributions and benefits could
start.
The euro would finally have a
sovereign, while taxation would enable the
European republic to promote economic,
social and territorial convergence through
the budget.
Legislation and public services would
be available in protected local and minority
languages, but English would be taught as
a bridging language from the first year in
(public) daycare.
The diversity of local languages,
cultures, customs and affinities would live
on without interference.
A detail: We should stop talking about
a United States of Europe, not because it
is too audacious, but because primarily we
should be uniting citizens by handing them
ownership and stewardship.
The European republic must have the
power to confront the big issues under
democratic government, according to the
direction chosen by its citizens through the
elections to the European Parliament.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
QUO VADIS EUROPA?
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-30
www.neweurope.eu
by Francisco Jaime Quesado
General Manager of the Innovation and
Knowledge Society in Portugal.
The new way
Dutch robot bird 'Robird', made by spin off of the University of Twente: Clear Flight Solutions, flies during a demonstration in Nijverdal, The Netherlands, 31 March 2016. EPA/VINCENT JANNINK
PORTUGAL - LISBON
In the New Year we need a New Way. Where
people know who they are and have a strong
commitment with the values of freedom,
social justice and development. This is the
reason to believe that a new standard of
Democracy in Europe, more than a possibility,
is an individual and collective necessity for all
of us, effective European citizens. Karl Popper
is more than ever present – the difference of
Europe will be in the exercise of the capacity
of the individual participation as the central
contribution to the reinvention of the
collective society.
This is a process that is not determined
by law. It is effectively constructed by all the
actors in a free and collaborative strategic
interaction.In a certain sense, we need a new
third way for Europe.
When Anthony Giddens spoke about
this special global capacity of creating a
new commitment between the Europeans
toward the challenge of the future, he was in
fact speaking about this commitment with
a New Democracy in Europe. Based in new
standards of Social Innovation, this kind of
New Way is above all the confirmation that
in Europe the individual performance in a
complex society is possible, desirable and
above all necessary for the future.
Europe must regain its Internal
Competitive Advantage but at the same time
must be able to reinforce its Global Situation.
In this way it´s essential to learn the lessons
that more than ever emerge from a Europe
Europe is facing a new strategic challenge. Reinventing
Europe and giving the European Actors (States,
Universities, Enterprises, Civil Society) the opportunity
of developing new challenges focused on innovation
and creativity is in a large sense giving a central
contribution to a New Global Order
that is trying to rebuild its competitive
advantage and to reinvent its effective place
in a complex and global world. In the New
Global Economy and Innovation Society,
Europe has a central role to play towards a
new attitude connected with the creation of
value and focus on creativity.
In a time of change, Europe can´t wait.
Europe must confirm itself as an “enabler
actor” in a very demanding world, introducing
in the society and in the economy a capital of
trust and innovation that is essential to ensure
a central leadership in the future relations with
America and the more and more dynamic
developing world. The actors from Europe
should be more and more global, capable of
driving to the social matrix a unique dynamic
of knowledge building and selling it as a
mobile asset on the global market.
Europe is facing a new strategic challenge.
Reinventing Europe and giving the European
Actors (States, Universities, Enterprises,
Civil Society) the opportunity of developing
new challenges focused on innovation and
creativity is in a large sense giving a central
contribution to a New Global Order. The
Reinvention of Europe is the reinvention
of its people and institutions. An active
commitment, in which the focus in the
participation and development of new
competences, on a collaborative basis, must
be the key of the difference.
The New Way Agenda has also an
important dimension related to science and
innovation. Universities and Companies
must perform a new strategic partnership
centered in the objectives of the added value,
creativity and knowledge. This is the basis for
a future effective implementation of the New
EU2020 Strategy, which must be followed by
the New Way. All these countries have still a
strong opportunity to implement an agenda
of innovation – the opportunity is more and
more a fact and can´t be lost.
Culture is another important dimension
for the New Way. The European countries
cultures are a unique asset. Europe must be
able to involve other global partners in the
construction of integrated projects focused
on the development of culture as a driver for
development. The reinvention of culture is
itself a very innovative way to involve more
and more the European actors in this project
for the future.
The New Way is an Agenda of Future.
Europe must have a very intelligent attitude
towards the new capability that these
emergent economies are facing in a global
complex world in crisis. The European
resources, from scientists to entrepreneurs, in
cooperation with politicians and other social
actors, must understand this and give effective
signs of change in a better future.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
EXERCISING LEADERSHIP
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-32
www.neweurope.eu
by Alberto Alemanno
Jean Monnet Professor of Law, HEC
Paris; Global Professor, NYU School of
Law; Founder, The Good Lobby.
Re-inventing political leadership:
10 qualities political leaders need
FRANCE-PARIS
What critical skills and abilities do political
leaders need in today’s rapidly shifting world?
In a world characterized by epic political,
social and technological transformations,
there has never been a greater need for
responsive and responsible leaders. Yet today’s
dominant models of leadership struggle
to reconcile both qualities. If technocratic
leadership privileges responsibility over
responsiveness, populist leadership is all
about responsiveness.
Critically, neither of these leadership
models allow for – or are interested in – the
judgement and will of citizens. Indeed, while
the populists claim to know and represent
the only authentic ‘general will’, technocrats
assume there is only one correct policy
solution. Theirs, of course. What can today’s
leaders do in this context?
Embracing populism seems (electorally)
irresistible, after the 2016 major political
events wrenched open the so-called “Overton
window” of acceptable ideas and language.
Moreover, the role of intermediary bodies -
from political parties to trade unions - is on
the wane as leaders seek to connect directly
with their audiences. This trend is even
sharper between elections, as leaders facing
the incessant demands of social media news
cycles look to other forms of legitimization.
The way today’s leaders increasingly rely
on referenda, petitions and social media to
legitimize their action suggests the emergence
of a worrying trend of delegation of leadership
and therefore responsibility. In Britain, the
Brexit referendum is a case in point, where
those who put this issue to a vote and
campaigned for the UK to leave the EU did
not take responsibility for the consequences.
The illusion that politics can simply collect
people’s preferences and mechanically turn
them into a reality threatens to override the
idea behind political representation.
In a representative democracy, the mission
of leaders should be to temper citizens’ input
and emotional responses rather than to foster
the violence of the majority. In other words,
the relationship between representatives and
represented must be ongoing and should
entail judgement on both sides.
Hence the need for responsive and
responsible leaders to re-appropriate, redesign
and expand the shrinking space that
today’s populist and technocratic leaders
allow between them and the electorate. This
space is set to become the playing ground for
new forms of political leaderships.
Here the good news is that while
conventional political engagement has
eroded, democratic expression and
unconventional political involvement have
expanded. Citizens are not losing interest
in public affairs. Quite the contrary. The
British Prime Minister David Cameron leaves at the end of the first day of the European Council meeting in Brussels, Belgium, 28 June 2016. EU leaders met for
the first time since the British referendum, in which 51.9 percent voted to leave the European Union.
EPA/STEPHANIE LECOCQ
challenge for leaders is therefore to channel
this growing interest in the democratic
process through the creation of new avenues
of participation, co-creation of policies
and oversight of leaders’ actions. In our
re-politicised societies, successful political
representatives will be those capable of
transforming mounting distrust into civic
virtue.
This requires personal qualities that are
too often deficient among our leaders. Ten
features stand out:
Compassion and emotional intelligence
Leaders must be able to put themselves
into their people’s shoes. While excessive
empathy can distort our judgement,
compassion and emotional intelligence
foster leaders’ problem-solving ability and,
eventually, maximize their impact on society.
To do so, leaders must share and experience
people’s pain and suffering, as well as joy and
happiness. They must leave the office, spend
more of their time in the streets and while
online stay away from filtered bubbles.
Integrity and openness
Leaders must be beyond suspicion before,
during and after the exercise of power.
They should commit to democratizing the
access to political parties by opening it up
to citizens with different, non-political and
unconventional backgrounds, including
entrepreneurship. Today, the barriers to
entering political parties remain very high
and the opportunity costs of a political life
are even greater. Once elected, leaders must
ensure the full transparency of their actions
(e.g. lists of meetings, legislative footprints,
donors) and accept various forms of citizen
oversight (e.g. evaluation boards, watchdog
groups, investigative bodies). When leaving
office, they must resist the temptation to
monetize their network and experience by
walking through revolving doors.
Fairness and inclusiveness
While most voters do not know their elected
representatives, affluent, well-connected,
organized lobbies and other groups always
do. Responsible leaders should level the
playing field by taking their decisions only
after having listened to and understood all
affected interests. To do so, leaders must
go beyond formal equality and proactively
support the representation of all interests in
the policy process. This could be done by
providing financial resources that could be
transferred from the haves to the have-nots
(e.g. via public consultation fees) and/or
by promoting skill-sharing by tapping into
networks of citizen experts – such as The
Good Lobby, the organisation I lead – who
could serve civil society organizations on a
pro bono basis.
Competence and respect
for evidence
In a world of limited resources, any
leadership action can be costly,
especially when it generates unintended
consequences. To mitigate those risks,
leaders must commit to basing their
decisions on available evidence rather than
ideology. Responsible leadership must be
evidence-based, competent and transparent
as well as ready to unmask “merchants of
doubt” - pundits who claim to be impartial
scientific authorities, but actually represent
corporate interests.
Consistency and sobriety
Leaders must lead by example. Their daily
conduct should be in line with the values
they predicate and stand for. At a time of
unprecedented inequalities, they should
make a sober living a feature of their success
and stay away from conflicts of interest. They
should be more afraid of social disapproval
than of legal and ethical sanctions. Being
a leader requires embracing higher moral
standards of behavior.
Successful leadership stems from
responsive, responsible and daily
interaction with - and exposure to - a
web of stakeholders, including organized
groups, grassroots and individual citizens.
In particular, by fostering a culture of
citizen oversight, political leaders protect
society (and themselves) from their (own)
excesses, thus boosting their ability to
deliver on their promises and serve the
common good.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
EXERCISING LEADERSHIP
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-33
www.neweurope.eu
Five leadership priorities for 2017
by Klaus Schwab
Founder and Executive Chairman of the
World Economic Forum.
At the same time,
geopolitical shifts have
made today’s world
truly multipolar. As
new global players
bring new ideas about
how to shape national
systems and the
international order,
the existing order is
becoming more fragile
SWITZERLAND - GENEVA
As the past year has demonstrated, leaders
must be responsive to the demands of the
people who have entrusted them to lead, while
also providing a vision and a way forward, so
that people can imagine a better future.
True leadership in a complex, uncertain,
and anxious world requires leaders to navigate
with both a radar system and a compass. They
must be receptive to signals that are constantly
arriving from an ever-changing landscape,
and they should be willing to make necessary
adjustments; but they must never deviate from
their true north, which is to say, a strong vision
based on authentic values.
That is why the World Economic Forum
has made Responsive and Responsible
Leadership the theme for our annual January
meeting in Davos. As leaders in government,
business, and civil society chart a course for
the next year, five key challenges will warrant
their attention.
For starters, they will have to come to grips
with the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which
is redefining entire industries, and creating new
ones from scratch, owing to groundbreaking
advances in artificial intelligence, robotics, the
Internet of Things, self-driving vehicles, 3D
printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, and
quantum computing.
These technologies have only begun to
show their full potential; in 2017, we will
increasingly see what used to be science
fiction become reality. But, while the Fourth
Industrial Revolution could help us solve
some of our most pressing problems, it is also
dividing societies into those who embrace
change and those who do not. And that
A presentation of a robotic machine at the ETH Zurich, Switzerland, 21 October 2016. ETH Zurich university for science and technology dates back to the year
1855, when the founders of modern-day Switzerland created it as a centre of innovation and knowledge.
threatens our wellbeing in ways that will have
to be identified and addressed.
Second, leaders will have to build a
dynamic, inclusive multi-stakeholder globalgovernance
system.
Today’s economic, technological,
environmental, and social challenges can be
addressed only through global public-private
collaboration; but our current framework for
international cooperation was designed for the
post-war era, when nation-states were the key
actors.
At the same time, geopolitical shifts have
made today’s world truly multipolar. As new
global players bring new ideas about how to
shape national systems and the international
order, the existing order is becoming more
fragile.
So long as countries interact on the basis of
shared interests, rather than shared values, the
extent to which they will be able to cooperate
will be limited. Moreover, non-state actors are
now capable of disrupting national and global
systems, not least through cyber attacks. To
withstand this threat, countries cannot simply
close themselves off. The only way forward is
to make sure that globalization is benefiting
everyone.
A third challenge for leaders will be to
restore global economic growth. Permanently
diminished growth translates into permanently
lower living standards: with 5% annual growth,
it takes just 14 years to double a country’s
GDP; with 3% growth, it takes 24 years. If our
current stagnation persists, our children and
grandchildren might be worse off than their
predecessors.
Even without today’s technologically
driven structural unemployment, the global
economy would have to create billions of
jobs to accommodate a growing population,
which is forecast to reach 9.7 billion by 2050,
from 7.4 billion today. Thus, 2017 will be
a year in which social inclusion and youth
unemployment become critical global and
national issues.
A fourth challenge will be to reform
market capitalism, and to restore the compact
between business and society. Free markets
and globalization have improved living
standards and lifted people out of poverty for
decades. But their structural flaws – myopic
short-termism, increasing wealth inequality,
and cronyism – have fueled the political
backlash of recent years, in turn highlighting
the need to create permanent structures for
balancing economic incentives with social
wellbeing.
Finally, leaders will need to address the
pervasive crisis in identity formation that has
resulted from the erosion of traditional norms
over the past two decades. Globalization has
made the world smaller but more complex,
and many people have lost confidence in
institutions. Many people now fear for their
future, and they are searching for shared but
distinct beliefs that can furnish a sense of
purpose and continuity.
Identity formation is not a rational process;
it is deeply emotional and often characterized
by high levels of anxiety, dissatisfaction, and
anger. Politics is also driven by emotion:
leaders attract votes not by addressing needs
or presenting long-term visions, but rather by
offering a sense of belonging, nostalgia for
simpler times, or a return to national roots.
We witnessed this in 2016, as populists made
gains by fostering reactionary and extreme
beliefs. Responsible leaders, for their part,
must recognize people’s fears and anger as
legitimate, while providing inspiration and
constructive plans for building a better future.
But how? The world today seems to be
engulfed in a sea of pessimism, negativity, and
cynicism. And yet, we have an opportunity to
lift millions more people out of poverty, so that
they can lead healthier and more meaningful
lives. And we have a duty to work together
toward a greener, more inclusive, and peaceful
world. Whether we succeed will not depend
on some external event, but rather on the
choices our leaders make.
The coming year will be a critical test for
all stakeholders in global society. More than
ever, we will need responsive and responsible
leadership to address our collective challenges,
and to restore people’s trust in institutions and
in one another.
We do not lack the means to make the
world a better place. But to do so, we must look
past our own narrow interests and attend to the
interests of our global society.
That duty begins with our leaders, who
must begin to engage in open dialogue and a
common search for solutions to the five major
challenges on the horizon. If they acknowledge
that ours is a global community with a shared
destiny, they will have made a first – albeit
modest – step in the right direction.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2016.
www.project-syndicate.org

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
EXERCISING LEADERSHIP
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-34
www.neweurope.eu
by Séamus Conboy
Director of Campaigns & EU Affairs at
Red Flag.
Welcome to the year of the man on
the street, not the man in the suit
BELGIUM-BRUSSELS
No amount of clichés can capture just
how shocked and traumatised the political
establishment is by the events of 2016.
This time last year, the Financial Times
predicted that Hillary Clinton would beat
Ted Cruz ‘because elections are still won
in the centre’, the UK would stay in the
EU, and Angela Merkel would go. At the
time, these were not bold predictions, and
the FT certainly wasn’t alone in calling it
wrong.
Predicting 2017 will be no easier.
Merkel is back seeking a fourth term, and
it would be hard to bet against her. France’s
Right will attempt to face down the hardright
Marine Le Pen in spring’s presidential
elections, potentially leaving huge space
for them to be outflanked on the left. And
the Brexit Cold War will blow up into fullon
negotiations that will likely paralyse
already cumbersome EU decision-making
processes.
But rather than boldly predicting either
an ‘establishment bounce-back’ or the
continuing disintegration of the European
project, this article will predict what the
new, uncertain political reality will mean
for EU decision-making processes. What
factors will shape decisions? Where will
the influence lie? And what does it mean
for political and public affairs campaigns
in Europe?
Quite simply, 2017 will be the year of
the man and the woman on the street, not
the man or woman in a suit.
As politicians try to better understand
what motivates their voters, they will give
far more weight to what they hear in their
constituencies, and worry far less about
what they hear from Brussels lobbyists.
Surprise election results have been
attributed to an electorate who feel
disenfranchised and unrepresented –
working-class voters who have been
persuaded that they are the victims
of creeping globalisation and of an
establishment that doesn’t represent their
interests. In 2017’s electoral battle-fields,
candidates will be wondering how to reach
these voters, and what messages they can
deliver that will resonate with them. And
they will be listening carefully to what they
hear on the doorsteps.
Even away from the campaign-trail,
European politicians - including those
unelected ones in the Commission –
know that they must spend more time
attempting to divine and understand what
the European public wants. Because the
consequences of not doing so are too great.
Brexit was the wake-up call, and it was a
loud one.
And listening more closely to the public
voice invariably means blocking out the
Participants during a rally of Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in Erfurt, Germany.
Surprise election results have been attributed to an
electorate who feel disenfranchised and unrepresented
– working-class voters who have been persuaded that
they are the victims of creeping globalisation and of an
establishment that doesn’t represent their interests
voices of the suits in Brussels – whether
they claim to be representing industry,
workers or civil society.
Already, the trend in lobbying has been
noticeably shifting away from traditional
‘access’ and old-school lobbying. In 2016,
Red Flagcarried out an extensive series
of expert interviews with Brussels’ top
lobbyists across all sectors. The outcome
of this research – aptly called Closing Doors
- was clear:
• 62% of industry lobbyists believe
they are at risk of having their access limited
• 46% believe that their access to
politicians will be worse in 10 years than
it is now
• More than half of all lobbyists
interviewed have already been refused
meetings because of the industry or sector
they represent.
The door to EU decision-makers
has not yet been slammed in the face of
lobbyists, but they are clearly concerned
about the trend.
As establishment decision-makers try
to be more responsive and more relevant,
lobbyists must react or be left behind. They
must adapt their campaigning techniques
and develop new ones.
Candidates and lobbyists alike must
learn the lessons from the successful
campaigns of 2016. Micro-targetted social
media campaigns can reach small groups
with messages carefully tuned to change
their minds. On one day in August 2016,
the Trump campaign A/B tested 100,000
different Facebook ads. This ability to
segment and to reach is a powerful tool.
Likewise, lobbyists must harness the
power of the public voice rather than trying
to supplant it. European companies and
industry groups will have to learn how to
engage their customers, their members and
their users, in the way that activist groups
EPA/Sebastian Kahnert
have begun to mobilise their members.
This type of grassroots campaigning is
well established in the US, but European
industry is slowly waking up to its value.
Since Red Flag was founded four years
ago, our campaign teams have been geared
towards the ‘Red Flag moment’ –the
moment you see an issue on the horizon
and decide to act. And we’ve been building
the campaign toolkits to respond.
2016 delivered one Red Flag moment
after another for the entire European
political establishment. 2017 promises
many more. This is an exciting moment to
be building the brains of the platforms that
will deliver these improvements.
Red Flag is a specialist campaigns and strategic
communications agency operating across Europe and
globally. Red Flagsolves problems for some of the
world’s biggest companies and organisations from
offices in Brussels, Dublin, London and Paris. Learn
more at www.thisisredflag.com

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
EXERCISING LEADERSHIP
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-35
www.neweurope.eu
by Rob Worthington
Doing nothing is not an option
Director, Head of International and
Political Advisory Practices, Brussels
Office of Project Associates.
BELGIUM - BRUSSELS
2016 was not kind to the European Project.
Previously ironclad beliefs in the European
ideal and its direction of travel have been
shattered by Brexit, and populist sentiment
is on the rise across the continent. Political
shocks have become less shocking. Yet a hefty
schedule of elections across the European
Union (EU) over the next 24 months gives
plenty of opportunity for further uncertainty.
The 2017 question for governments and for
corporates is whether they are in a fit state to
meet that future, to ensure that opportunities
can be identified, seized and exploited from
amongst the seeming chaos.
Recovery and growth – be it economic
or electoral – is unlikely without a better
understanding of the politics at play. And
even then a clear strategy for weathering
the uncertainty and capitalising on its
opportunities is required.
For governments, administrations and
political parties, this means proactively –
but intelligently – selling their message and
broadening their support bases.
The EU is an apt example. For too many,
the EU has become synonymous with
what was previously the domain of British
eurosceptics; an institution run by faceless and
unelected bureaucrats. National governments
deserve part of the blame: Europe is, after all,
an easy scapegoat for domestic woes. EU
officialdom, however, deserves its share of the
blame as well; it all too often falls into the trap
of all governments, ponderously reacting to
events and failing to communicate the purpose
and value of its work to its public.
Admittedly, the EU is confronted with an
ever growing and more informed audience,
oftentimes from questionable sources.
The challenge is great, but it is no greater,
proportionally, than that which faces all
governments. Namely, that nature abhors a
vacuum. And being reactive in communicating
successes, ideas, and values creates vacuums.
And it is precisely in these vacuums that
populism - be it through a catchphrase,
unsubstantiated assertion or an image – so
easily takes hold. The consequences can be
abrupt, unforeseen, and dangerous.
This is not to say the EU doesn't have
successes on which it can build its fight
back. From its pan-continental research
programmes to its humanitarian aid, from its
support for economically struggling regions to
its fostering of conflict resolution or the single
market, the EU has created opportunities
and successes that no single country could
have delivered (or coordinated) on its own.
The bureaucracy that is responsible for these
successes is – again, proportionately – smaller
than any of its Member State’s civil services.
Where it needs help, like all governments,
is in communicating these wins. Admittedly,
A view of the Berlaymont building, house of the European Commission headquarters, in Brussels, Belgium, 21 December 2016.
Political risk is no longer the
preserve of the developing world,
and those corporates that fail to
analyse, understand, and respond
to the various political storms are
increasingly heading for a fall.
the ways of the Union are arcane and complex.
Its leaders and technocrats are overly reactive,
and – even when they attempt to be proactive
– they are all too often incomprehensible in
their instinctive resort to jargon filled slogans.
Yet the world is almost incomprehensible
without it; its existence touches on the lives of
its 500 odd million citizens and their USD$15
trillion economy. If Europe is to survive 2017, it
needs to communicate these facts more clearly,
more aggressively, and more persuasively.
This communication challenge is one
that all governments face. And it will only
become more challenging as the global media
becomes ever more flat and decentralised.
This complexity, tied to increasing global
interconnectedness, means that governments
are no longer able to rely solely on their
diplomatic arms to convey their messages
effectively to domestic, let alone international,
audiences. The communications marketplace
has, in short, become too crowded and too
undifferentiated. The insurgent campaign run
by President-Elect Trump in the United States,
the growing strength of anti-establishment
parties around the world, and the use of
aggressive strategic communications for
diplomatic aims by an increasing number of
nation-states (Russia, China, France), have
all demonstrated how agile communication
strategies can completely undermine the status
quo if they aren’t aggressively countered.
In the absence of better, and more agile,
strategic communications from governments,
the private sector is going to have to
devote even more resource to analysing,
understanding and addressing politics in 2017.
Political risk is no longer the preserve of the
developing world, and those corporates that
fail to analyse, understand, and respond to
the various political storms are increasingly
heading for a fall. Moreover, with so many
elections looming, the forces are gathering
for 2017 to eclipse the shocks of 2016. The
false security provided by US growth data
may rapidly come to a screeching halt when
confronted with the electoral maths in France,
the Netherlands, Germany and possibly Italy.
Establishing, and then investing in,
political networks should be a priority. It
should be ranked alongside corporates’ efforts
to protect their public image via costly PR
plans. It should act as both an early warning
for systemic risks, but also a savvy search party
for smart opportunities.
This requires political understanding
and insight, and then a strategy for exerting
influence through political networks. It is all
very well to plan for the likely shape of a postdivorce
relationship between the UK and the
EPA/OLIVIER HOSLET
continent, but it would be far more useful,
surely, to act proactively to influence its shape.
Unless corporates know how to communicate
their red lines and interests to governments,
then governments can hardly be blamed for
listening to the loudest voices, seeking out themost
popular vote-winning routes, and being
blinded to the wider economic or political
consequences.
As it is, governments and investors appear
simply to be taking things in their stride -
shrugging off the Brexit vote, Trump’s election,
or the Italian referendum result in less time
than it took news networks to explain them.
But this quietus may well be the calm before
a probable economic and political storm.
Uncertainty is likely to be the catch phrase of
2017, not smooth sailing.
Faced with this uncertainty, governments
and corporates need expertise and help. They
need to understand the rapidly changing
world, identify their objectives, and then
develop a strategy that gets them there. Any
workable strategy must be robust and flexible
enough to respond to shocks, but also one
that is sufficiently visionary and compelling
to carry an ever more wary and untrusting
audience.
Doing nothing is not an option.
Governments and political parties with poorly
developed strategies and communication
plans will see their voices drowned out, and
their support bases chiselled away. Corporates
who ignore politics, and don't invest in risk
mitigation, will be swamped by noise of the
coming shocks, and surpassed by competitors
who spotted the opportunities earlier.
Project Associates is an international strategic communications
consultancy based in London and operating
across Brussels, Paris and Berlin. We advise companies,
private clients, international governments and
heads of state around the world on a range of complex
and challenging communications issues.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
EXERCISING LEADERSHIP
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-36
www.neweurope.eu
by Foteini Kalantzi
Economist, International & European
Relations Specialist.
UNITED KINGDOM - LONDON
Europe and the US have been facing
fundamental changes in their political
structures in the last couple of years, a fact
that has been made more obvious with
seismic events like Brexit and the election
of Trump. Political uncertainty has almost
become synonymous with Europe and
the western world in general. For a while
now, electorates have been expressing their
dissatisfaction with a democratic deficit and
an economy that does not work for them
any longer. A key narrative from analysts,
politicians and the media has focussed
mainly on the effect of populism but fails to
accept the underlying failures of the political
and the neoliberal economic system.
Populism is the effect of these failures and
not the cause. This populism has had direct
effects on wider and interconnected issues,
namely migration; nevertheless if the West
had effectively managed migration flows,
the rising tide of populism may not have
had so much leverage. A recurring theme
across the world is the disregard for history
and denial of responsibility. In this case, the
continuous instability in the Middle East
has not happened in isolation. The West
with its economic and strategic interests in
the region has played a crucial role, would
ideally close the door and turn a blind eye.
Against this backdrop, there is an
observable destabilisation of the EU
system. The gap between the core and
periphery EU countries is widening, the
political divisions within the European
continent seem more prominent than ever
and national interests are more important
than the common European polity. ‘Never
before have I seen so much fragmentation,
and so little commonality in our Union’,
Jean-Claude Juncker said in his State of the
Union Address in Bratislava in September
2016. In this summit, EU leaders did not
come to any conclusions on serious issues
such as migration, the unstable economic
situation and the common defence policy.
The EU cannot claim anymore to be the
normative model of cooperation and
democratic values. Europe’s unease with
the continent-wide, democratic deficit has
resulted in punitive votes like Brexit, which
did not only happen because of populism
and demagoguery.
The biggest disgrace of recent years
is the shambolic way that migration and
asylum has been handled by the EU.
Political and media elites, or at least a
sizeable portion of them, have managed to
shift the dialogue from ‘how to handle the
refugee flows into Europe’ into a question
of ‘how to keep people out’. The word
‘security’ permeates migration discussions.
There is a continuous securitisation of
migration (i.e. addressing migration as a
security threat) and militarisation of the
borders. The security anxiety is clearly
The dangers of the
prevailing over humanitarian concerns.
There is no burden-sharing and there is
no evident will for burden-sharing in the
future. For example, Visegrad countries
have reacted fiercely against compulsory
quotas for asylum seekers. Germany has
obviously committed to the acceptance of
a large number of refugees. However the
Mediterranean countries have shouldered
much of the weight, especially Italy
and Greece. In the context of Greece’s
economic woes, the decision to gradually
western path
A BTR armoured personnel carrier of the Hungarian Army patrols the area along the temporary border fence on the Hungarian-Serbian border near Roszke,
180 kms southeast of Budapest, Hungary, 19 March 2016. EPA/SANDOR UJVARI
The biggest disgrace of
recent years is the shambolic
way that migration and
asylum has been handled
by the EU. Political and
media elites, or at least a
sizeable portion of them,
have managed to shift the
dialogue from ‘how to
handle the refugee flows
into Europe’ into a question
of ‘how to keep people out’.
resume Dublin transfers to Greece and the
cumbersome EU-Turkey deal will make
things even more difficult for Greece in
particular. Frontex has received astringent
criticism from NGOs for not acting against
human rights violations by border police.
The European border regime has resulted
in mortally dangerous routes and risks for
refugees and asylum seekers, i.e. people
already escaping conflict and violation of
their human rights.
Last year, the EU threatened Greece
with suspension from the Schengen system
because of alleged neglect of its obligations
to address migration and refugee flows at its
borders. Scapegoating Greece and striking
an ineffective deal with Turkey to receive
the refugees that Europe does not want, are
signs of the EU’s lost integrity.
The EU has shown an inability to
balance its security doctrine with its
principles of defending human rights.
Securitised migration discourses and
practices are in contradiction with the
EU’s humanistic ideals and its treaties.
The Lisbon Treaty states that ‘the Union is
founded on the values of respect for human
dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the
rule of law and respect for human rights,
including the rights of persons belonging
to minorities’. When we look at the Europe
of today, how much of this still rings true?
Looking forward, 2017 bears only
challenges for the European and Western
world’s societies in general. The economic
and political model needs a progressive
shift that does not promise unrealistic
paths like Trump’s protectionism or suggest
failed recipes like European countries’
nationalism.
The coming year will bring further
securitisation and criminalisation of
migration and this will be amplified even
further with the ascending powers of the
extreme right throughout Europe and the
recent terrorist incidents seen in European
cities. The continent that has served as an
exemplar of democracy, human rights and
cooperation is showing an objective decay
in its main beliefs and principles. Security
will undoubtedly continue to be at the core
of European discussions and policies.
The apparent growing reliance on
risk management policies with regards to
border security, biometric controls and
the overall technologisation of security
will be the accepted norm and solution
to migration and refugee flows. Even if
we accept that these systems are effective
against the central fear of terrorism, there
is no substantial dialogue in society about
these tremendous changes to methods
of border control and data collection.
The human body has become a source of
information, whose data is easily stored
and subject to investigation at any time
by Europol, Eurojust and local authorities
in European countries, which have the
ability to exchange information based on
the Schengen system and the ‘principle of
availability’. Benjamin Franklin once said
‘those who would give up essential Liberty,
to purchase a little temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety’.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
EXERCISING LEADERSHIP
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-37
www.neweurope.eu
by Tony Blair
Saving the center
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
from 1997 to 2007, is Chairman of the
Africa Governance Initiative.
UNITED KINGDOM - LONDON
There is no doubt about the waves of
discontent and anger sweeping Western
politics. The United Kingdom voted to leave
the European Union after four decades of
membership, jeopardizing all the intricate
trading and political connections that such a
long relationship created.
Against all forecasts by political pundits,
Donald Trump won the United States
presidency, something the political class
thought virtually inconceivable. Throughout
Europe, new political parties are springing up,
all based on variations on the same theme: the
political establishment has ignored us, and we
will throw them out in protest.
One defining feature of this uprising is
that the impetus for change has become more
important than any consideration of what
change might mean in practice.
The things said by leaders riding this wave
can be wildly out of kilter with normal rules
of political conduct; but none of it matters.
What matters is that the revolt is happening,
and whoever happens to catch the wave will
be born aloft.
By contrast, politicians who make reasoned
arguments of a conventional kind merely
irritate rebellious voters, arousing impetuous
dismissal, if not contempt and derision.
There are stacks of analysis of the factors
underlying the populist surge: stagnant
working- and middle-class incomes; the
marginalization felt by people just managing
to get by; the disruption of communities as a
result of economic change; and resistance to
the seemingly relentless forces of globalization:
trade and immigration.
Social media is a major part of this wave.
It enables movements to grow in scale quickly,
contributes to the fragmentation of media,
and creates a new world of information in
which rules of objectivity do not apply, and
where every conspiracy theory can stampede
over the facts – and fact-checkers – standing
impotently in its way.
In a country like Britain around 20 years
ago, when I was first contesting elections as a
leader, the BBC’s main nightly news had an
audience of roughly ten million; today, the
figure is just over 2.5 million. What was one
conversation is now many – often among
people with the same views.
This change in the method of receiving
and debating information is a revolutionary
phenomenon in its own right. The traditional
media, which could reassert their role as
purveyors of trustworthy news, have decided
that it is easier and more commercially
feasible to reinforce audiences’ loyalty by not
challenging them.
Of course, some feel a sense of power in
flouting convention and shaking the established
order. But we shouldn’t kid ourselves. Shaking
An European Union flag passes Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament during a 'March for Europe' in Parliament Square, Central London, Britain, 02 July 2016.
EPA/WILL OLIVER
By contrast, politicians who make reasoned
arguments of a conventional kind merely irritate
rebellious voters, arousing impetuous dismissal, if
not contempt and derision
up the system can produce necessary change;
but it can also produce consequences that are
neither intended nor benign. We are entering
a very dangerous political period of politics. A
recent poll showed that a significant minority
of French citizens are no longer convinced
that democracy is the right system for France.
Support for an authoritarian model of
leadership is rising everywhere.
Populism is not new. Economic change
is not new. Anxiety about immigration is not
new. Exploitation of people’s dissatisfaction is
not new.
But the context is new, and the political
center’s inability to respond effectively is also
new. The truth is that center-left and centerright
forces have become complacent and out
of touch. We (I say “we” intentionally, because
I identify completely with a centrist, pragmatic
view of politics) have become passive managers
of the status quo, not catalysts of change.
In Europe, the EU struggles to restore
economic growth, and reforms are being
pursued against a background of austerity’s
often-brutal effects. In the US, it is clear that
white working people in the Midwestern Rust
Belt felt neglected and left behind.
Immigration is changing communities,
and though there is little doubt that in sum
and over time, immigrants’ fresh energy and
vigor benefits a country, the immediate impact
can be disruptive and troubling.
There is no doubt, either, that in general
more trade creates more jobs, and protectionist
policies bring fewer. But in the short term,
higher-paid skilled jobs often disappear.
Technology will intensify these changes.
Add to this mix the fact and aftermath of
the 2008 financial crisis and the extremism
that, since 2001, has dominated security
concerns and fed immigration concerns,
and the turbulence of our present political
condition is not surprising. On the contrary,
it appears inevitable.
So the left goes anti-business, the right goes
anti-immigrant, and the center sways uneasily
between appeasement and alarm.
This was never how the center won in the
past. The center – particularly the progressive
center – wins when it has the initiative, when
it is leading the debate, when the solutions it is
putting forward are radical as well as sensible.
Only a strong and revitalized center can
defeat the populist surge. This is the urgent
requirement of today. It is no use denigrating
voters’ anger. The center must respond
politically.
From macroeconomic policy to the
transformation of the public sector (including
education and health care through technology)
and security and immigration policies that
address people’s worries while protecting our
values, the center must rediscover the policy
agenda that owns the future, because it is based
on answers, not anger.
If the center does this, it will draw back
to it the reasonable-minded voters who have
joined the revolution out of frustration at
being ignored. That is enough: the margin of
defeat, whether in the UK’s Brexit referendum
or Trump’s victory, was not that of an electoral
landslide.
People have a lot to lose from chaos and
instability, and their natural inclination is to
avoid anything that brings them closer. But
they need to know they are being listened
to. Then we can turn our present political
condition toward a better and more hopeful
future.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2016.
www.project-syndicate.org

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
EXERCISING LEADERSHIP
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-38
www.neweurope.eu
Shattering the filthy
by Alexandros Koronakis
The Editor , New Europe.
glass ceiling
BELGIUM - BRUSSELS
Humanity has never evolved as quickly as it
has since the Second World War. Though
in biological terms our species’ evolutionary
process is one that scoffs at the counting of
millennia, the evolution of our societies has
been exponential in pace. The new generation
stands for equality and the resented by the ‘oldguard’
movement of political correctness.
In the 2016 Presidential Elections in
the USA, more people voted for the female
candidate than the male candidate. In the same
year’s race for UN Secretary General, there were
a total of 7 female candidates put forth and 6
male candidates. Nevertheless, men won
both those contests and today there are less
than 20 incumbent female heads of state and
government in the entire world; certainly the
glass ceiling is not broken, but it is beginning
to crack.
People are speaking more openly than ever
about gender equality. Movements against
discrimination based on gender, race, religion,
sexual orientation, and anything that seeks to
divide human beings into unequal groups have
a voice louder than ever before.
Yet the scourge of sexual harassment
remains rampant in the workplace.
In the 21st Century, large corporations,
governments, and organisations are making
great strides into codifying acceptable
behaviour, but no matter how much progress
is made, the worst of humanity will always lie
with the individual.
Indeed, reality is not unsoiled. At work,
where by definition power relationships are set
by single individuals in a top-down manner, it is
difficult to ensure a level playing field.
The worst of what is left of the glass ceiling,
is the sometimes subtle, and sometimes blatant
sexual harassment. And while it is not any
individual phenomenon that led to the creation
of this glass ceiling, but it is a large factor in what
keeps it in place.
People have been kept from rising on the
professional ladder because they were not
forthcoming enough with romantic or sexual
advances of their managers or more senior
colleagues. And that’s a best-case scenario.
It is the commonplace practice in larger
organisations of moving the victim of sexual
harassment to a different position after they
have made a complaint. In fact, HR will often
advise against filing an official case, warning
that “it’s your career that will be in jeopardy”.
Sometimes, the victims are fired, or just see their
contracts not renewed; “Too much of a troublemaker”
someone will say by the water-cooler
when asked why. This makes matters worse and
adds to the suffering, as the initial trauma is not
recognised, creating a secondary trauma.
More difficult than that? A person is sexually
assaulted or raped, and is directly threatened
by the offender that they (usually she) will lose
their livelihood if they says a word. She spends
the next years of her life facing that person
every day in the workplace, battling anxiety
and depression.
These scenarios not only trivialise a very
complex issue, which includes facets of the
legal framework, family values and upbringing,
religious teachings, and social evolution; they
also do not dwell into many different types of
abuse and oppression including sexual violence.
There are certainly many more qualified
people in this world to write about this issue,
indeed I cannot pretend to understand what it
feels like to be a victim of sexual harassment in
the workplace, traumatised by someone I have
to face daily at my job. But I wanted to speak out
because I’ve heard so many hard and disturbing
testimonies over the years that I have only just
began to understand how complicit I am. . I have
sat idly and participated in locker-room talk
without thinking of its far-reaching, not trivial
consequences, and I could certainly have been
more sensitive to discovering such situations
and dealing with them adequately.
Statistically, between one in two, and
one in three women have experienced sexual
harassment in the workplace depending on
which study you read. That glass ceiling sure
is filthy. Many, don’t even know that what is
happening is inappropriate when it is on the
lower end of the spectrum.
Many have offered a shoulder to lean on and
given advice to the victims who have come to
them with their troubles; we have all spent an
hour listening to a friend in need haven’t we?
Yet most of these cases are never spoken
of. There is a shame and endemic silence that
surrounds those on the receiving end of such
behaviour. Most victims are too frightened
to speak out and of being ‘slut-shamed’. “It is
your fault he groped you, you shouldn’t wear
those short skirts to work,” has long been an
acceptable response in our societies.
And then – after listening to a friend recount
such a traumatic experience – what do you do?
Back to the office after your lunch break to
snicker at a joke about a colleague’s “slutty nails”,
because of course “She must do more than just
type very quickly…”
For years society has brushed comments
like that off. Locker-room mentality has been
perfectly acceptable.
It was over a decade ago that Donald Trump
found himself talking about women on a bus:
“You know, I’m automatically attracted to
beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a
magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when
you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do
anything.” … “Grab ’em by the pussy. You can
do anything.”
Donald Trump’s private moment with
Billy Bush was really not as shocking as media
portrayed. Why? Because that sexist and macho
rhetoric is far more commonplace in society
than women think; exemplified by the fact that
it has not deterred Trump from being elected
to President of the USA. This behaviour is in
the home, at the bar, and in the workplace. It is
endemic misogyny brought about by millennia
of patriarchy that has been internalised; women
can be misogynists too or come to believe they
‘deserve’ it.
With the world divided by only 3.57
degrees of separation, the people who talk,
touch, grope, traumatise, and damage women
in the workplace and beyond are already in our
daily lives. We know them. They are part of our
contacts lists, and more often than not they are
also friends, drinking buddies, or members of
our reading clubs or sports teams.
We have all seen enough, and even
participated, or just said nothing.
It’s time our countries’ leaders, our
companies CEOs, our organisations’ directors,
managers, employees, and everyone who has
seen their colleagues behave inappropriately,
stop participating and tolerating this behaviour.
PHOTO CREDIT - JULIAN BURGESS/FLICKR
Ultimately, our companies, organisations,
and society suffer too, but that should not
be the motivation for putting and end to this
behaviour; it should be equality, it should be the
human individual, it should be common sense.
All of us who have stood by, and either
watched, suspected, tolerated, or ignored
behaviour of sexual harassment in the workplace
need to stop take a long hard look within and
simply do better.
The first time a friend talked to me about
how her boss was sexually harassing her, I didn’t
think much of it as she seemed to be okay. “Don’t
worry about it,” she said, “I’m dealing with it as
best I can by minimizing contact, but he and his
boss are buddies and I can’t really report it – it
would end up costing me my career.”
It’s been many years since that first
friend’s confession; it has also been many
more confessions from many more friends,
acquaintances, and even strangers since then.
While the victims of such behaviour are not
just women, they do make up the vast majority
of cases and it is to them that I have referred
within this article though the victims are do
not just fall into this category. It is also men
mistreated by men and women, and women
abused by other women too. Trans people are
found to suffer the most from violence. And the
list goes on and on.
All victims of such harassment deserve to
not be put in such a position.
No one deserves to see his or her life ruined,
slowed down, or just nudged in the wrong
direction because of sexual harassment.
How many stories have you heard? From
friends? From family? From loved ones? I have
heard too many.
It is not a matter of ‘if’ the glass ceiling will
break, but ‘when’.
It is time we took it upon ourselves as
individuals to be the ones to shatter the glass
ceiling; cleaning out the filth along the way.

y Daniel Hannan
Member of the European Parliament from
the United Kingdom in the European
Conservatives and Reformists Group.
ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
SOCIETY IN BLOOM
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-40
www.neweurope.eu
2016 was the best year in human
history, and 2017 will be better yet
BELGIUM -BRUSSELS
I realise how counter-cyclical that sounds.
How can I possibly make such a claim
when the liberal values that have sustained
the West since 1945 are being shaken in
election after election? When millions of
jobs are disappearing through technological
change? When the rich are getting richer
while the poor get poorer? When we
see population movements unknown in
peacetime? When great power rivalry has
re-emerged for the first time since the fall
of the Berlin Wall? When terrorism has
become almost an accepted fact in Western
European capitals? When there are daily
atrocities in Iraq, Syria, Yemen?
Well, it is in our nature to pay more
attention to recent and dramatic events
than to remote ones.
The horrors of Aleppo fill our TV
screens, but no newsreader will ever begin a
bulletin by saying: “Good evening. There is
no war in Yugoslavia, nor in Rwanda, nor in
Vietnam”. Deaths in war – indeed, all violent
deaths – have been in steady decline since
1945, as Steven Pinker demonstrated in
his magisterial work The Better Angels of
our Nature. Even in Syria, which caused a
slight bump in that decline, casualties have
dwindled since their grisly peak in 2014.
It is not true that the rich are getting
richer while the poor get poorer. Most
people in most countries are getting richer,
and the most rapid increases in wealth are
occurring in Africa and Asia. On any metric
you choose – literacy, longevity, infant
mortality, calorie intake – this is the best
time to be a human being.
While it is true that automation will
make some jobs redundant – driverless
cars, for example, will displace millions of
people who, one way or another, drive for
a living – the productivity gains will lead to
the creation of many more jobs.
The fears we hear today were voiced
in almost identical language when our
ancestors made the transition from
agriculture to industry. It was widely
assumed that the “real” jobs were on the
land, and that factories would never be able
to absorb so many former farmworkers.
In the event, the ability to produce more
food with less labour freed people up to
produce goods that had previously been
beyond the reach of all except the very
rich. Precisely the same fears were voiced
when we moved from industry to services:
the “real” jobs were supposed to involve
making things. Again, though, the increases
in productivity allowed us to invent whole
new fields of economic activity. The same
is happening today. As for terrorism,
it retains the power to shock precisely
because it is rare. The human brain is bad
Refugees and migrants walk along a street as they cross the Slovenian-Austrian border, near the village of Sentilj, Slovenia, 22 January 2016.
It is not true that the rich are getting richer while the
poor get poorer. Most people in most countries are
getting richer, and the most rapid increases in wealth
are occurring in Africa and Asia. On any metric you
choose – literacy, longevity, infant mortality, calorie
intake – this is the best time to be a human being
at computing probability. We tend to think
that monstrous and frightening events are
more frequent than they really are. Still, if
you live in Europe, the Americas or, indeed,
almost any country not experiencing a civil
war, you are more than ten thousand times
more likely to die of heart disease than in a
terrorist attack. You are more to drown in
the bath than to die in a terrorist attack. You
are more likely to die as a consequence of
having sex than in a terrorist attack.
As for the mass migration of people
from Africa, Asia and Latin America into
the West, it certainly presents challenges,
but they are challenges of prosperity.
Prosperity in the destination countries,
obviously – people would not risk long
and difficult journeys into Europe or the
United States if there were no jobs for them
at the other end – but rising prosperity in
the countries of origin, too. The widespread
ownership of smartphones makes possible
the transfer of information and credit, and
so allows people to undertake odysseys
which their parents, living on subsidence
agriculture, could not contemplate.
These are not fashionable thoughts.
We are, by our nature, alarmist. An author
who argues that we are drowning in debt,
or that we will die from drugs-resistant
superbugs, or that the planet will fry or
freeze, or that an asteroid will wipe out
civilization, or that Europe will soon live
under Islamist theocracy, will usually find
a publisher. The same is not true of an
author who argues that life will get better
– patchily and with occasional reverses,
but better none the less.
It has to do with evolutionary
psychology. Our brains were evolved in
an altogether more dangerous world.
On the savannahs of Pleistocene Africa,
optimism was a poor survival strategy. We
are programmed to be suspicious.
EPA/CHRISTIAN BRUNA
In consequence, we unconsciously put
the worst construction on possible events.
Donald Trump will create an authoritarian
state! Brexit will impoverish Britain and
Europe and divide the West! Terrorists
will flood into Europe in the guise of
refugees, carrying with them the evil of
the Islamic State! Well, maybe. But isn’t
it at least as likely that Donald Trump will
operate within the limits of a Constitution
that was explicitly designed to constrain
authoritarian tendencies? That Britain
and the EU will preserve close military,
intelligence and commercial links after
Brexit? That Islamic State will finally be
defeated?
And isn’t it likely that our children will
lead longer, freer, healthier and happier lives
than us? That sentence could have been
written at any time in the last 300 years.
It would always have prompted snorts of
disbelief; but it would always have been true.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
SOCIETY IN BLOOM
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-41
www.neweurope.eu
by Christos Stylianides
European Commissioner for
Humanitarian Aid & Crisis
Management.
BELGIUM -BRUSSELS
Humanitarian crises have increased in
number, complexity and severity over
the last 25 years. Today, an estimated 250
million people are affected by humanitarian
crises worldwide. The ongoing conflicts in
Syria, Iraq, South Sudan and elsewhere
have created an unprecedented level of
humanitarian tragedy.
In Europe and in our neighbourhood,
the refugee crisis still remains the most
important challenge. And humanitarian
needs are further exacerbated by the effect
of climate change.
A lot has been done the past year to
mitigate the suffering of vulnerable people
and respond to the growing needs. Of course,
we can never predict the unpredictable. But
one thing is certain: 2017 will be another
hugely challenging year for the global
humanitarian community. In light of this,
what are the main humanitarian priorities
for next year?
Syria: Soon entering the 7th year of
fighting, the Syrian conflict is without a
doubt the largest humanitarian tragedy
since World War II. More than 11 million
people displaced inside Syria and beyond
its borders. The horrific fighting in Aleppo
alone has triggered additional massive
displacements of civilians. Sadly, this
conflict looks far from over.
The EU has responded to this
unprecedented crisis from the outset. More
than 9 billion Euros in assistance have been
mobilised by the EU and its Member States.
But humanitarian needs also extend to
neighbouring host countries. Five million
Syrians fled to Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon,
Iraq and Egypt.
In Lebanon, every fourth inhabitant is
now a Syrian refugee. Over three million
refugees are hosted in Turkey. This makes
Turkey the host country with the largest
refugee population in the world.
The Syria crisis will certainly continue
to be a political and humanitarian priority
in 2017.
Iraq: There is no question that Iraq is at a
critical juncture. The battle for Mosul is still
in progress and its outcome will determine
the future of Iraq. The EU is at the forefront
of the humanitarian response in Iraq with a
total of 159 million Euros in 2016. The first
in a series of planes delivering EU aid for
Mosul have already arrived in Iraq.
The military campaign in Mosul is
unfolding now but we have been preparing
for months. I have visited the country four
times since the beginning of my mandate
to make sure that we were prepared to
respond to the massive needs in Mosul and
elsewhere in the country.
Through humanitarian aid, provided
to all Iraqis regardless of their background,
the EU is also contributing to the process
of reconciliation. A difficult but necessary
Humanitarian priorities
for the EU in 2017
Children flash the victory sign from one of the houses in Salah al-Din neighborhood, east of Aleppo, Syria, 16 December 2016. EPA/STR
undertaking in order for the Iraqis to have
a hopeful future.
Daesh, however, must be defeated not
only militarily, but also on the ideological
battleground. We must defeat the ideology
of terror, cultural destruction, intolerance
and division. This is paramount for national
reconciliation in Iraq.
Africa: the Northeast Nigeria and Lake
Chad crisis has been labelled by the UN
as the "largest humanitarian crisis on the
African continent". Boko Haram violence is
one of the main reasons that have led to this
massive crisis, with acute under nutrition
spreading.
Children are particularly affected.
Access of humanitarian aid is a real challenge
because of insecurity, with continued Boko
Haram attacks. The EU has been very active
in bringing this crisis to the international
front and has advocated stepping up global
support.
The situation in South Sudan has also
worsened dramatically with escalation of
ethnic violence. The abuses are perpetrated
by all parties to the conflict and are often
combined with atrocities against innocent
civilians constituting a crime against
humanity. The UN has already warned of
the potential for genocide.
Refugee crisis: the refugee crisis
remains the most important challenge
Europe has faced next only to the financial
crisis. Since January 2015, more than 1
million migrants and refugees have reached
European shores. To respond to this crisis
the EU has developed a comprehensive
strategy which includes:
(a) The EU-Turkey agreement.
Despite the criticisms and problems, the
implementation of this agreement is key
to tackle effectively the refugee crisis.
Hence, EU and Turkey must continue and
strengthen their cooperation on this front.
(b) The mechanism for Emergency
Support inside Europe which aims at
providing basic humanitarian assistance to
refugees and migrants in Member States
whose capacities are overstretched.
The refugee crisis, however, is not only
European. It is global and it requires a
global response. No country can tackle it
alone. Hence, one of the major challenges
and priorities in 2017 is to strengthen our
collective response and solidarity.
Education in Emergencies: All of
us recognize that children are the most
vulnerable victims of humanitarian
crises. Every day these children are out of
school means a step closer to risks: sexual
exploitation, forced marriages, forced
labour, forced recruitment, radicalisation.
At the same time it means lack of prospects
for the future and new lost generations.
Something we cannot allow to happen.
Since the beginning of my mandate,
education in emergencies has been one of
my major priorities. Last year more than 2.3
million children have benefitted from our
support in 44 countries affected by crises
around the world.
In 2016 we quadrupled our support to
this cause. In 2017 we will go even further:
6% of the EU's humanitarian aid budget will
support education in emergencies. This is
my new commitment. Education is not a
privilege. It is the right of every child across
the world which has also become a basic
need.
With challenges like these, in 2017 the
world is likely to experience more conflicts
and disasters. Needs already continue to
increase dramatically while the resources
for humanitarian assistance remain limited.
Therefore, we must adapt the way we
provide aid in order to be able to respond
swiftly and effectively. The humanitarian aid
system must become more prepared, more
coordinated and more flexible. This can be
done by providing more predictability and
reducing as much as possible administrative
and bureaucratic barriers. Moreover, we
must build new partnerships, such as
those with the private sector, and stronger
linkages between humanitarian aid and
development.
2017 will be a determining year for the
international humanitarian community.
Time for action is of the essence.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
SOCIETY IN BLOOM
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-42
www.neweurope.eu
by George Soros
Chairman of Soros Fund Management
and of the Open Society Foundations,
is the author of The Tragedy of the
European Union: Disintegration or
Revival?
USA - NEW YORK
Well before Donald Trump was elected
President of the United States, I sent a holiday
greeting to my friends that read: “These times
are not business as usual. Wishing you the best
in a troubled world.” Now I feel the need to
share this message with the rest of the world.
But before I do, I must tell you who I am and
what I stand for.
I am an 86-year-old Hungarian Jew who
became a US citizen after the end of World
War II. I learned at an early age how important
it is what kind of political regime prevails.
The formative experience of my life was the
occupation of Hungary by Hitler’s Germany
in 1944. I probably would have perished had
my father not understood the gravity of the
situation. He arranged false identities for his
family and for many other Jews; with his help,
most survived.
In 1947, I escaped from Hungary, by
then under Communist rule, to England.
As a student at the London School of
Economics, I came under the influence of the
philosopher Karl Popper, and I developed
my own philosophy, built on the twin pillars
of fallibility and reflexivity. I distinguished
between two kinds of political regimes: those
in which people elected their leaders, who were
then supposed to look after the interests of the
electorate, and others where the rulers sought
to manipulate their subjects to serve the rulers’
interests. Under Popper’s influence, I called the
first kind of society open, the second, closed.
The classification is too simplistic. There
are many degrees and variations throughout
history, from well-functioning models to failed
states, and many different levels of government
in any particular situation. Even so, I find the
distinction between the two regime types
useful. I became an active promoter of the
former and opponent of the latter.
I find the current moment in history
very painful. Open societies are in crisis, and
various forms of closed societies – from fascist
dictatorships to mafia states – are on the rise.
How could this happen? The only explanation
I can find is that elected leaders failed to meet
voters’ legitimate expectations and aspirations
and that this failure led electorates to become
disenchanted with the prevailing versions
of democracy and capitalism. Quite simply,
many people felt that the elites had stolen their
democracy. After the collapse of the Soviet
Union, the US emerged as the sole remaining
superpower, equally committed to the
principles of democracy and free markets. The
major development since then has been the
globalization of financial markets, spearheaded
by advocates who argued that globalization
increases global wealth. After all, if the winners
compensated the losers, they would still have
something left over.
Open society needs defending
Russian President Vladimir Putin attends a State Council meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow.
EPA/NATALIA KOLESNIKOVA/ POOL
The argument was misleading, because
it ignored the fact that the winners seldom, if
ever, compensate the losers. But the potential
winners spent enough money promoting the
argument that it prevailed. It was a victory
for believers in untrammeled free enterprise,
or “market fundamentalists,” as I call them.
Because financial capital is an indispensable
ingredient of economic development,
and few countries in the developing world
could generate enough capital on their own,
globalization spread like wildfire. Financial
capital could move around freely and avoid
taxation and regulation.
Globalization has had far-reaching
economic and political consequences. It
brought about some economic convergence
between poor and rich countries, which was
beneficial; but it increased inequality within
both poor and rich countries, which was
harmful. In the developed world, the benefits
accrued mainly to large owners of financial
capital, who constitute less than 1% of the
population. The lack of redistributive policies
is the main source of the dissatisfaction that
democracy’s opponents have exploited. But
there were other contributing factors as well,
particularly in Europe.
I was an avid supporter of the European
Union from its inception. I regarded it as the
embodiment of the idea of an open society:
an association of democratic states willing
to sacrifice part of their sovereignty for the
common good. It started out at as a bold
experiment in what Popper called “piecemeal
social engineering.” The leaders set an
attainable objective and a fixed timeline and
mobilized the political will needed to attain
it, knowing full well that each step would
necessitate a further step forward. That is
how the European Coal and Steel Community
developed into the EU.
But then something went woefully
wrong. After the Crash of 2008, a voluntary
association of equals was transformed into a
relationship between creditors and debtors,
where the debtors had difficulties in meeting
their obligations and the creditors set the
conditions the debtors had to obey. That
relationship was neither voluntary nor equal.
Germany emerged as the hegemonic
power in Europe, but it failed to live up to the
obligations that successful hegemons must
fulfill, namely looking beyond their narrow
self-interest to the interests of the people who
depend on them. Compare the behavior of
the US after WWII with Germany’s behavior
after the Crash of 2008: the US launched the
Marshall Plan, which led to the development
of the EU; Germany imposed an austerity
program that served its narrow self-interest.
Before its reunification, Germany was the
main force driving European integration: it
was always willing to contribute a little bit extra
to accommodate those putting up resistance.
Remember Germany’s contribution to
meeting Margaret Thatcher’s demands
regarding the EU budget?
But reuniting Germany on a 1:1 basis
turned out to be very expensive. When
Lehman Brothers collapsed, Germany did
not feel rich enough to take on any additional
obligations. When European finance ministers
declared that no other systemically important
financial institution would be allowed to fail,
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, correctly
reading the wishes of her electorate, declared
that each member state should look after
its own institutions. That was the start of a
process of disintegration.
After the Crash of 2008, the EU and the
eurozone became increasingly dysfunctional.
Prevailing conditions became far removed
from those prescribed by the Maastricht
Treaty, but treaty change became progressively
more difficult, and eventually impossible,
because it couldn’t be ratified. The eurozone
became the victim of antiquated laws. Muchneeded
reforms could be enacted only by
finding loopholes in them. That is how
institutions became increasingly complicated,
and electorates became alienated. The rise of
anti-EU movements further impeded the
functioning of institutions. Disintegration
received a powerful boost in 2016, first from
Brexit, then from the election of Trump in the
US, and on December 4 from Italian voters’
rejection, by a wide margin, of constitutional
reforms.
Democracy is now in crisis. Even the US,
the world’s leading democracy, elected a con
artist and would-be dictator as its president.
Although Trump has toned down his rhetoric
since he was elected, he has changed neither
his behavior nor his advisers. His cabinet
comprises incompetent extremists and retired
generals. What lies ahead?
I am confident that democracy will prove
resilient in the US. Its Constitution and
institutions, including the fourth estate, are
strong enough to resist the excesses of the
executive branch, thus preventing a would-be
dictator from becoming an actual one.
But the US will be preoccupied with
internal struggles in the near future, and
targeted minorities will suffer. The US will
be unable to protect and promote democracy
in the rest of the world. On the contrary,
Trump will have greater affinity with dictators.
That will allow some of them to reach an
accommodation with the US, and others
to carry on without interference. Trump
will prefer to make deals rather than defend
principles. Unfortunately, that will be popular
with his core constituency.
I am particularly worried about the fate of
the EU, which is in danger of coming under the
influence of Russian President Vladimir Putin,
whose concept of government is irreconcilable
with that of open society. Putin, is not a passive
beneficiary of recent developments; he worked
hard to bring them about.
He recognized the weakness of his regime:
it can exploit natural resources but cannot
generate economic growth. He felt threatened
by “color revolutions” in Georgia, Ukraine, and
elsewhere. At first, he tried to control social
media. Then, in a brilliant move, he exploited
social media companies’ business model
to spread misinformation and fake news,
disorienting electorates and destabilizing
democracies. That is how he helped Trump
get elected.
The same is likely to happen in the
European election season in 2017 in the
Netherlands, Germany, and Italy. In France,
the two leading contenders are close to Putin
and eager to appease him. If either wins,
Putin’s dominance of Europe will become a
fait accompli.
The trouble is that the method Putin has
used to destabilize democracy cannot be used
to restore respect for facts and a balanced view
of reality. I hope that Europe’s leaders and
citizens alike will realize that this endangers
their way of life and the values on which the
EU was founded. With economic growth
lagging and the refugee crisis out of control,
the EU is on the verge of breakdown.
The EU is set to go through an experience
similar to that of the Soviet Union in the early
1990s. Those who believe that the EU needs
to be saved in order to be fundamentally
reinvented must do whatever they can to bring
about a better outcome.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2016.
www.project-syndicate.org

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
SOCIETY IN BLOOM
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-43
www.neweurope.eu
by Luk Zelderloo
Secretary General of the European
Association of Service providers for
Persons with Disabilities (EASPD).
There is no path to social inclusion,
social inclusion is the path
BELGIUM - BRUSSELS
2017 will mark a turning point for Europe
and social inclusion is the best way forward.
In my view, social inclusion is about me
respecting you, you respecting me, valuing
our contribution to society, empowering one
another and ensuring we both live in dignity.
Growing disillusion must be tackled
at the source: social exclusion
With elections in many European Union
(EU) countries -including France, Germany,
the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and
most probably Italy-, 2017 offers plenty of
opportunities for people and politicians to
voice ideas and concerns. Extreme parties are
attractive to many and it is easy to understand
why. The quality of life of too many people
has stalled (at best), with disillusion growing.
Brexit and the US elections are clear signs of
this. The exasperation has been successfully
picked up by the extremes, who rightfully
criticise the malfunctioning system yet offer
simplistic and dangerous solutions.
Today, the simple understanding that
all people should have their basic human
rights guaranteed is understood by many as
the establishment imposing their views on
people. Political correctness is now attached to
a system which has failed to support too many
people. We must learn from this: human rights
and respect for the other can only be achieved if
they are applied to all people on an equal basis.
Given the increasing complexity of our world
today and the problems we encounter, there
is no easy solution. But there are priorities. I
believe the priority should be empowering
people, providing real opportunities for all
and creating hope for a better future.
An economic mind-set focused on
social inclusion is required
Social welfare systems play an essential role
here, yet they are too often undermined on
a constant basis; if not in words, at least in
investment. The fact that this has also gone
alongside a rise in precarious employment,
replacing what were once secure jobs, also
plays an important role in this regard.
There should be no surprise that
this molotov cocktail of economic and
employment policies has led to distrust in
the system, especially by those who have not
benefitted from it.
Just look at the situation of persons with
disabilities. Up to 70% of disabled people
of working age are either out of work or
economically inactive. There is significant
proof that this can change –in part- through
the development of quality person-centred
services, inclusive education systems and
effective employment support. Most costbenefits
studies demonstrate that there is
also an economic return for taxpayers to
Participants of the third Rehab Critical Mass wheel chair march are seen on the Chain Bridge in downtown Budapest, Hungary, 29 May 2016. The event aimed
to raise people's awareness of persons with disabilities who suffer from social exclusion and diffilculties.
EPA/TAMAS KOVACS
Up to 70% of disabled people
of working age are either out of
work or economically inactive.
There is significant proof that
this can change –in part- through
the development of quality
person-centred services, inclusive
education systems and effective
employment support.
develop such inclusive models. There is also
clear evidence that EU Member States with
higher numbers of workers in health and social
care have higher overall life satisfaction rates.
Countries with strong health and care services
have –on average- responded better to the
economic crisis.
Yet, for decades, the political trend has
been to weaken public interest in social
cohesion and inclusion, resulting in real cuts to
public expenditure in social care and support
services; sometimes dramatically.
This has clearly had a counter-productive
effect on the inclusion of millions of people
in Europe; placing additional strain on their
ability to access quality care and support
services.
This has an often underestimated impact
on their quality of life and opportunities to
access quality education and jobs, leading to
a loss of trust in the system and on their hope
for a better future.
Social inclusion is not
an ideological issue
When significant evidence points to quality
of life and social inclusion being linked to a
strong health and care services sector, it is not
ideological to question the economic and fiscal
trends of the past decade. The International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) have also reached the conclusion
that the austerity-led economic policies of the
past decades have failed to effectively tackle
inequalities, despite higher levels of equality
being essential for economic growth.
The priority should be about what works
for inclusive societies and what does not.
It is about ensuring that all people have the
sense that society is both working towards
their empowerment and providing a safety
net in case something goes wrong. It is about
all people having a level of control over their
opportunities in life.
Learning from mistakes:
time to invest in people
We have to be bold, we have to learn from our
mistakes, we have to invest in social inclusion
and we have to give people hope that the
system is working … for them. This requires
a change in mind-set for many leaders, putting
inclusion at the highest point of our political
agenda. The EU might be on the right track
with the European Pillar of Social Rights. It
is a great opportunity to develop an action
plan for investment in social rights. Such a
plan has to link the Pillar to more flexibility
for social investment, a strong cohesion
policy and a Juncker Investment Plan geared
for social infrastructure. Whereas civil
society organisations are reasonably strong at
European level, this should be strengthened on
the political front by structurally involving civil
society on an equal basis to social partners in
the development of EU policies. This would
help to better inform the EU of the concerns
and ideas of those fighting for social fairness
and vice versa.
Business as usual risks putting Europe on
a dangerous path, possibly even leading to
armed conflict over the next few generations.
We all have a responsibility to stop this from
happening. I believe a strong, united Europe,
prioritising social inclusion, is the best way
forward to ensure a secure and prosperous
future for all.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
SOCIETY IN BLOOM
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-44
www.neweurope.eu
The new idealism: A new
by Vibeke Sorensen
Vibeke Sørensen is the Chair, School
of Art, Design and Media College of
Humanities, Arts, & Social Sciences at
Nanyang Technological University in
Singapore.
year’s resolution for 2017
SINGAPORE
This is a New Year and a time for reflection, new
resolutions, and optimism – however guarded
and sober. The winter solstice in the Northern
Hemisphere is the darkest time of the year but
following it there is new light and life. This is a
fact and also a metaphor that is perhaps more
apt in 2017 than in previous years.
Given the recent rise in populist and rightwing
inspired movements globally, with more
people living in fear of others amid increased
racism, sexism, xenophobia, and violence, it
is both more difficult and more important to
support the ideas and ideals that lead people
to behave in caring and compassionate ways,
with empathy and conscience guiding their
decisions and interactions. The great good
works that our best leaders inspire are visionary
and courageous in their idealism, and it is
precisely these qualities that are needed more
than ever before if we are to live in harmony
with each other and nature. They elevate our
collective humanity and prove that we are truly
civilized human beings capable of intelligently
stewarding our shared, fragile, and beautiful
planet.
Will heart and head unite and bring greater
justice, kindness, and peace to the world in the
New Year?
What can the concerned citizens do to
solve, or at least ameliorate, these problems? It
is easy to be pessimistic but it can also lead to
complacency and stagnation.
Let us instead be optimistic in the New
Year. It is our great good fortune to have
been born human and sentient. Each one of
us is aware of other sentient beings around
us, people and other living things, and their
condition. We have ‘mirror neurons’ in our
brains that help us to feel what others feel. We
learn empathy as children and as we grow older,
this empathy is exercised on a daily basis as we
make decisions about parents, children, friends
and colleagues. We need precisely this quality
as we address ever more complicated problems
in the troubled global environment.
Today we have the greatest number of
people ever in recorded history in migration as
refugees fleeing gruesome wars and desperate
poverty, and so many are without hope while
living for years in ‘temporary’ refugee camps.
There is human induced mass extinction of
species and vast loss of natural habitat needed
to sustain life on Earth. There is fake news but
there is also real news. We make decisions
based on fact and the news media are supposed
to be the source of facts. So are the arts and
sciences. We need to support writers, artists,
scientists and citizens who are seeking truth
and justice, with heart and mind united, with
empathy, compassion and conscience.
At the School of Art, Design at Media at
Nanyang Technological University - Singapore,
Kindergarten children look at a Giant Siamese Carp swimming in an aquarium at the River Safari in Singapore, 16 November 2016. According to the the World
Wildlife Fund (WWF), more than half of the world's biodiversity has disappeared within 40 years.
EPA/WALLACE WOON
artists, designers, critics, historians and
theorists are teaching students to be innovative,
creative and skilled, as well as critical and media
literate in their use of technology. Here, the
creative human spirit is driving technology
development and its innovative applications
across many fields, from big data, bio-art and
bio-design for sustainable social practices,
to environmental design, eco-art and ecofashion,
medicine and wearable technologies.
There is a prize given to sustainable art and
design. Biodiversity and cultural diversity are
linked, and so as the Earth’s ecosystem faces
unprecedented stresses and destruction, so do
its fragile human cultures connected to them.
The school is active in this area of research and
teaching, bridging social and environmental
issues with new ideas, methodologies, and
technologies.
Prof Michael Walsh is using Virtual Reality
for the conservation and communication of
at risk world heritage sites such as those in
Famagusta, Cyprus. Profs Peer Sathikh and
Meridel Rubenstein are working on the design
of a waste water garden to restore the devastated
Marshes of Southern Iraq. Prof Randall Packer’s
work with Open Source Studio (OSS) engages
distributed computation of the online world of
networked computers and devices for a new
global pedagogical approach to online teaching
of the creative arts and critical practice. It can
be used for real-time computation of data,
visualization and sonification, and creative
production of networked interactive computer
artwork. Prof Galina Mihaleva is innovating
bio, smart materials and sensors for wearable
technologies with applications in medicine,
health, fashion, and interior design, providing
new solutions and alternative approaches
to sustainable design for the developed and
developing world. There are others to mention
as well: Profs Jesvin Yeo, Nanci Takeyama,
Kristy HA Kang, and Andrea Nanetti, to name
a few. They and their students are working
with complexity and knowledge, social and
environmental design, the intelligent city,
community building, cultural heritage and
contemporary society, and new ways of
thinking about and using technology to solve
urgent problems in ethical, empathetic, and
sustainable ways.
Dr Gul Inanc is doing something to
improve the condition of the refugees. In
addition to teaching courses such as Faith in
Art that build bridges of understanding among
students and local communities of different
religious backgrounds, she also works with
countries in the Southeast Asian region and
Turkey. Just when everything looks so bleak
for the refugees, she had a brilliant initiative:
to combine online and on-site education in
refugee camps and urban settings, and provide
education to the displaced and dispossessed. It
gives hope to so many people.
In particular, she emphasizes that educating
girls is particularly important, as it makes them
less vulnerable and stronger. They are far less
accessible to criminals and less likely to be
exploited, trafficked, and victims of violence
simply by attending school as doing so
physically protects them. It also prepares them
for new opportunities, helping them to become
wage earners that improve their own and their
families’ condition. By educating children, girls,
older people, or anyone at risk, it provides new
knowledge, new ways of thinking, and safety
during the school day. It invests in future safety
by preparing them for a more independent and
responsible new life that often also requires new
language skills, and training necessary for jobs
in developed countries that they may be hoping
to emigrate to, or their own countries that they
may return to once they are safe enough. It is
also helpful to host countries as they are already
educated when they arrive. It is a deterrent for
the disaffected too, mitigating frustration at
their condition. Dr. Inanc has worked hard to
bring this idea of online education for refugees
to realization over the past two years, and
recently the initiative has been partnered by the
United Nations (UNHCR) in Malaysia. She is
working to expand the operations to Indonesia,
New Zealand and Australia. She has also been
elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Art in
London in recognition of these efforts. It is
the kind of hugely important work that artists
and intellectuals can do to really improve the
world. I call this kind of work, the work of the
Global Art School as Global Laboratory for
Multicultural Harmony as discussed in my
article last year.
The capacity of any institution depends
on its members and constituency, and their
implementation of the ideas – without which
the ideas are only pieces of paper with writing
on them.
This is a call for an independent art-science
organization that works to solve the problems
of ‘the little guy’ precisely because each person
and creature matters, as well as the ‘grand
challenges’ that affect the future of our planet.
We not only need a Global Art School but a
Global Art and Science Organization that
champions these values, including equality
and democracy.
From the perspective of an art school,
defending beauty, knowledge, the immense
potential of the human spirit and the ability
for people to rise to higher and higher levels
of truth and compassion towards other living
things, is something which we champion at the
risk of being called naïve and idealistic. It is this
beautiful idealism that we need, that is more
important than ever before, if the Earth and
humanity are going to survive. Let us celebrate
a new idealism in 2017.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
SOCIETY IN BLOOM
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-45
www.neweurope.eu
Democracy, inclusion, and prosperity
by Raghuram Rajan
A former Governor of the Reserve Bank
of India, is Professor of Finance at the
University of Chicago Booth School of
Business.
USA - CHICAGO
It is a truism that people everywhere want to
live in a safe, prosperous country where they
enjoy freedom of thought and action, and can
exercise the democratic right to choose their
government. But the world faces a disarming
question in 2017 and the years ahead: how
can we be sure that political freedom and
economic prosperity go together?
The American political scientist Francis
Fukuyama has argued that liberal democracies,
with their political freedom and economic
success, have three important pillars: a strong
government, the rule of law, and democratic
accountability. I would add a fourth: free
markets.
Strong government does not mean simply
military power, or an efficient intelligence
apparatus. Instead, it should mean effective,
fair administration – in other words, “good
governance.”
The rule of law means that a government
will be constrained by what Indians would
term dharma – by a widely understood code of
moral behavior, enforced by religious, cultural,
or judicial authority.
Democratic accountability means that
governments must be popularly accepted,
with citizens empowered to replace corrupt
or incompetent rulers.
But what brings about a strong
government? Libertarians preach that the best
government is that which governs the least, a
“night watchman” confining itself to ensuring
the security of life, property, and contracts.
Marxists believe that, as Friedrich Engels put
it, once the victory of the proletariat ends
class conflict, “the government of persons is
replaced by the administration of things.”
Both are wrong: all economies need a strong
government to develop and prosper.
Strong governments may not, however,
move in the right direction. Hitler provided
Germany with effective administration: the
trains ran on time (as did India’s trains during
our Emergency in 1975-77). But Hitler put
Germany on a path to ruin, overriding the rule
of law, without which democracy can lead to
the tyranny of the majority (after all, Hitler was
elected).
By contrast, when combined with the rule
of law, democratic accountability ensures that
government responds to citizens’ wishes. Of
course, various social groups and organized
interests will not always see their programs
translated into policy; but democratic
institutions are nonetheless essential, as
they enable the non-violent channeling of
grievances.
We cannot ignore the influence of
history. As Fukuyama points out, China
has historically experienced long periods of
chaos. Unbridled military competition meant
groups organized themselves as hierarchical
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi speaks during the opening ceremony of the Hannover trade fair in Hanover, Germany, 12 April 2015.
The American political scientist
Francis Fukuyama has argued that
liberal democracies, with their
political freedom and economic
success, have three important
pillars: a strong government,
the rule of law, and democratic
accountability. I would add a fourth:
free markets
military units, with rulers exercising unlimited
power. When a group eventually emerged
victorious, it imposed centralized autocratic
rule to ensure that chaos did not return. And
controlling a huge geographic area required a
well-developed elite bureaucracy – hence the
mandarins. Whenever China was united, it
had unconstrained, effective government. But,
Fukuyama argues, it did not have alternative
sources of power in religion or culture to shore
up the rule of law.
In Western Europe, by contrast, the
Christian church imposed limits on what
the ruler could do. So military competition,
coupled with constraints imposed by canon
law, led to the emergence of both strong
government and the rule of law.
In India, the caste system ensured that
entire populations could never be devoted
totally to the war effort. So war in India was
never as harsh as in China. At the same time,
the codes of just behavior emanating from
ancient Indian scripture have historically
constrained arbitrary exercise of power by
rulers. As a result, India’s governments are
rarely autocratic. History is not destiny – but
it is influential, and it is a perpetual puzzle why
India has taken to democracy, while some of its
neighbors with similar historical and cultural
pasts have not. Rather than speculating, let me
turn to the relationship between democracy
and free markets.
Both democracy and free enterprise create
and thrive on competition. But, whereas
democracy treats individuals equally, the
free-enterprise system empowers them on the
basis of their income and assets. What, then,
prevents the median elector in a democracy
from voting to dispossess the rich?
One reason that the median voter agrees
to protect the property of the rich and to tax
them moderately may be that she sees the rich
as creators of prosperity for all. The more idle
or corrupt the rich are, the more the median
voter will vote for tough regulations and
punitive taxes.
In some emerging markets today, wealthy
oligarchs grew rich because they managed
the system well, not because they managed
their businesses well. When the government
goes after these rich tycoons, few voices
are raised in protest – and the government
may become more autocratic as a result. A
competitive free-enterprise system, with a
EPA/OLE SPATA
level playing field for all, minimizes this risk, by
allowing the most efficient to acquire wealth.
The process of creative destruction replaces
badly-managed inherited wealth with new
and dynamic wealth. Great inequality, arising
over generations, does not become a source
of popular resentment. Instead, everyone can
dream that they, too, will become a Bill Gates
or a Nandan Nilekani.
The difficulty in a number of Western
democracies is that the playing field is
being tilted. For many in the middle class,
prosperity seems unattainable, because a
good education – today’s passport to riches
– is unaffordable. The growing perception
of unfairness is eroding support for the freeenterprise
system.
Let me turn finally to India. Of Fukuyama’s
three pillars, the strongest in India is democratic
accountability. We also adhere broadly to the
rule of law. Where we have a long way to go
is in the government’s capacity to deliver
public services. While strong institutions –
an independent judiciary, opposition parties,
press freedom, and a vibrant civil society
– prevent government excess, our “checks
and balances” require what might be called a
“balance of checks.” For example, we must not
have an appellate process so slow that it halts
necessary government measures.
The most heartening development is
that more people across India are becoming
equipped to compete, and more of our young
entrepreneurs are unwilling to kowtow to
the government as a matter of course. If we
are to have prosperity and political freedom,
we must also have economic inclusion and
a level playing field. Access to education,
nutrition, health care, finance, and markets for
all our citizens is a moral imperative, precisely
because it is a precondition for sustainable –
and democratic – economic growth..
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2016.
www.project-syndicate.org

Mojtaba dreams of finding a cure for cancer.
He was 13 when he escaped from the Taliban.
We stand together
#WithRefugees
photo: UNhCR / G. WelteRs
www.refugeeday.org
EN_2016WRD_POSTER_Austria_Mojtaba.indd 1 04.05.16 11:15

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE AGE OF POPULISM
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-48
www.neweurope.eu
by Joseph E. Stiglitz
A Nobel laureate in economics, is
University Professor at Columbia
University and Chief Economist at the
Roosevelt Institute. His most recent book
is The Euro: How a Common Currency
Threatens the Future of Europe.
The age of Trump
USA - NEW YORK
On January 20, 2017, Donald Trump will
be inaugurated as the 45th President of
the United States. I would hate to say “I
told you so,” but his election should not
have come as a surprise. As I explained
in my 2002 book Globalization and its
Discontents, the policies we have used to
manage globalization have sown the seeds
of widespread disaffection. Ironically,
a candidate from the same party that
has pushed the hardest for international
financial and trade integration won by
promising to undo both.
Of course, there is no going back. China
and India are now integrated into the global
economy, and technological innovation is
reducing the number of manufacturing
jobs worldwide. Trump cannot recreate
the well-paying manufacturing jobs of past
decades; he can only push for advanced
manufacturing, which requires higher skill
sets and employs fewer people.
Rising inequality, meanwhile, will
continue to contribute to widespread
despair, especially among the white voters
in Middle America who handed Trump his
victory.
As the economists Anne Case and Angus
Deaton showed in their study published in
December 2015, life expectancy among
middle-age white Americans is declining, as
rates of suicides, drug use, and alcoholism
increase. A year later, the National Center
for Health Statistics reported that life
expectancy for the country as a whole has
declined for the first time in more than 20
years.
In the first three years of the so-called
recovery after the 2008 financial crisis, 91%
of the gains went to the top 1% of earners.
While Wall Street banks were bailed out
with billions of dollars in taxpayer money,
homeowners received only a pittance. US
President Barack Obama saved not only the
banks, but also the bankers, shareholders,
and bondholders. His economic-policy
team of Wall Street insiders broke the rules
of capitalism to save the elite, confirming
millions of Americans’ suspicion that the
system is, as Trump would say, “rigged.”
Obama brought “change you can believe
in” on certain issues, such as climate policy;
but with respect to the economy, he bolstered
the status quo – the 30-year experiment with
neoliberalism, which promised that the
benefits of globalization and liberalization
would “trickle down” to everyone. Instead,
the benefits trickled up, partly owing to a
political system that now seems to be based
on the principle of “one dollar, one vote,”
rather than “one person, one vote.” Rising
inequality, an unfair political system, and a
government that spoke as if it was working
US President-elect Donald Trump (C) speaks to the crowd American flag at Ladd-Peebles Stadium in Mobile, Alabama, USA, 17 December 2016.
EPA/DAN ANDERSON
for the people while acting for the elites
created ideal conditions for a candidate like
Trump to exploit. Though wealthy, Trump
is clearly not a member of the traditional
elite, which lent credence to his promise
of “real” change. And yet it will be business
as usual under Trump, who will adhere to
Republican orthodoxy on taxation and, by
appointing lobbyists and industry insiders
to his administration, has already broken his
promise to “drain the swamp” in Washington,
DC.
The rest of Trump’s economic
agenda will depend largely on whether
House Speaker Paul Ryan is a true fiscal
conservative. Trump has proposed that
large tax cuts for the rich be combined with
massive infrastructure-spending programs,
which would boost GDP and improve the
government’s fiscal position somewhat, but
not nearly as much as advocates of supplyside
economics hope. If Ryan is not as
concerned about the deficit as he says he
is, he will rubberstamp Trump’s agenda,
and the economy will receive the Keynesian
fiscal stimulus that it has long needed.
Another uncertainty relates to
monetary policy. Trump has already
spoken out against low interest rates, and
there are two vacancies on the US Federal
Reserve’s Board of Governors. Add to that
the large numbers of Fed officials itching to
normalize rates, and it is a fair bet that they
will do so – perhaps more than offsetting
Trump’s Keynesian stimulus.
Trump’s pro-growth policies will
also be undermined if he exacerbates
inequality through his tax proposals,
starts a trade war, or abandons America’s
commitments to reduce greenhouse-gas
emissions (especially if others retaliate with
a cross-border tax). Now that Republicans
control the White House and both houses
of Congress, they will be relatively free
to weaken workers’ bargaining power,
deregulate Wall Street and other industries,
and turn a blind eye to existing antitrust laws
– all of which will create more inequality.
If Trump follows through on his
campaign threat to impose tariffs on
Chinese imports, America’s economy
would probably suffer more damage
than China’s. Under the existing World
Trade Organization framework, for every
“illegal” tariff that the US imposes, China
can retaliate anywhere it chooses, such as
by using trade restrictions to target jobs in
the congressional districts of those who
support US tariffs.
To be sure, measures against China
permitted under the WTO framework, such
as anti-dumping tariffs, may be justified in
some areas. But Trump has enunciated
no guiding principles for trade policy,
and the US – which directly subsidizes
its automobile and aircraft industries, and
indirectly subsidizes its banks through
ultra-low interest rates – would be throwing
stones from a glass house. And once this titfor-tat
game begins, it could very well end
in the destruction of the open international
order created since World War II.
Similarly, the international rule of
law, which is enforced primarily through
economic sanctions, could fare poorly
under Trump. How will the new president
respond if Russian-aligned troops escalate
the conflict in Eastern Ukraine? America’s
real power has always derived from its
standing as an inclusive democracy. But
people around the world have now lost
confidence in democratic processes. Indeed,
throughout Africa, I have heard remarks
such as, “Trump makes our dictators look
good.” As American soft power continues
to erode in 2017 and beyond, the future of
the international order will become more
uncertain.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party
will surely be conducting an election
post mortem. Hillary Clinton undeniably
lost because she failed to offer voters
a convincing vision that was markedly
different from the neoliberal agenda
that Bill Clinton embraced in the 1990s.
Having pursued a political strategy of
“triangulation” – adopting versions of
its opponents’ policies – for more than a
generation, the party of the left could no
longer present itself as a credible alternative
to the party of the right.
The Democrats will have a future only
if they reject neoliberalism, and adopt the
progressive policies proposed by leaders
such as Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders,
and Sherrod Brown. This will put them in
a strong position against the Republicans,
who will have to figure out how to manage
a coalition of evangelical Christians,
corporate executives, nativists, populists,
and isolationists.
With the arrival of Trump, and with both
major parties now redefining themselves,
the coming year may well be remembered
as a turning point in US and world history..
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2016.
www.project-syndicate.org

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE AGE OF POPULISM
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-49
www.neweurope.eu
The emergence of a post-fact world
by Francis Fukuyama
A senior fellow and Mosbacher Director
of Stanford University’s Center on
Democracy, Development, and the Rule
of Law.
USA - STANFORD
One of the more striking developments of
2016 and its highly unusual politics was the
emergence of a “post-fact” world, in which
virtually all authoritative information sources
were called into question and challenged
by contrary facts of dubious quality and
provenance.
The emergence of the Internet and the
World Wide Web in the 1990s was greeted
as a moment of liberation and a great boon
for democracy worldwide. Information
constitutes a form of power, and to the extent
that information was becoming cheaper and
more accessible, democratic publics would be
able to participate in domains from which they
had been hitherto excluded.
The development of social media in
the early 2000s appeared to accelerate this
trend, permitting the mass mobilization that
fueled various democratic “color revolutions”
around the world, from Ukraine to Burma
(Myanmar) to Egypt. In a world of peer-topeer
communication, the old gatekeepers of
information, largely seen to be oppressive
authoritarian states, could now be bypassed.
While there was some truth to this
positive narrative, another, darker one was
also taking shape. Those old authoritarian
forces were responding in dialectical fashion,
learning to control the Internet, as in China
with its tens of thousands of censors, or
through the recruitment of legions of trolls
and unleashing of bots that could flood social
media with bad information, as in the case of
Russia. These trends all came together in a
hugely visible way during 2016, in ways that
bridged foreign and domestic politics. The
premier manipulator of social media turned
out to be Russia. The Russian government has
put out blatant falsehoods like the “fact” that
Ukrainian nationalists were crucifying small
children, or that Ukrainian government forces
shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in 2014.
These same sources contributed to the debates
on Scottish independence, Brexit, and the
Dutch referendum on the EU’s Association
Agreement with Ukraine, amplifying any
dubious fact that would weaken pro-EU forces.
Use of bad information as a weapon by
authoritarian powers would be bad enough,
but the practice took root big time during the
US election campaign. All politicians lie or,
more charitably, spin the truth for their own
benefit; but Donald Trump took the practice
to new and unprecedented heights. This
began several years ago with his promotion
of “birtherism,” the accusation that President
Barack Obama was not born in the US, which
Trump continued to propagate even after
Obama produced a birth certificate showing
that he was.
In the recent US presidential debates,
Trump insisted that he had never supported
Employees of the Architect of the Capitol do work preparing a media stand for the 2017 Presidential Inauguration, at the West Front of the Capitol in
Washington, DC, USA, 08 December 2016.
EPA/MICHAEL REYNOLDS
The traditional remedy for bad
information, according to freedomof
information advocates, is simply
to put out good information,
which in a marketplace of ideas
will rise to the top. This solution,
unfortunately, works much less
well in a social-media world of
trolls and bots
the Iraq War and never called climate change a
hoax. After the election, he asserted that he had
won even the popular vote (which he lost by
more than two million), because of fraudulent
voting. These were not simply shadings of
facts, but outright lies whose falsehood could
be easily demonstrated. That he asserted
them was bad enough; what was worse was
that he appeared to suffer no penalty from
Republican voters for his repeated and
egregious mendacity.
The traditional remedy for bad
information, according to freedom-ofinformation
advocates, is simply to put out
good information, which in a marketplace
of ideas will rise to the top. This solution,
unfortunately, works much less well in a
social-media world of trolls and bots. There
are estimates that as many as a third to a
quarter of Twitter users fall into this category.
The Internet was supposed to liberate us from
gatekeepers; and, indeed, information now
comes at us from all possible sources, all with
equal credibility. There is no reason to think
that good information will win out over bad
information.
There is a more serious problem than
these individual falsehoods and their effect
on the election outcome. Why do we believe
in the authority of any fact, given that few of us
are in a position to verify most of them? The
reason is that there are impartial institutions
tasked with producing factual information
that we trust. Americans get crime statistics
from the US Department of Justice, and
unemployment data from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics. Mainstream media outlets
like the New York Times were indeed biased
against Trump, yet they have systems in place
to prevent egregious factual errors from
appearing in their copy. I seriously doubt that
Matt Drudge or Breitbart News have legions
of fact-checkers verifying the accuracy of
material posted on their websites. In Trump’s
world, by contrast, everything is politicized. In
the course of the campaign, he suggested that
Janet Yellen’s Federal Reserve was working for
Hillary Clinton’s campaign, that the election
would be rigged, that official sources were
deliberately underreporting crime, and that
the FBI’s refusal to indict Clinton reflected her
campaign’s corruption of FBI Director James
Comey. He also refused to accept the authority
of the intelligence agencies blaming Russia for
hacking the Democratic National Committee.
And, of course, Trump and his supporters
have eagerly denigrated all reporting by the
“mainstream media” as hopelessly biased.
The inability to agree on the most basic
of facts is the direct product of an across-theboard
assault on democratic institutions – in
the US, in Britain, and throughout the world.
And this is where the democracies are headed
for real trouble.
In the US, there has in fact been real
institutional decay, whereby powerful interest
groups have been able to protect themselves
through a system of unlimited campaign
finance. The primary locus of this decay is
Congress, and the bad behavior is for the most
part as legal as it is widespread. So ordinary
people are right to be upset.
And yet, the election campaign has shifted
the ground to a general belief that everything
has been rigged or politicized, and that
outright bribery is rampant. If the election
authorities certify that your favored candidate
is not the victor, or if the other candidate
seemed to do better in the debate, it must be
the result of an elaborate conspiracy by the
other side to corrupt the outcome. The belief
in the corruptibility of all institutions leads
to a dead end of universal distrust. American
democracy, all democracy, will not survive
a lack of belief in the possibility of impartial
institutions; instead, partisan political combat
will come to pervade every aspect of life.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2016.
www.project-syndicate.org

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE AGE OF POPULISM
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-50
www.neweurope.eu
by Dominic Barton
Meeting the populist challenge
Global Managing Partner of McKinsey
& Company.
UNITED KINGDOM - LONDON
Capitalism is the greatest engine for prosperity
that the world has ever seen. But the democratic
institutions that create the space for business
leaders to operate have not kept up with
accelerating economic and technological
change; nor have they made the necessary
adjustments to ensure that enough people
benefit from the system to which they all
belong.
All leaders should keep these two thoughts
firmly in mind as they respond to 2016’s
populist backlash – manifested in Brexit,
Donald Trump’s election victory in the United
States, Italy’s failed constitutional-reform
referendum, and so forth.
We capitalists can no longer simply
celebrate the fact that open markets and
technological innovation have lifted more than
one billion people out of extreme poverty since
1990, including hundreds of millions in China
alone. We must acknowledge our postwar
global order’s failures, such as rising inequality,
decades of stagnant wages in many developed
markets, and sustained unemployment at or
above 20% – and over 40% for young people
– in several European countries. Most of all,
we cannot simply assume that the system will
somehow “self-adjust.” Instead, we need to act.
Of course, meeting the challenge of
populism is not a task for business alone.
Political leaders have a critical role to play, by
shoring up and extending the social safety net
to cover those who have been, and will be, “left
behind,” and by providing – through smart
infrastructure investment and policy reforms –
a stronger foundation for inclusive growth. But,
beyond creating good jobs and higher-quality
products and services at lower prices, privatesector
executives must lead in several key areas.
First, they should ensure that their
organizations pay taxes. While a company’s
shareholders and employees rightly demand
sensible stewardship of its financial resources,
nothing does more to undercut the case for
globalization than the specter of wealthy
individuals and institutions gaming the system
to reduce their tax bills far below the rate that
the struggling middle class pays.
Second, executives should expand privatesector
efforts to provide the skills training that
workers in a dynamic economy need, especially
in areas where educational establishments are
not keeping up. Such efforts benefit companies
and society alike, as corporations such as IBM,
AT&T, and many others are discovering. For
example, Generation, a youth unemployment
skills-building program that McKinsey &
Company helped launch in specific industries
across five countries, has placed more than
10,000 graduates in jobs since 2015 – and
at a far lower cost than existing approaches.
Ninety-eight percent of our more than 440
employer-partners say they are eager to hire
more Generation graduates.
People take part in 'A Picnic to discuss Brexit' organised by the 'General Assembly' in Green Park, central London Britain, 09 July 2016.
Third, executives must make sure that
their companies are playing a positive role in
the communities where they operate, because
shareholder capitalism, properly understood,
is grounded in stakeholder capitalism. For
example, at a recent Fortune Global Forum
in Rome, more than 80 executives made
commitments to provide access to health
care for 100 million children in underserved
parts of Sub-Saharan Africa. Corporate social
responsibility entails responding to social needs.
Above all, executives should work together
to strengthen modern capitalism’s ability to
deliver long-term value. This is no easy task. In
a recent McKinsey survey of senior executives
from around the world, 65% reported that they
felt more pressure today to deliver short-term
results than they did five years ago, and this is
especially true in developing markets. Only
37% of executives believed that their company’s
culture encouraged long-term thinking, and
half of the remaining 63% acknowledged that
they would delay investing in a project that
would add value if it meant that they might
miss a quarterly earnings target. Meanwhile,
the proportion of net income that S&P 500
companies spend on dividends and stock
buybacks has now reached almost 100%.
The collective cost of this pressure is
high. Short-termism lowers growth by
lowering investment and R&D expenditures,
ultimately manifesting in fewer jobs. According
to preliminary estimates from the McKinsey
Global Institute, short-termism has cost the US
economy an additional 5-6 million jobs over
the past 15 years, and more than $1 trillion in
unrealized GDP growth.
What will it take to accelerate sustainable
global growth and create more good jobs?
For starters, we need to change behaviors and
incentives at every step of the investment value
chain, starting with the institutional investors
who provide long-term funding, and continuing
with corporate managers and the boards that
supervise them. One good model for a longterm
asset owner is GIC, the Singaporean
sovereign wealth fund, which bases its rewards
to asset managers on a 20-year rolling rate of
return, and uses a minimum five-year horizon
to measure performance. Similarly, the Canada
Pension Plan Investment Board has moved
to five-year rolling returns as its incentive
benchmark. It is time to move from quarterly
capitalism to long-term capitalism. As I wrote
five years ago in the Harvard Business Review:
“Business leaders today face a choice: We can
reform capitalism, or we can let capitalism be
reformed for us, through political measures and
the pressure of an angry public.” The bill for our
collective failure to change is now coming due.
But we still have a choice to move from words
to deeds – and to preserve and strengthen the
best system the world has yet found to deliver
prosperity for all.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2016.
www.project-syndicate.org
EPA/SEAN DEMPSEY
What will it take to
accelerate sustainable
global growth and
create more good jobs?
For starters, we need to
change behaviors and
incentives at every step
of the investment value
chain, starting with the
institutional investors
who provide long-term
funding, and continuing
with corporate managers
and the boards that
supervise them

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE AGE OF POPULISM
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-51
www.neweurope.eu
by Peter Niedermüller
Member of the European Parliament from
Hungary in the Group of the Progressive
Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in
the European Parliament.
"Brave New World"
BELGIUM -BRUSSELS
All that is solid melts into air - stated Marx
and Engels in The Communist Manifesto.
From time to time this slogan resurfaces
when a feeling of something new beginning
and the old well-known world crumbling
down spreads in politics and society. The
events of the past few years provided us
with good reasons to think that the world
is turning upside-down in terms of society,
culture and politics. Extreme conservative
PiS took over in Poland, mimicking Orbán’s
illiberal democracy, the United Kingdom
is leaving the Union, in the United States
voters elected a billionaire lacking any kind
of political experience and not shying away
from racist comments. Next year France
could elect Europe’s first far-right president,
in Italy the 5Stars party might nominate the
next Prime Minister, and in the Netherlands,
an extremely nationalistic and xenophobic
party is leading the opinion polls. Due to all
of this, a lot of people feel like something has
changed fundamentally and the election of
Trump marks the beginning of a new world.
The significance of the US elections cannot
be underestimated and we can only guess
about its consequences. But one thing is for
sure. If the world has changed, it is not the
because of the outcome of the US election.
Trump’s election is more of a climax, a result
or a consequence of a political and sociological
process at least a decade long, of the spread of
anti-modernisation, anti-progressive far right
populism, the significance of which we did not
recognize or just did not take seriously. But
now we have to face the fact that the liberal
democratic principles guiding post-World War
II Europe and the Trans-Atlantic world are in
grave (fatal?) danger, its achievements, values
and norms rejected by a growing portion of
the society. Therefore, the world, Europe and
the supporters of democracy have to face
previously unknown challenges today.
The political structure of modern societies
and the political arena have undergone
significant changes. The formerly successful
centre-left and centre-right parties are in
deep trouble. They are visibly struggling to
face current challenges, and their answers are
frequently inadequate. Far-right populism is
on the rise however, for multiple reasons. One
of the likely factors is the diffusion of the so
called post-factual, or post-truth politics.
With this expression we mark a political
culture, in which politics (public opinion,
and narratives spread by media) completely
depart from policy (policy substance,
issues). Political debates aim to influence
emotions, while factual reasoning and the
interpretations of experts have no place in
this, their importance is dwindling. Further,
consistently and constantly repeated emotions
and impressions become facts. To be blunt,
French far-right political party National Front (FN) leader Marine Le Pen (R) waves after delivering her speech during the party's traditional Joan of Arc May
Day rally in Paris, France, 01 May 2016.
But now we have to face the
fact that the liberal democratic
principles guiding post-World
War II Europe and the Trans-
Atlantic world are in grave (fatal?)
danger, its achievements, values
and norms rejected by a growing
portion of the society
conscious lies become the truth in the eyes
of the public. Party manifestos, programmes
containing detailed issue-based policy
solutions are becoming irrelevant. This is
the kind of politics that made Trump win
the election, and what keeps working so well
for the Orbán-government in Hungary. This
political culture is probably the most effective
weapon of today’s far-right. By rousing people’s
emotions with hate speech, fear-mongering
and crafting enemy images of ‘others versus
us’ they influence voter perceptions, which
they then proclaim as their priority instead of
facts. The Orbán government’s handling of the
refugee crisis in Hungary was a prime example
for this kind of strategy. But Marine Le Pen in
France, and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands
are following the same path.
Of course, there are other reasons for the
rise of far-right populism. For example, the
fact that in many European countries there
is a strong demand for these messages, this
political culture. For some time now it has
been clear, although we’ve glossed over it,
that globalisation and the transformation of
modern societies produce not only winners
but losers as well.
The changes in our society went hand
in hand with changes and decrease in our
industrial production, and this in turn
transformed the kind of skills and knowledge
demanded in the labour markets, and caused
a re-evaluation of labour itself. The harsh
realisation came to many that they do not have
the kind of marketable, useful skills required
in the transformed labour market. The
knowledge (expertise, skills, call it however
you want) that had previously been enough,
did not guarantee the secure standard of living
and status that it used to; it has lost its value and
meaning in this new world.
These workers could only find underpaid
jobs at best, or in the worst case, no job at all.
On the other hand, the same group of people
had to learn that their chances for gaining the
knowledge necessary for upward mobility
were severely limited. They had become the
class of the working poor and they had to
face the fact that whatever they did, they kept
getting poorer, and they effectively lost their
prospects for a future. What’s left for them in
their desperate situation is anger and despair.
These people live in insecurity and fear. And
this fear, fear of change, of losing status, of
strangers, of a hostile and incomprehensible
world, of the future, corrodes societal trust
and the consensus keeping society together,
society’s core values themselves, inevitably
causing a grievous weakening of social
cohesion. Therefore, the most urgent question
for us in politics is how can we, in this tornapart
world, reinstate and maintain social
cohesion? In today’s Europe, the common
task for all democratic parties is to consistently
fight far-right populism. We have to articulate
political messages that provide hope and a
vision for the future for the groups of people
feeling excluded and insecure. These people
want security and care, so our message for them
needs to be that this security can be achieved,
recovered in today’s world as well. Not with
cheap and infeasible promises, not through
fear-mongering and creating enemies, but
with new progressive political emphasis and
approach. We have to make them understand
that when they lend their political and electoral
support for populist promises, they are acting
against their own interests. For we do not need
more social divisiveness and confrontation,
indeed, what we need is the exact opposite; we
need to recreate integration, social inclusion
and our common social values. We have to
articulate as our political goal that in this
changed world we want to create a new alliance
on the pillars of progress and solidarity, societal
security and liberty. The main goal of this new
alliance is to decrease social inequalities, to
provide real opportunities for those who were
left behind, to create a new welfare-state. We
want for these people to be able to participate
in the life of their society, to be able to shape
their own lives as they want it, and for them
not to have to rely on the government and its
institutions, living precariously on benefits. We
have to represent this new welfare-state that
abolishes social division, and provides real
social security, predictability, and long-term
prosperity for everyone. If we cannot achieve
this, the Europe we have struggled to build
after World War II is truly at its end.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE AGE OF POPULISM
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-52
www.neweurope.eu
The new year and
by Margaret MacMillan
Warden of St. Antony’s College, Oxford
University.
the new populism
UNITED KINGDOM - OXFORD
The word “populism” was everywhere in
2016. Political leaders claiming to speak for the
people have achieved significant victories in
Europe, Asia, and, with the election of Donald
Trump, the United States.
Populism first described the latenineteenth-century
protest by American
farmers against banks and railroad monopolies.
Now, the term describes the anger and
resentment felt for privileged, powerful elites
in the public and private sectors alike. In Italy,
Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement takes on
the “establishment,” broadly defined to include
everyone from journalists to industrialists and
politicians. Likewise, in the US, Trump has
promised to “drain the swamp.”
The new populism has more diffuse
aims, and makes more sweeping claims,
than its nineteenth-century predecessor.
Today’s populist leaders are generous with
their hatreds, but parsimonious with respect
to specific policies. They tap into left- and
right-wing politics, often simultaneously:
Trump, for example, promises paid maternity
leave and an increase in the minimum wage,
together with tax cuts for the rich and financial
and environmental deregulation. Political
orientation is unimportant in populism,
because it does not deal in evidence or detailed
proposals for change, but in the manipulation
of feelings by charismatic leaders.
Unlike traditional conservative or
socialist parties, the new populism does not
appeal to socioeconomic class, but to identity
and culture. Populists’ target audience is
anyone who feels economically threatened
by globalization, worries that immigrants
are taking their jobs and changing the
composition of society, or is simply unhappy
with a perceived loss of status (a sentiment
reflected in hostility, especially among white
men, to “political correctness”).
Economists can argue that living standards
have improved, or that the wealth gap in many
developed countries is not widening. But they
cannot counter the unhappiness of people who
feel marginalized, undervalued, and scorned.
Previous protest movements, such as the
Suffragettes and the early socialists, often
furnished ideas and leaders that eventually
became part of the political mainstream.
The new populism is different, because
it categorically denies the establishment’s
legitimacy and rejects the rules of the
game. Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK
Independence Party, is a true populist;
Senator Bernie Sanders, the former US
presidential candidate who campaigned for
Hillary Clinton after losing his battle for the
Democratic Party’s nomination, is not.
In the new populism’s moralistic
worldview, the righteous “people” are fighting
against the wicked “elites.” But it is not entirely
clear who belongs to which group, because
A file photograph showing Geert Wilders of the Party for Freedom (PVV) prior to his trial, at Schiphol, Badhoevedorp, The Netherlands, 18 March 2016.
EPA/REMKO DE WAAL
populist language is so emotive and imprecise.
The people are the “silent majority”: Trump’s
“good, ordinary Americans” or “the little
people,” as Farage and French far-right
National Front leader Marine Le Pen put it.
In my own city of Toronto, they are the “Ford
Nation” – salt-of-the-earth suburbanites who
did not mind that their mayor, the late Rob
Ford, was a chauvinistic, crack-smoking bully.
By claiming to define “the people,”
populists assume the power to exclude. “Elites”
who are out of touch with the people’s needs
are naturally outside the populists’ charmed
circle. But so, too, is anyone whose views
run counter to the people’s will, including
approximately half of American voters who
chose Hillary Clinton, or the 48% of Britons
who voted to keep the United Kingdom in the
European Union.
Nominally left- and right-wing populists
differ primarily in their choice of which
“others” to exclude and attack, with the
former singling out big corporations and
oligarchs, and the latter targeting ethnic or
religious minorities. Once enemies have
been identified, they can be blamed when
“the people’s” will is frustrated. Just as Trump
targets Mexicans and Muslims, Venezuelan
President Nicolás Maduro, Hugo Chávez’s
hapless and incompetent successor, blames a
malign foreign power, the US, for his country’s
deepening crisis. A strident nationalism and
talk of gaining back sovereignty are key
components of the populist appeal. So is
history – or, more accurately, nostalgia for an
idealized past. “Make America Great Again,”
as Trump would have it. In Europe, populist
leaders such as Hungarian Prime Minister
Viktor Orbán and Dutch Party for Freedom
leader Geert Wilders depict a Christian Europe
besieged by Muslim hordes, even though everfewer
Europeans attend church. During the
Brexit campaign, the “Leave” camp invoked
the 1940 Battle of Dunkirk, when the British
fought alone against the German-led Axis.
To be sure, much has gone wrong for a great
many people. Globalization and automation
are eliminating jobs in developed countries;
powerful corporations and wealthy individuals
in too many countries are getting a greater
share of the wealth and paying fewer taxes,
and living conditions continue to deteriorate
for people in the US Rust Belt or Northeast
England and Wales.
But populist leaders do not offer thoughtful
solutions, only fantasies. Trump’s proposals to
build a “big, beautiful” wall on the Mexican
border, ban Muslim immigrants, reopen coal
mines, and impose tariffs on China are not
only unworkable; they would likely spark a
trade war, making matters far worse for his
economically struggling supporters.
Populism’s appeal increases when political
and economic systems seem to be failing,
which explains the rise of the Jacobins in the
early stages of the French Revolution, the
Know-Nothings in mid-nineteenth-century
America, the Fascists in Mussolini’s Italy, and
the Nazis in Hitler’s Germany. All of these
groups claimed to possess moral purity, and
promised to sweep away the corrupt old
system in the name of “the people.”
Today’s populist politics, with its claim to
have a monopoly on truth, is also profoundly
undemocratic. In Hungary, Poland, and
Turkey, we can already see that when populists
gain power they will use the levers they have at
hand, including the state, to destroy democratic
institutions. This form of populism poses a
serious domestic and international threat in
2017. We must prepare for the worst; but we can
hope that these new, outsider political forces will
compel complacent traditional parties to adopt
sorely needed reforms, as Sanders sought to do
during the Democratic primary. Perhaps then
our existing structures will be strong enough to
withstand the onslaught of those who promise
salvation and deliver chaos.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2016.
www.project-syndicate.org

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE AGE OF POPULISM
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-53
www.neweurope.eu
by Michael J. Sandel
Teaches political philosophy at Harvard
University. His books include What Money
Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets
and Justice: What’s the Right Thing to
Do? His BBC program “The Global
Philosopher” gathers participants from
around the world to debate current issues.
Lessons from the
populist revolt
UNITED KINGDOM - CAMBRIDGE
The election of Donald Trump in the United
States and the triumph of Brexit in the United
Kingdom – the two political earthquakes of
2016 – resulted from the failure of elites to grasp
the discontent roiling politics in democracies
around the world. The populist revolt marked
the rejection of a technocratic approach
to politics incapable of understanding the
resentments of voters who feel the economy
and the culture have left them behind.
Some denounce populism as little more
than a racist, xenophobic reaction against
immigrants and multiculturalism. Others view
it as a protest against the job losses brought
about by global trade and new technologies.
But to see only the bigotry in populist protest,
or to view that protest only in economic terms,
misses the fact that the upheavals of 2016
stemmed from the establishment’s inability
to address – or even adequately recognize –
genuine grievances.
The populism ascendant today is a
rebellion against establishment parties
generally, but center-left parties have suffered
the greatest casualties. This is mainly their
own fault. In the US, the Democratic Party
has embraced a technocratic liberalism more
congenial to the professional classes than to the
blue-collar and middle-class voters who once
constituted its base. A similar predicament
faces Britain’s Labour Party.
Before they can hope to win back public
support, progressive parties must rethink
their mission and purpose. To do so, they
should learn from the populist protest that
has displaced them – not by emulating its
xenophobia and strident nationalism, but by
taking seriously the legitimate grievances with
which these sentiments are entangled. And
that means recognizing that the grievances
are about social esteem, not only about wages
and jobs.
Progressive parties need to grapple with
four main issues:
Income inequality. The standard
response is to call for greater equality of
opportunity – retraining workers; improving
access to higher education; and combating
discrimination. This is the meritocratic
promise that those who work hard and play
by the rules should be able to rise as far as their
talents will take them.
But for many, this promise rings hollow.
Even in the US, with its long-cherished dream
of upward mobility, those born to poor parents
tend to stay poor as adults. Of those born in
the bottom fifth of the income scale, 43% will
remain there, and only 4% will make it to the
top fifth. Progressives should reconsider the
assumption that social mobility is the answer
Media, supporters and protestants gather outside Trump Tower regarding the election results of the previous night in New York, USA, 09 November 2016.
EPA/ALBA VIGARAY
to inequality. They should reckon directly with
inequalities of wealth and power, rather than
rest content with efforts to help people ascend
a ladder whose rungs are growing further and
further apart.
Meritocratic hubris. The problem runs
deeper. The relentless emphasis on seeking
a fair meritocracy, in which social positions
reflect effort and talent, has a morally corrosive
effect on the way we interpret our success
(or lack thereof). The belief that the system
rewards talent and hard work encourages the
winners to regard their success as their own
doing, a measure of their virtue – and to look
down upon the less fortunate.
Those who lose out may complain that
the system is rigged, or be demoralized by
the belief that they alone are responsible
for their failure. When combined, these
sentiments yield a volatile brew of anger
and resentment, which Trump, though a
billionaire, understands and exploits. Where
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton speak
constantly of opportunity, Trump offers
blunt talk of winners and losers.
Democrats like Obama and Clinton
have difficulty understanding the hubris
a meritocracy can generate, and the harsh
judgment it renders on those without a college
degree. This is why one of the deepest divides
in American politics today is between those
with and without post-secondary education.
The dignity of work. The loss of jobs to
technology and outsourcing has coincided
with a sense that society accords less respect
to working-class occupations. As economic
activity has shifted from making things to
managing money, with hedge fund managers
and Wall Street bankers receiving outsize
rewards, the esteem accorded work in the
traditional sense has become fragile and
uncertain.
New technology may further erode
the dignity of work. Some Silicon Valley
entrepreneurs anticipate a time when robots
and artificial intelligence will render many of
today’s jobs obsolete. To ease the way for such
a future, they propose paying everyone a basic
income. What was once conceived as a safety
net for all citizens is now offered as a way to
soften the transition to a world without work.
Whether to welcome or resist such a world
is a question that will be central to politics in
the coming years. To think it through, political
parties will have to grapple with the meaning
of work and its place in a good life.
Patriotism and national community.
Free-trade agreements and immigration are
the most potent flashpoints of populist fury.
On one level, these are economic issues.
Opponents argue that they threaten local
jobs and wages, while proponents maintain
that they help the economy in the long run.
But the passion evoked by these issues suggests
that something more is at stake.
Workers who believe that their country
cares about cheap goods and cheap labor
more than it cares about its own people’s job
prospects feel betrayed, and they often express
it in ugly ways: hatred of immigrants, nativist
vilification of Muslims and other “outsiders,”
and demands to “take back our country.”
Liberals reply by condemning the odious
rhetoric and insisting on the virtues of mutual
respect and multicultural understanding. But
this principled response, though valid, fails
to address some big questions implicit in
the populist complaint. What is the moral
significance, if any, of national borders? Do
we owe more to our fellow citizens than we
owe citizens of other countries? In a global
age, should we cultivate national solidarity
or aspire to a cosmopolitan ethic of universal
human concern?
Establishment elites, especially in
Europe and the US, are now confronting the
consequences of their failure to address these
questions. The populist revolt highlights
the need to rejuvenate democratic public
discourse, to address the big questions people
care about, including moral and cultural issues.
Disentangling legitimate grievances from
the intolerant aspects of populist protest is no
easy matter. But it is important to try. Creating
a politics that can respond to these grievances
is the most pressing political challenge of our
time.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2016.
www.project-syndicate.org

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE AGE OF POPULISM
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-54
www.neweurope.eu
Populism and the future
by Lucrezia Reichlin
A former director of research at the ECB,
is Professor of Economics at the London
Business School.
of central banking
UNITED KINGDOM - LONDON
Throughout 2016, populist movements
in developed countries have set their
sights on central-bank independence. To
the populist bull, unelected technocrats
wielding policies that have political and
distributional consequences may as well
be waving a red cape.
In the United States, a bill seeking
to audit the Federal Reserve – and thus
to subject quotidian monetary-policy
decisions to congressional review – was
narrowly defeated in early 2016. And,
during his campaign, President-elect
Donald Trump accused Fed Chair Janet
Yellen of politicizing Fed decision-making.
In Europe, the populist clamor against
unelected European Union bureaucrats
and the independent European Central
Bank has grown louder; and in the United
Kingdom, Labour Shadow Chancellor of
the Exchequer John McDonnell has called
for “democratic control” over interest
rates, implying that the Bank of England’s
monetary policy has been geared toward
helping financial institutions.
With populist movements gaining
ground, and even joining some
governments, their complaints will, sooner
or later, translate into policy proposals that
could change the relationship between
central banks, treasuries, and legislatures.
A large question for 2017 is whether that
would be a good thing, or whether centralbank
independence should be defended
against the coming populist attack.
The diverse range of critiques against
central banks have included claims that
quantitative easing (QE) and low interest
rates favor the rich; special credit policies
favor the banks, without really helping the
economy; and the keen focus on inflation
comes at the expense of other objectives,
such as maintaining full employment and
combating inequality.
These arguments come from both
the left and the right, and some overlap
with concerns voiced by conservative
economists – such as John B. Taylor in the
US and Otmar Issing in the eurozone – that
central banks have assumed an excessive role
in managing the economy since the 2008
financial crisis. Extraordinary policies such
as QE and long-term lending facilities, and
some central banks’ increased involvement
in the financial sector, have pushed the
boundaries of monetary policymakers’
legitimate remit.
But, whereas populists tend to favor
limiting central banks’ political and
operational independence, and broadening
their mandate, conservative economists
want the opposite: to maintain central
banks’ independence while limiting their
A file picture dated 01 July 2015 of the headquarters of the European Central Bank (ECB) in Frankfurt, Germany.
With populist movements
gaining ground, and even
joining some governments,
their complaints will, sooner
or later, translate into policy
proposals that could change
the relationship between
central banks, treasuries, and
legislatures
mandate and policymaking scope.
The concept of central-bank
independence originated in the nineteenth
century, and has evolved differently in
various currency areas. But it was only more
recently, in the 1990s, that central-bank
independence became linked to inflation
targets. While some central banks have
more flexibility than others in managing
price stability, they have all publicly
committed to numerical targets. Without
such accountability (and transparent
communication), their independence
would be hard to justify.
Numerical targeting of price stability
was born of the inflationary 1970s; but
central banks have struggled with the
opposite problem since 2008: low inflation,
or even deflation, when short-term interest
rates have reached the zero lower bound.
More broadly, the financial meltdown has
challenged the intellectual framework and
some of the key principles that previously
guided virtuous central banking.
For example, we can no longer treat
capital-market friction as merely a secondorder
indicator; nor can we assume that
the efficient market hypothesis will always
provide a workable approximation of
market activities, or that financial quantities
– particularly the size and structure of
central-bank balance sheets – are irrelevant.
Owing to pervasive market failures, central
banks have been able to step in as market
makers and influence risk premia through
active balance-sheet policies.
As a consequence, central banks’
operational framework has changed. With
more instruments such as QE at their
disposal, central banks have moved from a
one-instrument, one-target model, to one
with multiple instruments and multiple
targets. This change was precipitated by
the financial crisis, but we can expect that
central banks will continue to use their
balance sheets proactively even in “normal
times,” to counter financial friction or
address liquidity squeezes.
This new operational model could
be justified as a means to ensure price
stability, but when central banks are
mandated to maintain financial stability as
EPA/FRANK RUMPENHORST
well, central-bank accountability, and thus
central-bank independence, is threatened.
Moreover, in a debt-ridden, low-inflation
environment, central banks may not even
be able to achieve price stability unless they
coordinate with fiscal authorities.
As we have learned in recent years,
maintaining a “Chinese wall” between fiscal
and monetary policymakers can result in
excessive delegation of responsibilities to
central bankers.
As we head into 2017, these are the two
problems that stand out: the weakening of
accountability when central banks are given
multiple objectives, and the incentive –
particularly visible in the eurozone – for
fiscal authorities, which must answer to
voters, to push all responsibility onto
independent central banks.
If we believe that central banks should
be protected from short-term political
interference as they pursue monetary-policy
objectives, it behooves us to implement
reforms that will allow for democratically
accountable coordination among
monetary, fiscal, and financial authorities.
This will probably require that other parts
of the government be granted a degree of
independence to pursue clear, quantifiable
objectives under public scrutiny.
Central banks have come to play a major
role in economic policymaking, but fiscal
policy is now back, partly owing to populist
pressure.
The challenge ahead – which will be
particularly difficult to meet in the eurozone
– is to ensure that monetary and fiscal
policies alike are effective and legitimate.
Populist solutions may be ill-advised, but
the problems populists have identified with
respect to central banks are real.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2016.
www.project-syndicate.org

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE DIGITAL REVOLUTION
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-56
www.neweurope.eu
by Fátima Barros
Professor of Economics and she
is the Head of the Portuguese
National Regulatory Authority for
Communications since May 2012. She
was the BEREC Chair in 2015 and Vice-
Chair in 2014 and 2016.
Is the european digital sector
catching up in 2017?
PORTUGAL-LISBON
It is well recognized that the Economic
growth in Europe relies to a large extend
on the development of the digital sector, in
particular on high-quality fixed and wireless
connectivity.
In 2015 the European Commission
published the Digital Single Market Strategy
that recognizes the relevance of giving
people and businesses seamless access to
digital activities and stresses the goal of
enhancing Europe's position as a world
leader in the digital economy. Following
DSM, in 2016, the European Commission
published new Digital Agenda targets
for 2025 and the European Electronic
Communications Code, a proposal for EU
Telecom rules revamp where the main goal
is to encourage investment in high capacity
networks such as fiber networks and 5G.
2017 will be the critical year for the
European Institutions to negotiate the
legislation that will rule the sector for the
incoming years. Time is a crucial factor in
this process since technology evolution
runs at a very fast pace. Therefore, the new
rules for the sector must be future-proof
and simultaneously respect technology
neutrality. However, there is no margin for
a long negotiation process since market
players cannot wait for the legislation to
come out to develop their business plans.
The draft Code is rather ambitious,
consolidating and replacing four main
Directives of the current EU regulatory
framework: Framework Directive, Access
Directive, Authorization Directive and
Universal Service Directive. Clearly,
availability and take-up of very-high
capacity connectivity is now one of the
core objectives along with the promotion
of competition, protection of end-users
and the development of the single market.
The regulation of access is more investment
friendly which is in line with the new digital
targets: by 2025 all European households
should have connectivity of at least 100
Mbps, all main socio-economic drivers
(like schools, universities, hospitals) must
have 1 Gbps connectivity and there must
be uninterrupted 5G coverage for all urban
areas and major terrestrial transport paths.
Many voices claim that one obstacle
to a true digital single market is regulatory
fragmentation, due to the existence of
28 regulatory authorities in Europe.
However, we cannot forget that networks
are local and the 28 European markets are
quite different in terms of development,
networks infrastructures, market structures
and competition, digital literacy and
(L-R) EU Commissioner for the Digital Economy and Society Guenther Oettinger is accompanied by European Commissioner for Digital Single Market
Andrus Ansip and EU Commissioner in charge of Justice, Consumers and Gender equality, Vera Jourova, as he speaks at a news conference on the Digital Single
Market Strategy at the European Commission headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, 09 December 2015. EPA/OLIVIER HOSLET
high-speed connectivity demand. Hence,
different local conditions require different
regulatory actions. At the same time,
European regulators are acting under a
common regulatory framework and share
the same goals and this is what is central to
the question.
Overall the draft Code sets the balance
between harmonization and flexibility, if
one takes aside the double lock veto on
remedies, spectrum regulation and the
transformation of BEREC into an Agency.
In particular, the proposal seems to be more
flexible in what concerns the introduction
of new regulatory tools as a way to adapt the
regulatory paradigm to the different market
conditions. The definition of relevant
markets, the market analysis and significant
market power (SMP) assessment and the
imposition of remedies are the traditional
pillars of telecom regulation and they will
remain essentially the same. What clearly
changes is the set of conditions under
which the identified SMP operator must
be obliged to give access to its network.
Actually, the proportionality prerequisites
are now reinforced limiting the imposition
of wholesale access regulation to the cases
where it is necessary to address retail
market failures. Another principle that is
worthwhile to highlight is the mandatory
access to civil engineering (such as ducts
and poles) and the recognition that other
access remedies should be imposed only
if access to civil engineering alone is not
sufficient to address the market failure.
These are very pertinent novelties
given that in some markets regulators
have been claiming that the imposition
of wholesale access regulation to new
generation networks is not proportional (in
particular in situations where investments
in high-speed networks did not occur yet)
and access to ducts and poles are sufficient
remedies to promote a level playing field
for investment to occur. In such cases, more
intrusive remedies should be considered
only when the retail market failure is
identified.
The draft Code also presents some
interesting alternative regulatory models
that deviate from the traditional imposition
of access obligations like, for example, if
the SMP operator engages in co-investment
offers based on reasonable and nondiscriminatory
terms, or wholesale-only
models.
The relevant question is whether the
provisions of the draft Code are enough
to promote the investment needed to
put Europe on the right track to attain
the Digital Agenda Goals. According to
the Digital Economy and Society Index
(DESI) 2016, individual Member states
are progressing towards a digital society and
economy. However, they are progressing at
different speeds and they are at different
levels of development in terms of highcapacity
networks coverage and take-up.
Among all five dimensions that are the
basis for DESI, i.e. Digital Public Services,
Integration of Digital Technology, Use
of Internet and Human Capital, only the
fifth, Connectivity, is addressed by the
Code and considered as a core goal for
regulators. This means that public policies
must address the remaining dimensions,
including digital literacy.
A well recognized principle is that
investment is driven by both competition
and demand.
Those two pillars will promote the
investment needed for high speed - high
quality networks in Europe. Regulators are
strong believers in competition and play a
central role promoting competition with
a level playing field and consumer choice.
2017 will put to the test Europe’s
capacity to attract investment to the
Digital sector. As regulators we hope that
politicians will be able to recognize that a
Digital Single Market can be built under
the common implementation of the Code
but with the flexibility to apply different
remedies to achieve the common goals,
respecting the local markets idiosyncrasies.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE DIGITAL REVOLUTION
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-57
www.neweurope.eu
by Martina Dlabajová
New skills for a changing world
Member of the European Parliament from
the Czech Republic in the Group of the
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for
Europe.
BELGIUM - BRUSSELS
The start of the new year is always a time to
reflect and think about what the past year has
brought and what the new year could bring. It
is a time to stop, to take stock of our priorities
and making plans for the future. Last year was
a turbulent year for the EU.
Europe has been beset by so many crises
affecting its stability, credibility, security and
democratic quality. Crises, however, can
sometimes help us see things differently and
often in the right way. If we want to overcome
the challenges we face, we should then draw
lessons from our failures and come up with
new approaches and solutions. And this
should also be the way how to address one of
the most serious crisis persisting in Europe for
several years already – the high unemployment
that particularly affects young people.
As part of my job, I meet many young
people across Europe to discuss their
accomplishments as well as their concerns
and fears. On these occasions, it is of great
concern to hear that young people nowadays
fear most about their future, in particular their
career perspectives. Many of them do not
believe that they would be able to find a job
after graduation.
This is worrying and sad at the same
time, but unfortunately, the reality. The
youth unemployment rate in Europe is at an
alarming level, with one in four young people
being out of work. For me, employability of
youngsters is one the biggest challenges for the
next decennials and I do believe it is due to a
considerable big skills mismatch.
The fact we are entering new economic
order is unquestionable. And this raises an
important point. As the economy changes,
the skills required to thrive in it change, too.
But how do we respond? Are we giving young
people the right skills? Do we ask employers
what skills they look for? Do we combine
enough theoretical skills with practical ones?
Are we giving young people the opportunity to
learn, for example, how to set up and run their
own businesses? Or do we make enough effort
to attract them to technological and scientific
fields of education? Research studies show we
do not.
Around 40% of the EU population lack a
sufficient level of digital skills. On the other
hand, more than 40% of employers report
that they cannot find people with the right
skills for growth and innovation. Businesses
are struggling more and more to tackle the
widening disparity between staffing needs
and qualified applicants.
Experts suggest that this skills gap could
impact economic and corporate growth for
the next 15 years! At the same time, a large
number of Europeans, work in jobs that do
not match their talents and aspirations. Finally,
Industrial climbers unroll a giant banner with the lettering 'Mrs. Merkel, Europe's Youth Needs Education and Jobs!' at the headquarters of the union IG Metall
in Frankfurt Main, Germany 13 March 2013.
EPA/FRANK RUMPENHORST
Around 40% of the EU population lack a sufficient level of
digital skills. On the other hand, more than 40% of employers
report that they cannot find people with the right skills for
growth and innovation. Businesses are struggling more and
more to tackle the widening disparity between staffing needs
and qualified applicants
there are also very few people who have the
entrepreneurial mind-set and competences
to start their own business and who manage
to keep adapting to evolving requirements of
the labour market.
The situation on European labour market
has changed dramatically over the past 20
years. The demands of globalisation and the
shortage of appropriately skilled labour across
many industries is emerging as a significant
and complex challenge to Europe’s growth
and future. We are now living in a fast paced
technological era where every skill that we
teach in schools becomes obsolete after several
years due to growing technological advances.
Moreover, given the fast technological
development, new jobs are being created.
I am happy that in recent years there has
been increased attention given to the issue
of youth unemployment at the European
level. In order to address the skills shortage,
the European Commission adopted in June
the New Skills Agenda for Europe. The
proposal is now also being negotiated in the
European Parliament where I was appointed
its rapporteur. And as a rapporteur, I will
certainly continue in promoting appropriate
policies and recommendations based on my
own professional experience.
Having spent most of my working life in
business allowed me to observe both sides and
how the situation is perceived quite differently
in politics. I realized, for example, that the lack
of sufficient dialogue between those two sides
can negatively affect policies and cause skills
mismatch problems and distorted anticipation
of skills needs.
And that is what we have to change –
because how can we anticipate future skills if
we don't listen to businesses and all relevant
stakeholders? Every policy must be based on
evidence from practice, with decision-makers
needing data to design policy, and not the
other way around.
When teaching, we should now focus on
developing transversal, digital, soft and STEM
skills, but also managerial and entrepreneurial
skills in young people as early as possible.
However to nurture these skills requires a
rethinking of our education systems. We have
to enhance the employability of young people
via practical experiences, access to workplaces
and meeting their future employers. We have
to change our mindset and make vocational
education and crafts attractive again for
them. Also to encourage them to learn more
languages which can help them to perform
jobs across borders and boost mobility to
respond to skills shortage.
It might take two to tango but it takes
much more to give today´s young people
the workplace skills they will need. For me,
personally, what is probably most important
is the motivation of young people. For me it
is crucial to make concrete steps to motivate
them to be responsible for their future career
and encourage them to work towards their
dreams.
I am convinced young people do not
necessarily have to hold the best degree to
succeed in today's world, but they do need to
have the best attitude! Let’s help them thrive!

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE DIGITAL REVOLUTION
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-58
www.neweurope.eu
by Diane M. Bryant
Executive vice president and general
manager of the Data Center Group for
Intel Corporation.
Crossing the threshold
of the AI revolution
USA - SANTA CLARA
In 1965, Intel Corporation’s co-founder
Gordon Moore famously predicted the
rate of advancement of integrated circuits,
noting that the number of transistors in an
integrated circuit would double every year.
A decade later, he revised his statement to
doubling every two years and the concept is
now known as Moore’s Law. Moore’s Law
translates to a doubling of a computer’s
computational capability every two
years and continues to serve as a guiding
principle for the technology industry.
These advances enabled by Moore’s Law
now produce a new mechanism to derive
value from computing.
As we enter 2017, we are crossing
the threshold of a new era for human
innovation – one in which machines
can analyze significantly more data and
recognize difficult to find patterns in that
information.
With the increased ability and
affordability of computing, machines are
able to continuously analyze and learn from
data and accurately predict outcomes; this
is what we call Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Researchers have been working on AI
for more than 50 years. We are now starting
to see the benefits of those decades of
investment in capabilities such as machine
learning and machine reasoning. These
technologies exhibit tremendous potential
to improve society in areas ranging from
better healthcare and safer driving to
more efficient agriculture and energy
development.
For example, AI used in cars is now
capable of interacting with not only the static
elements of the road – signage, painted lines,
etc. – but also pedestrians and other cars on
the road. AI-enabled (also called automated
driving) vehicles are currently being tested
on roads worldwide and have the ability
to assist drivers, optimize traffic flow, and
reduce collisions resulting in saved lives.
Of course, AI has applications beyond
vehicles that will impact the future. AI
will benefit the industrial and agriculture
sectors through the rise of smart factories
and cities, precision agriculture and
power management. The healthcare and
pharmaceutical sectors are incorporating
AI to assist with early diagnosis, precision
medicine delivery and drug discovery.
The financial sector is benefitting from
fraud detection, risk assessment and asset
management. Cybersecurity firms are using
AI to predict threats of network intrusion,
thereby, using data to protect data. Even
the sports industry is incorporating AI for
performance optimization, injury protection
and fitness management.
To keep up with the potential of AI
A BMW i3 is on display as part of Intel’s Investors Day events at the 2016 Intel Developer Forum in San Francisco on Thursday, Aug. 18, 2016. INTEL CORPORATION
innovation and the benefit it can bring
society, the world will need laws and
regulations that embrace these innovations
while protecting people from unintended
consequences. Governmental regulation
will need to keep up with the pace of AI
advancements to protect the public and
invest in long-term sustainable policy
approaches. To ensure the benefits of the
burgeoning AI field are made available to the
greatest number of people possible, we must
do three things: 1) Drive; 2) Democratize,
and 3) Guide.
First, we need to “drive” AI by building
the technology, optimizing its performance
for AI applications, and advancing public
policy to keep pace with AI development.
At Intel, we are actively working with a
wide range of industries to accelerate AI
development.
To do that, Intel and many of our
technology partners are also maintaining
an open dialogue with national governments
and international regulatory bodies to
identify and implement long-term and
sustainable policy approaches. By building
and maintaining strong partnerships as
these emerging technologies blossom,
the computing industry and its regulators
can work together to mitigate risk, drive
accountability and reap incredible benefit.
Second, we need to “democratize” AI
by working with developers, academia,
government, industry, and civil society to
promote open access to the data and tools
that will fuel broad development of AI.
This means engaging with the developers of
tomorrow today. Isolated data stores, complex
tools and a small talent pool currently limit
access to AI. Government and industry both
have roles to play to democratize AI.
Government can play an important
role to encourage the creation of an AI
workforce, including supporting graduate
students and funding research. Intel has
committed to democratize AI innovation,
leading the charge for open data exchanges
and initiatives. One example is the Intel
Nervana AI Academy created to increase
accessibility to data, tools, training and
intelligent machines for a broad community
of developers, academics and startups.
Democratization will improve overall access
to the technology and allow societies to
reap the benefit from AI. Democratization
also requires global data flows that protect
privacy and the reliability, integrity, and
security of the data. Restricting data within
national boundaries may inhibit AI from
taking advantage of greater data diversity
that comes from study across different
geographies and cultures.
Third, we must “guide” AI into the future
to ensure it is used for the collective good and
to solve critical problems previously believed
unsolvable. Guiding AI will require that we
grapple with complex questions of ethics,
privacy, discrimination, employment and
even human autonomy. Public discussion
and debate must happen early and often
as we advance AI to experience a safer and
more productive world. While these will
not be easy conversations, they will enable
the successful and beneficial use of these
promising technologies.
In 2020 we will look back on the capstone
decade of artificial intelligence. That is
to say, the time where years of research
combined with the computing power made
possible by Moore’s Law translated into bold
applications. This is an exciting moment to
be building the brains of the platforms that
will fundamentally change the way people
engage with the world.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE DIGITAL REVOLUTION
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-59
www.neweurope.eu
by Robert W. Quinn, Jr.
Senior Executive Vice President, External
and Legislative Affairs
Bob Quinn is responsible for AT&T's
public policy organization and is chair of
the AT&T Foundation.
Next wave revolution:
Age of the internet of things
USA- WASHINGTON DC
2017 marks the tenth anniversary of the
iPhone. My company, AT&T, is proud to
have helped bring the first iPhone to market,
and through our rapid adaptation towards a
software defined network that could scaleup
at pace with the over 150,000 percent
growth in wireless data traffic demands
since 2007, contributed to the smartphone
revolution that has transformed daily life.
And what might the next ten years bring?
We can foresee even more revolutionary
change, with the rise of the Internet of
Things (IoT).
This revolution is underway. Within
industry, AT&T already has enabled over its
commercial mobile network more than 30
million connected devices to the IoT. We
have invested billions of dollars annually in
broadband infrastructure and are helping
to lead an industry transformation to nextgeneration
Software-Defined Networks
(SDN) that will enable virtual security,
scale and performance capabilities to
facilitate an expansion of a vastly diverse
set of IoT services in the coming years.
Governments across the globe are
actively involved in creating a more
favorable environment for private sector
IoT investment and deployment. Today,
the United States and the European Union
are examining how best to optimize the
technical, security and privacy issues raised
by the dispersion in IoT-enabled devices.
Europe has a research program on IoT
issues as part of both the Horizon 2020
strategy and also the Digital Single Market
initiative. Likewise, industry-led coalitions
such as AIOTI and the Industrial Internet
Coalition, are working on similar issues.
IoT is gaining prominence so quickly
in part because of the dramatic and
compelling efficiency gains that public and
private sector actors can realize when they
pair sensors, data analytic tools, and factbased
decision-making. In fields as diverse
as energy efficiency, water management,
traffic-flow diagnostics and preventative
health-care tools, IoT can help save lives
and money. And in the near future, the
potential benefits and innovation are will
increase with the coming deployment of 5G
ultra-high speed mobile technology. This
next-generation technology is expected
to offer faster speeds and lower latency,
and tol facilitate the greater density of
connected devices that will be connected
to the IoT. To take just one example,
Machina Research estimates that by 2025,
mobile networks will carry 50% of IoT data
traffic, of which 45%, or nearly a quarter
A connected car at AT&T booth at Mobile World Congress 2016
of total IoT traffic, will be communications
between connected cars.
As the iPhone and apps shows,
technology not only changes the lives of
individuals, it also simultaneously disrupts
and enables entire industries. The vision
for the IoT is boundless: connected
cars, new health care processes, virtual
reality as commonplace, and smart civic
infrastructure.
Yet much work remains to achieve the
vision of an interoperable global framework
for IoT. For example, the European
Commission has noted that one potential
obstacle is that the “large diversity and very
large volumes of connected devices” will
require new security standards, and must
be compatible to IoT systems. Establishing
widely accepted industry standards, both
for 5G networks and for 5G-enabled IoT
devices, will be critical for ensuring rapid
IoT adoption. Private sector leadership will
be necessary in adopting these standards,
as the clock ticks and the competitive
advantage of the digital revolution is within
reach.
Both European and American companies
face similar pressures, and Europe and
the US should work together closely on
several important areas of policy necessary
to support the IoT. For example, success
for the IoT will require reallocation of
generous amounts of spectrum for 5G use.
Likewise, data privacy frameworks will need
to be evaluated to address cybersecurity
requirements, as well as reliable mechanisms
for cross-border data flows. And to support
all of this, infrastructure investment
incentives and wise tax policies should be
regularly reviewed to ensure they promote
deployment and use of IoT-connected
devices.
So many of these areas are clear
opportunities for the US and Europe to
work together to maximize the rewards
and minimize the risks of an IoT world.
Companies on both sides of the Atlantic are
expected to actively compete and promote
growth and innovation that will help create
more products and services for consumers
in the connected world. But the IoT will
be best positioned to grow and flourish
under a policy framework that encourages
investment and innovation by all parties,
thus leading to a virtuous cycle of growth
in broadband-enabled technologies and
devices.
Disruptive innovation is a critical
pathway to economic growth. Some
may think that the European Union and
the United States are to some degree
competitors in technology development,
each wanting to innovate faster than the
other. Both, however, regard technological
progress as critical to shared interests. For
both sides of the Atlantic, I encourage
a comprehensive policy roadmap to
technological investment and innovation
that, whenever possible, applies regulation
in a horizontally consistent way across
industry, and adheres to a light-touch
regulatory approach that encourages
industry to develop smart and adaptable
solutions to public policy priorities.
Disruptive innovation
is a critical pathway
to economic growth.
Some may think
that the European
Union and the United
States are to some
degree competitors
in technology
development, each
wanting to innovate
faster than the other.
Both, however, regard
technological progress
as critical to shared
interests.
AT&T

HISTORICAL MOMENTS
60
JANUARY 2017 | ISSUE#1193 NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
www.neweurope.eu
61
Iran’s nuclear weapons
The International Atomic Energy
Agency announced on January
16 that Iran has adequately
dismantled its nuclear weapons
programme following a deal
brokered between the country
and the United States.
Zika virus spreads
Zika virus makes its way to the
US after at least one infant was
treated for microcephaly in
mid-January.
Deir ez-Zor offensive
Islamic State militants in
Syria on January 16 attack the
neighbourhoods of Begayliya
and Ayash in Deir ez-Zor, killing
hundreds of people.
El Adde attack
A massive siege at an African
Union base in Somalia on
January 15 left 63 people dead.
Iraq attacks
Two Islamic State bomb blasts,
one at a teashop and the other
at a mosque, killed at least
100 people in the township of
Sharaban in Iraq’s northern
Diyala province on January 11.
Zliten truck bombing
leaves 60 dead
A suicide truck bomb was
detonated on January 7 by
Islamic State at a police training
camp al-Jahfal, Libya, killing 60
people and wounding 200 others.
(7 January)
2016
Bowie dies
David Bowie died of cancer on
January 10, two days after his
69th birthday. His fans around
the world recalled highlights
from his life and work.
Lahore suicide bombing
leaves 72 dead
At least 72 people were killed
by Tehrik-i-Taliban, including
29 children and over 200
others people were injured in
a suicide bombing that hit the
main entrance of Gulshan-e-
Iqbal Park, one of the largest
parks in Lahore, Pakistan.
(27 March)
Baghdad bombings
As many as 70 people were killed
and 60 others wounded in Sadr
City, Iraq, on February 28.
Sayyidah Zaynab bombings
Islamic State militants on
February 21 detonated a car
bomb and later launched two
suicide bombings, near Sayyidah
Zaynab Mosque in Syria, leaving
134 dead.
Ankara suicide car bombing
((17 February)
At least 30 people died and
61 were injured in the Turkish
capital on February 17.
Russia-US participate in Syria
peace talks (early February)
US and Russia work towards
a cessation of hostilities in
troubled Syria after stalled UN
peace talks.
Boko Haram attack
Two female suicide bombers
sneak into a camp for internally
displaced persons (IDP) in the
northeast Nigerian town of
Dikwa, killing at least 70 people,
on February 9.
Mosul attack
Islamic State executed over
300 police and army personal,
as well as civil activists by
firing squad in Mosul, Iraq,
on February 8.
Official US White
House rally launched on
February 1
Democrats: former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton Vs
Vermont Senator Bernie
Sanders.
Republicans: Texas Senator
Ted Cruz Vs TV star and
entrepreneur Donald
Trump.
January
Brussels airport bombed
Terrorists killed 32 people in three
suicide bombings in Brussels on
March 22. Islamic State claimed
responsibility for back-to-back
bombings at the Brussels airport
and subway. Ibrahim El Bakraoui,
Najim Laachraoui and Mohamed
Abrini attacked Zaventem airport.
Silicon Valley Pioneer
Andy Grove Dies
EU-Turkey refugee
deal finalised
(18 March)
Migrant crossings
Migrants cross a river on an
alternative route to pass the
border between Greece and
the Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia (FYROM) near
Idomeni, northern Greece, on
March 14.
Clinton and Trump
win US elections rally
primaries
Olympic refugees
The International Olympic
Committee (IOC) decides that
the Refugee Olympic Team will
compete in the 2016 Summer
Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
in August. The IOC says five to 10
refugees will be chosen to compete
under the Olympic Flag.
March
Execution in Mosul
A Sharia court executes
132 people in Mosul, Iraq,
on March 5.
February
Suicide bomber kills
at least 60 people and
wounds 70 others in Hialeah,
Iraq, on March 6.
Obama visits Hiroshima
“We come to ponder the terrible
force unleashed in the not so
distant past,” US President
Barack Obama said on May
27 after laying a wreath at a
Hiroshima peace memorial,
almost 71 years after the US
nuclear bomb attack that marked
the beginning of end of World
War II. Both Nagasaki and
Hiroshima strikes are believed to
have killed more than 200,000.
Jableh and Tartus
suicide bombings
(23 May)
45 freeze to death in Baghdad
(23 April)
ISIS killed 45 people by locking
them inside a forensic freezer
after they attempted to flee
during a battle in Iraq.
Prince dies
Pop superstar Prince was found
dead on April 21. He died from
a fentanyl overdose at his Paisley
Park recording studio and home
in Chanhassen, Minnesota. He
was 57.
250 women dead in Mosul
At least 250 Iraqi women were
executed by Islamic State fighters
on April 21 because they refused
to become sex slaves.
Kabul attack
(19 April)
Taliban suicide bomb and gun
assault on a government security
building in central Kabul killed
at least 28 people and wounded
more than 320, in the most
deadly single attack in the
Afghan capital since 2011.
April
Ecuador hit by
devastating earthquake
(16 April)
At least 668 people were killed
and 16,600 injured during a
7.8-magnitude earthquake that
struck the coast of Ecuador
on April 16. The epicentre
was located in the province
of Esmeraldas, at a depth of
20.6km.
Damascus massacre
ISIS fighters executed 175 of the
300 kidnapped cement workers
outside the Syrian capital
Damascus.
Greece clears Idomeni
refugee camp
Greek authorities evacuate 8,500
people from Europe’s largest
informal refugee camp on May
23, following an EU-Turkey
agreement that closed the
Western Balkan migration route.
Baghdad bombings
A series of eight attacks in
Baghdad killed more than 100
people and wounded around 200
in Iraq on May 17.
New planets discovered
Diyarbakir bombing
At least three people were killed
by members of the Kurdistan
Workers’ Party (PKK) in a car
bomb targeting a Turkish police
vehicle in Diyarbakir, Turkey, on
May 10.
May
NATO Summit
(8-9 July)
Europe and the US decide to
deploy troops in Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania and Poland as a
deterrence force against Russia.
Karrada bombing
At least 346 people were killed,
and over 246 injured, in a series
of coordinated bomb attacks by
IS in Baghdad, Iraq, on July 3.
UK votes Brexit
The historic referendum on
June 24 resulted in 52% of
British citizens voting in favour
of leaving the EU. Immediately
after the result, Prime Minister
David Cameron announced he
would offer his resignation to
Queen Elizabeth II by October
(as he did on June 13).
IS Iraq masacre
At least 400 soldiers were found
Gaziantep bombing
dead, many with gun wounds in
Two policemen were killed and
Saqlawiyah, Iraq (5 June). Another
22 others (including four civilians)
65 were executed in Mosul, Iraq.
were wounded after a car bomb
(6 June).
exploded outside a police station in
Gaziantep, Turkey. (1 May).
Pokémon Go is released
Niantic and Nintendo launched
Pokémon Go, a location-based
free-to play augmented reality
game, to mixed reviews. The
game reached 1,000 million
downloads in the first two
weeks.
Orlando mass shooting
Omar Mateen, a 29-year-old
security guard, killed 49 people and
wounded 53 others in a terrorist
attack inside Pulse, a gay nightclub
in Orlando, Florida, on June 12. It
was the deadliest mass shooting in
US history.
June
81 killed by Herdsmen
(10 July)
Multiple terrorist attacks by
Fulani herdsmen left at least 81
people dead in Benue, Nigeria.
Barroso’s new job
France called on the former
head of the European
Commission, Jose Manuel
Barroso, not to take up a job
advising US bank Goldman
Sachs on Brexit.
Olympic Games
More than 11,000 athletes from
205 countries around the world
competed in 42 different sports in
Rio de Janeiro, during Brazil’s 2016
Games of the XXXI Olympiad.
The opening ceremony took place
in the Mracana Stadium on August
5, highlighting aspects of Brazilian
history and culture.
Trump wins Republican
White House nomination
Coup d‘état attempt
in Turkey
(16 July)
Bastille Day Nice attack
leaves 84 dead (14 July)
FBI confirms DNC
mails investigation
July
Theresa May becomes new
British Prime Minister
(13 July)
Hawija massacre
At least 85 people were killed and
hundreds others kidnapped and held
hostage after a massacre carried out
by the Islamic State in Hawija, the
centre of Al-Hawija District in the
Kirkuk province of Iraq. ISIS also
kidnapped several thousand others
and executed 15. (6 August)
Iraq executions
Islamic State execute at least
100 captured Iraqi civilians.
(25 September)
Zuckerberg and Chan want
to end all diseases within
80 years (21 September)
Kroes’ “Bahama mama”
breaks Commission ethics
twice
Former European commissioner
Neelie Kroes, now paid adviser
to Bank of America and
Uber, failed to declare her
directorship of an offshore firm
in the Bahamas while she was
in office. Kroes received just a
“reprimand” from the European
Commission on late December.
Kabul double
suicide attack
At least 58 people were killed in
a double suicide attack during
rush hour near Iraq’s defence
ministry on September 5.
August
Brazilian president
ousted
Italy violently shaken
Gaziantep suicide
bombing
(20 August)
Beni massacre
(14 August)
At least 64 people were killed in
the eastern Democratic Republic
of the Congo’s Beni city.
Mother Teresa
becomes saint
After Pope Francis recognised
a second miracle attributed to
Teresa on late December 2015,
Mother Teresa was canonised
during a ceremony in St. Peter’s
Square in Vatican City on
September 4. Tens of thousands
witnessed the ceremony,
including 15 government
delegations and 1,500 homeless
people from all over Italy.
‘Bahama mama’ breaks
Commission ethics twice
Samsung recalls
“explosive” smartphone
Multiple Syria car
bombings
Over 70 people were killed in
multiple Islamic State suicide
explosions in Tartus, Homs,
Damascus and Hasakah in Syria.
September
“Slitty eyes” scandal
The European Commissioner
for digital economy and society,
Gunther Oettinger, was caught
on tape mocking Chinese, gays
and women during a speech on
October 28. He did not apologise.
Battle of Mosul
More than 1,000 people
were killed in shootings and
executions in Mosul, Iraq.
Islamic State executed civilians
“for collaborating with the
security forces”, including its own
militants, after their reported
desertion and fleeing the battle
fronts.
Hurricane Matthew
(28 September - 10 October)
Over 1,600 estimated deaths
have been attributed to
Hurricane Matthew, the first
category 5 Atlantic hurricane
since Hurricane Felix in 2007.
546-1,600 died in Haiti, 1 in
Colombia, 4 in the Dominican
Republic, 4 in Cuba, 1 in Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines, and
49 in the US, making Matthew
the deadliest Atlantic hurricane
since Hurricane Stan in 2005.
Fidel Castro dies
Fidel Castro, the former leader
of the Cuban revolution, who led
Cuba for almost 50 years (1959-
2008), died on November 25. He
was 90. His death was announced
on TV by Cuba’s current leader
and Fidel’s brother Raul Castro.
Cuban revolution deposed
Fulgencio Batista in 1959, before
Castro allied Cuba with the
Soviet Union.
ISIL Hillah attack
A suicide bombing occurred in
Iraq on November 24. A truck
bomb exploded at a petrol
station in Hillah, 100km from
southern Baghdad, killing more
than 125 and injuring 95.
October
CETA signed after
Wallonian drama
EU and Canada signed the
long-delayed free trade deal
on October 30. The agreement
followed weeks of uncertainty
due to Paul Magnette’s
opposition in Belgium that
almost led negotiations to a
dead end.
Hamam al-Alil massacre
At least 300 civilians were killed
in the town of Hamam al-Alil in
Iraq’s Nineveh Governorate. They
were killed in massacres carried out
by ISIL in late October and early
November.
George Michael dies
Berlin Christmas terror
November
Trump wins election
(8 November)
Republican candidate Donald
Trump won the Electoral College
with 304 votes compared to 227
votes for Democratic Hillary
Clinton. Seven electors voted for
someone other than their party’s
pledged presidential candidate.
Trump will become the 45th
President of the US, after
Democratic Barack Obama.
Pakistan explosion
(12 November)
Some 52 people were killed
and more than 100 wounded
in a bomb blast that targeted
the Shah Noorani Shrine in
Khuzdar district of Balochistan
province.
12 HDP MPs arrested
in Turkey
(4 November)
Co-leaders of Turkey’s pro-
Kurdish opposition party (HDP),
Selahattin Demirtas and Figen
Yuksekdag, were arrested on
terrorism-related charges on
November 4. The HDP is the
third largest party in the 550-
seat Turkish parliament with
59 seats, and the main political
representative of the Kurdish
minority.
Russian ambassador
assassinated in Turkey
Andrei Karlov, the Russian
ambassador to Turkey, was
assassinated at an Ankara art gallery
on December 19, just ahead of major
Syria talks. The gunman, who was
identified as Mevlut Mert Altintas,
was an off-duty police officer. He was
fatally shot shortly after shooting the
ambassador.
December
First American in
orbit the Earth dies
American astronaut John Glenn, the
first US citizen to orbit Earth, dies on
December 8. He was 95.
Trump starts naming
future cabinet
Rex Tillerson will be the next US
Secretary of State, as Presidentelect
Donald Trump announced
on December 13. Tillerson is the
chief executive of Exxon Mobil.
Renzi misses crunch
referendum and quits
Aden-Yemen suicide
bombings
Suicide bombings on December
10 and 18 killed more than 102
people dead and 92 injured.
ISIL claimed responsibility.
Austria turns page
(5 December)
Alexander Van der Bellen,
the Green Party-backed
economics professor, celebrated
a historic victory of pro-EU
forces against anti-EU populist
parties in Austria’s December
4 presidential election. The farright
Freedom Party candidate
Norbert Hofer lost to Van der
Bellen at the polls.
Cooling off
period extended
Former European commission
president José Manuel Barroso’s
controversial decision to take
a job at Goldman Sachs made
the current president of the
European Commission, Jean-
Claude Juncker, to extend the
“cooling off” period to three
years for the Commission
President and two years for the
other Commissioners.
PHOTO CREDITS: EPA

Tinalbarka wants to be a lawyer.
She and her family fled violence in Mali.
We stand together
#WithRefugees
photo: UNhCR / A. DRAGAJ
www.refugeeday.org
EN_2016WRD_POSTER_Mauritania_Tinalbarka.indd 1 04.05.16 11:24

Baw Meh dreams of a safer future for her grandchildren.
She escaped violence in Myanmar.
We stand together
#WithRefugees
photo: UNhCR / R. ARNold
www.refugeeday.org
EN_2016WRD_POSTER_Thailand_BawMeh.indd 1 04.05.16 11:26

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
GLOBAL VS LOCAL WORLDS
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-65
www.neweurope.eu
Time for EU member states
by Ömer Çelik
Minister of European Union Affairs
and as the Chief Negotiator for Turkish
Accession to the European Union.
BELGIUM -BRUSSELS
From counter-terrorism to energy security,
from economy to irregular migration,
the world is confronted with new global
challenges of unprecedented dimensions that
need sound stance and joint and coordinated
efforts. I believe that overcoming these
common challenges should be a top priority
for Turkey-EU relations.
European integration, which has been
evolved through going in and out of crises
since its inception, is not facing an unknown
today. What makes it peculiar this time is the
pace and scale of unwanted events and threats
to which the EU is not sufficiently prepared
to adapt and react on time.
In 1950s, the EU was working to pull coal
and steel production under one entity for
the hope of peace, security and prosperity. In
1990s, it was getting ready to modernize and
embrace countries from Eastern Europe. The
EU of 2008 which just wanted to take some
time off after another wave of enlargement
was hit by the euro crisis. While struggling to
cope for the stability of euro, the EU was not
ready for the events unfolding in the region
which were about to cause the largest ever
movement of people towards Europe since
World War II.
The previous socio-economic crises
have traditionally empowered the European
integration. Yet, for the first time a crisis is
coupled with a crisis of values.
The so-called refugee crisis received an
incredible amount of reaction within the
Member States that made the unthinkable
happen, the Brexit. The waves of terror
attacks have changed the EU priorities from
protecting fundamental rights and freedoms
to securing borders and protecting its citizens.
The far right went too far depicting refugees
and Islam as an attack to the European
identity and strengthened its influence
throughout Europe. Now Europe has become
such a fertile ground for ultra-nationalists and
xenophobes where intolerance to diversity,
anti-EU political movements, hate-crimes,
Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are on
the rise. European leaders should not be
trapped by the populist demands of far-right
politicians. It is very obvious that far-right
political movements are targeting the core
ideals that we all share. Alienating Turkey
from the European family as a response to
these movements only to capture some of
their electoral support will not ensure success
in the upcoming elections.
Considering the many challenges in our
vicinity and beyond, an ever stronger EU
is urgently needed. And the EU needs the
robust and ever-closer Turkey.
European refugee crisis clearly showed
us that Turkey’s and EU’s problems are
intertwined. Intertwined problems require a
simultaneous and common response. Turkey
to reflect on the strategic
significance of Turkey
Syrian refugees in front of their tent at a refugee camp in the Suruc district near Sanliurfa, Turkey, 28 January 2015.
started to face the refugee crisis in 2011, well
before start of the mass influx to EU countries
in 2015. What the EU should have done
was to immediately start collaborating with
Turkey for helping Syrian refugees and setting
up safe zones in Syria.
Unfortunately, we witnessed that EU
only started a substantial cooperation with
Turkey during the last months of 2015. In
the end, cooperation with Turkey showed
to be immensely successful in solving of a
serious crisis faced by the EU. However, if
from the start we had had the opportunity to
collaborate, refugees themselves and the EU
would have been far better off.
Turkey opened its doors to refugees
and on some occasions received as many
as 100.000 people a day. As of November,
the arrivals to Greek Islands from Turkey is
66 daily on average, which is a remarkable
difference when compared to 7.000 daily in
October last year when Turkey and EU had
not yet started a comprehensive cooperation
effort. Turkey is proud of its citizens who have
shown great vigilance not to have turned these
unprecedented events into radical politics
or domestic violence towards refugees. As
Turkey has pulled its weight regarding the
18th March Agreement, it would be now
fair that EU delivers on its commitments,
including visa liberalization for Turkish
citizens.
Unfortunately, the world is confronted
with an epidemic menace, a menace that
needs to be diagnosed and treated properly.
The threat arising from terrorism is constantly
evolving. Leaving aside all prejudices, all
doubts, and all questions, we must drain the
swamp of this evil immediately. We should
never forget that terrorists are terrorists, not
freedom fighters. Instead of being selective, we
must do more to cooperate against all kinds
of terrorist activities.
Today, more than ever before, the security
of EU and Turkey is interconnected. The
dramatic changes we have witnessed in Syria
and Iraq, from Middle East to the very centres
of Europe, all mean that the EU and Turkey
should act jointly against security threats.
However, it does not mean that Turkey-EU
relations are only limited to cooperation on
irregular migration or counter-terrorism.
Turkey’s accession negotiation is the
backbone of Turkey-EU relations. Despite
closing of all and opening of many negotiating
chapters have been blocked since 2006 due
to political reasons, Turkey continues with
determination its harmonisation process
with the EU acquis under each chapter and is
committed to do so. Turkey’s Progress Report
of 2016 underlined Turkey’s commitment
and confirmed that Turkey’s alignment on
30 chapters out of 33 is at a good level.
Turkey is a functioning European
democracy with its constitutional institutions
and is established on a well-structured state
apparatus which has a long tradition. Turkish
people who stood united in solidarity
EPA/SEDAT SUNA
without any hesitation on 15 July, against a
heinous coup attempt by the FETÖ terrorist
organization, should become a symbol for
all people who undertake a struggle for
democratic values.
EU membership is a strategic objective
for Turkey and it is not the European
Parliament’s role to decide from today the
prospective of the accession talks through
a narrow-minded resolution suggesting a
call for the temporary freeze of negotiations
with Turkey. On the contrary it is the very
responsibility of the European Parliament
to show solidarity with Turkey, a candidate
country, countering terrorism and upholding
its democracy against unprecedented threats.
We also know the efforts of Austria which is
pushing EU member states to halt Turkey’s
EU membership talks. Such efforts not only
discourage Turkish people but also do not
generate any good for the EU’s current crises
that require Turkey’s cooperation as well as
for the Turkey-EU relations.
At this juncture it is vital that the EU
should respond properly to Turkey’s
determination with a view to reassess its
handling of the accession talks and adopt a
firm but fair approach towards Turkey. This
will also demonstrate that the Union is still
capable of constructing a wider vision for
Europe and for the world.
It is now high time to place Turkish-EU
relations in a new realm and to steer the wheel
of change to the benefit of both sides.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
GLOBAL VS LOCAL WORLDS
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-66
www.neweurope.eu
by Erlan Abdyldaev
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kyrgyz
Republic.
The foreign policy priorities of the Kyrgyz
republic in the european direction
UNITED KINGDOM - LONDON
The year 2016 is an anniversary year in the
Kyrgyz Republic. Our country marked the
25th anniversary of independence of our
young, but progressive republic. Over the years
we have passed a difficult path of democratic,
economic, social and cultural transformations.
As it is known, the fate of our young state
abruptly changed several times in order to go
forward with confidence today.
After independence, the Kyrgyz Republic
has entered a difficult period of transformation.
The country had to deal with the whole range
of tasks at the same time.
That is formation of national statehood,
constitutional reforms, transition to a different
socio - economic development model, the
formation of an independent foreign and
security policy.
The country has chosen multi-vector
as main foreign policy priority, in order to
diversify its foreign relations and the need for
further integration into the globalizing world.
In this concept of multi-vector, European
direction is uniquely fixed in a number of
foreign policy priorities. This is reflected in
the "Silk Road Diplomacy" doctrine, which
was a basis of the first foreign policy concept of
the Kyrgyz Republic, the updated concept of
1999, in Kyrgyzstan's foreign policy concept in
2007, where the development of relations with
the EU, the US, Germany, Turkey identified as
the most important areas, and finally, in the
National sustainable development strategy for
2013-2017.
In addition, Kyrgyzstan’s aspiration to
integrate into the community of democratic
states after independence, focus on "European
values", prompted the search for foreign
partners who can assist in the implementation
of the necessary democratic reforms.
Strengthening comprehensive partnership
with the European Union is one of the
priorities of the foreign policy of the Kyrgyz
Republic, due to important EU's political and
economic role, and the fact that Kyrgyzstan is
fully shares European Union values. For more
than twenty years of cooperation Kyrgyzstan
and the European Union have established
stable and trust-based relationship.
A historic event in the development of
the European direction of foreign policy of
Kyrgyzstan are the visits of the President of
the Kyrgyz Republic Almazbek Atambaev to
Germany in 2012 and Belgium (Brussels) in
2013, as well as the so-called "Euro tournee"
with the visits to Austria, France, Switzerland,
Belgium and Germany in 2015.During these
visits the EU leaders and heads of the main
EU institutions highly appreciated the reforms
implemented in the country, noting the
achievements in building an open democratic
society.
The return visits to the Kyrgyz Republic
in 2016 of the German Chancellor Angela
President of Kyrgyzstan Almazbek Atambayev (L) is welcomed by EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker (R) prior to a meeting at the EU
Commission headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, 27 March 2015. EPA/JULIEN WARNAND EPA/JULIEN WARNAND
Merkel, Federal Foreign Minister of Germany
Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the Secretary-
General of the European External Action
Service A. Le Roy showed a significant mutual
interest of the European Union and European
countries to our country.
For the Kyrgyz Republic, the adoption by
the European Union this year of the Global
Strategy for the Common Foreign and Security
Policy is of particular importance, in which
Central Asian countries have an important role,
including promoting sustainable development
of the countries of the region. The absolute
priority for our country still issues as poverty
reduction, food security, quality education
and health care, economic growth, energy and
environmental protection.
For the period of cooperation, the EU and
KR formed a solid political and legal relations,
established a system of joint cooperation
institutions - the Cooperation Council,
Cooperation Committee, Parliamentary
Cooperation Committee, Subcommittee on
Trade and Investment.
In 2014, the EU adopted a Multi-annual
Indicative Program for the Kyrgyz Republic
for the period up to 2020, in which the
allocation of 184 million euro is expected for
implementation of bilateral programs. Key
sectors of the EU project-programme activities
of EU in the Kyrgyz Republic - the rule of
law (fight against corruption, legal reform,
judicial reform), education, integrated rural
development.
In January 2016, Kyrgyzstan became
the first country of Central Asia, which were
granted the GSP + status, which opens up new
opportunities to increase the export of goods
from Kyrgyzstan in the EU. Application of the
GSP + system offers additional preferences for
goods exported from the Kyrgyz Republic
to the European markets and also creates
opportunities for joint ventures on the
territory of the Kyrgyz Republic with further
access to European markets.
Kyrgyzstan is open for investment, the
implementation of major industrial projects.
There are prospects for attracting European
investments in the development of promising
deposits, energy transport structures and
hydropower industry.
Kyrgyzstan attaches great importance
to the cooperation within regional EU
Strategy for Central Asia. The main factors
that affect the configuration of the EU
Strategy for Central Asia: regional security
threats, including the smuggling of drugs, the
activities of clandestine terrorists and religious
extremist organizations, the incompleteness of
the process of delimitation and demarcation
of state borders, water and land disputes in
the border areas, illegal migration and the
problems of water and energy resources of
the region.
The Kyrgyz Republic actively participates
in the annual meeting of foreign ministers in
the "EU-Central Asia" format. High-level
Dialogue the EU-Central Asia Security
Dialogue is considered as one of the most
important platforms for the exchange of
experience with the EU in combating security
threats and challenges.
In 2016, the Kyrgyz Republic was the
host country for the EU’s Central Asia
Border Security Initiative (CABSI), as well
as a regional conference of the EU to prevent
violent extremism in Central Asia. Kyrgyzstan
supports the implementation of EU regional
programs to promote the border management
and prevention of drug distribution in Central
Asia.
One of the key components of the EU
strategy for Central Asia- is to work in the field
of rule of law and evidence of this- is the annual
meeting of EU and Central Asian Ministers
of Justice. Kyrgyzstan is actively involved
in EU activities on Human Rights: Human
Rights Dialogues and regional civil society
workshops.
The focus of the sides is also to cooperate
in the field of education. In the framework of
this cooperation, it is important to implement
projects with the help of European partners,
aimed at improving the quality of secondary,
higher and vocational education, as well as
the introduction of modern models and
technology in education.
The prospects of cooperation between
Kyrgyzstan and the European Union, both
on a bilateral and multilateral level, have
significant potential.
Kyrgyzstan intends to continue to pursue
a consistent and multi-vector foreign policy,
strictly follow the undertaken international
obligations and international law and to create
favorable conditions for the foreign policy of
the country.
As noted by the President of the Kyrgyz
Republic A. Atambaev: "Multi-vector for us - it
is an independent and free in its choice foreign
policy, which is based primarily on the national
interests of Kyrgyzstan and the welfare of
the nation. The multi-vector foreign policy
must not and will not be an obstacle to an
active dialogue and development of mutually
beneficial cooperation with individual
countries."

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
GLOBAL VS LOCAL WORLDS
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-67
www.neweurope.eu
by David Bakradze
Georgia’s appointed Ambassador to the
United States.
Does geography shape destiny? Georgia’s
quest to define its location and history
GEORGIA-TBILISI
Just before the end of 2016, final decisions
were made to grant Georgia a visa-free regime
with the EU. In addition to the tangible
result of Georgia’s European integration, this
decision positions Georgia to become a hub
of energy, data, goods, capital, services, and
talent, connecting several world regions. That
is a big role for a small country and a young
democracy, but Georgia is up to the task
Georgia must now rise to the challenge
of politically defining the significance of
its location or risk that its location will
determine the politics of the country. Georgia
is determined never again to let that happen.
This is why our relationship to Washington has
been indispensable.
In the early 1990s, the South Caucasus
was envisaged as a corridor for the energy
resources of the Caspian basin and, perhaps,
of Central Asia. In time, what came into being
was a smaller but scalable project that bound
together Turkey, Georgia, and Azerbaijan,
untapped the riches of the Caspian and, in
the future, could become a hedge for Europe’s
energy supply. Ambitious ideas have a life of
their own.
There are some who still dwell on the
perceived failure of the Nabucco project.
But, the Trans-Anatolian Pipeline project
followed much of the same route, bringing
Caspian resources to Europe -- particularly to
Southeastern Europe which is dependent on
Russia for over 90% of its natural gas needs.
It is worth noting that vision to carve out a
role for the region in the European landscape
came from Washington. Washington listened
to local aspirations and facilitated the gathering
of regional, European, and global stakeholders
to work together towards a future that would
fortify the processes of democratization,
liberalization, and development. Beyond
building pipelines, Washington hoped to
harness relationships. And that vision has
materialized.
For some time now, the region and the
energy-honed relationship has had a life of
its own. The three countries have gone on
to build a regional electricity market on the
foundations of a grid funded by European
institutional investors. The South Caucasus
As bullet speed trains are reanimating the ancient Silk
Road the region is making its pitch to the world as an
industrial hub, with cheap electricity, low regulation,
competitive corporate taxation rates, an educated
workforce, and necessary infrastructure
is the last leg of a 12-day trip from China to
Europe. As bullet speed trains are reanimating
the ancient Silk Road the region is making its
pitch to the world as an industrial hub, with
cheap electricity, low regulation, competitive
corporate taxation rates, an educated
workforce, and necessary infrastructure.
In February 2016, the Government of
Georgia selected a US-Georgia Consortium
for the development of the Anaklia deep sea
port. The €3,3bn project will be the only one
of its kind on the eastern shores of the Black
Sea that can be reached by Panamax-size ships.
That creates a maritime direct Launch Pad
from Central Europe to the Middle East and
China. In the short run, the port will connect
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan,
Turkmenistan, Kirgizstan, and Tajikistan, to
the west. In the medium run, Anaklia is the
port of convenience for a minimum of 146
million people. In the long term, Anaklia is
a global gate from emerging to developed
economies.
Beyond joint ventures, the political
landscape in Georgia still bears the marks
of Washington’s formative involvement in
its development and the two nations share a
common world view. Now, as Georgia carves
out its own space in the emerging economic
environment. Georgia is building on its
DCFTA agreement with the EU, EFTA, FTAs
with CIS countries, including Russia and
Turkey, to speed up the process of concluding
a Free Trade Agreement with China. Market
access is matched by a low taxation, low
regulation, and high transparency regime, of
the kind that makes Georgia one of the easiest
places to do business in the world, according
to the World Bank.
The vision driving all these efforts to
promote economic, energy, and infrastructure
interconnectedness is a safer and peaceful
region.
This “can-do,” pro-business, problemsolving
attitude that views regulation as the
software that unleashes the creative spirits of
entrepreneurship was born in the early days of
Georgian independence and further advanced
in recent years With an eye towards the future,
Georgia is not building trade links to the world
merely to sell its wine, mineral water, honey, or
fruit that its 3.8 million person economy can
produce. We envision a future where Georgia
transcends its size and geography to attain
greater significance in the global economy
and forges ahead with politically defining the
importance of its location.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
GLOBAL VS LOCAL WORLDS
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-68
www.neweurope.eu
Albania – A trustworthy and solid partner
by Ilir Meta
Speaker of the Albanian Parliament.
Former Prime Minister of Albania.
ALBANIA-TIRANA
As 2016 comes to a turbulent end, it
is becoming increasingly clear that the
international order and particularly the
European structures are faced with huge
and unpredictable existential challenges of
historical proportions.
While these new developments unfold
in 2017 and beyond, we in South East
Europe, and especially in the Balkans, have
to ensure that the founding European Union
values and Trans-Atlantic commitments,
despite current challenges, are advanced
and spread across our institutional and
political life.
Albania, a modest country in South East
Europe is progressing steadily in its journey
towards European Integration, despite its
own challenges and enlargement fatigue
that the EU is faced with.
By the end of 2016, Albania received a
positive recommendation from the European
Commission for opening accession talks
for EU membership which was echoed
by member states at their December
European Council meeting in Brussels, on
condition that the country advances with the
implementation of its crucial and milestone
‘Justice Reform’ which will see its entire
justice system overhauled and hopefully
reorganised for good.
A more constructive and cooperative
internal political climate, especially on
issues of European implications, would
serve Albania’s undeniable weight in the
region and beyond.
Under my responsibility as Speaker of
the Albanian Parliament since 2013, I have
worked to encourage our political class
towards a gentlemanly agreed consensus
that when it comes to our strategic foreign
and regional policy decisions, we have to
be united in projecting a clear, strong and
irrefutable national vision.
Although a modest country in
geographical terms, Albania has a specific
role to play in the Balkans.
This is not only because of the Albanian
ethnic populations surrounding its borders,
in Montenegro, Kosovo, Macedonia and
southern Serbia. It is also because Albania is
without doubt the most pro Euro-Atlantic
country in the region and as such, it carries
a special responsibility in order to advance
the Trans-Atlantic agenda in our fragile
region.
Since the fall of communism, the
transition period of South East Europe has
strongly been affected by the wider Euro-
Atlantic agenda, with each country aspiring
to join the European Union and NATO.
On the other hand, the European Union
itself and NATO's own transformation
for the euro-atlantic agenda in the Balkans
Federica Mogherini (C), High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security
Policy address Albanian Parliament during her visit in Tirana, Albania, 03 March 2016. EPA/ARMANDO BABANI
after the Cold-War have been immensely
influenced by developments in our region,
which proves its undeniable geo-strategic
importance.
This becomes even more relevant for
the upcoming year and the next decade to
come, as various world players compete to
extend their influence across the region.
As the unprecedented migration crisis
and terrorist attacks have shown in the
past two years, Europe as a whole has to be
more united, more coordinated and better
prepared for future potentially destabilizing
developments of huge human proportions.
Uncertainty, inconsistency and
dissonance in how we tackle future
challenges will almost certainly increase
insecurity for our societies, and continue
to push desperate European citizens to
offer support to nationalist, populist and
xenophobic political alternatives, which
may put the entire Western order to
question.
Brexit was the first alarm bell to a
new and uncertain order in Europe, and
upcoming elections in the Netherlands,
France and Germany raise fears that a
weakening European Union may not be
good for the rest of Europe, and it certainly
would not be good for our part of the world
which has historically been torn between
West and East.
In this context, Albania has to empower
its traditional positive and constructive
foreign and regional policy with a sharper
sense of visionary approach, firm in our
sincere belief that the full integration of all
our neighbours in the EU and in NATO will
serve not only the future of our citizens, but
will add to the security and stability of an
entire continent. Faithful in our strategic
alliance with the United States, which we
will continue to advance with the new
American administration, and clear about
our full integration into the European
Union, we rely on a strong and healthy
Trans-Atlantic partnership.
This means a solid and fully completed
Europe with the Balkans as its integral part,
and a strong and efficient NATO.
Albania will continue to work against
any nationalistic or populist alternative in
our region, convinced that only an open,
democratic, pluralistic region without
barriers guarantees stability, security and
social progress for our societies.
Guided by the unchangeable principles
of open, sincere and good neighbourly
relations, we will continue to support
the acceleration of the Euro-Atlantic
integration of all our neighbours, as the
only alternative which solidifies peace and
security for the future.
This is why the Albanian Parliament
was amongst the first to ratify Montenegro’s
Accession Protocol with NATO, delighted
that our northern friend’s membership into
the Alliance will complete a fully secure and
guaranteed Ionian-Adriatic coastal corridor.
We will continue to intensify our
excellent cooperation with Montenegro and
rely on its Albanian minority as an excellent
bridge of friendship and partnership.
Our very close relations with Kosovo
have been elevated towards a more
qualitative institutional cooperation which
benefits exchanges on both sides of the
border.
Albania will continue to lobby for more
international recognitions of Kosovo’s
independence while we will push forward
the agenda of its integration across regional
and international organizations. This is
imperative for Kosovo’s citizens and vital
for the entire region.
The EU must no longer delay the
visa-free regime for Kosovo’s citizens
while the dialogue between Serbia and
Kosovo should advance with tangible
results and through a constructive and
mutual understanding. Albania will
continue to push for a full normalization
of the Serbia-Kosovo relationship, which
should ultimately culminate with Kosovo’s
recognition.
Albania must and will continue to foster
closer and more open relations with Serbia,
because if the region is to advance, it must
leave behind old habits and barriers, and
move forward towards more political,
cultural, commercial and economic
exchanges.
The honest engagement from Tirana,
whether with our counterparts in Belgrade,
or with our ethnic Albanian representatives
in Preshevo Valley in southern Serbia, has
always been driving relations towards a
positive trend.
Meanwhile Albania will continue to
increase its contribution for a stable and
developed Macedonia, which needs to
be fully integrated in NATO and the EU.
The Albanian Parliament will continue to
encourage the substantial ethnic Albanian
factor to be a driving force for European
integration and a clear Euro-Atlantic
orientation.
In pursuing our regional policy, we will
continue to rely heavily on our two key EU
neighbours, Italy and Greece, as two vital
and strategic partners, and strong advocates
for our EU agenda and our economic
development.
Those in our region who witnessed the
former communist rule know only too well
that there’s a direct link between democratic
open societies and economic prosperity.
It is undeniably true that the Euro-
Atlantic agenda has been crucial in
advancing such ambitions for the entire
region.
This is especially true across those in
the frontline of development across Central
and South East Europe.
Our duty in Albania and elsewhere in
the Balkans for 2017 and beyond would
therefore be to accelerate our common
action together with the EU and NATO,
as well as with other civil society and
interest groups in our countries in order to
strengthen our democratic credentials.
This means tangible strengthening
of the rule of law, tougher fight against
endemic corruption and organized crime,
solid and independent justice systems,
more transparency in the way we govern,
and full accountability in public life as a
non-negotiable element of our path towards
smart and sustainable political, economic
and societal development for our future
generations.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
GLOBAL VS LOCAL WORLDS
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-69
www.neweurope.eu
by George Papaconstantinou
Post-crisis Greece
Former Greek Finance Minister between
2009 and 2011. He is currently
Chairman of GSP Advisory and the
author of Game Over – The Inside
Story of the Greek Crisis, available from
Amazon.
GREECE - ATHENS
The title of this piece may seem incongruous,
even provocative. Post-crisis? After all, Greece
is once again caught in the middle of yet
another program review aimed at certifying
progress made in fiscal and structural
reforms and unlocking the next tranche of its
third bailout. And as is usually the case, the
review completion is already months behind
schedule, with no clear end in sight. What is
more, we seem to be caught in an situation
where the objectives of the main players are
incompatible.
The IMF is insisting on more debt relief
and on lower primary surpluses after the
current programme (to which it has not
yet subscribed) ends in 2018; failing that,
it demands significant additional measures
to ensure the numbers “add up” and debt is
sustainable.
The European creditors on the other hand
do not consider additional debt relief a priority
and consider higher primary surpluses (to
the tune of 3,5% of GDP) perfectly feasible.
But politically they want the IMF on board.
And the Greek government is caught in the
middle: it would like the IMF’s position of
more debt relief and lower primary surpluses
to prevail; but as it sees that it will not, it would
rather see the IMF outside the program rather
than commit now to additional measures
for post-2018. This standoff has become
more complicated following the Greek
government’s unilateral decision to give a
“Christmas bonus” to pensioners which
both in process and substance seems to be
outside the current bailout agreement. And
with this standoff, the already optimistic game
plan for Greece to successively (i) swiftly
complete the second review, (ii) be included
in the ECB’s asset purchase programme,
(iii) access markets on the back of the lower
spreads in 2017 so as to (iv) fully fund itself
from the markets when the current program
expires in 2018 is clearly no longer a realistic
proposition.
So is there anything that can justify a “postcrisis”
discussion? Actually, yes. To begin with,
despite the current standoff, a compromise
solution is both possible and likely, either in
the coming months or in spring to summer
2017. After all, the real cash crunch which
would necessitate a loan disbursal (hence an
agreement for that to happen) does not come
before July.
It would involve the Greek government
agreeing to extend the contingency
mechanism on “automatic” cuts beyond
2018, with further specification on the
direction the additional measures would
take, if they became necessary. This would
allow the IMF either to fully come into the
(03/16) People walk in front of a store window at 9 Stadiou Street in Athens, Greece, 21 February 2013. Thirty-three stores out of 88 in Stadiou street have closed
down in the area near downtown Omonia Square. According to data of the Greek Businesses Record Office in 2012 approximately 23,000 businesses have been
forced to close down due to the economic crisis, which works out at 63 shops per day.
EPA / ORESTIS PANAGIOTOU
program or instead remain with an “enhanced
technical advisor role”. The exact outcome
will depend on the balance between on the
one hand the lack of appetite within the IMF
to continue funding Greece coupled with the
new US administration’s hands-off attitude to
Europe and on the other hand the room for
manoeuvre in Berlin on the interpretation of
the German parliament’s decision for the IMF
to be included in the programme. One way or
another however, the review will close and we
will all move on.
Then, there is politics, arguably the
constraining factor to all reform attempts in
Greece. 2017 will not be a repeat of 2015;
there can be no new referendum. Having
crossed the Rubicon two summers ago, the
Syriza-Anel government is unlikely to go to
the brink again. Whether it soldiers on to
2018 or calls a snap election sometime in
2017, the tail risk of a confrontation with the
EU with Grexit looming seems to have all
but disappeared. In fact, having shown two
years ago the way by voting into power the
first populist government in the EU, Greece
is now poised to turn its back to Syriza and
to populism after the next elections and lead
the way back to mainstream politics – but
hopefully, a politics that has learned from the
mistakes of the past.
So this is a good time to talk about “postcrisis
Greece”; in fact, it is not a moment too
soon. Official growth projections for 2017
may arguably be too optimistic, but there can
be no doubt that this will be the year when
the economy finally comes out from its 9-year
recession (since 2008, with GDP growing
barely only in 2014). Furthermore, we are
firmly in positive primary surplus territory,
so that the country’s long-standing fiscal
weakness has been – painfully – corrected;
similarly for competitiveness, with Greece
having eliminated the deficit in its external
account. But let’s be clear: “post-crisis” does
not mean that there will be no follow-up
program when this one expires in 2018. There
will be a follow-up arrangement, whatever it
is called, for two reasons: the country will not
be able to fully finance itself in international
markets; and it will be vital for some kind of
conditionality to be present in order to ensure
a continuation of reforms.
It is in fact in those reforms that one can
find the most hopeful message for the future.
Since 2010, Greece has embarked (and
in many cases completed) much delayed
structural reforms in practically every
government activity and part of the economy:
the budget process, the tax system, public
administration, pensions, social services, the
judicial system, product markets, the labour
market, the financial sector. Though there
has often been hesitation and backsliding,
there is no denying what has been achieved,
nor however that it is still a case of “work in
progress”. Nevertheless, the reforms which
have already been undertaken boost the
country’s productivity and competitiveness
and are bound to improve Greece’s longterm
growth potential. What is required for
this to happen is perseverance and a renewed
effort, especially in building institutions and
trust with citizens at home and with investors
abroad.
So this is a good time
to talk about “postcrisis
Greece”; in fact, it is
not a moment too
soon. Official growth
projections for 2017
may arguably be too
optimistic, but there
can be no doubt that
this will be the year
when the economy
finally comes out from
its 9-year recession
(since 2008, with GDP
growing barely only in
2014).

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
GLOBAL VS LOCAL WORLDS
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-70
www.neweurope.eu
2017. Between risk and hope
by Pablo Casado
Spokeperson of the ruling Spanish
Partido Popular and Vice-President of
the Committee of European Affairs in the
Spanish Congress.
BELGIUM -BRUSSELS
I will tell you a key to understanding Spain:
we can never be pessimistic with her. I'll give
you an example. If I had had to write this
article a year ago, my text would certainly
have been very different from the one I write
today.
At that time, I would have had to speak
to you of a country that was entering the time
of uncertainty and was not clear on its future
path.
I would have had to detail - in a much
longer article than this one - the complications
of a post-election scenario that might have
been very entertaining for political analysts,
but which were worrisome for the Spaniards
and cast great doubts on the country's
governance. Everything was conspiring, in
effect, to turn Spanish politics into a perfect
storm: the rise of populism on the left, the
arrival of new players in Parliament, the
wearing down of traditional parties ... And it
is true that the Spanish have lived through
2016 with an exceptionality that this year
has brought us all: for the first time in our
democracy, repeated elections.
But here is where the surprise comes. The
long period of a political interim situation
has not affected one of the countries which,
following the implementation of a strong
reform program, came out more vigorous in
terms of economic growth and job creation
in the European Union.
And not only that. The Spanish learned
the lessons of the elections of December 20,
2015, and after the new call in June 2016, the
picture has changed. The parties - the big
and the not so big - have managed to leave
behind their biggest differences and forge
broad agreements.
And there is a point of special relevance:
Spanish society has put a stop to the growth
of populism, something that has a unique
merit in a year where populist proclamations
have made a dent in some of the most settled
democracies in the West.
Finally, the path from 2016 to 2017 may
well be summarized in the conclusion of a
recent article in The Economist: "Spain
is starting to look like an island of relative
political stability."
The classical liberals and the reformists
are well aware: the future is not written
yet. 2017 begins with certain risks for the
welfare of our societies, including the Spanish
one. Terrorism continues to threaten our
freedoms and our lives. Populism continues
to act in various European countries - and not
only European - with all its symptoms: from
the discrediting of democratic institutions to
Euroscepticism or outbreaks of xenophobia.
The Syrian wound continues to bleed
in the eyes of all, and the management of
Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy (L) receives the president of the EU Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker (R), at the Moncloa Palace in Madrid, Spain, 01
December 2016.
EPA/PACO CAMPOS
The Spanish learned the lessons of the elections of
December 20, 2015, and after the new call in June 2016,
the picture has changed. The parties - the big and the
not so big - have managed to leave behind their biggest
differences and forge broad agreements
migratory flows must become one of the
central policies of the European Union.
From Brexit to the new paths to be outlined
by the Trump Administration, we see how
the international situation abandons the
geopolitical manuals in order to have a direct
impact on our lives.
And if the interconnection of our
economies has been an incentive for growth
and prosperity, the threats remain: let us only
think of the rise in the price of fossil fuels,
possible changes in interest rates or the lack
of liquidity in the financial sectors of key
European countries.
The future is not written, we said. But
politics has too many capacities to influence
it. And if I stick to the Spanish case - the one
I know best - caution can coexist with hope.
Not only have we overcome pessimism in
2016, but the readers of this publication
will remember how, upon the arrival of
the Popular Party of Mariano Rajoy to the
Government, Spain was holding the negative
headlines in the international press.
In 2011, until well into 2013, my country
seemed to embody all European ills, from
unemployment to recession, from the public
deficit to the problems of its financial system.
I will not sin of triumphalism nor say that all
problems are solved: much remains to be
done.
But those problems have been addressed
with reforms as sensible as ambitious, and
the results are there: the same headlines
that spoke of the pain in Spain now speak
of Spain as back. Even in this new beginning
of a minority government we have already
managed to agree on measures of positive
social impact, and we have strong incentives
to agree new reforms, everything from the
competitiveness of our business fabric to the
efficiency of the public sector, the financing
of our regional system or - key data for the
future - the improvement of education.
True, reforms and agreements are not
easy. But the responsibility for reform is the
best tool of a politician: with it a politician
removes pessimism among citizens, brings
prestige back to the institutions, and
underpins the welfare of societies.
That has been the key to success in Spain
to date, and is the best way for Europe and
Spain to make their way to the future in this
2017 which we are about to enter.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
GLOBAL VS LOCAL WORLDS
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-71
www.neweurope.eu
by Thomasz Piotr Poręba
President of New Direction and Member of
the European Parliament from Poland in the
European Conservatives and Reformists Group.
Poland in 2017. A Government committed
to delivering the “people’s manifesto”
BELGIUM - BRUSSELS
In 2015, voters gave the Law and Justice
Party (PiS), their support during both the
parliamentary and presidential elections.
They voted for change. They voted for a
Government, of the people, for the people,
and not a Government made up of the liberal
elite to serve the liberal elite. We recognise
that its’ Poles, that are our sovereign, not the
other way around. And I’m proud to say, in
little over a year into a PiS Government, we
have begun the hard task of implementing
and delivering the people’s manifesto.
As a Government we have increased
support for the family, particularly the
young and the elderly. We did this through
a wide range of policies initiatives including
Family 500+ and Housing+. We increased
the minimum wage to 2000 PLN per month
and to 12 PLN per hour, we lowered the age
of retirement, and introduced free medicines
for the over 75s.
As a Government we have begun a
process to remove the structural disparities
across our country. Rural areas across
Poland were neglected and left behind, by
the previous Civic Platform Government.
Politicians were distant, the Government
even more so. They felt their voice wasn’t
been heard. And I know this to be true,
as I represent one of the furthest regions
geographically away from Warsaw than any
other. We needed to change that. I’m proud
we did. As a Government we have also
focused on security. Poland’s membership
of NATO is vital for our country and the
region, because it helps to keep our nations
secure and our community safe.
In July 2016, we hosted the NATO
Summit in Warsaw and the Alliance agreed
to concrete action to tackle the threats we all
face from Russia, from terrorism and from
illegal migration.
The multi-national spearhead force is
now operational and capable of deploying
anywhere on Alliance territory in just a few
days and we secured agreement that there
will be an increasing number of NATO
troops present along our eastern flank.
Furthermore, we agreed to work together
to defeat violent extremism, to tackle illegal
migration, to increase defence expenditure
and to maintain the Alliance’s Nuclear
deterrent. We have demonstrated, and we
will continue to demonstrate that Poles can
feel safe and defended against threats in their
country.
This year will be a big year for Poland.
So expect so major changes. Alongside
reforming education and healthcare we
will prioritise economic growth. Prime
Minister Beata Szydlo has announced
that the government will build a strong
innovative economy based on the Polish
potential, the ‘Responsible Development
Governing party Law and Justice (PiS) leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski (R) and Law and Justice spokesperson Beata Mazurek (L) attend a press conference during an
opposition parties parliamentarians protest at the plenary session in Sejm, the lower house of the Polish parliament in Warsaw, Poland, 16 December 2016.
EPA/MARCIN OBARA
The European Union needs to change, it needs
to be reformed for it to become a stronger, better
governed and more democratic institution. The
Union first and foremost must begin to fulfil the
expectations of its people. Rest assured, Poland will
be very active in this process
Plan’. In November 2016, we hosted
Congress 590 which brought together
representatives from Polish SMEs and large
corporations. Congress 590 will provide
recommendations and concrete policy
options for our Government to implement.
We are determined to have the most suitable
legal and economic framework in place to
support aspiring entrepreneurs.
But importantly the social welfare of
Poles will not be put aside while we stimulate
the national economy. We will increase the
personal tax-free allowance of the lowest
earners, because we believe the rich should
not get richer on the back of some of the
poorest people in our society.
It is simply not right that families with
lower incomes are proportionally paying
more tax than families with higher incomes.
We will put an end to this inequality. I am
entirely convinced that is the right path to
follow. The economy should serve the people
and build our nation, not the opposite.
Poland will also play its role as a regional
leader working closer with our neighbours.
We will organise a ‘Congress of Innovators’
in collaboration with the Visegrad Group.
The recent success of the ‘Via Carpatia’
shows us the path to follow in terms of
regional cooperation.
This year also marks the opening of
Brexit negotiations. Poland respects the
sovereign decision of UK and will not
present any terms or conditions when it
comes to the date of triggering Article 50,
because we believe that this is the sovereign
decision of the UK, and the European Union
needs time itself to prepare for this process.
It is also very important this year to draw
lessons from the British referendum, the
European Union the British decision was not
without reason. We need to think deeply in
the European Union, why such an important
state, such a big economy, decided to leave
the Union?
The European Union needs to change,
it needs to be reformed for it to become
a stronger, better governed and more
democratic institution. The Union first and
foremost must begin to fulfil the expectations
of its people. Rest assured, Poland will be
very active in this process.
The leader of Law and Justice Jarosław
Kaczyński said: "This programme [was]
written by you, Poles from all over Poland,
from small towns and villages, representing
various professions, young and old". Our
mission is to serve the Polish people -
something I believe we have begun to
achieve. This year it will be my mission to
make sure Poland's unique voice is heard in
Brussels, that we begin to make changes in
Europe, changes that our peoples demand.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
GLOBAL VS LOCAL WORLDS
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-72
www.neweurope.eu
by Massimiliano Salini
Member of the European Parliament
from Italy in the Group of the European
People’s Party.
Italy’s great efforts in terms of innovation,
development and less bureaucracy
BELGIUM -BRUSSELS
In 2016 Italy has found itself on the
frontline of an unprecedented migrant
crisis, with thousands of people trying to
access Europe through our country. Even
though this problem is now having a serious
impact on local communities’ lives, also in
terms of financial costs, the Italian left-wing
government is trying to hide its inability to
deal with it. Hence I hope that in 2017 our
government will finally face the problem
head on.
On the one hand, we need the government
to recover some of the good practices
implemented by the previous rightwing
cabinets, such as securing bilateral
agreements with the countries of departure
of migrants.
On the other hand, it is necessary that the
EU will adopt a more aware and active
approach. Mass migration cannot be
conceived only as an Italian problem, both
because it will always more affect all the
other European countries, and because
the EU was born exactly to allow States to
overcome their difficulties jointly.
Another major issue, which is strictly
tied to mass migration, is Islamic terrorism.
I am hopeful that the political uncertainty
that has gone along with the appointment of
the new government will not lead the Italian
government to manage the emergency
less carefully. An asymmetric warfare is
ongoing, we must consider it as such and
react in the proper way.
As far as our domestic political situation
is concerned, I strongly believe that, after
prime minister Matteo Renzi’s resignation,
the Italian parliament should pass as soon as
possible a new, simple and clearer electoral
law.
Then we must give Italians the chance
to vote for a new parliament and a new
government.
In this way, Italy would finally have a
government elected by the citizens. The last
time this happened was 2008, when Silvio
Berlusconi won. Since he resigned in 2011
we have had only unelected prime ministers
(Mario Monti, Enrico Letta, Matteo Renzi
and now Paolo Gentiloni).
With regard to the economy, I
strongly believe that Italy must protect its
industry, and in particular its traditional
manufacturing base. A more determined
action is needed to stop the growth of
anti-industrial impulses and to defend
our extraordinary source of prosperity
and development. Italy must protect its
tradition, but at the same time it must
take up the challenge of technological
transformation. Digital innovations are
reshaping our economy and industries at
a scale and speed like never before. We
Migrants clean the Arno river during voluntary activity, Florence, Italy, 14 July 2016.
The main economic issue is Italy’s northsouth divide. While
the northern regions (like Lombardy, Veneto, Piedmont and
Friuli Venezia-Giulia) are prosperous and represent the real
engines of the European economic progress, the South remains
less economically developed, especially because of the high
taxation and the presence of a huge underground economy
must embrace these new technologies,
which despite some alarmist views, offer
inconceivable opportunities for our
entrepreneurs.
As member of the European Parliament
Committee on Industry, Research,
Telecoms and Energy (ITRE), I proposed
an amendment, which was definitively
passed by the European Parliament last
December, to the 2017 EU budget for the
digitization of small and medium-sized
enterprises.
The amendment provides for the
allocation of 1.5 million euro for the launch
of a pilot project in 50 SMEs and startups
across Europe so that they are helped
by experts (digital enablers) in a digital
transformation process of their activities.
I believe that this plan will support many
businesses to develop an innovative digital
culture.
We also need to improve the quality
and the efficiency of our judicial system.
The unreasonable duration of judicial
proceedings discourages foreign direct
investments, so it implies a brake on growth.
Furthermore, in the last year the judiciary
has played an increasingly significant role
in the political system. This interference
must be stopped in order to not alter the
democratic institutional setting of our
country.
Despite these problems, it is noteworthy
that the Italian pension system still
remains one of the most developed and
economically sustainable system in Europe.
At the same time, some steps forward have
been taken to improve the transition from
education to employment, but we certainly
need further reforms.
The main economic issue is Italy’s northsouth
divide. While the northern regions
(like Lombardy, Veneto, Piedmont and
Friuli Venezia-Giulia) are prosperous and
represent the real engines of the European
economic progress, the South remains
less economically developed, especially
because of the high taxation and the
presence of a huge underground economy.
Moreover, after many years of policies
aimed at promoting public investment, new
infrastructures and employment (carried
out by the previous governments led by
former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi),
a dangerous position based on the theory
of the “happy degrowth” is spreading
today due to the propaganda made by
new political forces such as the Five Star
Movement.
In general, we should recognize that in
the last decades Italy has made great efforts
in terms of innovation, development and
less bureaucracy.
These steps have been possible
also thanks to the extraordinary role of
volunteering, largely made up of Catholicinspired
organizations, movements and
leagues. It is on that foundation that Italy
must build its future.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
GLOBAL VS LOCAL WORLDS
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-73
www.neweurope.eu
by Lincoln Mitchell
A political consultant and has worked
for institutions of democracy promoting
institutions around the world,
including Freedom House, Democracy
International, the National Democratic
Institute, UNDP, and the United
Nations Democracy Fund. a Research
Associate at the Arnold A. Saltzman
Institute of War and Peace Studies at
Columbia University, Author of several
books including the of the “Democracy
Promotion Paradox,” (Brookings, 2016).
White christian identity politics and
foreign policy in the United States
USA -- NEW YORK
The recent American election demonstrated
once again the extreme power of identity
politics in this most diverse of countries.
2016 saw white straight Christians, the most
sensitive to perceived slights to their identity
of all American demographics, reassert their
influence over our political processes by
coalescing behind a candidate who promised
to address the perceived slights they have
experienced in recent years. Thus, in both the
general election, and to an only somewhat
lesser extent in the Democratic primary, we
saw once again that the USA is a country
where the division between white straight
Christians, and everybody else remains acute.
According to the New York Times exit
poll, for example, Donald Trump won 58% of
the white vote, and less than 30% of African
American, Latino, Jewish, Asian or LGBT
voters. That 58% understates Trump’s support
among his white Christian base as most Jews
and many LGBT voters identify as white as
well. So, among his white straight Christian
base, Trump won comfortably more than
60% of the vote. Significantly, these numbers
are not dramatically different that what we
saw in 2012, but the tenor of the campaign
was. Trump won those voters despite, or
more accurately because, he ran the most
bigoted campaign in modern American
history. Instead of using code words he called
Mexicans rapists, urged his supporters to
beat up African American protestors and ran
campaign ads that drew on the oldest and most
murderous of anti-Semitic tropes. He did not
quite accuse Jews of killing Christian babies
for their blood, but more or less accused us
of being part of an international banking cabal
aimed at hurting “real” Americans.
While it is significant that the Republican
Party candidate made explicit a race based
appeal with which many previous Republican
nominees have flirted, the candidacy of Bernie
Sanders is a more troubling example of the rise
of white identity politics in the US. From the
outside, Bernie Sanders looked like a left of
center candidate trying to pull the Democratic
party in that direction.
While there is some truth to that, another
reality of the Sanders campaign is that he was
a racially polarizing figure, winning votes
almost entirely from white voters while
barely campaigning in African American
communities or in states like those in the
deep south where the Democratic Party is
dominated by African Americans. Ultimately,
and predictably, that was not enough for
A protestor in an outfit resembling a uniform of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) stands outside the site of a rally by US Republican presidential candidate Donald
Trump (unseen) at the Verizon Wireless Center in Manchester, New Hampshire, USA, 08 February 2016.
EPA/JUSTIN LANE
It is a cliche, and usually not a very useful one, to assert that
the post World War II order is crumbling. Those structures
have always looked a lot stronger from the rear view window
and in the eyes of foreign policy establishment from Brussels to
Washington than in the reality of many conflicts, interventions
and wars over the last seven or so decades.
Sanders to win the nomination, but both his
progressive politics and racial division within
the Democratic Party are part of the legacy of
his campaign.
Once Sanders lost the nomination he
gracefully endorsed Hillary Clinton and
worked to help her against Donald Trump.
Now he will return to the Senate as a
progressive conscience, or perhaps gadfly, but
will not have a great deal of influence. Donald
Trump, of course, will be the next President of
the United States; and the legacy of his racist
campaign is now central to American political
life.
Since the election, the US has become
a place where many people are afraid that
because of their country of origin, skin color,
sexual orientation or faith, they will now face
increased discrimination or even violence,
while a perhaps equally large group of people
is committed to the idea that there is nothing
to fear. The latter group, not surprisingly, skews
heavily white, straight and Christian. This is
not a recipe for stability or reconciliation after
a campaign that was divisive even by American
standards. President-elect Trump’s decision to
elevate noted racist Steve Bannon to a senior
position in the White House, continued
complaints about imaginary election fraud,
implicitly by non-whites, and failure to squelch
all talk of institutionalized discrimination
against Muslims demonstrates that Trump has
no interest in bringing the country together,
but rather sees racial division as the engine of
his political support.
Kvetching about the state of American
democracy after Trump’s victory is unavoidable
and also important, but on its own not very
helpful. For Europeans, however, recognizing
that things in the US have changed and that
the US may well be entering a period of, in the
context of the last 50-70 years, unprecedented
political instability is essential.
It is equally critical to recognize that while
there will be traditional Republican hawks
with input on Trump’s foreign policy, there will
be others such as National Security Advisor
Michael Flynn and Trump himself who have
articulated a very different vision of America’s
role in the world from the one to which our
allies in Europe and elsewhere have become
accustomed.
It is a cliche, and usually not a very useful
one, to assert that the post World War II order
is crumbling. Those structures have always
looked a lot stronger from the rear view window
and in the eyes of foreign policy establishment
from Brussels to Washington than in the reality
of many conflicts, interventions and wars over
the last seven or so decades. Nonetheless, the
election of Donald Trump has the potential
to be a major turning point for the west.
The US has elected a President who won
on a platform based on pushing back against
the increasingly diverse reality of the US in
a deeply polarizing election, who is wildly
unprepared, contemptuous of democratic
processes, and who ran on views that are
well out of the mainstream of foreign policy
thinking. It would be too hasty to conclude
that this means the US will radically change
its policies with regards to Europe, NATO and
Russia, but it would be even more foolish to
conclude that Trump will somehow magically
regress to the foreign policy mean.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
GLOBAL VS LOCAL WORLDS
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-74
www.neweurope.eu
The brief life of the idea for the
by Yordan Bozhilov
President of Sofia Security Forum and
Manager of Programs "South East
Europe" and "Black Sea".
creation of NATO black sea fleet
BULGARIA -SOFIA
During the Warsaw Summit in July
important decisions were taken in order to
secure NATO’s Eastern flank. The adopted
measures were explicit for the territories
of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.
For the rest of the Eastern flank, which
includes the Black Sea region, decisions
were postponed. The idea behind this
is to provide the three member-states –
Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey, and the
partners Georgia and Ukraine – with time
to reach a consensus around a single vision
and approach. However, it is now evident
that coalescing around a common approach
will be very difficult as seen in the situation
with Romania’s proposal to create a NATO
Black Sea fleet.
The idea for creating a NATO Black Sea
Fleet was announced as early as January
2016 by the Romanian Defence Minister
Mihnea Motoc. He described it as a means
of securing the Eastern Flank. According to
the Minister the possibility of creating such
a fleet might be discussed at the next NATO
summit in July and for that reason Romania
has to develop a clear plan and proposal.
Mr. Motoc’s idea was also supported
by President Klaus Iohannis, who initiated
consultations with his colleagues from
NATO members and partners in the Black
Sea. At the meeting of the Presidents
of Romania and Ukraine in April 2016
Mr. Poroshenko declared support to the
Romanian initiative and readiness to join
it after the approval by the Alliance.
However, the initiative met no support
from Bulgarian Government. After
the meeting between Bulgarian Prime
Minister Boyko Borissov and Presidet
Klaus Iohannis in June of 2016 in Sofia,
Mr. Borissov said: ‘I want to see sailboats,
yachts, tourist, peace, and love in the Black
Sea. I do not want to see frigates travelling
back and forth around our resorts. […] But
to face off warships as a fleet against Russian
ships is crossing the line.’
It is a noteworthy difference of positions
of Romania and Ukraine on the one hand,
and Bulgaria on the other. Behind these
positions clearly stand specific interests,
risk assessment, and views on ensuring
regional security. Romania takes into
account the risks that Russia poses to its
security and strives to be the most active
country in the region, calling for a more
active role of NATO, while developing very
active relations with the United States on
a bilateral level. This is a long-term policy.
For its part, Ukraine appreciates Russia
as a direct threat to its security, especially
after the annexation of the Crimea and
Russia's role in the conflict in eastern
Ukraine. For Kiev, the two major formats
Romanian navy frigate 'Regina Maria', formerly the HMS London (L), crosses with USS Vicksburg (R) during a NATO naval drill held on the Black See, off the
coast of Constanta, Romania, 16 March 2015.
EPA/STR
The development of the Romanian initiative to
create a Black Sea fleet once again shows different
attitudes of individual states of NATO and the EU to
Russia. It would be interesting to know the position
of Turkey in the Romanian initiative, but it was
never clearly articulated
for security cooperation between littoral
Black sea countries - BLACKSEAFOR
and Document on Confidence and Security
Building, have become ineffective as a
result of Russian aggression and we must
offer new approaches and new vision. For
Ukraine NATO can offer the guarantees
which the country is seeking.
Bulgaria’s decision to reject Romania’s
initiative can be explained mainly through
domestic political processes and specific
aspects of the relationship with Russia. A
few days prior to the visit of the Romanian
President in Bulgaria it became clear that
Sofia will have to pay the Russian company
‘Atomstroyexport’ EUR 550 million for
commissioned but undelivered equipment
for the construction of a second nuclear
power plant in Bulgaria; an amount which
is very high for Bulgaria budget. Given the
decision not to build a new nuclear power
plant, Bulgaria depends entirely on the will
of Russia to realize the acquired equipment
either in Bulgaria or sell it to a third party.
Furthermore, Bulgaria is very much
dependent on Russian supplies of oil and
gas, fuel and equipment for the first nuclear
power plant, as well as maintenance of
military aviation, composed of Soviet MIG
29 and SU 25. Moreover, given the scheduled
November Presidential elections, Bulgarian
politicians did not want to lose the "Russian
vote", as many Bulgarians have traditionally
positive attitudes towards Russia.
The development of the Romanian
initiative to create a Black Sea fleet once
again shows different attitudes of individual
states of NATO and the EU to Russia. It
would be interesting to know the position
of Turkey in the Romanian initiative, but
it was never clearly articulated. We can
assume that Turkey, which has the largest
navy in the Black Sea among the NATO
countries and a dominant position in the
straits due to the Montreux Convention of
1936 would not have supported the idea of
Black Sea fleet because it will automatically
reduce its influence in the region.
However, the thawing of Turkey –
Russia relations would have also played a
deterrent to possible support from Ankara.
We have to take into account the fact that
in the past, namely Turkey opposed the
creation of the NATO operation in the
Black Sea or the extension of Operation
Active Endeavor of the Mediterranean
in Black Sea ten years ago. It would be
interesting to speculate whether Turkey
would have been more favorable to the
Romanian initiative in the period following
the downing of the Russian aircraft by the
Turkish Air Force and the chilled relations
between the two countries. However, that
is in the past and of no practical importance
any longer.
Nevertheless, the question with the
initiation of a Black Sea fleet, the discussions
surrounding it, and its cancelation for the
time being, clearly indicates that it is of great
difficulty to coalesce around a common
approach within the EU and NATO. What
is more, the adopted approach will largely
depend in the interests and views of the
individual member-states. Russia, in turn,
will use all means possible to find weak
points in order to influence individual
states, and, by extension, the EU and
NATO.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
GLOBAL VS LOCAL WORLDS
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-75
www.neweurope.eu
by Ivo Ilic Gabara & Gina Miller
Chairman of S.E.C.I. SpA, holding
company Ivo Ilic Gabara, Founder of
Gabara Strategies Ltd. (he Tweets at: @
igabara), with input from Gina Miller,
Co-founder of SCM Direct.com and
Founder of the True and Fair Foundation.
We took Theresa May’s government to
court to protect British parliamentary
sovereignty and democracy
UNITED KINGDOM - LONDON
It is more than six months since Britain voted
to leave the European Union, yet the people
of Britain still have no clear idea what Brexit
means. The “Brexit means Brexit” facile
non-sequitur is no longer tenable. The first
hurdle is triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon
Treaty. There is no clarity on the legal process
to begin Brexit negotiations with Britain’s 27
EU partners. There is even less clarity on how
the British Government intends to conduct
the negotiations or what they are actually
aiming to achieve. This does not bode well
for the negotiations or for future democratic
governance in the UK.
Article 50 stipulates that “Any Member
State may decide to withdraw from the
European Union in accordance with its own
constitutional requirements”. The British
Government’s interpretation of this text is that
it can trigger the two-year negotiating process
using the ‘Royal Prerogative’. This would mean
they could bypass both Parliamentary scrutiny
and having to enact primary legislation. In
other words, the Government believes that they
can unilaterally decide to take away the rights
of British citizens that were originally conferred
to them by Parliament on 1st January 1973.
This was done through the ‘1972 European
Communities Act’, the act of Parliament that
made the UK a full member of the European
Communities.
The ‘Gina Miller versus The Secretary
of State for Exiting the European Union’
case, currently before the Supreme Court in
London, challenges this interpretation and
seeks to defend one of the fundamental tenets
of the British constitution and rule of law. The
legal challenge is based on the constitutional
principle that Parliament is sovereign. This
aspect of sovereignty was established over
400 years ago and asserts, in no uncertain
terms, that the government of the day, acting
as agents for the Crown, cannot by exercise of
prerogative powers, override legislation enacted
by Parliament. Above all, it cannot diminish
or take away from its citizens rights that were
conferred to them by Parliament, such as the
rights that British citizens enjoy as Members
of the EU. First among those rights is the
freedom to take up residency and live in any of
the other 27 Member States, as currently more
than 1.2 million British citizens have done.
The Theresa May Government is determined
to invoke the Royal Prerogative to change
domestic legislation and take away rights from
British citizens. This would not just undermine
parliamentary sovereignty, but it would also set
a dangerous precedent.
It is important to stress that the Gina Miller
challenge was never intended to go against the
will of the people expressed in the June 23rd EU
London Political artist Kaya Mar poses with a painting depicting the new British Prime Minister, Theresa May, and key Brexit ministers outside the Royal
Courts of Justice in London, Britain, 17 October 2016.
EPA/FACUNDO ARRIZABALAGA
Referendum. On the contrary, by seeking to
ensure that the Government respects and acts
within the rule of law, the Gina Miller challenge
is profoundly democratic.
This is why the question before the
Supreme Court now is whether a Parliamentary
decision, in the form of primary legislation,
is constitutionally necessary before the
Government can start the process of taking
the UK out of the EU by triggering Article 50.
The Gina Miller submission is that the
royal or crown prerogative is a residual power
reserved for the conduct of international
relations and the making and unmaking of
treaties. In other words, prerogative powers end
where domestic law begins. Consequently, it is
our view that the Government does not have
prerogative power to decide that the UK should
withdraw from the EU, nor can it lawfully notify
the European Council of any such decision
without being authorised and instructed to do
so by Parliament. The High Court in London
last October ruled unanimously in favour of
Miller et al. Mrs May’s Government chose
to appeal to the Supreme Court against this
unanimous ruling.
If the Supreme Court was to rule in the
government’s favour and the Government
was to trigger Article 50 without consulting
Parliament, Britain would risk entering a
new and, potentially, autocratic phase. A
constitutional legal precedent would be
established that any government could bypass
Parliament and decide which rights ordinary
citizens keep or loose. In the specific light of
Brexit, this would mean that the Theresa May
government could and would have the power
to decide amongst themselves, behind closed
doors, which rights under the EU Treaty to
strip away from British citizens and which they
would keep. A constitutional precedent set by a
government taking such drastic action without
consulting Parliament would be a dangerous
political issue for Britain, and would rock the
very foundations of Britain’s constitution.
Fundamental principles of the UK
constitution, such as the rule of law, the
separation of powers, representative
Parliamentary democracy, sovereignty of
Parliament and the independent judiciary,
together provide the very framework within
which the people can express themselves
democratically and enjoy living in freedom.
Each and every one of those principles is critical
for the functioning of Britain as a free and fair
society and each one of them must be protected
each time they are under threat.
Consequently, by seeking legal certainty
through British Courts, we are seeking to ensure
an informed, detailed and responsible debate
within the British Parliament and between
Parliament and Government, so that Brexit is
brought about not only in respect of the law
and according to the unwritten Constitution
of the United Kingdom, but also in the best
interest of the British people and democracy.
No Government can be allowed to violate the
most basic of British constitutional rules – that
it is only Parliament that can grant rights, and
only Parliament that can diminish or extinguish
rights. This is why Gina Miller put her head
above the parapet and this is why she was
prepared to endure whatever backlash was to
be expected.
A constitutional
precedent set by a
government taking
such drastic action
without consulting
Parliament would
be a dangerous
political issue
for Britain, and
would rock the
very foundations
of Britain’s
constitution

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
GLOBAL VS LOCAL WORLDS
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-76
www.neweurope.eu
by Theodoros Benakis
Managing Editor, New Europe.
Corruption as a buttress
of jihadist ‘states’
GREECE-ATHENS
The first 15 years of the 21st century have been
marred by a new political phenomenon: the
‘Islamic states’ or, in other words, the creation
of state-like structures by jihadist movements.
Jihadist power has proved extremely resistant
in five instances, two in Asia and three in
Africa.
The jihadists spread their activity across
two continents, Asia and Africa. They took
advantage of chronic problems in some
specific areas and, in five cases, they seized
territory.
Afghanistan was the first ‘Islamic state’
formed back in the 1990s. Taliban power lasted
from 1996 to 2001 before being defeated
by a US army operation. In 2004, however,
they returned with a surprising capability
to penetrate the Afghan population. Today,
the Taliban movement, although divided by
internal fighting, still represents a threat for the
Kabul government.
In the case of Iraq, the country was
devastated by Western intervention. The
Shiite regime, which was installed with the
help of the allies, implemented a policy of
discrimination against the Sunni population.
The Al-Qaeda nucleus, in alliance with old
Baathist structures, took advantage of the
situation creating the first structures of Islamic
State. In Syria, the country fell into deep chaos
after an unsuccessful ‘Arab Spring’. Once again,
the Jihadist factor emerged as an alternative to
the collapsing state structure.
Iraq’s western territories and Syria’s vast
territories, with state structures already
collapsed, easily fell into the hands of jihadists.
In both territories, a new state-like
structure was installed by Islamic State under
a pompous denomination of ‘Caliphate’.
And, despite a huge military operation in the
Middle East by Western countries (Russians,
the Assad regime, the government of Baghdad,
the Kurd fighters and Hezbollah), a total defeat
of ISIS still seems impossible.
In Africa, the jihadist movement controls
territories and operates in three areas, ignoring
borders and national governments.
In Somalia, the Al-Shabaab movement
has its roots in the first years of this century.
It controls a large territory in the south of
the country and commits deadly terrorist
operations against the capital Mogadishu. It
also operates in Kenya, mostly among the large
Somali population there, and in some cases in
Uganda.
In Western Africa, jihadist movements,
mainly Ansar Dine and Al-Qaeda in the
Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), seized power
in Northern Mali in 2012, but were pushed
back by French military operations in January
2013. This did not last for long. Today, AQIM
and other jihadist groups control half of Mali
where they are involved in a lucrative business
of drug trafficking, cigarette smuggling and
human trafficking – undisturbed in areas of
Niger, Algeria and southern Libya.
Last but no less deadly, the Nigerian Boko
Haram, which emerged as a local Jihadist sect
in 2002, was transformed into a powerful
transnational military organisation that
operates in Northern Nigeria, Cameroon,
Chad and Niger.
None of the above mentioned cases have
much in common. While Somalia is a loose
state for more than 25 years, we cannot say
the same for Nigeria, which has strong state
structures. While Islamic State’s military
success was facilitated by the chaos in both
countries, Iraq and Syria, the chaos was
provoked by different reasons.
The Taliban, during its short governance
in Afghanistan, created many enemies among
the local population. But after the 2004
insurgency, the atrocities committed by the
Taliban regime, were quickly forgotten and
their revolt met considerable support by
the Afghan population. While the Afghan
government enjoyed unprecedented support
from the US, in terms of funding, military aid
and technical advice, this proved insufficient.
What is the reason that despite the military
operations and the different kinds of support
to the local government and regimes, the
jihadist movements continue to resist on a
political and military level and can still recruit
young people?
As factors, we can mention the endemic
poverty, the lack of state structures or the
existence of very weak ones, civil wars,
discriminatory policies and practices based
on religious beliefs, as well as corruption.
Although it would not be sound to blame
one single factor, there is one that is common
in all five cases. It is corruption.
In all the above mentioned cases,
corruption played a decisive role in weakening
states and alienating local populations from
the state structures, empowering jihadist
movements and in offering possibilities of
funding for their activities.
In Afghanistan, the local political elites
that opposed the Taliban, applied a system
based on large-scale corruption and illegal
trafficking that alienated the population and
encouraged the re-emergence of the Taliban.
Since the Taliban became an alternative force
to the Kabul government and its leadership
is controlled by new powerful elite, related as
well with corruption methods, splits emerged
and favoured more radical groups and Islamic
state’s appearance in Afghan lands.
During the first fights against jihadists,
Iraqi officers declared high numbers of soldiers
under their command in order to put state
funds in their pockets.
In Syria, corruption practices affected
both government and the opposition. Even
opposition forces were accused of dealing with
Islamic State and in some cases of selling arms
offered by Western powers to the jihadists.
In Somalia, in areas controlled by the
national government, corruption of the army,
police and state officers is endemic and bribes
have hit heavily the life of average citizens. It
is for this reason that the national security
forces do not enjoy any support from local
populations.
The high costs of salaries for al-Shabaab
fighters, as well as the funds needed for
the implementation of its social policies in
controlled areas, were covered by funding
activities strictly related to corruption, both
local and international. Ivory trafficking was
among the most lucrative activities and in
2010 represented the 40% of the funds raised
Photographers stand
behind a board
displaying masks
representing the
victims of an attack
on Garissa University
College during a
memorial concert in
downtown Nairobi,
Kenya, 14 April
2015. Hundreds of
mourners gathered
in a Nairobi park to
see some renowned
Kenyan musicians and
artists who performed
at the concert held for
those who were killed
in an attack by Islamist
militant group al-
Shabab from Somalia.
in the Asian markets. The production and
trafficking of valuable minerals was also a
lucrative activity.
According to a 2015 report published by
Journalists for Justice, a Kenyan advocacy
group, the Kenyan military was accused of
operating a side business with al-Shabaab
related to the smuggling of sugar, vehicles,
pasta, cooking oil, shoes, rice and some
petroleum products.
In Nigeria, for years, politicians and
army officers have been accused of stealing
state funds and reducing considerably the
country’s defensive capabilities. Such is the
case of Sambo Dasuki, a national security
advisor. According to the AFP, he was accused
in 2015 of awarding fictitious contracts for
fighter jets and other military equipment
worth a whopping $2bn. It was clear that this
case was not an exception but a reflection of
the country’s habits.
Nigerian police and state employees are
notorious for taking bribes on a daily basis.
In addition, the Nigerian army was also
responsible for war crimes according to a
report of the International Criminal Court in
2015.
In many cases, Nigerian soldiers
complained that jihadists were much better
equipped. Last year, it was reported that army
officers sold to Boko Haram artillery and arms.
The fight against corruption in all the above
cases is a key factor in the war against jihadists. It
must be intense, targeted and accompanied by
concrete alternatives. A first step is for the West
to stop aiding local political elite. Of course,
this will be difficult since ‘taxing’ foreign aid
is a common practice and condition posed by
both national governments and jihadists in the
above mentioned territories.
EPA/DAI KUROKAWA

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
GLOBAL VS LOCAL WORLDS
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-77
www.neweurope.eu
by Rasa Uzdavinyte
Project coordinator of Eastern
Partnership Index.
Civil society: A key driver of change
in Eastern partnership countries
BELGIUM - BRUSSELS
This year the Eastern Partnership Civil
Society Forum, unifying over 250
organisations from Eastern partner
countries and EU member states, held its
Annual Assembly on the 29th of November
- the very same day that coincidently, but
rather symbolic, marks the International
Women Human Rights Defender Day,
dedicated to honoring activism, advocacy
and courageous acts of resistance.
Yet it was not the famous Nadia
Savchenko to receive an award this time,
though a manful dedication to fight for
media freedom by a Crimean journalist
Mykola Semena was honored. Yet there
was a clear shared feeling in the conference
room, that brave men and women make this
world better and hopeful at the times of
adversity and political unrest. As verbalized
in the lips of EU Commissioner Johannes
Hahn, who drew the parallel between
landmark November events in history as the
fall of the Berlin wall and the EuroMaidan
in Ukraine mane years after, remind us of
the “tremendous power of people in our
common past”.
Is it rather evident in the activities of
Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum,
that strong civil society surely can make
governments feel responsible, drive change
and development within the governmental
levels. Organized civil society make people
feel engaged in social and political life, as
well as enable them to be far more resilient
to fraud, limiting political decisions or any
individual injustice brought by the regime.
A good example here is the detention and
the release of political prisoners in Armenia
this year, achieved by the outstanding
pressing by the civil society.
When it gets to the transformation
process in the country, people can certainly
be the unifying force, pushing change, as
their social and economic interests are
rooted in the “change” they advocate.
The exponentially growing number
of the applications by the civil society
organizations from EaP countries and the
EU member states (this year amounted
to 538) submitted to attend the Annual
Assembly of the Forum, confirms the
growing interest in the importance and
assimilation with the EU.
But perhaps best example here to date,
is the actual reforms driven by the civil
society actors of the post-soviet countries
in the East. It is arguable whether official
normative agendas aligned with the EU
requirements, can be fair assessment of the
actual changes in these countries. Certainly,
the legal instruments are important to track
progress, as it gives set of standards implied,
also gives a good signal to stakeholders
Nadia Savchenko, Ukrainian military pilot held prisoner by Moscow for two years, a member of the Ukrainian parliament and member of the Ukrainian
delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), after her speech to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France, 20 June 2016.
EPA/PATRICK SEEGER
and investors. But it does not necessarily
constitute the change “on the ground”,
within the society, if it is not coupled with
transparency, competence and eagerness to
accept the EU standards of democratic life.
The idea of comparing country
reform agendas and performance in
their relationship with the EU emerged
soon after the Eastern Partnership policy
initiative was launched. It was felt that the
civil society in the region lacks collective
effort to stimulate reforms on the ground,
thus the Eastern Partnership Index (EaP
Index) as a separate instrument to assess
the transformation progress of the EaP
countries was born. As of 2014 EaP
Index has been developed by the Eastern
Partnership Civil Society Forum, with the
next issue due in March 2017 under the
donorship of Open Society Foundations,
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech
Republic and the International Renaissance
Foundation.
Within the current hardened geopolitical
context and the EU’s internal political crisis,
Eastern Partnership is often questioned
lacking coherence as putting together very
different countries with different political
vectors, weather all those countries really
seek assimilation with the EU (Belarus or
Azerbaijan show least interest), while at the
same time the EU has been urged to strike a
better balance between bilateral approaches
and a regional policy.
In 2014 Moldova, Ukraine and
Georgia deepened their integration with
the EU, signing Association Agreements
(AAs), including DCFTA (Deep
and Comprehensive Free Trade Area
Agreement). This increased the division
among EaP partners with different levels
of political engagement with the EU. The
shift was also evident in the European
Neighborhood Policy review presented
by the European Commission in 2015.
However, the challenges such as the
war in Ukraine and the refugee crisis
in Europe, the corruption-driven crisis
of legitimacy in Moldova, the renewed
association negotiations between the EU
and Armenia, only amplify inter-regional
discrepancies and accentuate the need for
a more elaborate regional agenda.
In an increasingly turbulent and
unpredictable international environment,
the EU and the EaP partner countries
need a platform that can provide a balance
between bilateral and regional approaches
and enable people, organizations and
institutions to spark insights. Serving
this need, EaP Index, as annual snapshot,
covers and compares six countries, each
with immense challenges and fluctuating
political directions and perspectives.
Therefore, the new issue of EaP Index
is developed on elaborated approach,
producing a civil society assessment
(around 50 experts), that has emerged in line
with the evolution of Eastern Partnership
initiative and divergent integration agendas.
The broad notion of integration (de facto)
implies that EU membership or association
is not limited to normative approach and
is evident of actual societal, economic and
political change.
Yet, it is not only about regional
democratic challenge anymore, the global
democracy itself, as well as European
peaceful project, unifying a continent
for over five decades into a multicultural
peaceful family, lately has been
experiencing major challenges. To accept
the groundbreaking Brexit vote, to mitigate
the internal hazards of the migration crisis
and to rethink geopolitical outcome of the
US election has been on the agenda. That
leaves Europeans and their close neighbors
feeling uncertain and not so firm about
the fundamentals and values of what the
European Union stands for. Though, for
Europe it should certainly stand as unifying
momentum to look for one vector and serve
as an incentive to make allies with their
neighborhood countries and strengthen
people-to-people cooperation and therefore
support for the EU more than ever.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
GLOBAL VS LOCAL WORLDS
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-78
www.neweurope.eu
by Irene Kostaki
Fast Media, slow problems
A Journalist with New Europe based in
Brussels.
BELGIUM - BRUSSELS
2017 marks a decade since the 2007
financial crisis hit the subprime mortgage
in the US, escalating to a global banking
crisis in 2008. The countries that entered
the electoral cycle in 2008-2009 found
themselves in a difficult position of
adjusting their political rhetoric to the 21st
century austerity pact.
The Eurozone’s most dramatic member
state had to be Greece – the only country
that is under an “economical adjustment
programme” for a champion duration of
seven years, since fellow euro area member
states and the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) have started helping Greece to cope
with its financial difficulties and economic
challenges since May 2010.
It was Germany’s electoral cycle at the
time that Greece had to respect, just like
an emergency trauma patient waits for
treatment at an overcrowded hospital on a
public holiday. The patient was treated for
the new eurozone epidemic and special
medicine such as the European Financial
Stability Facility (EFSF) and the European
Financial Stabilisation Mechanism
(EFSM), which were replaced by their 2.0
version, the European Stability Mechanism
(ESM), the eurozone’s permanent “bailout
firewall”.
It took several Eurogroup meetings
to fix the new medicine’s formula, while
all institutions that were curing troubled
eurozone countries were proposing
structural reforms as measures that would
assist member states to address economic
imbalances, tackle social challenges on a
“sur mesure” basis.
Member states that came out fresh
from elections had to immediately adopt
programmes that would lead a part of
the society to more austerity, in order to
guarantee a more secure future. This is
easier to be said than done and even more
difficult to explain to people who saw their
pensions and wages dropping, through
media reports on TV and the internet.
A group of finance ministers did decide
for each member state’s “fate” in a setting
that was different from each member state’s
elected national parliament. The Council
of the European Union hosts numerous
meetings at a ministerial level that decide
on a broad policy agenda, but this did not
have to be explained to such an extent
before by the media.
Being unable to understand how the
EU decision-making tools were working,
member states’ journalists were many times
unable to understand the mechanism that
was traversing the bailout programme.
Even being based in Brussels did not always
guarantee that a journalist understands or
President of Eurogroup, Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem (C) gestures with his hands in the direction of Greek Finance Minister Euclid Tsakalotos
during an Ecofin Finance ministers meeting in Brussels, Belgium, 08 March 2016. The Council will aim to reach a political agreement on the proposed
amendment to the directive on mandatory exchange of information in the field of taxation.
EPA/OLIVIER HOSLET
reports the European perspective of things.
So what do they do? They ask for an
immediate reaction, a comment, that will
make their newspaper happy, as this will
either prove that the member state acts
accordingly, or a spokesperson will gain
instant authority and slam the member
state government and parliament through
the podium. But even then, this comment
may be a really premature reaction of an
institution to the vote of a huge bill with
tonnes of amendments or a diagonal read
of a checklist of reforms, which will almost
never be revisited.
Times are then even shorter than a
plenary sitting at a national parliament.
There is no time for the media to wait to
assess the vote, as the translation of the
voted bill takes time and news is digested
fresh and lively, just like sushi. Dull,
brownish tuna remains untouched in the
fridge the day after.
But problems are not like sushi, as
they resemble more slow-cooking meals.
Journalists are asked to serve a five-course
meal, while the entrees are just being
marinated. Hungry bosses wait for clicks
on “newswire” time, but then ask for
something more than the tiny news bite
that a good reporter would be confident to
publish immediately.
National newswires with far less
resources than AP, Reuters, and Financial
Times end up covering just the surface of
the events – an intro to stick another 500
words of local propaganda or an email from
the Prime Minister’s office. It is a new type
of info that rarely undergoes fact-checking,
but is instead sprinkled with clichéd
prejudices that form a new type of people.
Societies under crisis always tend to
violently politicise citizens, but now things
are different. News is not even sushi-like
but resembles post-crisis €1 bargain fast
food cheeseburgers. Affordable, addictive
and cheezy. This is easier for journalists as
well, as they quit writing anti-commercial
reports on assessing the fast-tracked bill
that passed through parliament last week,
last month, last year, whenever.
So is there a real problem? Yes. A slower
one, invisible in headlines. Just as a seismic
creep causes slow and permanent damage
at the earth’s crust, while at the same time
an earthquake event would break the crust
in seconds.
On the contrary, slow disasters’
permanent damage is not always evident,
but requires time and patience from the
societies in order to be addressed. It is
always harder and can be neither pleasant
nor interesting. It may last for years, a long
and fistful wait for troubled member states’
governments that struggle to stay in power.
The media constantly fail to track
changes over time, as all reforms are
rarely tracked over time, but it is not just
the media, it is everyone. The European
Commission’s instruments ability to assess
is a brilliant example. “Urgency and political
uncertainty may explain the lack of critical
analysis underlying the establishment of the
Task Force for Greece,” writes the European
Court of Auditors evaluation report of
the European Commission’s technical
assistance programme, that was successfully
delivered - boxes were ticked on behalf of
the Commission - but “it did not always
influence the progress of reforms,” the
report adds.
From a national perspective, this task
force was demonised from the onset, while
details of the assessment never went public,
allowing politicians to enter into some kind
of monologue, while the deification of half
measures and minimal effort keep societies
trapped in illusions that feed populism,
extremism and radicalisation.
Slow problems continue eroding
societies that are still unable to understand
their extent and address them as they
should, while all sides, governments,
opposition, media and citizens are better off
broadcasting “easier” content via Facebook,
rather than honestly assessing their postcrisis
future.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
GLOBAL VS LOCAL WORLDS
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-79
www.neweurope.eu
by Ilia Roubanis
A political scientist, international relations
analyst and has worked as a policy
advisor on a European and National level.
His has published on matters of energy
security, the East Partnership region and
Balkan affairs.
The tilting balance of local
politics and global policies
UNITED KINGDOM - LONDON
All politics is local, even if all policies are
becoming global. In becoming global, policies
become detached from the people they affect.
Policies are less transparent, emotionally
resonating, and under control. We always
assumed the substance is in the policy. 2016
proved us wrong.
This has been the message resonating from
the US elections. From Senator Bernie Sanders
on the left and billionaire Donald Trump on
the far-right, the message was one of a fight
for control over policies, by politics. The left
was asking for control over education, social
mobility, healthcare, and the distribution
of power in an increasingly unequal society.
The right was asking for power over
international trade, control over borders, and
white, Christian supremacy. The common
denominator was the quest for control.
This has been the message of Brexit. Those
advocating for Britain to remain in the EU
were not a homogenous crowd. But, there
was a dominant social profile. The Remain
camp (48%) was more likely to be young (18-
39), urbanites, educated above average, read
the Economist and The Guardian and vote
Labour, the Green Party, Liberal Democrats,
Scottish and Welsh Nationalists. They were
also more likely to be middle class. The Leave
camp (52%) was likely to be working class,
read tabloids, have primary education, be older
(age 50+), vote UKIP or Conservatives, and
read the Mail, Express, and the Sun; they are
from East Anglia and the Midlands.
Although parties have not neatly
represented social class interests for nearly
two generations in Britain and Europe at large,
symbols still matter. The style of campaigning
for the referendum was deeply symbolic and
shaped by features that appeal to particular
social classes. Remain featured sanitised and
well-ironed multicultural youth. Leave drank
beer, ate Cornish pastries, showed black
teeth and blamed immigrants for poor health
services and the cost of housing. Remain
was the campaign of nobody, Leave was the
campaign of anybody. The former was policyarticulate
but suffering from an Empathy
Deficit Disorder, the latter spoke from the
heart but produced more policy hot air than
anyone can smell or breathe.
And there is a lesson to be learned
from both experiences, as Europe makes
its way towards a hot electoral calendar in
the Netherlands (March), France (April),
Germany (October), and perhaps at some
point Italy and Greece. There are three
lessons of interest. The first lesson is that
the people who do not look, feel, and reason
like “you” actually vote. No one wins an
electoral campaign by addressing the people
who have nothing to fear from globalisation,
Ira Birch, of Richmond, Virginia, holds two pictures of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton with money in their mouths in Cleveland Public Square during the
Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, USA, 20 July 2016.
EPA/JUSTIN LANE
All politics is local, even if all
policies are becoming global.
As we breathe out 2016, the
lesson is that shallow policy
makers with no interest in local
politics are a dying breed. They
can ignore the spirit of our
times, but at their own peril
automation, rising rents, unemployment, old
age, loneliness, or even hunger. Campaigns are
more about outreach and engagement than
looking in the mirror. And no one can sell a
policy unless they care about the politics.
The second is that no one can win an
election without a movement. In a day and age
of social media, the issue at hand is not “factchecking”
and the revelation of conspiracies,
but the delegation of the message. The first
one to learn this was, in fact, Barack Obama.
He was the first to launch revolutionary
campaigns that crowd-funded from millions,
rallied the voluntary support of thousands, and
took up every debate, anywhere, with succinct
messages that were emotionally resonating.
Hillary Clinton never learned this lesson. But,
Donald Trump did as much as Bernie Sanders.
The third lesson is that the status quo
never recedes, it always crumbles. The Brexit
campaign was the underdog as much as
the Trump campaign. That was part of the
winning recipe, pitting robust policy against
emotional appealing political messages. The
issue at hand for those who want to preserve
a two-state solution in Palestine, defend the
Paris Agreement, uphold social cohesion
and mobility in America and Europe is that
they did not do enough to address perfectly
legitimate fears.
There are “working poor” in conditions
of full-time employment in the UK, as there
are in Germany, Hungary and Estonia. There
is a housing crisis in markets with a surging
housing bubble, as in Britain and Denmark.
There are people in declining industries
unable to fund their own “transition” from
mining to robotics and from taxi driving to
software engineering. The certainties of the
60+ generation for a lifelong job, a house, a
pension, community and social mobility no
longer apply; the American dream is gone,
and there is little to replace it other than the
promise “to make America Great Again.”
And policy centres can no longer tell
their own story. The stories are being told
on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn,
thousands of blogs and through hundreds of
thousands of profiles. Narratives are no longer
controlled. Stories are either emotionally
engaging and appealing to real concerns, or
irrelevant. Narratives are cues that are picked
up or let down to sink into oblivion. In a world
with more signatures than you can count,
“your word is your bond”, and you can treat it
like gold or trash it.
Outreach is never absolute and very much
depends on style and content. This is why the
message is centralised, but the storytelling is
defused. Delegating the narration is critical
because no one can be everything, be
everywhere, and pick up every debate, with
everyone. And that is what you have to do
in post-modern political campaigns. As we
breathe out 2016, the lesson is that shallow
policy makers with no interest in local politics
are a dying breed. They can ignore the spirit of
our times, but at their own peril.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
GLOBAL VS LOCAL WORLDS
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-80
www.neweurope.eu
by Federico Grandesso
Federico Grandesso is a widely published
fashion, cinema and European Affairs
expert.
Italy desperately needs
stability in 2017
ITALY-ROME
Uncertainty and elections will be the
key words in Italian politics in 2017.
Following a period of relative stability,
Italy is again searching for a new “leader”
after the former Prime Minister Matteo
Renzi suffered a heavy defeat.
Early elections are very likely to be held
in 2017, just like in France and Germany.
The different political blocs are already
searching for credible candidates that could
unify and mobilise the different souls and
sensibilities of Italy’s very fragmented
political panorama.
In the coming months, the Democratic
Party, ahead of its congress, will be
searching for a new leader (which they
probably already have). Competing for the
post of party secretary is Roberto Speranza,
which in Italian means “hope”.
This young leader of the PD minority
has little chance of winning, so the search
for a credible anti-Renzi is still ongoing
even if the former mayor of Florence, who
is now controlling from outside the new
government by PM Paolo Gentiloni, is
already sure to win a second mandate.
Renzi will probably become the next
PD secretary, but the way to Palazzo Chigi
will be paved with hurdles. The first hurdle
is the bank crisis triggered by Monte dei
Paschi di Siena (MPS).
The third biggest bank in Italy could
bring an icy gust of wind, especially if the
Italian public opinion focuses on blaming
Renzi for a disaster that could have been
better addressed by the government.
If Renzi will have to fight against the
bank crisis and its riotous internal minority,
the other two political blocs are also going
to face other important challenges. Even
if the biggest winner of the constitutional
referendum was Beppe Grillo with his Five
Star Movement, Grillo still needs to prove
he has developed a political class that makes
him able to run a difficult country like Italy.
The biggest nightmare for the Five Star
Movement is Rome, a city that everyone
was very happy not to win during the last
local elections.
The first months in office for Rome’s
new mayor, Virginia Raggi, included a
series of resignations in her cabinet. For
this reason, it will be vital to demonstrate
that this new and revolutionary movement
is not only able to protest, but also to bring
real changes to Italian politics.
If there is a bloc that has nothing to lose,
it is the centre-right where the key priority
will be to find a new strong leader after
Silvio Berlusconi. If the Northern League
and Forza Italia are able to put aside old
rivalries and produce a strong candidate,
a compact and cohesive centre-right
Rome's Mayor Virginia Raggi arrives for a press conference in Campidoglio, Rome, 16 December 2016.
Renzi will probably become the next PD secretary, but
the way to Palazzo Chigi will be paved with hurdles.
The first hurdle is the bank crisis triggered by Monte dei
Paschi di Siena (MPS)
coalition, which according to the polls can
attract around 30% of the vote, will have big
chances of winning the elections.
Matteo Salvini and Luigi Di Maio are
for sure the real front-runners of their blocs
in a political competition, putting for the
first time at the centre the young political
leaders and not the usual old nomenclature.
In any case, Italy will be obliged not to fail
and find obligatory an electoral law able to
appoint a winner the day after the elections.
This law, with a tri-polar system, cannot
be proportional and a majority bonus for
the winning bloc will be needed to avoid a
situation like in Spain.
The problem here is that Italy’s electoral
law is constantly coming under long
discussions where each bloc has its own
ideas. The best would be, as proposed by
Grillo, to replicate the Italicum system
for the senate. On the other hand, a
proportional system would be a disaster
because it would create those usual games
with MPs changing sides in a pure Italian
tradition.
Even if it may sound very bad, Europe
needs, especially after the Brexit vote, a
strong and stable Italy that is able to play,
together with France and Germany, the
leading role that it deserves. More than this,
Italy needs a concrete leader who is able to
continue on the reforms path in a country
that, as a consequence of the banks bail-out,
will probably be obliged to raise taxes and
make painful budget cuts in 2017.
On the international front, stability will
EPA/ALESSANDRO DI MEO
be useful to address Europe’s migrant crisis,
which could still make the difference during
an election round – just like this issue did
during the Brexit campaign.
To conclude, it may sound like a paradox,
but Italy needs serious constitutional reform
and the discussions should start as soon as
possible. In this multi-polar world, it's key
not only to have a stable government, but
also to be able to take decisions very fast
and this requires a smaller and effective
group of political decision-makers just
like in France and Germany. The hated
financial markets, but also the international
investors, are asking for structural change.
Are we still sure it will be convenient for
Italy’s economy and well-being in the future
to go against this global “wind of change”?

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
TRANSFORMING LATIN AMERICA
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-82
www.neweurope.eu
by Jeffrey McElfresh
President, DIRECTV Latin America,
AT&T. DIRECTV Latin America
operation encompassing activities in
all the major territories in the Latin
America and Caribbean region. The
company’s largest operations are in Brazil,
Venezuela, Argentina, Colombia and
Mexico.
Future-focused solutions in Latin
America and around the globe
LATIN AMERICA
This year, we celebrate the 140th anniversary
of the first phone call by Alexander Graham
Bell. “Mr. Watson, come here.” These words
changed communication forever. Bell made
the call in 1876 to his assistant Thomas
Watson, who was standing in a nearby room.
His invention was the foundation of the
company that would become AT&T.
Since then, we’ve received 8 Nobel Prizes
and more than 12,500 AT&T-issued patents
worldwide. And now, we’re leading the world
in the mobile Internet revolution. We’re proud
of our past. And we’re excited for our future.
We constantly evolve, leading the tech industry
through a fundamental transformation. We
want to connect our customers faster, more
reliably and more securely than ever before.
Today, AT&T is delivering ubiquitous,
mobile, fast and highly secure connectivity
available to more than 400 million people and
businesses in the United States and Mexico
— a seamless, cross-border North American
network that’s unique in the marketplace.
We’re also looking to a world of entertainment
everywhere. It’s why we bought DIRECTV.
We now have highly efficient satellites capable
of delivering HD and Ultra-HD video covering
broad geographies in the United States and
Latin America, from urban centers to rural
villages.
DIRECTV is the leading satellite
television provider in Latin America and the
Caribbean with 20 million video connections
in the region (including Sky Mexico). We are
providing people with access to information
and entertainment where others don’t reach,
especially in rural areas. We are innovating
with ways to bring service to low-income
communities, such as being the first provider
to offer pre-pay TV. Additionally, through
various programs that make up “Generacion
DIRECTV”, we’re supporting education and
community activities through volunteering,
our “Escuela Plus” programming and
environmental programs.
Because of our diversity of operations,
DIRECTV Latin America is also able to
launch new technologies and innovative
services in the region with highly competitive
functionality and price. We’re featuring a wide
selection of local and international digital
quality video and audio entertainment.
The acquisition of DIRECTV Latin
America and the addition of our Mexico
operations substantially increased the
magnitude of our international operations.
Our customers are global and so are we. That’s
why we continue to invest to ensure that we
can provide integrated solutions that connect
The AT&T logo on the facade of Whitacre Tower, the AT&T global headquarters building at One AT&T Plaza in Dallas, Texas, USA. EPA/LARRY W. SMITH
people and businesses around the world, with
the information and entertainment that they
want, wherever they want it.
When I travel in the Americas or in
Europe, I am often asked how to promote
investments in our sector. My answer is that
for investing, innovating and delivering the
solutions that will excel beyond consumers
growing demands requires policies that look
forward, not back.
As demonstrated by AT&T’s steadfast
investment since 2011 of more than $140B
in capital and acquisitions of wireless
spectrum and operations, even throughout a
challenging economic cycle, we’re determined
to keep expanding the future opportunities the
Internet creates for the economy, communities
and customers.
We’re determined to keep innovating and
encourage others to do the same. To achieve
that goal, it’s important we have effective and
modern regulatory frameworks. Frameworks
that allow IoT to develop in a way that
encourages economies of scale and adoption.
Frameworks that allow for data to cross
borders seamlessly. Frameworks that protect
consumers and at the same time allow them
to make their own choices.
Investment requires growth-oriented
public policies. Given the rapid evolution of
technology, it is critical that we set out highlevel
principles for international cooperation
that can adapt with the pace of technology.
And, avoid mandating or encouraging
detailed new regulations that address the
technical issues of today (or yesterday). No
one knows with precision where technology
and innovation will take us. To prepare for the
future, we need to encourage, not control, the
technology revolution. In short, we need to
create a healthy policy environment that will
drive continued investment and innovation.
For us, continuing to do things the old way
won’t work. We can say the same for policymaking.
In particular, for Latin America, we
need a framework for the sector that reflects
the modern marketplace. Today’s video
marketplace is dynamic and competitive.
The regulatory environment should promote
fair competition and predictable consumer
protection across the modern competitive
landscape.
Additionally for the region, opposing
signal theft and underreporting of pay
TV subscribers is crucial. In March 2016,
ALIANZA (an anti-piracy association of
leading companies in the Latin American
pay-TV industry) released a new report on
online video signal theft in South America.
The study found that of the approximately
222.3 million Internet users in South America,
nearly 50%, or 110 million, accessed a site
that distributed stolen audiovisual content
by one of these means. The report also found
that 789 petabytes of bandwidth usage in
Latin America were attributable to users of
cyberlockers, peer-to-peer video and illegal
IPTV, representing an estimated 1.5 billion
hours of viewing annually.
Some countries in the region have worked
to create policies to help prevent these forms
of theft, but there is still work to do to ensure
timely and effective enforcement. Efforts to
raise awareness through projects – such as
the ALIANZA’s study – will also help support
work to combat theft. The more we can do to
educate, detect, and enforce signal theft rules,
the more impact we can have on curbing its
impact – and shifting resources to new services
and innovation for consumers.
To conclude, I want to insist that the only
constant is change. 140 years ago, we connected
a telephone and launched the network. Today,
we connect your car. Your home. Your luggage.
Shipping containers. Wheelchairs. Lampposts.
You name it. We’re continuing to reinvent
technology in new and exciting ways. We’re
looking towards a future that will demand
instantaneous connectivity for everything —
from homes to self-driving cars to virtual reality
devices. We want technology to continue to
be an engine of economic growth, individual
empowerment, and infinite possibilities. We’re
building a network of the future to address
rapidly changing customer needs so we can
deliver new and unique services quicker than
ever before.
When we work together, the pace of
innovation will accelerate in Latin America
and the rest of the world. When we work
together, we can deliver world-class services
to our customers. Consumer expectations for
communications that are mobile, ultra-fast and
effortless will soar. Businesses will be more
productive and improve services. We’ll create
a network that grows with us all for the next
140 years and beyond.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
TRANSFORMING LATIN AMERICA
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-83
www.neweurope.eu
The making of a peacemaker
by Juan Manuel Santos
President of the Republic of Colombia.
Shlomo Ben-Ami, a former Israeli foreign
minister, is Vice President of the Toledo
International Center for Peace.
COLOMBIA -BOGOTÁ
Conducted by Shlomo Ben-Ami
Given your record as a military hawk when you
served as President Álvaro Uribe’s defense minister,
and the fact that Colombia was on the verge of
war with Venezuela and Ecuador – both countries
having given ideological and logistical support to
the FARC – your shift to peacemaking surprised
many people. Can you elaborate on how and why
this happened?
There was no shift. Past attempts to negotiate
with the FARC failed because the conditions
were not ripe. Two of those conditions were
military advantage, so that the government could
negotiate from strength, and the support of the
region. What I did was to create those conditions
– the first through military effectiveness, and the
second through pragmatic diplomacy.
How would you define the role of the late Venezuelan
President Hugo Chávez and Cuban President Raúl
Castro in the process?
I must say that both Chávez and Castro were extremely
helpful throughout the entire process.
Their influence on the FARC was a determining
factor in pushing them in the right direction.
Four years for a peace process with a guerrilla organization
decimated by war and desertions is a fairly long
time. Why was it such a complex affair?
Making peace is always a complex affair, particularly
after 50 years of conflict. Reaching agreements
and convincing an organization that for
so many years fought democratic institutions
to accept them is difficult. And prolonged talks
may not be a bad thing. Interestingly, the Peace
Accords Matrix Project developed by the Kroc
Institute at the University of Notre Dame, after
studying 34 comprehensive peace agreements
signed since 1989, concluded that lengthier negotiations
tend to produce better accords.
What would you say was the main achievement in these
negotiations? Would you agree that the fact that not even
one of the FARC’s revolutionary aspirations was on the
agenda was such an achievement?
From the very beginning, I had my red lines and
clear objectives, the main one being to end the
conflict, not to make a revolution by decree.
The Law of Victims and Land Restitution was enacted
before the peace talks started. Was this bait to attract
the guerrillas to the negotiating table, or is this a law
you would have supported anyway? How would you
define the law’s meaning and importance for Colombia?
It was very clear to me from the beginning that
the victims and their rights had to be at the center
of the resolution of this conflict. The law was
enacted in order to start healing the wounds,
because we had so many victims. I think this
has given the whole process tremendous legitimacy.
We have already provided reparations to
nearly 700,000 victims and restituted more than
200,000 hectares of land to peasants displaced
by violence. There is no precedent for any peace
process achieving this even before the end of the
conflict, and there is no country where so many
victims have been compensated.
A major challenge for the peacemaker has always been
how to coopt the army and the state bureaucracy to his
An interview with president Juan Manuel Santos
FARC guerrilla member guards before Christmas celebrations, at the Alfonso Cano Block camp at the
mountains of the Cauca Department, southwest of Colombia, on 24 December 2016. EPA/Christian Escobar Mora
or her vision. Was this truly achieved in your case? Were
there attempts by your political opponents to derail the
process by instigating opposition within the army? If yes,
how did you deal with this?
One of the key reasons for the success of this
process was precisely that, from the outset, I not
only informed, but also involved the military and
the police in the negotiations, so that they would
become supporters and not spoilers. I told them
that peace is a victory for any soldier. And, yes,
there were many attempts by spoilers to derail the
process through the military. But with persuasion
and discipline, they stayed the course.
Why did former President Uribe oppose your peace enterprise
so fiercely? Was it because he truly believed that
pursuing the war was a better option, or did he simply
believe that he could have secured a better deal?
Uribe attempted to do what we are doing. It is a
matter of record that he proposed many of the
components of the agreement that he then criticized.
Colombians’ rejection of the peace accord by a razorthin
margin in October’s plebiscite nearly doomed the
deal. Was the referendum necessary?
It was not necessary. I was not legally compelled to
do it. Everybody was against it. But from the very
beginning, I thought it was the correct thing to do.
My style of governing is not to seek applause, but
to do what is right, even if it is unpopular. A good
leader must be bold and willing to take risks. Yes,
we barely lost the battle. But we also gained an
opportunity to forge unity and peace in a much
more decisive way. That’s why I truly believe the
outcome was a blessing in disguise.
Many expected that the consequences of the “NO” vote
would be either a protracted political crisis, or a prolonged
re-negotiation that might stretch until the 2018
election campaign. Combining peace negotiations with
an electoral agenda would have been devastating for political
stability and the cause of peace. The state of limbo
might have led the guerrillas to disengage, and perhaps
worse, fragment into uncontrollable factions with no
unity of command.
Time and dialogue became essential. Instead of
dismissing the opposition’s claims as sheer politicking,
I engaged in serious talks on what was
essential for a new agreement. The guerrillas also
exhibited a keen interest in moving forward, by
modifying some of the agreement’s provisions
while insisting on their red lines (political integration
and no prison sentences). They were just
as willing as we were to listen to the voice of the
people as reflected in the plebiscite.
In the course of intense negotiations, we managed
to redraft some clauses that the “No” leaders regarded
as ambiguous, and we agreed on some
more substantial modifications, but without departing
from the original agreement’s essential
structure and principles. For example, the composition
of the special tribunal for transitional justice
would include only Colombian judges, but
in strict accordance with international standards.
We also made clear that the rural and agrarian reform
would safeguard private property, while the
guerrillas would disclose their illicit property and
use it for reparations for victims.
This and some other modifications, as I said, do
not change, in any meaningful way, the essence of
the original agreement. But the national dialogue
that the plebiscite compelled enabled us all to
face the future with as wide a national consensus
as possible. I truly believe that what had been a
peace agreement between the government and
the guerrillas is now an inclusive agreement, one
that not only ended the armed conflict in our
country, but that also marks the beginning of a
historic process of national reconciliation.
Over the four years of the negotiations, was there a moment
when you felt you were about to give up, that this
would simply not work?
Of course. This has been a very long and difficult
journey, and there were many times when I
considered throwing in the towel. But I followed
the advice of a well-known Harvard professor:
Listen to the victims. They will reenergize you.
That thought and talking with them was essential
to persevere.
Your opponents have frequently accused you of being a
single-issue president, and that you have left many of the
country’s other key problems unattended.
I have been accused of many things: being a communist
agent, a member of the KGB, a traitor to
my class. Being called a single-issue president is
the least of it. But it is quite the opposite. We have
one of the soundest economies in Latin America,
with some of the best social indicators. The poverty
rate has fallen by 12 percentage points, and
extreme poverty has been cut in half during my
presidency. We have made education completely
free, and the quality of education has improved in
an unprecedented way. Access to higher education
increased by 30 percentage points. In three
years, we have built more schools than had been
planned for the next 60 years.
We have also made health care a fundamental
right, and we now have universal coverage. Moreover,
we have built more than a million houses,
mostly for the poorest (the previous record for
any government was 300,000). And we are making
a real revolution in our infrastructure that will
make our economy more competitive. I could
continue, but I’ll stop there.
Many people and governments around the world worry
about Colombia’s role as a major producer and exporter
of drugs. Are you in position to assure that this peace
accord would bring an end to that role?
The accord will help us to address, for the very first
time, substitution of illegal crops for legal crops in
a comprehensive and effective way. Before the
agreement, this was impossible, because the FARC
protected the coca fields. Every time we eradicated
them, at a very high cost, they would simply plant
more the next day. Now they are committed to
help us in this crop substitution policy.
You are on record as a supporter of the legalization of
drugs. What are your reasons? The Nobel Peace Prize
you received gives you a privileged platform to join
other world leaders in a global campaign for drug legalization.
Would you pursue this?
The global war on drugs has been fought for more
than 40 years, with no prospect of victory. Colombia
has made the largest sacrifices and paid
the highest costs for this war, and we sometimes
feel as if we were riding a stationary bike. We
need a new approach, one that is oriented more
to human rights and public health. Locking up
everyone involved has simply not worked. Law
enforcement should be focused on the most damaging
links of the drug-trafficking chain. But this
is an issue that must be addressed internationally,
because it remains a global problem. And, yes, I
will continue to push this discussion worldwide.
What do you see as the main benefits of peace for Colombia?
Peace will be a game changer for Colombia in every
respect. Just imagine what a society that, after
50 years of war, has lost even its compassion could
achieve in a peaceful environment. Investment –
both private and public – will increase and reach
regions with high growth potential that were cut
off by violence. Our agricultural, industrial, and
tourism potential will be unleashed, creating
more jobs, progress, and social equality. The sky
is the limit.
But, as you suggested earlier, the accord is not the end of
the road. The rest of your presidency will be marked by
tough post-conflict challenges. What exactly are these
challenges, and how do you plan to address them?
The agreement will end the conflict. The construction
of peace will require a much larger –
and longer – effort. The main challenge will be
to unite the country and coordinate the government
and the entire state in order to implement
the peace agreement in an efficient and effective
way. I am convinced that Colombians have the
talent, the willingness, and the endurance to sow
the seeds and collect the fruits of peace.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
TRANSFORMING LATIN AMERICA
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-84
www.neweurope.eu
by Ricardo Villela Marino
Ricardo Villela Marino is currently partner
of Itaú Unibanco and CEO for Itaú Latam
operations. He is also former President of
FELABAN and Young Global Leader
(World Economic Forum). He is an engineer
from University of São Pau.
2017 in Latin America:
Recovery with greater risks
Argentine President Mauricio Macri gives a speech at the Argentina Business & Investment Forum in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 13 September 2016.
EPA/DAVID FERNANDEZ
BRAZIL- SÃO PAULO
Latin American economies enjoyed a
favorable external environment for most
of 2016. Monetary policy in the core
economies was supportive, uncertainty
over the Chinese economy was diminishing
and commodity prices were recovering.
Now, the risks are increasing again. Global
interest rates remain low, but are already
rising, led by the U.S. As the U.S. economy is
close to full employment, an expansionary
fiscal policy next year (as advocated
by Donald Trump) may lead to a more
rapid normalization of monetary policy,
jeopardizing capital flows to emerging
economies. Another risk is the possibility of
a more protectionist trade policy from the
U.S., which could trigger a trade war that
almost every country would lose.
Within Latin America, countries have
differing degrees of exposure to these risks.
Given its extensive commercial ties with its
northern neighbor, Mexico is clearly more
vulnerable to U.S. protectionism. Largely
for that reason, the Mexican peso has been
one of the worst performing currencies
in 2016. Countries with external account
imbalances (such as Argentina, which has
low international reserves, and Colombia,
with its high current account deficit) and/
or domestic imbalances (like Brazil, with its
concerning public debt dynamics) are also
exposed. On the other hand, Chile and Peru
are less vulnerable, given the importance
of copper in their export basket – copper
prices are already rising on the expectation
of a fiscal stimulus in the U.S. – and their
solid macro fundamentals (low public debt
and sizable public-sector external assets).
Although Latin America is facing
greater uncertainties, the baseline scenario
for the region in 2017 is still benign. An
economic recovery is likely, led by Brazil
and Argentina, which are both currently in
recession.
In Argentina, the fading of the impact
of the 2016 relative-price adjustment
(utility prices and exchange rate) and a
supportive fiscal policy will help. In Brazil,
the approval of fiscal reforms is allowing
for lower interest rates at a time when
companies are already deleveraging and an
inventory-shedding cycle is coming to an
end. Modest recoveries next year are also
probable in Chile, Colombia and Peru.
On the other hand, the Mexican economy
will likely slow down in 2017 due to the
negative impact of the uncertainty over
protectionism on investment (especially
in the manufacturing sector).
The outlook for inflation is also
improving. After the sizable currency
depreciations in the region over the past
couple of years, the evolution of exchange
rates in 2017 will likely remain consistent
with further declines in inflation in almost
every country, even considering that some
further strengthening of the U.S. dollar
is likely. Spare capacity, too, will likely
contribute to curbing the pace of consumer
price increases.
In this context, monetary policy stances
are becoming looser in South America, and
thereby decoupling from the Fed’s stance. In
Brazil the central bank will likely quicken the
pace of rate cuts. In Chile, the central bank
is signaling an easing cycle in 2017, while in
Colombia rate cuts have already started. In
Argentina, additional easing is likely, but at a
more moderate pace than in 2016 as further
disinflation will become more challenging
to achieve. On the other hand, the central
bank of Mexico will probably continue to
raise interest rates to counter the inflationary
impact of a weaker currency.
Finally, politics in Latin America will
require a lot of attention next year. In
Argentina, the October mid-term elections
will be monitored closely as a sign of
President Macri’s strength after the harsh
(but necessary) adjustments implemented
since his election. The social security reform
in Brazil will be a key driver for local assets
– but ongoing corruption investigations
add a layer of uncertainty to the political
scenario. Finally, we will have presidential
elections in Chile in November, which have
the potential to improve confidence and lift
investment in the country.
Although Latin
America is
facing greater
uncertainties, the
baseline scenario
for the region in
2017 is still benign.
An economic
recovery is likely,
led by Brazil and
Argentina, which
are both currently in
recession

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
TRANSFORMING LATIN AMERICA
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-85
www.neweurope.eu
by Patricia Villela Marino
President of Humanitas360 Institute,
whose mission is empowering Latin
American citizens, fostering participative
democracies and promoting social
entrepreneurship. Since 2014 Patricia
is Vice-President of Purpose Driven
Resources Institute (PDR), working
to reduce social inequalities through
civic education and empowerment of
individuals.
LATIN AMERICA
Latin America is going through a series of
surprisingly turbulences. A specter is hunting
the sub continent, the specter of human
crisis. A deep mistrust in politicians and in
democratic system has emerged from the
most recent Latino Barometro. Corruption
ranks as top concern for Millennials in the
region. Human crisis emerged when social
fabric is deteriorated, when the values of
humanism, dignity, liberty, democracy,
equality, the rule of law, are weak or
systematically broken. As a consequence,
governance is confronted.
The social pact between institutions
and citizens is shattered. Individuals are
becoming unresponsive to democracy.
However there is an antidote: social civic
activism, citizens’ empowerment and social
civic entrepreneurship are growing forces to
recover societies from human crisis. From
Amazonia’s rivers to Brasilia, from Mexico
City to Bogota`, resilient Latin American
citizens are slowly rediscovering the meaning
of citizenships their rights and duties. Above
all citizens are participating and reacting
against human crisis.
Brazil, the largest economy of the
subcontinent, is in recession. GDP shrank
nearly 4 percent in 2016 and unemployment
went up to 11 percent, while an impressive
number of Brazil’s legislators either in the
Federal Chamber or State Governments or
in the local municipalities, faces criminal
charges and corruption allegations stain all
of Brazil’s main political parties. The country
is shaken by waves of citizens rallying for
transparency, eager to build the country the
want for the future.
Corruption comes as crucial issue in
Mexico, as shown by a citizens-driven initiative
called Ley 3de3 aimed at holding officials
accountable through public declarations of
personal assets, possible conflicts of interests,
and taxes. The legislation received more than
five times the number of voter signatures
necessary for legislative debate, although it
ended up getting watered down by Congress
over the summer.
Venezuelans are facing a horrible
humanitarian and democratic crisis. Citizens
have been denied basic human rights putting
at stake human lives and killing the work of
institutions. Yet citizens, individuals have
organized themselves, have reacted against
all the brutalities through peaceful and
constitutional tools.
In Colombia, voters nearly rejected the
historic peace deal ending 52 years’ of armed
conflict and arbitrary violence. The No
Why social civic entrepreneurship is the
antidote to human crisis in Latin America
A man casts his ballot for the referendum on the peace agreement between the government and the FARC guerrilla group, in Cali, Colombia, 02 October 2016.
EPA/Christian Escobar Mora
The risk is that human crisis could
easily turn into humanitarian
crisis. Where governance is so
weak that government could not
ensure basic services, and citizens
are unresponsive to democratic
mechanism, any external or
internal shock could trigger harsh
humanitarian crisis
won by a tiny margin, less than half percent
and push the government to struck a new
deal with the counterpart. The Congress
approved the deal. Citizens’ participation
has been fundamental in this process.
Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela are
showing how deeply citizens, in particular
Millennials are reacting. An increasing
number of new technological tools are
available to Latin Americans for ensuring
more active participation in public life.
Individuals and citizens are becoming more
familiar with these tools proven extremely
useful to re-approaching public and
institutions on the basis of a collaborativeproblem
solving dialogue. Citizens are
coming back playing their role and need
support.
However this is not enough. Social civic
entrepreneurship is an even more powerful
tool for social and democratic change.
Social entrepreneurs drive social
innovation and transformation in a number
of fields including education, health,
environment and enterprise development. In
Brazil through the work of the Purpose Drive
Resources Institute (PDR) a new generation
of social entrepreneurs is rising up. They are
highly motivated Millennials that are looking
beyond the social impact their business is
creating. They look at reinvesting resources
and efforts in their communities including a
civic component.
Thus social impact is adding local impact
to civic commitment. PDR is supporting
them in the outskirts of São Paulo or on the
Amazonians rivers with amazing results.
Human relations and values, mutual help
are at the basis of a partnership approach that
defines the engagement for change existing
between PDR and exceptional individuals
with brilliant ideas and lack partners. We need
to multiply this experience and connecting
to similar ones already existing throughout
Latin America. The sub-continent faces
similar challenges and needs common
solutions. PDR’s experience is disseminated
and multiplied by Humanitas360 Institutepowered
by PDR throughout Latin America.
It is a unique occasion to understand each
other and co-create solutions, hacking the
system to break invisibility and to improve it
from a grass root perspective, which is exactly
what it missing on many of our public policies
in Latam.
At the very end we believe in a dynamic
and hands-on way of doing philanthropy
that puts humans at the center of the action
overcoming the relationship benefactors
and beneficiaries for partnership. Grass
root Philanthropy take philanthropists and
partners into a transformative journey based
on empathy.
Economic and democratic crisis
will be faced also through social civic
entrepreneurship. The risk is that human
crisis could easily turn into humanitarian
crisis. Where governance is so weak that
government could not ensure basic services,
and citizens are unresponsive to democratic
mechanism, any external or internal shock
could trigger harsh humanitarian crisis.
Those are the cases of Haiti and Venezuela.
2017 will be an extraordinary year
for Latin America building on citizens’
engagement, social civic entrepreneurship
for restoring transparency, accountability
and positive transformation. It’s time for
Latin America.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
TRANSFORMING LATIN AMERICA
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-86
www.neweurope.eu
by Mónica Aspe
A Undersecretary of Communications at
the Mexican Ministry of Communications
and Transportation (SCT). She is in
charge of implementation of publicpolicy
initiatives derived from the 2013
Telecommunications Reform. She
holds a bachelor and a master´s degree
in Political Science from ITAM and
Columbia University.
Bridging all gaps: The transformation of
Mexico´s telecommunication sector
MEXICO
The Internet allows people to bridge the
gap: inequality that stems from income,
gender, age, disability, or geography is
reduced by this inclusive global system.
However, exclusion from the Internet
widens such gaps as no single technology
of the past. Thus, for a country like Mexico,
that strives for social inclusion, reducing the
digital divide means bridging all gaps.
During the last four decades, most
telecommunications markets evolved
from a public State-owned telephone
monopoly to multiple network private
operators. In many countries, competition
and regulation sufficed to create a healthy,
competitive, high-quality and affordable
services sector; in others, market forces
and attempts to regulate have simply not
been enough.
As President Peña Nieto´s
administration took office, Mexico´s
telecommunication markets belonged to
the latter.
The State-owned telephone company
had been privatized in 1990 and the
sector opened to competition in 1995.
After two decades of delayed, ineffective,
or frustrated regulation, the OECD
estimated the welfare loss attributed to
inefficiencies of the telecommunication
sector at 1.8% of Mexico´s GDP every
year. Half of that loss corresponds to
services that were actually never hired
because prices were unaffordable, hence
affecting disproportionately lower-income
households.
In 2013-2014, a constitutional reform
promoted by the government was enacted
by all political parties, in a welcome
reminder that democratic institutions
can produce, by consensus, sound public
policy to redress social wrongs. Common
goals included recognition of broadband
access as a fundamental right; promotion
of competition and consequent social
welfare gains identified by the OECD;
independent and effective regulation;
expeditious justice; increased investment
in infrastructure with resultant coverage
and quality improvement.
To attain these goals, Mexico´s
telecommunications reform enacted new
rules for the development of the sector,
including the following:
• Asymmetric regulation. The severity
of the diagnosis called for proportional
medicine. A specific set of rules was
established for an operator with over 50%
of the users, networks and other indicators
As President Peña Nieto´s administration took office, Mexico´s telecommunication markets belonged to the latter. EPA/JORGE NUNEZ
of market power. This operator, now
designated “preponderant agent”, is subject
to asymmetric regulation –measures
applied to no other operator. For example,
the preponderant agent must provide open
access to its infrastructure and services for
commercialization by its competitors.
• Unlimited foreign direct investment
(FDI). Before the reform, FDI in the
telecommunication sector was limited to
49%. It is now open to 100%.
• Independence of the regulator. To
shield technical decisions from political
influence, an independent regulator holds
authority both over telecommunications
and economic competition. The role of
the government in this new framework is
limited to public policy.
• Specialized and expeditious justice.
Specialized telecommunication courts were
created reducing the time to analyze and
resolve lawsuits, and increasing its technical
proficiency. In addition, any ruling by the
regulator cannot be suspended until a
court’s sentence is given, thus ensuring
regulatory timeliness and legal certainty.
The most recent data on the sector
confirms that the telecommunications
reform is delivering good results, both for
consumers and industry:
• Consistent, historically-unprecedented
decline of prices of telecommunications
services. Domestic long distance charges
were eliminated, international long distance
rates have fallen by 40%, and prices for
mobile telephony decreased in real terms
by 43% (2013-2016).
• Affordable services as a driver for
Internet use. As prices dropped, the number
of Internet users in the country rose from
41 to 62 million (2012-2015), and mobile
broadband subscriptions grew from 23 to
56 per 100 inhabitants (2013-2016). It is
worth noting that in 2015 the growth in the
number of mobile broadband subscriptions
in Mexico was the highest among OECD
countries (+21.3%).
• Telecommunications, amongst the
sectors with the greatest dynamism in the
national economy. During 2015, the GDP
of the telecommunication sector reported
an annual growth rate of 11%, four times
the national GDP growth rate for that year.
• Investment, on an impressive rise.
Before the reform, FDI generated by the
telecommunication sector was less than
1% of the national total. During 2015 it
accounted for almost 10%.
Clear rules, a predictable regulatory
environment and an open government
attracted investments such as AT&T´s.
The company invested 4.4 Billion USD
to acquire two existing operators and has
announced its plans to invest another
3 Billion USD in its Mexican network,
towards a “North American Mobile Service
Area” covering 400 million people in
Mexico and the United States of America
(USA).
Thus, foreign players are helping to
capitalize on past underinvestment in
the sector, adding to local competition.
For example, the Economist Intelligence
Unit has stated that AT&T´s move in
eliminating international long-distance
fees from Mexico to the USA contributed to
the decline in prices, since the new market
dynamic forced competitors to offer similar
conditions.
More investment and enhanced
competition will come to the Mexican
telecommunication markets. On 2015,
Mexico became the first country in Latin
America to transition to digital television
and completely free its digital dividend
spectrum for a more productive use on
mobile Internet and telephony. Using this
valuable spectrum, the Mexican government
tendered the creation of a wholesale mobile
network of high quality and coverage.
Altán, the winning consortium, committed
to a population coverage of 92.2% with an
estimated investment of 4.0 Billion USD for
the initial years.
After only three years of the enactment
of the reform, results have been impressive:
price reduction, Internet use expansion,
the sector´s GDP on an impressive rise,
investment on much-needed infrastructure.
Transforming Mexico´s telecommunication
sector has proved worthwhile, as it
contributes to bridge all gaps.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
TRANSFORMING LATIN AMERICA
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-87
www.neweurope.eu
by Gabriela Cuevas Barron
Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs
Committee at the Mexican Senate.
Member of the National Action Party
(PAN). Also member of the Constituent
Assembly at México City and President of
the Mayoral Committee.
Mexico´s new intermestic challenge
The implementation of a human rights agenda
MÉXICO
Mexican transition towards a modern
democracy, back in the late nineties of the
XX century, meant a gradual but nonetheless
impressive transformation of both its domestic
and foreign policy. From an authoritarian
standpoint emphasizing order at home and
non-intervention, protectionism, sovereignty
and traditional diplomacy abroad we gradually
moved into a cosmopolitan view of government
prioritizing tolerance, human rights, rule of law
and a rather sophisticated perspective on global
responsibility, leadership and interdependence.
As by-products of globalization, new and
particularly challenging intermestic issues -
considered by well-known political science
scholars like James Rosenau as the result of
the current blur of the distinction between
domestic and international affairs- aroused
with saliency in our political agenda.
In terms of democratic governance, new
developments in human rights fructified in a
comprehensive reform that incorporated them,
for the first time in our contemporary history,
into the Constitution with a binding effect. The
Mexican legal and institutional framework has
undergone important progress to the extent
that the implementation of the Conventionality
control and other mechanisms fostering the
obligation of all public authorities to respect
human rights has been largely acknowledged.
In 2014, for instance, the Mexican Senate
approved a constitutional reform to authorize
the National Human Rights Commission
(CNDH) to file unconstitutionality actions
to defend human rights and withdrew the
reservations of three milestone treaties
concerning aliens, forced disappearance of
persons and the contentious jurisdiction of
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
Further, with approximately ten percent
of total population living in the United States
-half of them with an irregular status- Mexico
soon became also the champion, at least on a
narrative outlook and not necessarily regarding
our own immigration problem in the Central
American context, of the protection of
immigrant rights. A whole array of institutional
changes were performed in order to create, for
instance, the Institute of Mexicans abroad
(IME, by its Spanish acronym) and the effort
to reach an agreement with the United States
on regularization and temporary permits,
even if frustrated by the 9/11 events, went far
enough as to get some small-scale and Statelevel
advantages.
However five years after the entry into force
of the human rights constitutional reform and
almost fifteen since the 9/11 attacks frustrated
our comprehensive migration reform project,
we are still in great debt with both ideals. On the
one hand it is true that in terms of the normative
Rapporteur for Mexico of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) Enrique Gil (2-R), the Executive Secretary of the IACHR Paulo Abrao
(3-R) and the President of the IACHR James Cavallaro (R) attend a meeting with parents of the disappeared 43 Mexican students from the Ayotzinapa Rural
Teachers' College, in Tixtla, Guerrero, Mexico, 11 November 2016. EPA/JOSE LUIS DE LA CRUZ
framework, at least in the national scope, the
level of recent progress is noteworthy. Congress
has delivered landmark efforts when working
towards a new and strong legislation to, for
instance, protect asylum seekers and refugees,
an important issue in the light of a diplomatic
tradition going back to the early thirties in
the XX Century when Mexico received
thousands of them fleeing from the horrors of
the Second World War. We had taken similar
steps in both the Senate and the Chamber of
Deputies to advance new normative measures
protecting victims of torture, human trafficking
and vulnerable groups such as women and
persons with disabilities and in developing
a new criminal justice system. On the other,
and in spite of such commitment, we have
great challenges in the implementation
field. As the Interamerican Human Rights
Commission argues, the challenge basically
consists in closing the existing gap between
the legal framework, unconditional support
of human rights and the reality faced by a still
large number of citizens.
Our geographic location doesn’t make
things easy. Today Mexico is playing a similar
role than the Mediterranean Sea in the Western
hemisphere. Through Mexico weapons from
the United States flow to the entire region
fueling crime.
More than 80% of the weapons recovered
form drug cartels and organized crime actually
come from illicit smuggling started in the US.
Mexico is a country of production and export,
a destination market and a transportation
route for drugs and seven out of the ten most
dangerous countries in the world are located
in the region, some of them right in our
Southern border. With different dimensions
but a similar outcome we are witnessing a
truly silent humanitarian crisis. Entire families
and increasingly unaccompanied children
originally from the so-called Northern Triangle
of El Salvador, on the move to the North, face
deportations, unrests and a number of perils
from intimidations to abductions. A beefedup
border security in the United States and
a Southern Border Protection Program to
apprehend them in Mexico are just a few
of the elements further deteriorating an
already complex situation. Not to mention
of course, the fact that Mexican migration to
the US, even if decreasing, is still awaiting for a
comprehensive answer.
We are entitled to be in one decade or two,
according to calculations, one of the major 10
economies in the world. But the fight against
drug trafficking and violence has been costly
not only in terms of economic resources
deviated from social among other legitimate
purposes but also regarding the consolidation
of democratic institutions. Today, organized
crime threatens local governments and over 80
majors and former majors of several important
cities have been murdered in the last 10 years.
The most salient challenge of our time
is not only to further expand the global
threshold for the defense and truly exercise of
human rights, but also to fight and confront
the threats of moving backwards blossoming
from xenophobia, nationalism, supremacism,
autarchy, authoritarianism and protectionism
even in consolidated democracies at the very
heart of the Western civilization. However,
Mexico is still fighting an essential quarrel.
Indeed, we have a serious problem in terms of
the consolidation of rule of law as a principle
guiding policy and actions against impunity,
particularly in the current context of violence
as a result of the proliferation of organized
crime operations and a military response to it.
The effort in favor of rule of law and against
impunity is one that must be launched by 2,500
local governments, 32 states and the 3 Federal
Powers. Without their full participation, the
implementation of human rights reforms
and policies has no chance of improvement.
Priorities are numerous starting from
capacity-building, better salaries and training
to members of police corporations, to appoint
civilians as heads of both the Ministries of
National Defense and Navy together with a
transparent process of returning some military
elements, currently protecting several cities and
its surroundings, to the barracks.
It is rather evident that we still face several
challenges in terms of human right treaties still
pending of approval or harmonization in our
domestic law. Interamerican Conventions such
as the one protecting human rights of older
persons, International Labour Organization
Covenants and the Facultative Protocol of
the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights are among the
most important. We certainly need a General
Law on Forced Disappearances, a solid legal
framework on the use of force and new antitorture
provisions making sure that both
the Federal and State level authorities are
required to comply with international best
practices and to follow the recommendations
of International Organizations working in
extrajudicial executions, forced displacements
and citizen security.
On top of that, the fight against corruption
and the policies fostering a new commitment
towards rule of law must see no setbacks. It
is through institutional strengthening that
Mexico will reach its true potential as an
economic, humanitarian and democratic
power. To this end, international cooperation
is instrumental. But essentially we require a
change of mentalities, a new set of domestic
priorities and a much needed consensus
among political elites: either we seriously tackle
this challenge, strongly invest will and resources
to it or we might loose the opportunity of
becoming the moral power Latin America and
the world need.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
TRANSFORMING LATIN AMERICA
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-88
www.neweurope.eu
by Simón Gaviria Muñoz
A Colombian economist and politician
currently serving as Director General
of the National Planning Department
(DNP)
Towards sustainable growth and
climate-change adaptation
Lessons from Colombia
COLOMBIA- BOGOTÁ
Despite belated efforts from the world’s nations
to address the global warming challenge, it is
now clear that temperatures will inevitably
rise and that environmental and social
consequences will follow. And yet, though
it may be too late for humanity to prevent
temperatures from rising beyond 2 degrees
Celsius globally, governments and citizens are
still in a position to mitigate the consequences
by effectively preparing to what is coming.
Hence the looming question: will the world
rise to the challenge and enact the necessary
policies and incentives to adapt to climatechange
or will it rest idle while it unfolds?
Considering the complexity of the issue
and the multiple influencing variables, it is
natural that the way in which countries and
governments are to respond will vary. The
major polluters, for instance, should focus
primarily in reducing their carbon footprint as
quickly as possible lest temperatures become
intolerable. Meanwhile, countries set to be
particularly affected by global warming–say,
emerging economies that are likely to suffer
from severe floods and droughts–should
prioritize adapting their territories and
infrastructure to withstand natural phenomena,
while still trying to reduce their emissions.
Take Colombia, for example. With a
population of 48 million people–roughly
0.65% of the world’s population–it contributes
a mere 0.44% to global carbon emissions.
And yet, for multiple reasons, it is extremely
vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
Recently, natural disasters have become more
intense. Between 2010 and 2011, La Niña
wrought havoc all around the country when
torrential rains led to the flooding of multiple
municipalities, the destruction of the home
for thousands of families, and an economic
damage tally of 2% of Gross Domestic Product.
Meanwhile, the most recent El Niño left 30% of
the country without potable water for several
months and considerably increased the risk of
power outages across the nation.
Perspectives are even more worrisome
in the future. A recent study by the National
Planning Department (DNP for its acronym
in Spanish) showed that climate change could
affect the productivity of the agricultural and
transportation sectors. Agricultural yields of
subsistence crops such as rice, potatoes and
corn could decrease at an annual rate of 7.4%
due to increased temperature and changes in
precipitation patterns. With no adaptation
measures in place, the effects would be
suffered by the poorest and most vulnerable
communities.
To date, Colombia’s vulnerability to
climate events is explained by its location, its
rapid and disorganized urban growth, a lack of
investment in climate resilient infrastructure,
and the degradation in the country´s natural
A panoramic view shows the Calima Lake in Darien, Valle del Cauca, Colombia, 06 February 2016.
capital. Only 3% of current land-use plans
include natural hazards analysis, 28% of the
population lives in flood prone areas, and
half of Colombia’s natural ecosystems are
under threat. Moreover, and despite recent
improvements, deforestation is still one of
the main causes of natural capital loss. This,
in turn, is the result of illicit crops and illegal
mining, as well as extensive cattle ranching. A
plethora of causes that are not exactly unique
to Colombia but, instead, common in other
emerging economies.
With such a dire diagnosis, what is
Colombia’s plan to cope with climate change?
To ensure that the country sustains its recent
gains in economic and social development,
the government has decided to re-focus
growth strategies towards green growth–i.e.
implementing policies that not only increase
economic productivity, but also ensure the
efficient use of natural resources and the
protection of natural capital.
The first step towards this goal came
along with the country’s 2014-2018 National
Development Plan. For the first time in
Colombia’s history, this Plan acknowledged
green growth as a cross-cutting development
strategy and set three clear objectives in this
regard: (i) advancing towards a low carbon
and sustainable growth; (ii) protecting and
ensuring the sustainable use of Colombia´s
natural capital; and (iii) achieving resilient
growth while reducing the country´s
vulnerability to climate change and natural
risks. To make these come to fruition, the
Plan defined accompanying targets: the share
of renewable energy in the power system
should increase by 11%, the annual rate of
deforestation should decrease by 25%, and
100% of the population should be covered by
climate-change adaptation plans.
Further, in pursuit of sustainable growth,
the government has marked as its priority to
revamp its energy sector to diversify its energy
sources and significantly increase the use of
non-conventional renewable energy sources
(NCREs). Thus, in 2014 it enacted a new law
to foster the use of NCREs via their integration
to the energy market and to increase their
use in non-interconnected zones. To achieve
the former, long-term energy contracts that
consider the nature of NCREs–wherein
electricity generation is dependent on climate
conditions–will be implemented. Though
no special treatment will be granted to these
energy sources, by devising contracts where
payment is conditional to a set amount of
energy supply previously agreed upon–as
opposed to an amount that varies with energy
demand–the national regulation will allow
for mitigating the risks of NCREs initiatives.
Other measures, such as overhauling the way
in which energy payments are calculated and
introducing smart grids to allow consumers
who generate their own power to sell their
surplus, are also on the way.
As for increasing the use of NCREs in
non-interconnected zones, the government
is encouraging the setup of business ventures
conducive to providing isolated energy
EPA/CHRISTIAN ESCOBAR MORA
solutions in far-away areas. These are likely to
involve the use of solar and wind energies, and
will benefit the 3% of the population that has
yet to enjoy reliable energy supply.
These measures are of course work-inprogress
and will need to be constantly revised
if the country is to establish an effective and
long-term sustainable growth strategy. Mindful
of this, the DNP has launched the “Green
Growth Taskforce”, an initiative that will
issue encompassing policy recommendations
that are in line with this goal and will comply
with climate-change related commitments
pertaining to the Sustainable Development
Goals and Paris Agreement agendas.
When it comes to climate-change,
Colombia is aware of the difficulties lying
ahead. To cope with them, it has set an
ambitious policy plan that involves not only
acting in the short term, but also setting up the
institutional framework that will be needed in
the long run. Certainly, much more will need
to be done if the country is to effectively adapt
to climate-change and reduce its contributing
share to global warming. But in the meantime,
valuable policy lessons are being drawn and
sustainable growth as an all-encompassing goal
is finally becoming attainable.
Colombia is thus aware of and rising to
the climate-change challenge. Hopefully, its
experience and lessons will contribute to
preventing other emerging economies–and
advanced ones–from remaining idle.
1. Director General at Colombia’s National
Department for Planning.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
TRANSFORMING LATIN AMERICA
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-89
www.neweurope.eu
by David Luna Sanchéz
Minister of Information and
Communications Technologies of
Colombia.
A country in a digital
transformation
COLOMBIA- BOGOTÁ
Back to 2010 when President Santos was
running for his first term in office, he had
a vision to use digital technologies to
transform the lives of our citizens. That was
the idea behind the Live Digital Program
(Plan Vive Digital) promoting that every
citizen in Colombia had access to Internet
and other technologies to be better informed,
participate in the democratic discussions and
to build a better government through the
smart use of technology.
During the first four years since its
conception, the Plan Vive Digital was
focused in developing physical infrastructure,
developing the fiber optic plan to cover all
municipalities, putting the 4G spectrum in
the hands of six operators in an auction that
was recognized by the GSMA as a world
class example on public policy. Also, the
plan considered a set of policies to facilitate
the access to computers, tablets by excluding
them of the Value-Added Tax and removing
tariffs for these devices, making them the
more affordable in this hemisphere.
Looking backwards, the execution of
Vive Digital has significant achievements.
In terms of number of Internet connections,
we moved from 2 million in 2010 to 14.4
million in 2016, a seven times increase, more
than doubling the Internet penetration from
11% in 2010 to 27% in 2016. In term of
municipalities with access to the fiber optic
network, we pass from 200 municipalities
in 2010 to 1.075 municipalities (95%
of the total) in 2016, setting the critical
infrastructure that our cities need to connect
with ultra-high speed broadband access.
Then for the second term in office of
President Santos, we gave to the plan a small
different accent.
While we continue to execute the plan
as originally designed, we added some
emphasis on the people, creating a Live
Digital for the People, promoting a wide
inclusion and adoption of technologies to
transform their live.
In this sense we promoted access to
technology putting in place 890 Digital
Labs (Puntos Vive Digital) and more than
6.875 Telecenters, places where our citizens
get access to digital technologies and
infrastructure needed to learn how to use
the technology in smart and creative ways.
We are now in the task of creating WiFi
zones where people can connect for free and
getting access to the Internet in 272 places.
Also, we are creating relevant content
by promoting the digitalization of the
interactions with the government. At this
date, we have more than 400 government
procedures, like paying taxes, obtaining a
National Identification and a Passport, on
line. Colombia is a now a regional referent
in Digital Government.
Colombian president and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Juan Manuel Santos speaks after receiving the honorary degree during a ceremony at the Alfonso X
University in Villanueva de la Canada, Madrid, Spain, 13 December 2016. EPA/VICTOR LERENA
We are creating relevant content by promoting the
digitalization of the interactions with the government.
At this date, we have more than 400 government
procedures, like paying taxes, obtaining a National
Identification and a Passport, on line. Colombia is a now
a regional referent in Digital Government
We also selected some strategic
sectors to design specific plans to digital
transform education, health, agriculture
and justice. While we succeed in using digital
technologies in the first three sectors, we
have a pending task with the judicial sector
due to ongoing institutional reforms and
the inherent complexity of coordinating
projects between the executive and the
judicial power.
With all this, we tried to use digital
technologies as a cross sectoral layer
foundation to develop our economy. In
this sense, the digital sector was viewed as
an appendage to the economy. But now the
Digital Economy has become The Economy.
With an increasing view of the power
of technology to disrupt, transform and
change the way we communicate, entertain
and participate and with the objective
of deepening the use of technologies in
the economy and the society this year we
designed a strategy for the Digital Economy.
Our strategy is built on six interconnected
blocks: (i) Providing forums and dialogue
spaces to discuss the current state, scope
and extent to which digital technologies
transform the production processes and
permeates the economy; (ii) Defining and
coordinating an initiative to discuss the
indicators necessary for the measurement
of the Digital Economy; (iii) Creating
two Centers of Excellence to facilitate
the appropriation of key technologies in
productive sectors, one for the Internet
of Things and other in Big Data Analytics
between academia, anchor companies;
(iv) Designing a regulatory framework
that promotes the depth of the Digital
Economy, currently developed by our ICT
Regulator, the Regulatory Communications
Commission – CRC, defining the roadmap
and necessary adjustments; (v) Creating a
Digital Economy Observatory as a Public-
Private Partnership to understand the level
of the adoption of digital technologies
in the productive and creative sector of
the economy; and (vi) Transforming the
current Vice-Ministry of IT into the Vice-
Ministry of the Digital Economy, adjusting
our institutions to accelerate the digital
transformation of the economy.
With this building blocks together we
hope to be in the best possible position to
create a Digital Public Policy that enables the
digital transformation of all industries.
Finally, with the peace process in place
there are new possibilities to include several
more citizens in this digital transformation.
It is our duty and our responsibility to not
leave someone behind in the opportunities
created by the Digital Economy.
We are positive that the building blocks
we had put together will increase the
adoption of technology in the economy and
the society.

Solaf loves sports and dreams of living in America.
She and her family survived the war in Syria.
We stand together
#WithRefugees
photo: UNhCR / A. SAKKAB
www.refugeeday.org
EN_2016WRD_POSTER_Jordan_Solaf.indd 1 04.05.16 11:22

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE NEW ECONOMY
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-92
www.neweurope.eu
Getting past the
by Angus Deaton
2015 Nobel laureate in economics, is
Professor of Economics and International
Affairs at Princeton University’s Woodrow
Wilson School of Public and International
Affairs.
globalization bogeyman
USA - PRINCETON
As we enter 2017, globalization has become
a dirty word. Many see it as a conspiracy by
elites to enrich themselves at the expense
of everyone else. According to its critics,
globalization leads to an inexorable increase
in income and wealth inequality: the rich get
richer, and everyone else gets nothing. One
bogeyman begets another.
While there is a kernel of truth in this
view, it gets more wrong than right. And
getting it wrong has consequences: at a
minimum, scapegoating; more worryingly,
bad policies that are likely to make our real
problems worse.
The first thing we need to understand
when we think about globalization is that it
has benefited an enormous number of people
who are not part of the global elite. Despite
continuing population growth, the number of
people who are poor worldwide has fallen by
more than a billion in the last 30 years. The
beneficiaries include the no-longer poor in,
among other countries, India, China, Vietnam,
Thailand, Malaysia, South Korea, and Mexico.
In the rich world, all income groups benefit,
because goods – from smartphones to clothing
to children’s toys – are cheaper. Policies aimed
at reversing globalization will lead only to a
decrease in real income as goods become more
expensive.
The call to rein in globalization reflects
a belief that it has eliminated jobs in the
West, sending them East and South. But
the biggest threat to traditional jobs is not
Chinese or Mexican; it is a robot. That is why
manufacturing output in the US continues to
rise, even as manufacturing employment falls.
So our focus should be on managing
rapid technological change so that it benefits
everyone – no easy feat, but not impossible,
either. Tariffs and trade wars will do nothing
to help. It is true that globalization has fueled
greater income inequality. But much of this
increase should be welcomed, not condemned.
Whether inequality is bad depends on how
it comes about and what it does. There is
nothing inherently bad about inequality.
In India and China, globalization
has brought greater income inequality,
because it provided new opportunities – in
manufacturing, in back-office jobs, and in
software development – that have benefited
millions of people. But not everyone. That is
just the way progress happens; while we might
like it better if everyone were to prosper in
tandem, such situations are incredibly rare.
To decry this sort of inequality is to decry
progress itself.
In rich countries, too, some of the increase
in inequality reflects better opportunities,
owing to the move from a national to a global
A three-wheeler vehicle passes in front of billboards showing adverts of construction projects for luxury
apartments, in Bangalore, India, 29 February 2016.
EPA/JAGADEESH NV
market. Those with exceptional talent and
innovations now have the entire world in
which to get rich. It is hardly a crime to get
wealthy by sharing talent with more people or
by making new things that benefit everyone.
Of course, there is a dark side to inequality.
The rich have outsize political influence,
and can often rewrite the rules to benefit
themselves, their companies, or their friends.
In the United States, this is not much of a
problem in presidential elections, which
remain open; but it is a huge problem for
Congress, where our “representatives” are so
constrained by the need to raise money that
they are unlikely to be elected or to stay elected
without support from wealthy interests.
This is not to claim that legislators are
corrupt, but only that, as Harvard Law School’s
Lawrence Lessig has argued, the institution is
corrupt and incapable of representing people
who do not have the clout that money provides.
Yet it is not obvious that the best solution is to
reduce inequality, rather than to change the
way politics is financed. Rich people should
buy yachts, establish foundations, or become
philanthropists, not buy the government,
which should be taken off the market.
More generally, inequality that results from
“rent seeking” – getting rich on the backs of
others while not contributing anything of
value to the economy – is the real bogeyman.
Classic examples include bankers lobbying the
government to weaken regulation, and then
– when the banks fail – leaving the taxpayers
with a costly mess to clean up. The resulting
bailouts have given breathtaking sums of
public money to people who were already
fabulously rich.
For example, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
– the huge US government-backed housing
finance agencies – used their political muscle
to make it impossible for Congress to regulate
them, while paying their private shareholders
and stoking the housing crisis. Likewise, the
The first thing we
need to understand
when we think about
globalization is that
it has benefited an
enormous number of
people who are not
part of the global elite.
Despite continuing
population growth, the
number of people who
are poor worldwide
has fallen by more
than a billion in the
last 30 years
farm lobby wins billions every year in subsidies.
Pharmaceutical companies are encouraged to
lobby government for higher prices or patent
extensions on existing products, rather than to
make new drugs. Real-estate magnates get the
tax code changed in their favor.
These activities actually produce less
than nothing, because they slow economic
growth. When the easiest way to get rich is by
legalized theft, innovation and creativity are
mug’s games.
Arlie Russell Hochschild of the University
of California at Berkeley has written about
people who are enraged by seeing others
“cutting in line” ahead of them. This anger
is unjustified when it is the reaction of, say,
American whites who, accustomed to racial
privilege, are facing a more equal world.
The justified anger is toward a government
that enriches special interests at the expense
of everyone else. In a slow- or zero-growth
economy, where what you get can only come at
my expense, such legalized theft is intolerable.
Growth depends on globalization and on
legitimate inequality. We cannot ignore those
who are hurting, but we need to ensure that
our “fixes” don’t make the problem worse.
The true bogeymen are the rent-seekers who
have captured so much of our government.
The inequality that they have wrought is the
inequality that needs to be eliminated.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2016.
www.project-syndicate.org

y Christine Lagarde
ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE NEW ECONOMY
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-93
www.neweurope.eu
The challenge of economic inclusion
Managing Director of the International
Monetary Fund.
I believe that there are
several steps countries
can take to address
inequality. For starters,
governments can
increase their direct
support for lower-skill
workers, especially in
geographic regions that
have been most affected
by automation and
outsourcing
Shi Mingde, ambassador of the People's Republic of China addresses the official opening of the German G20 presidency 2017 in Berlin, Germany, 30 November
2016. EPA/BERND VON JUTRCZENKA
USA - WASHINGTON, DC
In 2016, the world’s attention was focused
on major political developments in the
European Union, the United States,
and other countries, where voters have
expressed deeply held concerns about
trade, migration, and structural labormarket
changes.
But, from an economic perspective,
2016 was a fairly quiet year: the global
economy continued its slow recovery, with
economic activity in the US, Europe, and
emerging markets gradually improving,
despite some remaining vulnerabilities.
And even low-income economies that have
struggled to adjust to falling commodity
prices may receive a small boost, given
recent price increases.
Remarkably, financial markets have
so far taken the year’s political upheavals
in stride. Indeed, the prospect of a more
expansive fiscal stance in the US has raised
expectations of global growth and inflation
in the near future.
This signals possible relief for advanced
economies’ central banks, which have
carried most of the economic-policy
burden during the years of slow recovery
since the 2008 global financial crisis.
As the International Monetary Fund
has argued for some time, a resurgence of
growth requires support from fiscal policy
in countries that can afford it, supported
by monetary policy and structural reforms
aimed at lifting productivity and growth.
Several factors in 2017 could move the
global economy toward stronger, sustained
growth. For starters, Germany will assume
leadership of the G20, and will likely push
for structural reforms and resiliencestrengthening
measures in the world’s
largest economies.
China, meanwhile, will continue to
reorient its economic model away from
exports and toward domestic demand.
And we should expect to see more
youthful dynamism across many Asian and
Latin American economies. The new US
administration will emphasize corporatetax
reform and infrastructure investment.
But, of course, the same forces that are
driving this year’s political developments
will continue to pose challenges in 2017.
For example, technological progress and
winner-take-all markets are widening
income inequality within many countries,
even as global incomes are converging.
In major advanced economies over the
past two decades, the top 10% of earners’
incomes increased by 40%, while incomes
for those at the bottom grew only modestly.
Another increasingly complex issue that
the international community will have to
confront is migration, which is being
amplified by geopolitical pressures around
the globe. While migrants and refugees
can bring substantial benefits to host
countries, their arrival in new communities
can increase fears of economic and cultural
change.
Across a range of countries, a growing
number of people believe that policymakers
have lost touch with their interests and
welfare. They maintain that tighter
restrictions on cross-border movement of
goods, capital, and people will restore their
own employment prospects and economic
security.But a retreat from free trade and
open markets would only jeopardize the
unprecedented gains in welfare and living
standards achieved in recent decades – and
low-income households would be hit the
hardest.
The challenge, therefore, is to preserve
the gains from economic openness while
addressing inequalities head-on.
The IMF, for its part, considers a more
equitable income distribution to be not only
sound social policy, but sound economic
policy, too. Our research shows that
reducing high inequality makes economic
growth more robust and sustainable over
the long term.
I believe that there are several steps
countries can take to address inequality.
For starters, governments can increase
their direct support for lower-skill workers,
especially in geographic regions that have
been most affected by automation and
outsourcing.
Specifically, governments should
increase their public investments in healthcare
services, education, and skills training;
and they should make an effort to improve
occupational and geographic mobility.
Every country should understand the need
for lifelong education to prepare current
and future generations for fast-changing
technologies.
Second, governments should strengthen
social safety nets, especially for families, by
promoting affordable childcare, parental
leave, access to health care, and workplace
flexibility.
They can also implement tax reforms
and legal minimum wages to support lowerincome
earners, and create tax incentives to
bring more women into the labor market.
Third, governments should commit
to ensuring economic fairness in order
to restore social trust and bolster
public support for reforms. Specifically,
governments should foster more
competition in important industries that
lack it, crack down on tax evasion, and
prevent business practices that shift profits
to low-tax locations.
These are just some of the policies
that can improve economic inclusion, and
more should be done to identify additional
measures – and implement them effectively.
This is a task not only for politicians and
public servants, but also for the economics
profession as a whole.
I have no doubt that the political
developments in 2016 will focus
policymakers’ minds on helping those
who have benefited least from economic
integration, or have been displaced by
technology-driven labor-market changes.
We can raise the income floor only by
coming together and moving quickly to
build a stronger, more inclusive global
economy. That is both the challenge and
the opportunity of 2017. We must move
fast – and together.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2016.
www.project-syndicate.org

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
ECONOMICS
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-94
www.neweurope.eu
by Kaushik Basu
Formerly Chief Economist at the World
Bank and Chief Economic Adviser to
the government of India, is Professor of
Economics at Cornell University.
Economic impossibilities
for our grandchildren?
USA - NEW YORK
Austria’s close-call presidential election on
December 4, which almost brought a farright
nationalist to power, was a telling coda
to a sad year. The uncertainty and fear that
many people feel today is reminiscent of
W.H. Auden’s poem “September 1, 1939”:
“As the clever hopes expire/Of a low dishonest
decade.”
This was a year when many countries
lurched rightward, toward leaders and political
parties that serve partisan interests and narrow
identities. This trend is no fleeting aberration:
the turn to vicious politics is partly rooted in
ongoing economic changes that have now
reached an inflection point.
The poor and the middle class have
seen their jobs disappear and their incomes
erode, and they are now flailing against the
status quo, desperately ignoring the fact
that they are choosing leaders who will
only make matters worse. The root cause
of the problem is not immigration or trade,
as the populists argue, but rather the steady
march of technology. As jobs are replaced
by machines or off-shored to emerging
economies, global GDP is expanding, but the
gains are not being distributed evenly, and
some groups are losing out altogether. Many
countries are experiencing higher inequality
amid negative GDP growth – now at -3.3% in
Brazil, for example, -10% in Venezuela, -1.8%
in Argentina, and -0.8% in Russia. Others, like
Japan and Italy, are growing, but just barely.
China and India, for their part, are growing
reasonably well. But India just threw a wrench
into its economic engine by announcing a
bafflingly inept demonetization policy; and
China is maintaining growth by allowing
corporate debt to pile up unsustainably,
which poses major risks that are being partly
hidden, but also accentuated, by new highyield
financial products. More important,
manufacturing employment is deteriorating,
notwithstanding Chinese officials’ claims that
new graduates are simply taking a break before
launching their careers. In 1995, wages as a
share of GDP in China were 53%; that ratio
is now 47%.
In the US, the nominal unemployment rate
has fallen, but this belies a more jarring trend.
Official data show that the median household
is worse off now than in 1999, even though
overall per capita GDP has grown substantially.
This implies that all of the gains have gone to
the top earners. There are two primary forces
behind these trends: technological innovation,
which is both inevitable and desirable; and
the appropriation of incomes from workers
by those who own the new labor-displacing
machines, which is neither inevitable nor
desirable. The problem is often characterized
as one of labor versus labor: workers in
advanced economies are competing with those
in developing ones. In truth, it is a problem of
Far-right Austrian Freedom Party (FPOe) presidential candidate Norbert Hofer gestures at a TV interview at the Hofburg palace after polls closed in the re-run
of the Austrian presidential elections run-off in Vienna, Austria, 04 December 2016.
EPA/FLORIAN WIESER
The poor and the middle class
have seen their jobs disappear
and their incomes erode, and they
are now flailing against the status
quo, desperately ignoring the fact
that they are choosing leaders
who will only make matters worse
labor versus capital. After all, it is the number
of manufacturing jobs, not the manufacturing
sector itself, that is shrinking.
Consider the example of Eastman
Machine, in Buffalo, New York – a city where
manufacturing is making a comeback, but
in a different form than in past decades.
Eastman Machine makes machines and tools
for the textile sector, and it exports half of its
output, often to developing countries such
as Bangladesh and Vietnam. The key to its
success is that it relies on virtually no human
labor; it employs 122 people, who account for
a mere 3% of its total production costs.
There is another, related problem. With
new technologies creating vast economies
of scale, firms like Eastman Machine – after
incurring substantial start-up costs – can
manufacture their products at a negligible
marginal cost. This has made certain markets
more oligopolistic, and even monopolistic in
some cases. This trend will continue.
In addition, because companies are
increasingly armed with extensive customer
and user information, they can price
discriminate, extracting all surplus out of
consumers, more easily than ever. These
changes have created new challenges for
regulators.
John Maynard Keynes, prophetic as he was
about so many features of economic life, made
one big mistake. In his 1930 essay “Economic
Possibilities for our Grandchildren,” he
predicted that all major economic problems
would be “solved” within a hundred years,
and we would only have to figure out how
to pass the time. But he failed to anticipate
that economic problems would continuously
evolve. For example, business strategies are
constantly changing, because every time
governments introduce regulations to serve
consumers’ interests, producers find new ways
to serve their own.
We need new, innovative regulations to
reverse the trends of widening inequality
and market monopolization. Such measures
should embody ideas that once seemed
radical, such as corporate profit sharing for
workers, and new consumer protections to
prevent price discrimination.
To be sure, any new regulatory regime
must take care not to eliminate entrepreneurs’
incentive to produce, innovate, and expand
their businesses. But safeguarding the profit
motive should not be an alibi for market
fundamentalism. If we have learned anything
in 2016, it is that leaving everything to the
market can lead to social and political turmoil.
Of course, nowadays, to advocate
innovative forms of state intervention to
fight inequality is to risk being redbaited.
Once, in Kolkata, after telling my mother
about an upcoming international conference
on welfare, which would be attended by the
world’s leading economists, I heard her brag
to her cousin that I was meeting with other
“communists” to discuss how to make the
world a better place. At 90, she had begun
to confuse similar-sounding words. Today’s
trolls have no such excuse – only a morbid
fascination with an increasingly dangerous
status quo.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2016.
www.project-syndicate.org

y Gaetano Maccaferri
Chairman of S.E.C.I. SpA, holding
company of the Maccaferri Industrial
Group. He is a member of the
Advisory Board and of the Council of
Confindustria, of which he is also the VP
with responsibility for Simplification and
Environment issues. Since June 2016 he is
a member of the Superior Council of the
Bank of Italy.
ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE NEW ECONOMY
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-95
www.neweurope.eu
Towards an industrial policy that
includes all great paths of development
ITALY - ROME
The current economic situation, especially
in Italy, is not bright. If we look at the
annual growth rate of GDP since 2000,
data are alarming: in the period 2000-2007
before the crisis, GDP in Italy grew 8.5%
in cumulative rates. In the same period,
the Eurozone grew by 14.8%, Germany by
10.2%, France by 13.8% and Spain by 27.7%,
more than three times higher than Italy. GDP
growth was slow, but its fall was very fast:
during the international crisis (2007-2014),
the Eurozone decreased by 0.9%, while Italy
fell by 9%, much more than Spain (6.3%);
France and Germany had a positive growth
instead.
Hence, saying that the Italian economy
is flat, is not a cliché but a fact. Despite
noting a slight improvement in the Global
Competitiveness Index by the World
Economic Forum, Italy ranks 43rd out of
140 countries overall and 135th as regards
efficiency of the government.
It is clear that a radical change is needed in
the current Italian set-up in order to prevent,
or at the very least to address, turbulent
changes in the international scenario.
Enterprises need harmonised, stable and
standardised regulatory and administrative
systems to invest. Every entrepreneur has had
first-hand experience of negative situations
colliding against muddled decision-making
systems and mutual vetoes.
For example, in 2006, as a consequence
of the CAP reform, my company had to close
six of its seven sugar factories. Then, with
other entrepreneurs, we decided to convert
five of the six sites into biomass power plants.
This was 2007.
Today, after almost 10 years, only two
projects are being born. The others are
blocked by local vetoes and changes in local
political majorities. So, €480m worth of
investments have been blocked for 10 years.
Obviously, a businessman can decide to do
something else and to go somewhere else.
We all know how the Italian referendum
ended up. This referendum should have
allowed Italy to change the situation. It’s a
pity because, in this period, Confindustria
asked a lot of questions about the current
international context and, on the one hand,
the slowdown of rising power of emerging
countries, in terms of growth rate of the
manufacturing value added (that remains
still high) and in terms of consolidation
of Chinese primacy that reached 26.5% in
2015, in contrast to 2012 (22.8%) and 2000
(6.8%).
European Central Bank (ECB) President Mario Draghi (C) delivers a speech at the opening of the academic year at Milan's Cattolica university in Milan, Italy,
05 November 2015. EPA/MOURAD BALTI TOUATI
The brand “Italia” keeps its
attractiveness intact thanks to
every aspect of international
promotion: export promotion,
interception of new tourists,
investment and enhancement
of culture
On the other hand, there was the recovery
of industrial activity of advanced countries,
particularly the United States and Germany.
But Italy is still trudging. However, the
annual ranking elaborated by Centro Studi
- Confindustria highlights that Italy is the
second country in Europe and the seventh in
the world in terms of manufacturing output
with 2.3%, albeit half the level of the 2007.
But there is a strong and growing demand
for “Made in Italy” products.
The brand “Italia” keeps its attractiveness
intact thanks to every aspect of international
promotion: export promotion, interception
of new tourists, investment and enhancement
of culture. These are the factors we have to
focus on to fill the gaps caused by the crisis,
wherever possible.
In addition, there are two obstacles:
challenges relating to the credit availability
and low profitability. The latter is catching up
after the 2012 all-time low but is penalised
by the increasing labour cost (+24.6 from
2007 to 2015), three times greater than
productivity (+9.5%).
Over the past couple of years,
Confindustria has pointed out the necessity
to design and implement an industrial policy
as a comprehensive instrument of economic
policy, as is the case with most industrialised
and non-industrialised countries with the
dual objective of restoring growth and
enabling companies to hook drivers of
economic development.
Drivers arise from the continuous
and intense technological innovation, the
evolution of demographic dynamics and the
need of fighting climate change. Everywhere,
drivers have been identified in environmental
sustainability, green economy, digitalisation,
welfare, urban regeneration and creativity
based on cultural heritage and security.
Properly understanding the characteristics
of the drivers enables them to create business
opportunities and to intercept the new
demand for goods and services, leveraging
quality and adaptability of the Italian
production. Among Italian companies, the
most careful with international trends are
already moving in this direction.
The new industrial policy can catalyse
and accelerate this movement, outlining
specific guidelines.
First of all, by strengthening the system
for innovation and technological transfer
that connects research findings with
activities of companies and the creation of
new markets. So, it is therefore necessary to
have a coherent public intervention, from
research to incentives, which uses public
demand and technical regulation and
enhances different levels of government,
starting with the European level.
For instance, the EU allocates €50bn for
projects for these sectors and innovation.
The “Piano nazionale Industria 4.0”,
submitted by the government last September
and concretised by the incentives in Stability
Law, is consistent with this idea and
demonstrates the willingness to design an
overall growth strategy of productive system
and the Country.
This is a first important step towards
establishing an industrial policy that includes
all great paths of development. It is not easy,
we have to make a leap forward, which is
primarily cultural and requires a higher
quality of human capital. It is necessary that
institutions and main associations create
conditions ensuring that development
involves the largest number of actors. It is
also important that companies can move in
a modern, simple and fast country that is able
to implement that “unlocked democracy” we
all need, not only companies.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE NEW ECONOMY
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-96
www.neweurope.eu
Which Way for Emerging
by Jim O’Neill
A former chairman of Goldman
Sachs Asset Management and former
Commercial Secretary to the UK
Treasury, is Honorary Professor of
Economics at Manchester University and
Chairman of the British government’s
Review on Antimicrobial Resistance.
Markets in 2017?
UNITED KINGDOM - LONDON
Casual observers might think that 2016 was
a disappointing year for so-called emerging
markets. In fact, some of these countries
have delivered the year’s best investment
returns, while certain developed-country
markets have fared poorly. If a United
Kingdom resident who has personal
obligations in Brazil had hedged all of his
Brazilian real into sterling at the start of the
year, he would have lost almost 50% of his
investment.
Indeed, Brazil is not the only emerging
country whose markets performed better
than expected in 2016. But this is easy
to miss when, more than 15 years after I
coined the BRIC acronym (Brazil, Russia,
India, and China), people are still lumping
a diverse range of countries into a single
“emerging markets” category which
confuses more than it illuminates.
This approach makes little sense: there
is nothing “emerging” about South Korea,
whose per capita GDP is close to that of the
less wealthy eurozone countries; or about
China, where the United States’ most iconic
company, Apple, sells more products than
it does in the US itself. Most successful
investors probably figured this out some
time ago, but others should take note of it
in the coming year.
Right now, the prevailing emergingmarket
outlook for 2017 predicts that,
under President-elect Donald Trump’s
incoming administration, the US will
expand its fiscal-stimulus policies, and
that the US Federal Reserve will tighten
monetary policy.
This, in turn, will strengthen the dollar,
which could create widespread problems
in emerging markets. But there are four
reasons to doubt the conventional wisdom.
For starters, while markets have performed
well in the weeks since Trump’s election,
investors should be wary of any apparent
consensus. No one can confidently predict
what shape Trumponomics will actually
take. Trump’s victory was not expected,
so much of the strong performance since
Election Day probably reflects adjustments
by people who were heavily positioned for
the opposite result.
Investors are now more confident that
the Fed will raise interest rates in December,
so those who were pursuing a carrytrade
strategy – borrowing dollars to buy
currencies that pay higher interest rates –
have had to reduce their positions. Investors
are now positioned to expect emerging
markets to disappoint. Unexpected news
about Trumponomics might end up
Chinese consumers walk in a shopping mall in Beijing city, China, 14 December 2016.
Right now, the prevailing emerging-market outlook for 2017
predicts that, under President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming
administration, the US will expand its fiscal-stimulus policies,
and that the US Federal Reserve will tighten monetary policy.
This, in turn, will strengthen the dollar, which could create
widespread problems in emerging markets
producing a positive surprise.
Second, while the decades-long rally in
government bonds might finally be coming
to an end, it is not obvious that the dollar
will remain strong indefinitely, even if it
does appreciate relative to other currencies
in the near term. I have long believed
that the dollar has a natural tendency to
appreciate; but there have been plenty of
occasions when US policymakers stopped
the dollar from strengthening, or even
deliberately weakened it.
If Trump wants to restore heavy
industry in the US, he will not want a
rapidly appreciating dollar. To be sure,
many commentators have predicted that
Trumponomics will resemble Reaganomics,
which had an ostensible aversion to market
intervention. But Ronald Reagan’s laissezfaire
idealism was soon confronted by
reality, and in 1985 he agreed to the Plaza
Accord, which unleashed a depreciated
dollar on global financial markets.
A third consideration for 2017 is that
fiscal expansion in the US could benefit
commodity-producing countries, by
strengthening cyclical and global growth.
If commodity prices rise, as they have in
recent weeks, emerging-market currencies,
such as those of Brazil and Chile, could
appreciate as their terms of trade (the value
of exports relative to imports) move in a
positive direction. Finally, any 2017 forecast
must account for China, the emergingmarket
juggernaut. According to a recent
Goldman Sachs research note comparing
consensus 2016 forecasts with actual
economic performance, China exceeded
(albeit modestly) expectations.
China’s growth expectations for the
coming year are, once again, not particularly
optimistic. But if the Chinese economy
sustains its slight acceleration since the
summer, the rally in Chinese equities will
continue as well. Moreover, even if China’s
overall growth does not accelerate, Chinese
consumers’ demand for goods and services
will continue to increase.
EPA/WU HONG
The rise of the Chinese consumer is
surely the single most important economic
trend in the world today, and trade-bashing
populists in the West, such as Trump, would
do well to pay attention. Indeed, there could
not be a worse time to reduce trade with
China, given that the West’s largest export
sectors now have an opportunity to tap into
a massive new market.
Similarly, there will undoubtedly
be additional trade and investment
opportunities in India, Indonesia, African
countries, and perhaps Russia. All told,
2017 will probably not be all that different
from 2016: some emerging markets will not
provide many investment opportunities,
and others could prove to be very lucrative.
And, as with Brazil in 2016, some countries’
overall economic performance might not
be reflected in their markets’ performance.
The challenge will be to figure out where
that is the case.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2016.
www.project-syndicate.org

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
ENERGY & CLIMATE
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-98
www.neweurope.eu
by Kostis Geropoulos
Energy and Russian Affairs Editor, New
Europe.
Gazing into the energy
crystal ball for 2017
GREECE-ATHENS
Crude oil prices are likely to stabilise around
mid-50 dollars per barrel in 2017 as Members
of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
(OPEC) and non-OPEC members have
agreed to cut production.
“The recent OPEC-Russia deal should be
enough to provide support for the oil price
around the mid-$50s per barrel (Brent) until
the early spring. After that I think we will see
weaker oil through the summer, because of
higher supply, before some recovery again
in the autumn,” Chris Weafer, a partner
at Macro-Advisory, a Moscow-based
consultancy, told New Europe, adding that
overall he is predicting an average oil price of
$55 per barrel Brent for 2017, up from $45
per barrel in 2016.
Justin Urquhart-Stewart, Founder of
London’s Seven Investment Management,
told New Europe that “compared to what we
have seen the last couple of years this could be
the year when we see a little bit more stability.
We’ve seen the price rise to a new range of
50 to 60 and at that sort of level, assuming
that most of the participants in OPEC and
non-OPEC stay with the deal and, of course,
quite a lot of them won’t, I think there is a
reasonable chance it will stay within that
range because it is in everybody’s interest to
do so”.
Urquhart-Stewart noted that it’s going to
be painful for the producers. “It’s certainly
better than 30 dollars but they should not
expect that it going to be getting anywhere
near 100 dollars anytime soon,” he said.
Weafer warned that the biggest danger
for oil is the fact that Libya’s National Oil
Company is now in a position to start
rebuilding production and exports and
may be able to boost output to around
750,000 barrels daily in the second quarter.
He explained that Libya has declared an
ambitious target of 1.1 million barrels per day
by end 2017 but that will be hard to achieve
given the scale of war damage to be repaired.
OPEC has only built in average production
of 510,000 barrels per day for Libya whereas
current production is already above that and
climbing.
In addition, OPEC’s November deal
assumes that Nigeria will not be able to
restore production lost because of the attacks
by the Movement for the Emancipation
of the Niger Delta (MEND), whereas
historically Nigeria has always been able to
do so after a few months, Weafer said. The
OPEC agreement assumes Nigeria’s output
will stay at 1.57 million barrels per day while
earlier in 2016 the country’s output averaged
1.90 million barrels per day.
“I assume that compliance from Russia,
the non-OPEC countries and from the
OPEC countries other than Saudi, Kuwait
and the UAE will be weak and that should
undermine the price in Q2. Supply will be
Headquarters of the OPEC building in Vienna, Austria. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting
Countries met in December with non-OPEC nations in Vienna, agreeing to cut back oil supply to
increase prices.
EPA/LISI NIESNER
Political disputes have never
been allowed get in the way
of strategic energy deals, i.e.
as seen with Nord Stream
and also the reason why
Russia and Turkey restored
relations so quickly.
higher than expected,” the Russia-based
expert told New Europe.
“I don’t see the oil price pushing much
higher than the mid to high $50’s per barrel
(Brent) even if a miracle happened and all
countries stuck tightly to the production cut
agreement. That is because US shale volume
recovery will accelerate at, and above, $55 per
barrel. Already we see that the total number of
rigs returning to suspended US shale projects
is climbing steadily and many operators are
planning to boost activity,” Weafer said. With
the big drop in production costs see in the US
shale industry in 2015 and 2016, for example,
technology and efficiency gains, it is generally
accepted that $55 per barrel is now the
decisive price, Weafer said, reminding that it
used be $63 per barrel only 12 months ago.
Urquhart-Stewart predicted that there is
still going to be more production from the
US and more coming through from Russia.
“I think that’s not going to decrease,” he said.
Regarding the Russian-backed Turkish
Stream and Nord Stream 2 pipelines,
Weafer noted that Russian President
Vladimir Putin is very committed to both
pipelines. “He takes the view that if you
build the fixed pipelines to your customers
then they will remain your customers. You
will then only ever argue over price and not
whether to take the gas or not,” Weafer said.
Despite the political rhetoric and German
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s criticism of
Russia’s role in Ukraine, Germany also wants
Nord Stream 2, Weafer said, adding that it
will greatly improve the country’s energy
security and both countries have enjoyed a
close energy relationship for the past 40 years
without any problems.
Using more gas will also allow Germany
to reduce coal consumption and that will help
the country achieve its emission targets. “I
expect Germany to ignore the criticisms from
Brussels and from its neighbours, just as it did
with Nord Stream 1, and go ahead with the
pipeline,” the partner at Macro-Advisory said.
“Also, I expect Russia to remain
committed to Turkish Stream. It makes
strategic sense for Russia to have both a major
northern and southern gas corridor. It will
help secure Russia’s market share in Europe
and, just as important, it will at least delay
the construction of any competing pipelines
from Central Asia and from Iran,” Weafer
said.
He stressed that Russia is very pragmatic
when it comes to energy deals. “It views them
as both good business and good politics. The
former because of the cash flow and the latter
because a close energy relationship can also
be used to boost other trade and investment
deals and to improve political ties,” Weafer
said.
Political disputes have never been allowed
get in the way of strategic energy deals, i.e. as
seen with Nord Stream and also the reason
why Russia and Turkey restored relations so
quickly. “I don’t see that the assassination of the
Ambassador in Ankara will change the plans for
the pipeline. Moscow sees the incident as an
action by a terrorist and could have happened
anywhere. It will not blame Turkey for the
action. It will blame IS and will take its revenge
against that group,” Weafer said.
It’s also unlikely to have a new Ukraine
gas crisis. “The circumstances no longer
exist. Ukraine is much less dependent on
Russian gas than it was in 2006 or 2009
and has managed to diversify sources. More
importantly Ukraine is now entirely reliant
on the political goodwill of the EU and would
not risk any action, for example, to disrupt gas
flows to Gazprom’s EU customers, for which
it might be blamed,” Weafer said, adding that
equally, Russia and Brussels have moved
more closely to some sort of grand deal over
gas and I cannot see the Kremlin risking a
reversal of that progress.
Urquhart-Stewart said that there would be
some geopolitical difficulties, “depending, of
course, not just the relationship with regards
to Russia and Ukraine and the Eastern states
but also because of whatever the behaviour
is coming from across the Atlantic as well. If
there is closer relationship, which I frankly not
sure I can really see, between (US Presidentelect
Donald) Trump and Russia then that
could ease the relationship somewhat but I
think the geopolitical problems coming of
Europe with Russia are still going to be very,
very difficult”.
Weafer reminded that the recent deal to
sell a 19.5% stake in Russian oil giant Rosneft
to a consortium of Glencore and the Qatar
Investment Authority plus earlier deals
involving India’s ONGC at Russia’s Vankor
field and Chinese investors at Russia’s Yamal
liquefied natural gas (LNG) project shows
that big energy deals are continuing despite
sanctions. “But it is expected that once
sanctions start to ease then we will see more
investment deals in Russia, including in the
energy sector,” Weafer said.
KGeropoulos@NEurope.eu
follow on twitter @energyinsider

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
ENERGY & CLIMATE
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-99
www.neweurope.eu
by Maroš Šefčovič
Vice-President of the European
Commission for the Energy Union.
Building the energy union
on stable foundations
BELGIUM-BRUSSELS
During the year of 2016, energy transition
in Europe stopped being a vision, a dream
or an abstract concept. It is a reality we are
in the midst of building collectively, here in
Europe and with our partners around the
world. Europe is not a just a player in this
global energy transition. Europe is a leader.
In February 2015, the European
Commission presented its communication
on the Energy Union. Back then we set out
a strong vision on how the EU should lead
the worldwide clean energy transition. We
made it very clear right from the start that
Europe has chosen its path, its objectives,
its future.
And that future is clean. We reiterated
this commitment throughout the process
of bringing the Paris Agreement into
force and now we are swiftly moving into
implementing our vision!
We're building this Energy Union
“house” on stable foundations. Over the
past 2 years, we've been constructing floor
after floor in this project. On 30 November
2016 we added the roof. The "Clean Energy
for All Europeans"-package we presented
on that day brings fundamental changes,
moving us away from centralised fossilfuel-based
systems, which were built some
100 years ago. It is a new transformational
paradigm towards de-centralised, clean
power production with consumers at the
centre-stage.
The Energy Union house is now at a
stage its residents can move in. Its residents
and owners are all Europeans who can now
start benefiting from a modern low-carbon
economy.
The "Clean Energy for All Europeans"-
package is transformational also in terms
of its impact on the economy: it will create
up to 900,000 additional jobs across the
energy sector. It will generate a 190 billion
Euros increase in GDP gains by 2030. It will
boost over 170 billion Euros in additional
investments across Europe each year.
The novelties of the package include:
We are proposing a binding energy
efficiency target of 30% at EU level. We
are laying out a regulatory framework that
will be supporting further renewables
development in the EU, spurring
innovation, keeping the engineering jobs in
Europe. We are ensuring the right of every
individual to produce renewable energy,
self-consume, store and/or sell it into the
grid and earn fair revenue from this. In an
unprecedented way, we are empowering
energy consumers.
We encourage citizens and communities
to take advantage of their new powers such
as their right to request a smart meter,
electronic billing, and electricity contracts
that contain dynamic elements.
Maroš Šefčovič, European Commission Vice President for Energy Union, speaks during a news conference on the Energy Union Strategy at the European
Commission headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, July 15, 2015.
EPA/JULIEN WARNAND
We are enticing EU Member States to gradually
phase out price regulation in order to encourage
competition, innovation and investment. This is
balanced with measures to protect consumers in
general and specifically vulnerable groups who are
more at risk of energy poverty
We are enticing EU Member States
to gradually phase out price regulation in
order to encourage competition, innovation
and investment.
This is balanced with measures
to protect consumers in general and
specifically vulnerable groups who are
more at risk of energy poverty.
Energy poverty is a growing
phenomenon in Europe. Together with the
EU Member States we can help millions of
Europeans to lower their energy bills.
We are also setting up a robust
governance system, with three main
objectives: to streamline the existing
and scattered planning, reporting and
monitoring obligations, making them more
coherent and less burdensome; to create
more transparency and predictability, also
for investors, through National Energy and
Climate Plans with a long-term vision; and
to ensure that all objectives and targets
of the Energy Union are kept under
permanent surveillance, and therefore, will
be effectively implemented.
In addition, through the "Clean Energy
for All Europeans"-package we have
also launched a "smart finance for smart
buildings" initiative, to encourage public
and private investment in energy efficiency
and in renewables. For this purpose, in
partnership with the European Investment
Bank and the EU Member States, we are
making 10 billion Euros available for
investment in buildings.
These are all big challenges with
tremendous impact on our economy, on
job creation and growth. And they are at
the core of our current actions, as part of the
Energy Union project, which I coordinate,
bringing together 14 Commissioners
and their respective policy fields such as
transport, environment, agriculture or
competition. 2016 has been a very busy
year for the Energy Union. We called it the
Year of Delivery.
Early in 2017, we will take stock of
progress and set out the course of action
for the months ahead with the second State
of the Energy Union. It will include country
specific observations and guidance to all EU
Member States on regional cooperation.
We have delivered in 2016.
But work is far from being finished.
Now all together we need to implement.
Implementation of the Energy Union is
the motto for 2017.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
ENERGY & CLIMATE
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-100
www.neweurope.eu
by Maria Spyraki
Member of the European Parliament
from Greece in the Group of the European
People's Party.
Tackling energy poverty: combining the
Juncker plan with cohesion funds
BELGIUM-BRUSSELS
Energy poverty is no new dimension to
the multiple and concurrent crises we have
been experiencing in the EU over the past
eight years.
Between 50 and 125 million people in
the EU are currently suffering from energy
poverty and are unable to afford proper
indoor thermal comfort. The households
which are mostly affected are those already
vulnerable to income poverty.
The inability of numerous households
to afford keeping warm using clean energy
during cold winters is degrading the life
quality of millions of families, causing them
serious health problems, while at the same
time the burning of inappropriate materials
deeply degrades the quality of the air we
all breathe.
According to a prevalent definition a
household is considered to be energy poor,
if it spends more than 10% of its income on
energy bills.
This definition is not inclusive enough;
families that find it impossible to cope with
high energy cost, simply decide to turn the
heating off. They just don’t spend a single
euro for heating in the winter or cool in the
summer.
But let’s assume the above 10%
definition is good enough. The “champions”
are already countries in southeastern
Europe. Bulgaria is on the top of the list,
Cyprus and Greece are following. Even by
these standards, one out of three Greek
households in 2016 were faced with energy
poverty.
Turning to 2017 discourse on energy
efficiency and the tackling of energy
poverty has finally become one of the key
debates in Brussels and the EU institutions.
Only about a month ago, on the
30th of November 2016, the European
Commission presented the winter energy
package, a bundle of legislative initiatives
for clean energy, proposing binding targets
for member states by 2030.
Indeed a major component of this
initiative is EU countries’ obligation to
improve the energy efficiency of their
buildings. The proposed EU-wide target
is 30%.
This new forward looking legislative
package constitutes a major opportunity
for all member states.
An opportunity to highlight the social
need of addressing energy poverty in
specific regions and do so by utilising a
combination of EU financial tools.
Member states can use a combination
of Multi-annual Financial Framework
funds, mainly the Regional development
Fund (ERDF),complementary resources
from the European Fund for Strategic
Investments, and private investments,
Bulgarians shout slogans and wave national flags during a protest in Sofia, Bulgaria on 03 March 2013. Reports state that tens of thousands of Bulgarians rallied
against high electricity prices and for an new political system.
EPA/VASSIL DONEV
Between 50 and 125 million people in the EU are
currently suffering from energy poverty and are
unable to afford proper indoor thermal comfort.
The households which are mostly affected are
those already vulnerable to income poverty
especially now that the energy efficiency
market for residential and public buildings
is opening up with stable and viable
prospects.
A good case study with tangible results
is the example of France: Way before the
European Commission published its latest
legislative package, France utilised 400
million euros from the European Fund for
Strategic Investments to upgrade the energy
efficiency of 6000 buildings.
The result was lower energy bills for
consumers, topped by the creation of an
additional 3000 jobs.
It’s high time we now manage the same
in my home country, Greece.
Combining funds from the European
Fund for Strategic Investments and the
Multiannual Financial Framework, through
which an energy savings plan is already
being financed, we can upgrade houses and
apartments and reduce the energy bills for
households, whilst creating thousands of
new jobs for small entrepreneurs and small
and medium enterprises.
To that end I have proposed a pilot
project that is included in the 2017 EU
budget, which aims to reduce energy
consumption and tackle energy poverty as
well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
This project has been adopted by the
European Parliament and the Council and
will be financed with 1million euro.The
project aims to provide a blueprint for
making building renovations easier as well
as increasing the energy share of renewables
in the Ionian-Adriatic MacroRegion, which
includes Greece.
By a rough estimate the goal to increase
energy efficiency by 30% will translate to
more than 40 million euros in profits for
insulation material enterprises and more
than 20 millions for those installing window
and door frames.
Add to these the potential profits that
the energy autonomy of buildings through
the installation of photovoltaics could
bring, and do the math.
Tackling energy poverty is our modernday
challenge. The fresh EU legislation, the
winter energy package, paves the way. It’s
now a task for EU governments and local
and regional authorities to take the call and
respond efficiently to a challenge that could
vastly improve the everyday life of millions
of citizens.
2017 can be the turning point.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
ENERGY & CLIMATE
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-101
www.neweurope.eu
by Nadežda Kokotović
Chief of Staff to the CEO and
Representative in Brussels NIS, Serbia.
Between competition
and responsibility
BELGIUM -BRUSSELS
The history of the oil industry has certainly
seen periods of greater volatility than those
experienced over the last couple of years,
but for today’s generation of managers the
2014-2016 oil price plunge, coupled with
other externalities, will have been one of
the most challenging times in their careers.
The challenge is all the more evident for
companies like NIS, operating in regions
that are still struggling to sustain economic
development, such as the Western Balkans.
With our headquarters in Serbia, an EU
candidate country, and operations in
every South East European country, NIS
also has to adhere to EU energy policies.
Moreover, COP21 made it clear that oil
and gas companies cannot continue to
work in the same manner as they have done
over the past century: the world expects a
proactive approach from industry to ensure
both profitability and a strong sense of
responsibility towards society and the future.
As a result, we, as industry must strive to
sustain the economies and communities
within which we operate, to inspire growth,
innovation and hope.
Today’s integrated energy companies
are often huge organisations that employ
thousands of people and provide substantial
contributions to state budgets. As such they
bear a colossal responsibility towards their
shareholders and to society. Moreover,
energy companies are the backbone of their
home and host economies, especially in
developing countries.
That is why NIS chose not to rely on the
traditional industry modus operandi when
the oil prices go down - to reduce headcount
for the sake of profitability.
The truth is that only constant
improvements and complex approaches to
problem solving can keep you adapted to
the changing environment and ensure quick
transformation and growth in challenging
circumstances. So in a situation where we
had to choose between staying competitive
and taking our responsibilities seriously, we
decided to take the road less travelled. NIS
management and employees joined together
to came up with a multifaceted, long term
programme of operational efficiency and
streamlined performance by focusing on
culture and motivation.
Our employees came up with over 2000
ideas to save money and energy, and thanks
to them 2016 was the third year in a row that
NIS managed to deliver positive results.
Most traditional oil and gas companies
were inspired by COP 21 to take action
and transform their energy holdings. We
did so back in 2011, when we established
the unit for energy efficiency, heat and
power generation, and trade. Since then
we produce one third of our electricity
Johannes Hahn (L), European Commissioner for European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations, and Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar
Vucic (R) attend a session of the Serbian Government in Belgrade, Serbia, 10 September 2016.
The truth is that only constant improvements and
complex approaches to problem solving can keep
you adapted to the changing environment and ensure
quick transformation and growth in challenging
circumstances
consumption needs and have increased our
energy efficiency by 25%. These measures
have enabled us to maintain our investments
in new projects, so that in 2017 we will
continue developing two major Serbian
projects: a wind park and a combined heat
power plant.
Further modernisation of our refinery
will also provide cleaner fuels for Balkan
citizens. This contribution to the Western
Balkans clean energy agenda is even more
important if we take a look at the regional
context.
The Balkans have a lower level of
economic development and as a result
consumption of energy per capita is 43%
lower than in the EU, while energy intensity
in the Western Balkans is 6 times higher than
that of the EU.
Serbia’s path towards EU accession has
required a massive overhaul of the local
legal system as part of the harmonization
process with the EU Acquis - and the job is
far from being over. NIS is the only company
in Serbia that has a dedicated unit following
the EU energy and environment agenda, in
Belgrade and Brussels.
With such volatile markets and a high
level of responsibility towards society,
we need to be proactive and analyse our
upcoming obligations in order to be able
to make sound business decisions. Energy
companies have to lead the way in this field
- we announced 2016 to be a year of Health,
Security and Environment and adapted
company standards beyond legal obligations.
Oil companies are not what they used to be
and that is good news.
Recently I was present at a Brussels’
conference dedicated to the Balkans where
I heard some gloomy messages and feelings
about the region’s current state of affairs.
However, we shouldn’t forget that the
Balkans hold untapped potential for business
development. Our counterparts are usually
astonished when they see that Serbia has an
Amine Treating Plant for CO₂ extraction
from natural gas, using state of the art
Carbon Capture and Storage technologies -
a rare project to find in Europe. Young Serbs
are aware of their country’s potential too.
Every year, more and more young people
want to return to Serbia after their education
in more developed countries - to see if they
can create their own success by building their
own country.
Although Serbia has enormous energy
potential, talented and creative people
are the Balkans’ competitive advantage in
shaping the future. If you cannot travel to
the Balkans, we invite you to join us at the
Balkan Trafik festival in Brussels in April
2017 and see it yourself.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
ENERGY & CLIMATE
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-102
www.neweurope.eu
by Benedek Jávor
Member of the European Parliament from
Hungary in the Group of the Greens/
European Free Alliance.
Climate change is the biggest
challenge of our times
BELGIUM -BRUSSELS
One of the biggest challenge of our times is
climate change. Clear scientific evidence and
plenty of alarming tendencies indicate that it
is accelerating beyond expectations: increasing
acid level of the oceans and their carbon storage
capacity radically reducing, soil carbon losses
mostly driven by land use change, melting
of the permafrost, decreasing carbon stock
in forests and other ecosystems, inter alia,
resulting in the release of stored carbon in the
form of carbon dioxide and methane into the
atmosphere, aggravating climate change.
Unfortunately, at present no climate models
can handle the complexity and adequately
simulate the interactions and internalise all
relevant processes. With this I am not at all
questioning the warnings from the UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
and other scientific bodies. On the contrary,
in light of the most recent developments,
if scientists have made any mistake, it was
exactly the use of too conservative assumptions
and toning down the climate alarm, without
properly calling for action. In fact, the
dimension of these changes is considerably
bigger than we expected. Hence, there is a huge
risk that we underestimate the pace of climate
change and the consequences thereof.
Some scientists warn that we have already
surpassed the carbon tipping point. At the same
time, according the UN several ecosystems
are also approaching a tipping point and if the
current trends continue, we may never see
them recover. The consequences may well be
uncontrollable, irreversible and disastrous for
our societies and nature.
Current climate, energy and biodiversity
commitments are clearly not sufficient to
handle the magnitude of the problems,
however promising the outcomes of the recent
global summits in Paris, Marrakesh as well as
in Johannesburg may seem. It is worrisome
that the nationally determined contributions
collectively lead to global emissions far above
the levels needed to maintain warming below
2°C as agreed in Paris, and the 1,5°C pathway
remains well beyond reach – even though
studies confirm the feasibility of the latter, too.
While the aspirations and intentions of
big CO2 emitters such as the USA and China
might be unclear, Europe cannot waste more
time. We should rather take the initiative and
radically speed up our own efforts. This should
be our main task in 2017.
In fact, not only our current policies, but also
the proposed climate and energy legislation are
lacking ambition. The freshly published Energy
Union Winter Package basically disregards
the Paris Agreement and would slow down
the EU’s efforts towards decarbonisation and
energy transition, especially in renewables. The
investments in renewable energy in the EU
already fall behind the US and China, the EU’s
A file photo dated 02 March 2012 shows steam and fumes emerging from the brown coal-fired power plant Niederaussem operated by RWE near Bergheim,
Germany.
EPA/OLIVER BERG
Current climate, energy and biodiversity commitments
are clearly not sufficient to handle the magnitude of
the problems, however promising the outcomes of the
recent global summits in Paris, Marrakesh as well as in
Johannesburg may seem.
intention to be the world nr.1 in this field rather
remains in the realm of political declaration,
without any content.
At the same time, the most affected, the
most vulnerable countries of Asia, Africa, the
Caribbean, the Pacific and South America
already joined the 100% renewable energy
movement. If the EU indeed wants to be the
world leader, it is time that we also take our fair
share consistent with the Paris Agreement’s
long-term goal.
We should act now – and not on the basis of
direct danger or life threat, but using common
sense and with following a clear vision of our
sustainable future.
We cannot continue with maintaining
business as usual – or even creating obstacles,
which seems to be the current trend. Subsidies
for fossil fuel or nuclear energy are one of the
biggest hurdles to overcome. Despite strong
voices calling for total elimination thereof,
the EU and its Member States keep inventing
new forms and backdoor mechanisms for
continuing this senseless and harmful support
– another aspect where the Winter Package
definitely needs to be strengthened.
Nevertheless, smarter and higher targets
alone will not save the world. The EU has to
put more emphasis on implementation and
use all the available enforcement tools such
as early warning systems, the application of a
comprehensive set of sustainability criteria for
investments and development projects as well
as the wide recognition of the energy efficiency
first principle.
It is also essential to enable local actors,
cities, communities, energy cooperatives who
have the potential and the capacity to indeed
accelerate the transition to green energy
systems and the uptake of further sustainable
solutions. And while it is crucial to take all
possible efforts to mitigate climate change,
we must also be prepared for adapting to the
inevitable changes - again especially relevant
at local level. Such adaptation strategies and
measures should comprise revisiting our
agricultural and forest management practices
as well as multiplying our nature protection
efforts. My conclusion is that the current
approach of climate alarm advocacy has failed.
Aiming for a decent compromise among EU
Member States with different backgrounds
or between climate change-believers and
negationist only leads to inaction and as a
consequence, to a complete disaster.
The current geopolitical context, the
international developments – the expansion of
populism (see Brexit or Donald Trump being
elected for US President) and aggression must
be the wake-up call for us. Decision makers in
the EU have a historical responsibility to break
current practices and achieve a step-change.
In all areas from biodiversity through
climate and energy to competition policy,
EU legislation has to be driver for global
transformation, for gearing the world towards
a future of cohesion, participatory and
transparent governance, sustainability and
well-being.
As a first step, the EU should correct its
own policies, at least by adjusting them to the
highest level of ambition we can aspire for
today. This may be seen as radicalism in the
current discourse, yet is indispensable for our
common future.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
ENERGY & CLIMATE
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-103
www.neweurope.eu
by Eickhout Bas
Member of the European Parliament
from the Netherlands in the Group of the
Greens/European Free Alliance.
Europe should adopt the 4th real
driving emissions package in 2017
Fog drifts past the power plant at the Volkswagen (VW) factory while a European Union flag hangs from a ship on the Midland canal, in Wolfsburg, Germany, 03 November 2015. Slogan on the banner on the plant's
facade reads: 'We need transperancy, openness, energy and courage. But mostly, we need: You.'
EPA/JULIAN STRATENSCHULTE
BELGIUM -BRUSSELS
Right before Christmas 2016, Europe
decided in the 3rd Real Driving Emissions
package. RDE means a shift to a more
accurate testing procedure that leaves less
room for cheating.
But cheating is still possible. And when
we say Europe, we mean the Member States
in a technical committee (TCMV in this
case), according the so-called comitology
procedure. A procedure that is proven to
have fundamental problems of transparency
and accountability.
In Euro6 legislation, it was agreed to
develop an on-the-road test, as research
made clear that laboratory tests are not at
all reflecting the emissions cars produce
when driving around on the road. This
on-the-road test is proposed in 4 packages,
where the Commission develops a proposal
with input from member states and relevant
stakeholders, mainly industry. The final
decision is made by member states. After
this, the European Parliament can still
object to the legislation.
In 2015, member states managed to
more than double the NOx emission limit
for diesel cars, a limit that was agreed in codecision
almost ten years ago. Due to a huge
One of the conclusions of the final report of the Inquiry
Committee will therefore clearly criticise the role of
expert groups in such important legislation and de facto
changing basic regulations made in co-decision
lobby - with threatening that a large amount
of jobs will disappear- an objection to this
second package by the European Parliament
did not receive sufficient support.
The 3rd package shows the same
dynamics, this time for fine particles (PN)
in petrol cars. The package allows to exceed
this PN limit by an extra 50%, weakening
again the impact of a real on-the-road test.
But not only that: by agreeing to watering
down its legislation, multiple cities will keep
on breaching EU air quality limits. It leads
to absurd situations where big European
cities like Paris - where air quality poses a
huge treat to the health of its inhabitantsgo
to the European Court of Justice against
decisions like last year's NOx limit made by
their own national governments.
These kind of decisions in technical
bodies show that member states did not
draw any lessons from Dieselgate. This was
painfully clear when the French minister for
environment Ségolène Royal, in het hearing
before the Parliaments Inquiry Committee,
accused the European Parliament of not
objecting to the 2nd RDE package, while
it was her own administration actively
lobbying and voting in favour of watering
down the NOx emission limit in the first
place.
One of the conclusions of the final
report of the Inquiry Committee will
therefore clearly criticise the role of expert
groups in such important legislation and
de facto changing basic regulations made
in co-decision.
In 2017, the RDE procedure is
supposed to be finalized with its 4rd
package, where in-service conformity tests
will be agreed. This package will be the
final test whether countries learned lessons
from dieselgate: Will they be able to agree
on surprise - not predetermined- tests as
part of the in-service conformity, or are
they going to agree on fully pre-scribed
tests where car manufacturers know
exactly what they can expect once cars are
tested in service? In 2017, Member States
can really show if they take the health of
their citizens more serious than false car
lobby arguments.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
ENERGY & CLIMATE
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-104
www.neweurope.eu
European gas market:
by Konstantin Simonov
General Director, National Energy
Security Fund.
The Russians are coming!
RUSSIA-MOSCOW
The gas market of the European Union that
remains the main destination for Gazprom
gas exports has been growing for the second
year in a row. Despite continuing decline in
domestic production in the EU-28, a 4% rise
in the demand for natural gas in 2015 had been
the first after a four-year depression. In 2016
gas consumption is expected to add some 4%
to 6% and reach approximately 445 bcm to
450 bcm. There is a number of factors that
contribute to restoration of the gas demand,
including significant decline in wholesale gas
prices following reduction in oil prices, colder
weather and measures limiting the use of coal
in electrical energy production in some EU
member-states.
Nevertheless, the gas market has not
restored its previous size; it is smaller than it
was in 2013, let alone the peak level in 2010
when the EU used 20% more gas than the
expected 2016 result.
Growth in the demand was accompanied
by stronger decline in domestic gas output in
the EU that fell by 30 bcm from 2013 to 2015.
The main reason was the plummeting output
in the Netherland at small deposits, as well
as at Groningen that is the only giant field in
continental Europe.
The tendency continued in 2016. The
EU natural gas output eased back 5% (3.5
bcm) in January to June. Gas production in
the Netherlands dropped by approximately
2.5 bcm; Germany, France and Romania
lost some 600 to 800 mcm. However, it was
partially compensated by the launch of a new
offshore block in Ireland that added 1.1 bcm
to the output in this country in the first six
months of 2016. However, the Irish effect is
not significant and long-term on the EU scale;
the launched deposit has already reached its
maximal level of 2 bcm per year, and it will
enter the declining production stage in 2018.
In 2016 the demand for gas imports in the
EU continued. In the first 11 months of this
year EU member states imported over 321
bcm, which exceeds the result of 12 months
in 2015. Compared to the same period in
2015, the increase was 32 bcm, including
19 bcm contributed by Russia (the increase
in net imports of Russian gas was higher,
because reverse supplies to Ukraine somewhat
retreated year-on-year) and 10 bcm by Algeria.
LNG imports went up by only 3.5 bcm, despite
increase in production at Australian LNG
plants and the beginning of LNG exports
by the USA (the first project in the Gulf of
Mexico). Lower prices of liquefied natural
gas in Europe did not attract LNG suppliers
that preferred shipping their produce to South
America, the Middle East and Asia. Norway
expanded gas exports to the EU just by 1 bcm.
In 2016 Gazprom is expected to have
record high exports to the EU – more than
150 bcm, which corresponds to its maximal
A worker walks next to the gas-compressor station in Mryn village, about 130 km of Kiev, Ukraine,
October 15, 2015. The growing demand for Russian gas in Europe significantly increased physical
quantities of transit via Ukraine to Europe and Turkey in 2016.
EPA/ROMAN PILIPEY
The gas market of
the European Union
that remains the
main destination
for Gazprom gas
exports has been
growing for the
second year in a row.
contractual obligations on annual supplies to
European markets.
But there is still one very important issue
– future transport routes. Ukraine is still a
problem. There is a conjuncture risk posed
for Russian gas transit via Ukraine in addition
to small reserves in UGS, the refusal to buy
gas from Gazprom, numerous legal restrictions
like introduction of sanctions, illegal decisions
of antimonopoly authorities on penalizing
the Russian concern by $3.4bn for abusing
its monopolistic position in the sphere of
gas transit via Ukraine that Ukrainian courts
increased to $6.6bn, as well as restructuring
of Naftogaz of Ukraine that is responsible for
implementing the current transit contract, to
meet the EU requirements on separation of
spheres of business. The growing demand for
Russian gas in Europe significantly increased
physical quantities of transit via Ukraine to
Europe and Turkey in 2016. In the first 11
months the advance was 13.6 bcm, which
generated about $400m in additional transit
revenues to Naftogaz and strengthened
Europe’s dependence on Ukrainian transit
from 40% in 2015 to 43% in 2016, according
to our preliminary estimations.
Meanwhile, other routes of gas supplies to
the European market operate at their maximal
technical (Yamal-Europe) and regulatory
(Nord Stream) capacity. Moreover, before
this heating season the European Commission
approved an agreement suggested by the
German gas network regulator Bundesnetz on
settling the problem of Gazprom’s restricted
access to OPAL. In the previous five years
Gazprom had been permitted to utilize only
50% of OPAL capacity, although there is no
other supplier, except Gazprom, that wants to
use this branch pipeline.
According to agreements, 50% of the
transit capacity is reserved exclusively for
Gazprom within the exception from the
Third Energy Package (TEP) rules; the
other 50% is to be distributed at auctions.
However, now Gazprom has the right to take
part in such auctions and book up to 40% of
the capacity. The remaining 10% is left for
some hypothetical third entities. It will enable
Gazprom to increase gas transmission through
the Nord Stream and OPAL by 10 to 12 bcm
next year. Ukraine’s gas transmission system,
built largely in the Soviet time, is operating
close to its maximal technical capacity.
Transit routes of the central corridor lead to
Slovakia, Hungary and Poland. In October
to November 2016 some 6 bcm per month
was transported in this direction. In reality it
was 4.5 bcm, because 1.5 bcm per month was
supplied in the reverse mode from Slovakia,
Hungary and Poland reducing the real transit
load on the system, because part of transit gas
is consumed in the country, and the amount
taken is offset on the border by reverse supplies.
It means there is almost no capacity left either
to increase Russian gas supplies to Europe,
excluding the Trans-Balkan route that will be
described later, or to act as some backup in
case of technical problems at one of the routes.
About 10 bcm to 12 bcm of Nord Stream
capacity that will be used next year account
for just 8% of the whole transmission flow to
the EU. Besides, the current transit contract
with Ukraine expires in 2020; its prolongation
is hardly possible on acceptable conditions,
and, secondly, the Ukrainian GTS, considering
its age, requires substantial investments in its
modernization and renovation to ensure its
reliability in the long-term. Given that the
transit flow to Central Europe remains at 60
bcm per year, we estimate such investments at
$10bn to $12bn, which is comparable to the
costs of laying the Nord Stream-2.
The number of active opponents of the
project has significantly reduced lately. The
campaign staged by representatives of the
US administration has weakened due to the
presidential elections in the USA. Besides,
Gazprom managed to agree with Slovakia that
can suffer more than any other country from
suspension or reduction in gas transit through
Ukraine. Slovakia’s GTS will be used (fully or
partially in the reverse mode) to pump gas
from Nord Stream-2 to Baumgarten in Austria,
as well as to Hungary and Serbia. Opponents
in the European Commission, including
Vice-President for the Energy Union Maros
Sefcovic, have admitted that Nord Stream-2 is
a commercial project that can be implemented
in compliance with the European law. It is
Poland and Ukraine that currently oppose
this project rigidly; they agreed to jointly
resist plans of laying two new lines in the
Baltic Sea. However, problems with domestic
gas output in Europe, the growing demand
for gas imports, obvious competitiveness of
Russian gas and constant instability around
supplies through Ukraine strengthen positions
of those promoting the project.
Another project aimed at minimization of
Ukrainian transit risks for Russia is the Turkish
Stream. Over the past year it has gone through
radial changes from indefinite suspension
caused by the downing of a Russian bomber
by Turkey to the singing and ratification
of an intergovernmental agreement on its
construction and obtaining all the permits
from Ankara within several months after
normalization of Russia-Turkey interaction.
Moreover, Gazprom’s subsidiary South Stream
BV signed a contract with Allseas on laying
the first line of the gas pipeline from Russia
to Turkey through the Black Sea in H1 2017
and an option to build the second line. South
Stream was originally established to build the
sea section of the South Stream; in the past it
bought pipes for the sea section and sealed a
contract on laying them with Italy’s Saipem.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE NEXT GENERATIONS
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-106
www.neweurope.eu
by Caroline Jenner
CEO of JA Europe, Europe’s largest
provider of entrepreneurship education
programmes.
How would Europe score on a
“Future preparedness” index?
Youth unemployment in Europe. Spanish youths demonstrate against the policies in their home country in front of Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Germany, 03 July 2013.
EPA/WOLFGANG KUMM
BELGIUM -BRUSSELS
The OECD and World Economic Forum are
both looking at how nations and economies
stack up for “future preparedness”. How we
treat our human capital, most especially our
young people, is a key measure of this.
With all the noise around trade
agreements, elections and Brexit, it’s easy
to lose sight of the youth unemployment
statistics. But they are not going away. The
average in Europe in October 2016 was
around 20%.
In Spain, it rose to 43% and 46%
in Greece. Instruments like the Youth
Guarantee are important, but they must
be followed up by policy reforms. Young
people are on the front line when crisis hits
the labour market and we cannot pretend
that this is a temporary problem. Investing
in them has stay top priority.
It is therefore fair that our educational
systems are on the hot seat. This is our main
human capital pipeline and it’s struggling
to deliver. But education is a collective
responsibility: we have to take a hard look
at what all of us should be doing differently.
The welfare of our communities depends on
how well people and organisations can adapt
to our fast-changing environment. Let’s not
forget that the younger generation is also
a key source of knowledge and experience
when it comes to digital skills, social media
It is therefore fair that our educational systems are on
the hot seat. This is our main human capital pipeline
and it’s struggling to deliver. But education is a collective
responsibility: we have to take a hard look at what all of
us should be doing differently.
and the use of new technologies in general.
We can’t lose them to unemployment and
we must encourage more of them to start
their own ventures. New business creation
is a big part of the employment solution.
Responsibility falls on each of us to take
care of the future. Improving employability
as well as fostering entrepreneurship and
innovation have to be front and centre in
our education strategies.
It is refreshing to me to observe how
many seem to understand the urgency.
There is more and more willingness
among stakeholder groups to reach out
across traditional sector lines (private vs
public) and more intergenerational, reverse
mentoring efforts. Success is going to be
driven by innovative partnerships and
creative collaborations. This is critical to
managing shifts in education. One might be
thinking that there are too many coalitions
and alliances out there—but this is necessary.
The best of them will last and they will make
a difference. The more business (large and
small, including social enterprises) works
hand in hand with education at all (age)
levels, the fewer skills gaps we will have and
the more we will learn about how the other
half works.
For example, business-education
partnerships are no longer limited to postsecondary
education. More and more
schools are leveraging mentors and experts
from outside the classroom from all kinds of
organisations, including SMEs. Working this
way exposes young people to diverse careers,
helps them understand the relevance of their
studies and how they can apply knowledge
in different ways. It’s an important pathway
to more innovation and value creation
down the road. The role of “educator” is
evolving. How much we invest in training
our educators and how many of them have
been trained also has to be a key item on our
list of future preparedness indicators.
We need more entrepreneurial teachers,
entrepreneurial employees and, yes, more
entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship is better
and better understood as a key competence,
but no European Member State has yet
mainstreamed entrepreneurship education.
Only 11 Member States have made it a top
priority in their national education strategy
(Eurydice, 2015). Another preparedness
indicator, in my view.
“The best way to predict the future is to
create it,” once said Peter Drucker.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE NEXT GENERATIONS
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-107
www.neweurope.eu
Europe's future is its youth
by Tibor Navracsics
European Commissioner for Education,
Culture, Youth and Sport.
BELGIUM -BRUSSELS
In 2017, we will celebrate the 60th anniversary
of the signature of the Treaty of Rome. This
will be a moment to mark what we Europeans
have achieved together, to appreciate the
peace, stability and prosperity we have built.
But it will also be a moment to be very
clear that we can take none of this for granted.
That we need to reaffirm and strengthen the
values we share, our openness to create mutual
understanding and respect through dialogue.
Today, more than ever, we need to work
hard to build a society where no one is left
behind, where people wish to contribute
and where they have the opportunity to do
so. This requires understanding as well as
living common values and having a set of
social, civic and intercultural competencies.
Education and other forms of learning are key
to achieving this.
Since the Treaty of Rome was signed, our
efforts to bring our countries and peoples
together have been many. But the Erasmus
programme, which will be thirty years old
in 2017, is recognised as one of the most
successful. It is the EU flagship initiative - one
that makes it possible for people, especially
young people, to experience first-hand what
being European can mean.
Erasmus has flourished since its creation.
What started as a mobility scheme for
higher education students now provides
opportunities for millions to study, train,
teach or volunteer all across the continent
and even beyond.
Over the past 30 years, the programme has
given five million people a chance to expand
their horizons by learning from and with
each other. Today’s Erasmus+ programme is
bigger, more open and more supportive than
any of its predecessors.
We know from empirical evidence that
a stay abroad boosts people’s skills. Young
people return to their home countries more
confident and in a better position to solve
problems and adapt to different situations
– the kinds of skills that 93% of employers
are looking for when recruiting. By giving
young people opportunities and also by
supporting education, training and youth
systems to become more relevant to the needs
of society and the job market, Erasmus has
been making a major contribution to youth
employability and enabling young people to
live independent, fulfilling lives.
In 2017, we will not only celebrate what
Erasmus has done for the skills of individual
citizens and the performance of educational
institutions for 30 years. We will also -
and perhaps more importantly - celebrate
the role it has had in creating a European
identity. An identity that does not replace,
but complement and enrich our other,
national, regional, local, ethnic, cultural,
identities. Because all the connections and
Members of the Jusos, the youth organization of Germany's Social Democratic Party (SPD), and the Gruene Jugend (Green Youth) have gathered for a rally
entitled 'Europe has a future' in Berlin, Germany, 24 June 2016. Britons in a referendum on 23 June have voted by a narrow margin to leave the European Union
(EU). Media reports on early 24 June indicate that 51.9 per cent voted in favour of leaving the EU while 48.1 per cent voted for remaining in.
EPA/KAY NIETFELD
Scene
Since the Treaty of Rome was signed, our efforts to bring
our countries and peoples together have been many. But
the Erasmus programme, which will be thirty years old in
2017, is recognised as one of the most successful. It is the EU
flagship initiative - one that makes it possible for people,
especially young people, to experience first-hand what
being European can mean
exchanges that Erasmus makes possible help
us appreciate what differentiates us – and what
we have in common.
Volunteering is a great example of this.
Over the past 20 years, the European Voluntary
Service, part of the Erasmus programme, has
enabled 100,000 young people to volunteer
abroad, engaging with individuals, helping
communities in need. 85% of participants
in the European Voluntary Service say that it
has made them aware of common European
values. This is the solidarity that Europe needs
- especially given the big challenges we face
today, the forces that tear at our social fabric
and the temptation to retreat and isolate
ourselves.
More than ever, we need to work together,
to cherish our values and to build strong, open
communities. Young people have a critical
role in this. This is why I want to offer young
people more opportunities to volunteer and
put their sense of solidarity into practice.
With the European Solidarity Corps,
which will largely build on the European
Voluntary Service, I want to send a clear
signal. I want to highlight our young people's
capacity to play an active role in helping to
tackle the challenges we face.
Young volunteers will have the possibility
to get involved in a broad range of activities,
including helping to prevent - or give a
long-term response to - natural disasters or
providing support for people in need, such
as refugees.
Our goal is to have 100 000 young people
signed up by 2020, who would be deployed
with local and national authorities, NGOs
or businesses that are engaged in solidarityrelated
activities. In a safe, stimulating
and empowering environment, they will
gain experiences, develop their skills and
competences and serve a cause which is dear
to their heart. What they learn here will be
valuable assets for them when applying for a
job or going further in their studies.
The aim is to deploy the first European
Solidarity Corps participants before summer
2017, and I am proud that EU citizens can
count on Erasmus+ for this effort.
The 30th anniversary of Erasmus provides
an excellent opportunity to reflect on how
Europeans have enriched their lives by coming
together. At the same time, this anniversary
offers the occasion to take this programme to
the next level: I want to strengthen Erasmus
further so that it can support even more
people from a wider range of backgrounds.
Because I believe that this is the best way
of enabling young people to build a better
Europe for the future.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE NEXT GENERATIONS
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-108
www.neweurope.eu
Global challenges for
by Jacobo Pombo García
President of the Global Youth Leadership
Forum (Spain).
the world in 2017
SPAIN - SANTANDER
If I had to search for a word to define the
main characteristic of the world in this early
2017, I consider that the most indicated
would be: change. We live in complex
moments where the uncertainty and
dizziness of change are conditioning the
whole aspects of our political, economic
and social coexistence.
The XXI Century comes across
with a globalization process that,
joined to the exponential technological
development, modified the norms that
ruled our coexistence forever. Change is the
fundamental factor that characterizes our
existence with a high dose of uncertainty
that blears our future perspectives.
For this reason, I consider fundamental
that the international community should
understand the need to rethink the main
issues of coexistence and governance
in order to respond to the complex
citizens demands that we face. We must
work together to implement a model
of development based on international
cooperation and the equal development
of our nations (with the logical differences
and specificities) if we want to generate the
framework of coexistence and development
that our citizens demand.
After the global financial collapse that
shocked the world in 2008 and made us
suffer the worst economic crisis since
the crack in 1929, we all understood that
the challenges we would face from that
moment, would be global and the answers
extremely complex.
Many issues have been called it in to
question or threatened. Issues like the
expansion of the globalization process,
the risks that the democratic systems
are facing, climate change, technological
development or young´s people role in
a hyper-competitive society that many
times is not able to give response to their
demands.
That´s why, and with the conviction of
answering the complex challenges that will
face in the coming years, the Global Youth
Leadership Forum (GYLF) started, a forum
to debate and discuss where young leaders,
under 40´s, with important responsibilities
in their countries, could debate with global
personalities from a number of about key
challenges that our societies will have to
deal with in the next few years and try to
anticipate the answers.
Issues like the exponential impact that
new techs have in our lives, the political
uncertainty that rules the world, the
framework of economic relations between
states, the unstoppable migratory flow,
the threat of global warming or the future
of a generation (more than 350 million
young people all over the world who are
US President-elect Donald Trump reacts during the first stop of his 'USA Thank You Tour 2016' rally at US Bank Arena in Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, 01
December 2016.
After the global financial
collapse that shocked the world
in 2008 and made us suffer the
worst economic crisis since the
crack in 1929, we all understood
that the challenges we would
face from that moment, would
be global and the answers
extremely complex
unemployed) will determine the political,
economic and social model, that will reign
the world in the coming decades in a
definitive way.
2016 can be considered a clear
example of the uncertainty climate and
political polarization in the planet: the
electoral outcome in the United States, the
referendums in Colombia and the United
Kingdom (Brexit), or the growing upsurge
of populism and nationalism in the EU
gives a good example of this.
This 2017, the EU will face several
challenges that will be decisive for the
reconfiguration of the common political
union.
The political response to the Brexit
(traumatic and still to be defined), the
electoral outcomes in several member states
(where radical and anti-European options
strongly emerging), the economic recovery
process , the relations framework with the
United States after Republican candidates
Donald Trump´s victory, the response
to the threat to international security
made by Islamic jihadist terrorism or the
definition of a new common defense policy
(an abandoned issue for years) will be key
to consolidate the strong and cohesive
European Union that we all wish.
Apart from that, The United States it´s
in a critical moment of its history, after
Republican candidate Donald Trump´s
victory, in the most polarized election ever
remembered, the political climate has been
strained to levels hard to understand in one
of the countries with the most established
democratic system of our planet.
The tough messages send out during
the campaign affected all sectors and areas
of American life. Geopolitics, economics,
migration, climate change or security were
called into question by the next White
House tenant who promised to reconfigure
Washington's traditional policies on many
of those issues. However, I trust in the
moderation of government’s action, and
the influence that the traditional system of
weights and counterweights that rules US
policy, works to generate a stable, moderate
political framework, following the principle
of cooperation and mutual benefit objective
as the inalienable objective of the top
political and economic power of our world.
That´s why it’s essential to promote
young leaders, prepared and responsible,
aware of a peaceful and equitable
development of our planet, whom
understand the complexity of the historical
moment that we are living and seek for
cooperation, understanding and mutual
benefit as a way to generate the best
development model for our nations.
We have the biggest and most prepared
young generation of our history and we
need them to become global change actors.
Their knowledge and living experiences are
essential to promote in an effective way the
answers to the challenges that our planet
has.
It will be essential that in this
transcendental task cooperates with other
more experienced actors to strengthen the
bases of that planet that we are wishing
and take advantage of a whole universe of
opportunities that opens in front of us.
This is the philosophy of the Global
Youth Leadership Forum and I am
convinced that we all will succeed.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE NEXT GENERATIONS
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-109
www.neweurope.eu
by Andrianos Giannou
Vice-president of the Youth of
the European People's Party and
international secretary of the youth
organization of the National Liberal
Party of Romania. Co-founder of
Transatlantic Youth Summit (2014).
ROMANIA-BUCHAREST
2016 saw warning shots turn into blasts
that threaten to torpedo the foundations
of the global liberal order. We bid farewell
to business as usual: outliers became the
norm. Worldwide, the assumption that
liberalism and openness will naturally fill
the normative vacuum left open by the
collapse of Cold War moral certainty, which
was based on bipolarity, was dealt a heavy
blow: a sense of disorder and confusion,
exacerbated by economic gloom and
insecurity about the future, turned into
dislocation, angst and pessimism, which is
what populism feeds on. There are simply
too few convincing answers coming from
the moderate side to an overflow of valid
questions. Populists have not reinvented
the wheel: in the absence of a persuasive
alternative at our end, voters chose a
return to the past, that is protectionism,
however ineloquent or implausible the
offer. In the European continent, the
dominant analytical concept of multispeed
or differentiated integration and
the contextual framework of multiple
concurrent crises was substituted, I believe,
by a new reality, that of a multidirectional
European Union: there seems to be no
consensus on what the way forward is; it is
not about the pace of integration any more:
member states pulled in different directions
more than ever in 2016.
What is the role of our political family
in this context? There is an attempt
to recast politics as a battle between a
broken establishment on the one hand
and excluded citizens on the other.
Mainstream forces have been drifting
between technocratic myopia, an out-oftouch
insistence on carrying on, and a sense
of inability to effectuate change, a loss of
control. The danger is to turn introvert and
be consumed by endless debates over past
glory and history or try to play others at
their game. We must have the audacity to
be realistic: we must not follow the road
of populists but we must understand the
worries of those who want to follow their
path. The fight is within and we must be
forward-looking: we will be judged less by
identity or ideology, which rings hollow
especially among younger generations
that have not experienced the forces that
shaped post-WWII Europe, and more so
by the answers we can put together. It is
solutions we will have to provide: answers
to those big questions our electorates
have been demanding for some time now;
questions about the future of industry and
investment (how to return to growth),
the future of labour (automation and
technological advancement as a challenge
Rolling-up our sleeves: the
centre-right in 2017 and beyond
German Chancellor Angela Merkel speaks at the German-French conference on digitalisation in the economy and society, at the German Economy Ministry in
Berlin, Germany, 13 December 2016.
EPA/BERND VON JUTRCZENKA
International trade has been
our mantra for decades: those
left behind do not see its value
anymore. It is our job to spread
the benefits of openness and
provide a new, inclusive economic
model around digitalisation
and an opportunity for the labour force, as
well as demographic realities), the future
of human mobility (migration and the
refugee crisis). I do believe that at the centre
of insecurity sits unemployment, even for
those currently employed: will I have a job
tomorrow? Will a migrant take my job? Will
a robot take my job or my children’s, ten
years down the road?
We will have to protect and defend but
also empower and inspire. To do that, we
will need to listen more and explain more,
speak the truth, however hard it is, and do
our homework; we have to get our narrative
right. A new economic narrative based on
the common language of economic growth.
International trade has been our mantra for
decades: those left behind do not see its value
anymore. It is our job to spread the benefits
of openness and provide a new, inclusive
economic model around digitalisation. We
will have to create the conditions to enable
the champions of digitalisation to prosper
and take innovation further, but also create
deliverable solutions to help those who are
left behind, those who feel insecure about
what the future has in stock. We have to
include them in this great technological
transformation. We will have to manage and
lead change. To do so, we will have to have a
coordinated message between national and
European actors among our family: effectively
repeat a well-thought, well-defined message,
use successful examples, especially at the
local level. Community leaders are often
the providers of those services that affect a
citizen’s daily life the most and we have plenty
of local champions among our ranks we could
utilise. We will also have to understand that
we are not in the driving seat anymore: more
often that not, it is the private sector that
drives change.
Working with business to deliver inclusive
growth will have to be our priority. We will
have to get the current rebalancing of the
relationship between the public and the
private sectors right: we must be careful not
to stifle innovation; business will have to
understand that the benefits of their success
will also have to be shared by the community,
that caring for the community pays off, that
it pays to pay taxes: profit-shifting or superprofits
at a time of stagnant wages will become
increasingly difficult for anybody to defend.
The fight to defend the centre-right is
not a fight to defend the establishment: it is
a fight against the politics of extremism and
polarisation, it is a fight against exclusion
and disadvantage, it is a fight for dignity,
for opportunities, for growth and decent
wages, it is a fight for inclusion, it is a fight
to alleviate hardship in an unjust world, it
is a fight for our shared destiny, it is a fight
for the truth. We will have to persuade again
that we are part of the solution and not of
the problem. For this, it cannot be business
as usual.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE NEXT GENERATIONS
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-110
www.neweurope.eu
by Spyridon Flogaitis
A Greek lawyer, jurist and academic,
who is currently professor of public law at
the University of Athens and Director of
the European Public Law Organization
(EPLO). He is founder and editor of
numerous legal journals and judge in
international Tribunals.
The only path to successful European
integration is through the proper education
and training of the youth of Europe
GREECE - ATHENS
The EPLO was founded on the mission
to promote European values through
public law and Governance in a dialogue
of civilizations. It aims to develop a
new generation of scientists and legal
practitioners with a different mindset, and
a European perception of things rather than
a purely national one.
We impart this perspective to societies
around the globe, and we are honored that
many states from distant parts of the world
seek and benefit from our expertise. We
have already supported specific reforms,
aided institution building, and conducted
training programs for judges, prosecutors,
and civil servants in many countries.
Through our educational activities for
young and advanced scientists we have built
important intellectual capital that enables
us to effectively serve the member states of
the organization and provide expertise on
a range of issues.
A key priority of the organization, and
one that we are proud of, is our focus on
Central and Eastern European countries.
Some of the new EU Member States of
this region, such as Hungary and Romania,
need our assistance with their legal and
public administration reforms, while other
pre-accession countries such as Ukraine,
Serbia, Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Albania, all of which are already members
of our international Organization, need
help to reform their institutions as they
adopt the EU acquis and become part of
our common European future.
But the EPLO’s reach goes far beyond
this region and extends to the Black Sea,
Caucasus, and Western Asia. Georgia,
Azerbaijan and Armenia -also member
states of the EPLO- have shown great
interest in European law and governance.
Meanwhile the Organization works in
other countries that are not Members of
the EPLO or of the European Union, such
as Russia, Turkey, Belarus, Thailand, etc.
In these countries we provide support for
the modernization of their institutions and
legislation, making available for them our
human capital of over 250 leading figures in
European Law from Europe and around the
world, which also comprises our scientific
board.
We, at the European Public Law
Organization go a step further and promote
a Europe of another quality, a Europe which
will not only examine how to address the
unresolved problems of the Second World
War, but which will nourish leaders within
the EU to develop the mentality of a
European citizen.
A European Union's flies flag in front of the European Council building in Strasbourg, France.
Our goal is to create a new generation
of truly European- in culture and in
training- scientists who will undertake
tomorrow the fate of this beautiful
edifice called the united Europe and
who by promoting unity, will forge a
new, truly pan-European community
which is democratic, fair and beyond
nationalisms, with respect to diversity
That is why we took the initiative as an
international organization for the creation
of the European Law & Governance School
which has started this year its operations
in Athens.
Our goal is to create a new generation of
truly European- in culture and in trainingscientists
who will undertake tomorrow the
fate of this beautiful edifice called the united
Europe and who by promoting unity, will forge
a new, truly pan-European community which
is democratic, fair and beyond nationalisms,
with respect to diversity.
The idea of the School was conceived by
Professor Giuliano Amato, constitutional
judge, Former Prime Minister of Italy, and
member of the Board of Directors of the
EPLO. In 2008 the “Group of Rome” was
constituted around him and comprised
of the most esteemed professors and
practitioners.
The School was announced at the
European Parliament on March 27, 2013
and its program was officially presented
at the Presidential Palace of the Italian
Republic “Il Quirinale”, on May 18, 2016
in the presence of H.E. The President
of the Italian Republic Professor Sergio
Mattarella.
The European Law and Governance
School (www.elgs.eu) is founded upon
the belief that the European Union plays
a crucial role in ensuring global stability,
promoting democracy, and the overall
progress of mankind, and that the core
values of the European Union must be
upheld while it strives for better integration.
The ELGS also believes that the key source
of hope and the only path to successful
integration is through the proper education
and training of the youth of Europe.
Thus, our vision is to create a generation
of youth that will identify themselves as
Europeans, that will serve Europe, and
that will disseminate the idea, culture and
values of Europe throughout the world. At
EPA/PATRICK SEEGER
the same time the School aims to create a
new generation of specialists in European
law and/or Governance around the world,
people who will have all the needed
education to deal with the European Union,
its institutions and peoples.
The ELGS is a product of the
internationalization of education and
provides interdisciplinary undergraduate
and postgraduate courses that have been
designed by academics and practitioners
from throughout the world, and guarantees
that students will graduate with a European
and Global perspective.
The 100 member-strong international
faculty network that supports the School
through teaching and research enables
students to have great flexibility in their
independent research pursuits including
the ability to work in every language. The
School’s partnerships with 30 universities
and institutions across 20 countries
provides students with study abroad
options and internship opportunities, thus
ensuring that students develop cultural
awareness, linguistic skills, transversal
skills and ties to the marketplace, which
are essential in these times of globalization.
Globalization has not lived up to its
promise, but it is still in its early phases of
development. The EPLO participates actively
in this process through the instrument of
dialogue and believes in a form of globalization
that is beneficial to all and rooted in democracy,
transparency, rule of law & respect for human
rights. Globalization should take into account
the particularities of each culture, and these
particularities should not be considered as
differences, but as the most valuable elements
of world heritage.

In association with
This project has received funding from the European
Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research,
Technological Development and Demonstration under
Grant Agreement No. 613308, 1.1.2014 - 31.12.2016

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE ROLE OF MEDIA IN VIOLENT CONFLICT
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-112
www.neweurope.eu
by Gadi Wolfsfeld
Ph.D. Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya,
Israel.
The role of the media in violent
conflicts in the digital age
ISRAEL-HERZLIYA
One of the more significant questions in
the field of political communication today
concerns how the role of the media in violent
conflicts may have changed in the digital age. It
is impossible to ignore the fact that the Internet
and especially the social media appear to play
a major role in some of the most significant
events of the last decade. Prominent examples
include the Arab Spring, the ongoing civil war
in Syria, and the debate in the United States
about the police killings if African-Americans.
It is clear that both researchers and policy
makers need a better understanding of this new
reality. All forms of media have the potential
to play either a destructive or constructive role
in such conflicts.
This is one of the topics being examined
under the framework of “INFORCORE”
which is a collaborative research project with
researchers from seven different countries
and funded by the 7th European Framework
Program of the EU. The major goal of the
project is to investigate the role of the media
in escalating and de-escalating conflict in three
main conflict regions: The Middle East, The
West Balkans, and The African Great Lakes
area. While this research produced a very
rich set of data and findings this essay will
focus specifically on two major findings that
relate to changes brought about by the dawn
of the digital age. The first finding has to do
with the increasing difficulty authorities
face in attempting to control the flow of
information and images concerning violent
conflicts. Just the fact that citizens are now
able to use their phones to record and
upload events that happen during violent
confrontations has made it more difficult for
abuses by security forces to be kept under
wraps. Interviews with both Palestinian and
Israeli political leaders on this topic were
especially revealing. Palestinians depend on
the new media as a major tool for bringing
what they see as unjustified killings to the
world’s attention. More generally, the fact
that every problematic action on the part of
the security forces around the world has the
potential of being recorded leads in some
cases to a certain restraint in the use of force.
This suggests that one of the more positive
consequences of the digital age is that the
media can sometimes provide a certain
amount of protection to the weaker side in
such conflicts.
This does not mean however that such
changes necessarily increase the chances for
conflict resolution. Consider for example the
case of the Syrian Civil War. Despite a flood
of horrific images which have been uploaded
to the Internet and the enormous cost in terms
of civilian lives, the international community
has be unwilling to devote sufficient resources
to bring about an end to the suffering. Placing
Germany's Justice Minister Heiko Maas (L) and European Union's Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, Vera Jourova (R), speak on
the possibilities for fighting hate crimes on the Internet at the Conference on Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression in the Federal Ministry for Justice and
Consumer Protection in Berlin, Germany, 26 September 2016.
EPA/BERND VON JUTRCZENKA
an issue on the international agenda does not
necessarily solve the problem.
The second research finding has to do with
the issue of whether the advent of the Internet
has in any way led to the media playing to play
a more constructive role in attempts at conflict
resolution. Previous research on the role of
the traditional media in this area has been
extremely discouraging.
It suggested that there was an inherent
contradiction between the “needs” of news and
what is required for a successful peace process.
A peace process requires patience and the news
media demand immediacy. A peace process
requires a calm environment and the news
media focus almost exclusively on violence,
a peace process requires at least a minimal
understanding of the other side’s perspective,
and the news is inherently ethnocentric.
Digital optimists may have hoped that the
Internet would have made a positive change
in this area. Perhaps the potential for citizens
embroiled in conflict gaining access to a
less ethnocentric set of information and
images might have contributed to a political
environment that was more conducive for
reconciliation among antagonists.
Unfortunately, the findings from our study
lead us to exactly the opposite conclusion.
The Internet and especially the social media
are a much more effective tool for spreading
hate and violence than for tolerance and
reconciliation. The adage “if it bleeds, it
leads” is just as true for the new media as it
always was for the traditional media. As a
way of demonstrating this point consider the
likelihood of two competing images going
viral. One contains a video of an ISIS militant
decapitating a prisoner and the other a report
about peace negotiations going on behind
closed doors. It is the nature of almost all
audiences to be fascinated by violence and this
has a major impact on what they are willing
to “share”.
Are there any policies that might improve
this problematic situation? One controversial
suggestion is to no longer permit people to
remain anonymous when making posts. People
will be reluctant to engage in hate speech and
death threats if they can be identified. While
it will obviously be impossible to completely
enforce such a policy it should be adopted
by the major social media platforms. A
second recommendation is in keeping with
discussions currently going on in Europe and
North America. The leading social platforms
have an obligation to better regulate the flow
of hate speech and incitement. Here too, the
more extremist elements in the world will
always find a way around such regulations.
But lives depend on our ability to better control
the massive spread of hate that has become a
major part of the digital world. So as with
every technological innovation in the field of
communication the Internet has the potential
to be used for both good and evil. It is up to
the international community to increase the
incentives for those forms of media to play
a more positive role and punitive measures
towards those whose intentions are destructive.
The Internet and
especially the social
media are a much
more effective tool
for spreading hate
and violence than
for tolerance and
reconciliation. The
adage “if it bleeds, it
leads” is just as true
for the new media as
it always was for the
traditional media

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE ROLE OF MEDIA IN VIOLENT CONFLICT
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-113
www.neweurope.eu
by Dr. Dimitra Dimitrakopoulou
Assistant Professor, School of Journalism and
Mass Communication, Aristotle University
of Thessaloniki – Principal Investigator FP7
EU-Project INFOCORE & Leader of WP5
“Social Media”, Hellenic Foundation for
European & Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP),
Athens, Greece.
Why study social media in
conflict-ridden societies
GREECE-ATHENS
Social media are transforming the way people
transmit and share information, while at the
same time they provide the tools for building
innovative structures of organization and
mobilization of different actors. These
sweeping shifts have intensified the discussion
on their actual role in contemporary conflictburden
societies, especially after their role in
Iran (2009), Tunisia (2010), Egypt (2011)
and the following so-called ‘Arab Spring’
movements. The changing dynamics between
political actors, journalists and citizens, mainly
through the Web 2.0 platforms, have stimulated
several claims for the transformation of their
relations as well as for the facilitation of
new forms of political participation. While
their actual impact on the transformation
of politics remains widely debatable, the
unquestionable massive popularity of social
networks in conflict-ridden societies and the
profound changes in the flow of information
across online social media are challenging the
timeliness of mediated political participation
in the contemporary globalized world.
The last few years we have witnessed
a growing heated debate among scholars,
politicians and journalists regarding the
role of the internet in contemporary social
movements and conflict-ridden societies.
Social media appear as aspiring tools for
the creation of new opportunities for social
movements. Web 2.0 platforms allow
protestors to collaborate so that they can
quickly organize and disseminate a message
across the globe. By enabling the fast, easy and
low-cost diffusion of protest ideas, tactics, and
strategies, social media and networks allow
social movements to overcome problems
historically associated with collective
mobilization. At the same time, it allows
politicians to establish direct communication
with the citizens free from the norms and
structural constraints of traditional journalism,
while providing professional journalists with
new sources and ways to interact with their
audience.
But why is it important to study social
media in the context of conflict-ridden
societies? Social media and networks are
transforming the global media landscape by
redistributing the power of information and
communication among all involved actors,
political actors, journalists and citizens.
Social media influence political participation
and civic engagement in the contemporary
complex geopolitical terrain and in this way
they (re)shape politics and political discourse.
At the same time, political campaigns are based
increasingly on social media such as Twitter
and Facebook. As a result, all actors strive for
Syrian blogger and social media strategist Leila Nachwati speaks during the closing of the third Arab Bloggers Conference in Tunis, Tunisia, on 06 October 2011.
Hundreds of bloggers from across the Arab world started on 03 October a conference to discuss the role of cyberactivism in in countries that are making the
transition to democracy.
EPA/STR
Social media and networks are transforming the
global media landscape by redistributing the power of
information and communication among all involved
actors, political actors, journalists and citizens
online attention and social mediated visibility.
In our study on social media within the
international research project INFOCORE
we approach social media and networks as an
online interactive ‘arena’ that is evolving as we
speak. The speed and growing popularity of
social media marks the online environment as
a rapidly evolving and dynamic sphere, where
important interactions and debate take place.
At the same time, the expanding employment
of social media by authoritarian regimes
in order to articulate their governmental
stance and influence the international public
opinion, as well as the increasing use of
computational propaganda and the growing
diffusion of fake news among internet users,
pose serious challenges for the study of social
media. Investigating the role of social media in
violent conflicts in retrospective is important
because it provides us with the tools to
understand and interpret the use of the
most popular and rapidly growing platforms
for communication and information, inform
the debate on the role of media in conflicts
from the social media side and suggest crucial
issues that need to be addressed in current or
future emerging conflicts.
At the same time, it is necessary to
identify major problems when working
with social media and networks. The field
of study is complicated due to, among
others, language limitations, identification
of online active actors, anonymity issues and
internet bots spreading fake or manipulated
content. Examining this new media reality
makes us also realize that beyond tweets and
Facebook posts there are deeper meanings
that are connected to ideological, political and
sociocultural factors.
An analysis of social media texts can not be
limited to numbers or linguistic means. It has
to be linked to people, discourses and contexts.
For all these reasons, interdisciplinary and
multi-methodical approaches should be
interweaved in order to provide a holistic
meaning to the role of social media in conflictridden
societies.
Studies focusing on social media especially
in violent events or long-lasting political
turmoil need to also study the possible patterns
of homophily that emerge online. Network
analysis can help us in monitoring how
interactions demonstrate strong homophily
patterns between polarised groups and
how users are commonly segregated within
like-minded communities forming isolated
echo chambers and in-group and out-group
affiliations are thus formed. Another point
that needs our attention is to not overstate the
impact factor of social media in the fuelling or
the resolution process of a conflict. At the same
time, we can learn more about the conflict
itself by monitoring the debate online and
start recognizing patterns that emerge during
the evolvement of the conflict and during its
escalation and de-escalation phases.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE ROLE OF MEDIA IN VIOLENT CONFLICT
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-114
www.neweurope.eu
by Christoph Meyer &
Eric Sangar
Christoph Meyer is Professor of European
& International Politics at King’s College
London.
Eric Sangar is a research fellow of the
Belgian National Research Funds
(FNRS), based at the University of
Namur.
As NGOs fill the gaps in conflict
news, should we be worried?
BELGIUM-BRUSSELS
In times of conflict and war, truth may often
become the first casualty, but the media still
remain crucial as providers of information,
interpreters and sometimes advocates for
policy change. For that role they are engaging
in primary research of their own, but also draw
on a wide range of official and public sources
such as non-governmental organisations
(NGOs).
We found that NGOs are playing an
increasingly influential role in mediated
debates about armed conflicts in the six
cases of Syria, Israel/Palestine, Democratic
Republic of Congo, Burundi, Macedonia
and Kosovo. In visibility of NGOs in conflict
coverage has almost doubled in a period of
only five years: the proportional share of
media articles containing an explicit reference
to NGOs has risen from under 1 percent to
nearly 2 percent, not counting of course
reports that rely on NGO contributions
without explicitly mentioning it.
The share of local NGOs is higher than
expected with around 30 percent amongst
those references. The rise of local NGOs is
particular strong in cases with high-levels of
violence such as Syria where comparatively
new and small organisations such as the Syrian
Observatory of Human Rights or Raqqa Is
Being Slaughtered Silently have been able to
report from places where political repression
and the security situation have made it next
to impossible for foreign but also domestic
journalists to continue their work. These
NGOs rely on flexible, technology-enabled
networks of local volunteers and activists to
provide event-related evidence, especially
about the scale of casualties and human rights
violations.
At the same time, most references to
international NGOs originate from a small
group of “advocacy superpowers” such as
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International,
or Doctors without Borders. They have
large budgets compared to most media
organisations and this enables them to hire
and support country and issue experts as
well as former journalists, providing the latter
with job security and work conditions that
have become the exception in most media
organisations. Their influence is amplified
by the long-term trend of media cut backs
as a result of the funding crisis caused by
a mixture of new technology, changing
audience consumption patterns and shifts in
advertising to the likes of Google, Youtube,
Twitter and Facebook.
This small group of international NGOs
has become increasingly more sophisticated
Turkish medics bring in a wounded man at Kilis State Hospital after an airstrike in Northern Syria, in Kilis, Turkey 15 February 2016.
in their communication and advocacy to
target different domestic and international
audiences, building their credibility through
day-to-day information, good deeds in the
fields and meticulously researched reports.
But they also wield more indirect relational
influence through sponsoring and supporting
news coverage by providing travel funding,
logistical support in the field, or contacts with
local populations to journalists. Some NGOs,
not only these large ones, are becoming more
“media-like”, setting up newsrooms, editorial
guidelines and working through social media
such as Facebook and Twitter and their
website to disseminate podcasts and short
videos. Human Rights Watch has today more
than 3 million followers on Twitter.
Does this increased presence mean
that NGOs become the saviours or the
gravediggers of independent and reliable
conflict coverage?
One could justify this rising influence with
their ability to provide highly relevant, reliable
and verifiable factual information about
conflicts that are otherwise hard to come-by,
especially relating to less frequency covered
countries. Some NGOs have established factchecking
standards superior to journalistic
standards given that they are under less timepressure
with more resources, put a premium
on protecting their reputation from errors, or
need to reach evidential standards required
by Courts. From the perspective of conflict
prevention, the high-quality monitoring of
Human rights abuses can serve as an early
warning indicator of impending conflict
escalation. Such escalation trends are typically
missed by media that tend to pay attention
only when large-scale violence has erupted
and it is too late for preventive action.
By shedding light on human rights
abuses and political repression and shaming
the perpetrators, NGOs can also increase
the political costs of such behaviour and
counter-act impunity. Moreover, local NGOs
can give voice to marginalized populations in
situations where domestic media are not free
to report and opposition parties are repressed
or corrupted.
From the perspective of informed public
debate, the growing influence of NGOs may
however also gradually devalue independent
journalistic research and lower the incentive
for media organisations to invest in quality
research and country or regional expertise.
A diminishing role of journalists working as
critical filters might increase the risk of news
coverage reflecting inadvertently NGOs
organisational agendas, whether related to
their missions, mandates or fund-raising goals.
Given the strong presence of human
rights-focused NGOs in conflict news, the
risk arises that policy makers and public
perceptions of a conflict is solely based on a
moral or legal framing.
This can get in the way of better
understanding the motives and strategies of
all conflict parties and how they might be
persuaded to engage with diplomacy and
stop pursuing their aims through repression
EPA/STR
and violence – only few NGOs such as the
International Crisis Group adopt this holistic
perspective.
Furthermore, some NGOs go substantially
beyond their area of expertise when offering
conflict analyses or calling for particular kinds
of action that are considered either unrealistic
or could be counter-productive in specific
situations, for instance, prematurely calling for
punitive measures and asking for a referral to
the International Criminal Court.
The case of Syria, particularly in the early
phase of the conflict, illustrates the dangers
of narrowing conflict coverage to this single
lens and thus failing to appreciate the complex
landscape of conflict actors, their motives
and fears, and what kind of action might
realistically prevent, stop or mitigate the
conflict.
NGOs play today an indispensable part
in providing citizens and policy-makers with
knowledge about conflicts and human rights
abuses that would otherwise be noticed to
late, not at all or be misunderstood. Yet, NGOs
need to better understand the limitations of
their expertise and risks arising from their
growing influence. Media organisations
need to step-up their support for quality
journalism and carefully consider in what
ways collaboration with NGOs can help to
advance rather than undermine public trust
in journalism.
The research was conducted in the framework of the
INFOCORE project, funded by the EU.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE ROLE OF MEDIA IN VIOLENT CONFLICT
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-115
www.neweurope.eu
by Abit Hoxha &
Thomas Hanitzsch
News and conflict
Thomas Hanitzsch is Chair and Professor
of Communication at the LMU Munich,
Germany. His teaching and research
focuses on journalism research and
comparative media studies.
Abit Hoxha is a doctoral researcher at the
LMU Munich, Germany. His research
focuses on comparative conflict news
production.
GERMANY-MUNICH
In the ‘post-truth’ era, when facts are losing
authority in public conversations, conflict
coverage is becoming more relevant for both
the wider public and policy makers more
specifically. On the one hand, the news media
infrastructure has developed to a stage where
news is available wherever we are and, on the
other hand, there are more correspondents
reporting from conflict zones than ever before.
During the last few years, the number of
conflicts has grown according to the Global
Peace Index 1 , and the world is seemingly
becoming more dangerous a place. Journalists
around the world are facing threats and
violence. According to the International
Federation of Journalists 2 , 116 journalists and
media workers have been killed in 2016. The
numbers in 2014 and 2015 are even bigger.
In addition to the more obvious physical
threats, journalists are subject to ‘invisible’
influences in the process of newsgathering.
The worsening of conflicts in the Middle East
with the apex of the war crimes in Syria, Iraq
and Afghanistan has contributed to a world
being less safe, and the people know about it
through journalists as first drafters of history.
But, how does such news come into being?
Media coverage of war and violence is a
central resource for the public understanding
of conflicts; it often also contributes to the
development or transformation of a conflict.
For journalists, covering news has become a
“natural” routine. They rarely have the time to
reflect on everyday reporting and the various
influences that play out in the process. In
constructing stories about the world through
news reporting, the relationship between facts,
sources and the key narrative is of particular
importance.
Many journalists say that the essence
of their work is getting and presenting facts
in a way that they reflect the reality on the
ground. However, journalism is a business
of storytelling. For that facts and sources are
often available in abundance, news production
is inevitably and inherently selective. Facts
often lend themselves to different narratives,
or “stories”, making “truth” a concept loaded
with contingency. As conflicts have a past,
present and anticipated future, journalists may
produce different stories out of the same facts.
This is where facts, sources and the
corresponding truth amalgamate into a story
through cutting edges of the news under
various influences. Just like all human beings,
journalists have their own predispositions and
prejudices that they likely bring to bear on their
Yemeni journalists hold a banner reading in Arabic 'Stop the killing of journalists' during a rally marking the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes
against Journalists in Sana’a, Yemen, 02 November 2016.
EPA/YAHYA ARHAB
Many journalists say that the
essence of their work is getting
and presenting facts in a way
that they reflect the reality on the
ground. However, journalism is a
business of storytelling
coverage, by which they may contradict their
own professional norms and aspirations. In
conflict, political and military actors as well
as non-governmental organizations may be
interested in receiving positive coverage of
their actions and activities, which is why they
often feed the media with information to make
sure the journalists cover the story “properly”.
Social media, news agencies, nongovernmental
organizations and other
institutional players that feed the public with
first-hand witness reports already set the stage
for the story, which is then substantiated with
facts and sources the journalists decide to
include in the news.
Furthermore, international correspondents
often lack detailed information regarding
conflicts, while local journalists often lack the
objective distance to the conflict.
The combination lacking local knowledge
among international correspondents and
lack of resources on the side of the local
journalists could be seen as an opportunity
for international media to enforce closer
cooperation with local journalists. This goes
for conflict reporters from the Western Balkans
to the Middle East and the Great Lakes region
in Africa.
When journalists speak about their
professional orientations and practices, they
claim the originality of their stories without
hesitation or thinking about any of the
structural or cultural influences. However,
when “confronted” with the content they
produced, it turns out that many stories had
“occurred” to them as a result of various
external forces and influences, be that political
leaders, non-governmental organizations or
other media. Most of the conflict news content
we deconstructed with the journalists has
originated from external influence.
This is where the social media play an
essential role in news production. One of the
first things journalists do is to skim through
the social media and look for interesting
information. As the social media have changed
the way journalists cover conflicts, this is a
pivotal moment in news production as this
pool of information is often very difficult to
verify. Besides unofficial information, the
social media also cater to official accounts
from the government, military and other state
institutions providing a wide range of sources
and information to the journalists. Using their
knowledge about conflicts and new, incoming
information, journalists arrive at an idea about
what and how to cover before they actually
plan the story and before contacting any of
their sources.
To be fair, social media also provide space
for misinformation. As a journalist from the
DRC said: “In times of war, it is difficult to tell
the truth, but in social networks, truth can be
told anyway”.
This highlights the fact journalists are
prone to manipulations when picking the
news from social networks. Structural barriers
on access to information, on the other hand,
can lead to journalists being scooped by
social media. A journalist from Israel said that
“sometimes it takes two or three days to get
permits to report something, after it has been
out through social media”. The need to be
first, quick and exclusive with few resources
available, which puts conflict news coverage
under heavy stress. One of the most credible
source that journalists check ‘to confirm or
verify’ such incoming information is the nongovernmental
organizations and their network
of informants in the field.
To conclude, journalists reporting conflict
are exposed to the danger of physical threats
and dangers in the field on daily basis but
there is also a ‘silent threat’ to the profession of
journalist as we know it, which is “truth” these
days has become an object of contestation
more than it used to be.
1 http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#/page/
indexes/global-peace-index
2 http://ifj-safety.org/en/2016/killings

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE ROLE OF MEDIA IN VIOLENT CONFLICT
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-116
www.neweurope.eu
by Marc Jungblut
A researcher at Ludwig-Maximilians-
Universität Munich. He is part of the
INFOCORE consortium that analyzes
the role of media in violent conflicts.
His main areas of expertise are strategic
communication, the role of media
in wars and conflicts and political
communication.
Political communication
in the age of post-truth
GERMANY-MUNICH
The Oxford dictionaries’ decision to
nominate ‘post-truth’ as word of the year
2016 demonstrates the profound changes
in the role of facts and truth in political
communication. The dictionary defines
the word as ‘relating to or denoting
circumstances in which objective facts are
less influential in shaping public opinion than
appeals to emotion and personal belief ’. The
nomination appears to follow the perception
that parts of the political landscape within
and outside of the EU changed the way they
address potential adherents.
The rise of populist movements and
parties in most parts of Europe, the Brexit
campaign as well as the on-going propaganda
efforts by Russia, the Daesh and others have
demonstrated that voices fundamentally
critical towards Europe reach and seem to
convince an increasing number of European
citizens. The opinion climate in EU member
states appears to be increasingly polarized
as demonstrated in the recent Austrian
presidential elections. Whereas statements
by those numerous groups differ vastly in
their inscribed ideology, they appear to
share a rather laid-back handling of truth and
apparent facts.
Being a social scientist, I was interested in
understanding the logics behind these new
forms of political messaging. Thus, I wanted
to get insights into why these statements
are convincing and appealing to some and
inherently ridiculous and contradictory
to others. Following the above mentioned
definition, the initial hypothesis was that
statements by those groups predominantly
contain emotional appeals and express
opinions that are not backed by any form of
evidence. But does this intuitive assumption
withstand an empirical analysis?
As part of the international EU FP 7
funded research project INFOCORE I
analyzed together with a team at the Ludwig-
Maximilians-Universität Munich the role
of strategic communication in six violent
conflicts: Syria, Israel/Palestine, Macedonia,
Kosovo, the Democratic Republic of Congo,
and Burundi.
One of the tasks our team dealt with
was to determine the normative quality
of communication by NGOs, political
and other strategic communicators. Past
research had demonstrated that a high level
of evidence will increase a source’s perceived
credibility and thus lead to increasing
impact on the news and public opinion. To
investigate this normative quality, we looked
at evidence from two different perspectives:
Iraqi policemen stand guard as smoke rise from a burning oil field in the formerly IS held town of the Al Qayyarah, some 40 km south of Mosul, Iraq, 17
November 2016.
EPA/AHMED JALIL
Do messages highlight where information
stems from – the source of evidence so
to speak? And do messages characterize
the certainty or uncertainty of provided
information/statements? For this study,
we relied on data from a computer-assisted
content analysis of 18,888 press releases,
interviews and other texts from the website of
a variety of political parties and entities. Our
initial expectation was that communicators
like the European Union or governments of
EU member states should provide the highest
share of texts containing evidence, whereas
communicators that distribute propaganda
and/or populist messages lack evidential
support in their claims. The results, however,
showed something very different.
The key finding is that groups using
post-truth communication strategies apply
a significantly higher overall level of evidence.
To further illustrate this, one can take a look
at Daesh’s communication: Whereas in
average 59% of political communication texts
on Syria contained references to sources,
Daesh did so in 74%. Populist parties – that of
course are quite different from Daesh in their
nature and “mission” - appeared to follow the
same strategy. The Kosovar Vetëvendosje
party, for example, emphasized the certainty
of provided information in 87% of their
texts as compared to an average of 66% for
all texts on the post-conflict situation in
Kosovo. Consequently, based on established
research the natural conclusion would be that
these groups use a normatively advanced
form of communication and are, thus, more
convincing than established political parties.
The twist, however, is that the mentioned
sources differ in their credibility and quality
with populist and propagandistic actors more
often referring to themselves and “general
wisdom” as sources of evidences and less
often using established and credible sources.
The study thereby indicates the eroding
relevance of source credibility.
There are some trends connected to
digital communication that might play a role
in this. First of all, the amount of people that
openly express their distrust in the traditional
media and other elites appears to have
increased of lately. Social media platforms
are filled to the prim with accusations of
political impact on media outlets and the socalled
“Lügenpresse”. Simultaneously, nontraditional
and non-professional news pages
like yournewswire.com or news-front.info
spread news that is not based on sufficient
fact checking or just plain and simply fake.
Finally, due to the algorithmic structure of
social media sides people only see messages
that reflect their own preferences narrowing
the potential for deliberation and restricting
the impact of fact checking.
So what can we do? I think there are three
different stakeholders that play a crucial role
in strengthening the importance of facts and
preventing anti-European sentiments. First,
professional journalists need to remain our
societies’ critical observers. There is a need
for investigative journalism that is critical not
only towards populists and those spreading
anti-EU propaganda, but also towards the
political establishment as well as economic
and political elites.
A critical and independent press still
is crucial to Western democratic societies,
but it also needs the financial backbone
to be able to function. Social scientists
need to closely monitor trends in political
communication and critically evaluate what
these developments mean for society and
where they might lead to. Politicians, finally,
need to intensify their dialogue with the
irritated electorate. They need to explain
why European values and ideals are worth
fighting for. The EU report on “strategic
communication to counteract propaganda
against it by third parties” passed in October
2016, is a step in the right direction here. It
mentions measures like the close monitoring
of propaganda efforts, the support of media
freedom in EU-neighboring countries or
awareness campaigns directed towards EU
citizens. Understanding the logics behind
post-truth is a first step towards countering
it and I am positive that the road we started
within INFOCORE might assist the EU
in their efforts and might thereby help to
advocate for European values.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE ROLE OF MEDIA IN VIOLENT CONFLICT
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-117
www.neweurope.eu
by Snezana Trpevska
Doctor of sociology, professor at the Institute
of Communication Studies in Skopje.
Ethnocentric coverage: Audiences
comfy zone in Macedonia
MACEDONIA-SKOPJE
From conflict theory we know that while
reporting on complex disputes or conflicts
journalists tend to reduce them to two
antagonizing sides. This ‘issue dualism’, as it is
called, tends to marginalize or exclude a variety
of moderate actors or aspects of the dispute
that are likely to lead to de-escalation. It also
might augment divergent interpretations of
the conflict, thus antagonizing news audiences.
Second, according to conflict studies research,
journalists who report about inter-ethnic
conflicts tend to frame events solely from the
perspective of their own ethnic group. It is
argued that this reporting strategy is polarizing
the parties and it justifies and encourages
beliefs, attitudes and actions of one’s own
group, delegitimizing those of the outgroup.
INFOCORE, a comparative research
project funded by the 7th European
Framework Program of the EU, explores,
among other things, whether and how these
polarizing frames interwoven in media
coverage are deconstructed by audiences
and media active lay publics. One of the
research case studies is the landlocked
Balkan state of Macedonia. Macedonia is a
post-conflict society. Beneath the declarative
liberal-democratic concept of the state, classideological
and ethno-particular antagonisms
lay, within and between members of ethnic
communities. Media landscape is plural,
but also polarized along both ideological
and ethno-political lines. Most influential
TV stations, which are still the main
source of information, although aware of
their role in supporting reconciliation and
democratization, present reality mainly from
the angle of their own ethnic group and
serving the interests of their party-political
patrons, thus bolding the differences and
stimulating resentment. The events from
the last political crisis in the country, have
also demonstrated that politicians in power
are the actors who, for their party-political
and personal benefit, frequently invoke
nationalistic sentiments of audiences
Convicted journalist Tomislav Kezarovski (C) joins other journalists during a protest in Skopje, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 20 January 2015.
The journalists protested the imprisonment of Macedonian journalist Tomislav Kezarovski who was originally sentenced for four and a half years in prison for
allegedly revealing the identity of a protected witness in one of his articles.
EPA/NAKE BATEV
misusing the media to create tensions.
From our previous research, we know that
media in Macedonia, including the public
broadcaster, frequently frame events from
an ethnocentric perspective, by reducing the
sporadic incidents to a problem between the
two “homogenous” ethnic communities. As
part of INFOCORs WP3 we were interested
whether the publics belonging to these ethnic
communities tend to detect and deconstruct
ethnocentric framing in media coverage in
Macedonian and Albanian language media
in the country, and as well, whether audiences
themselves demonstrate ethnocentric
attitudes in their expectations of how media
should report. We selected media coverage
pieces covering the May 2015 incident in
Attitudes of Macedonians and Albanians about the media in Macedonian language
an Albanian populated neighborhood in the
north-west Macedonian town of Kumanovo
- a clash in a densely populated area between
an armed group coming from Kosovo and
the Macedonian police forces. The clash
occurred in the midst of a political crisis in
the country, with anti-government protesters
mobilized after a massive phone-tapping
scandal revealed a large-scale corruption of
top state officials including the PM, public
figures and media professionals. Some
arguments in the public domain suggested
that the clash was organized by the highest
officials in the government and in the security
services in order to divert attention of the
public from the scandal.
We have conducted focus group discussions
with publics from both ethnic communities.
Participants were exposed to two TV news
packages of the clash in Kumanovo, one from a
TV station in Albanian language and the other
from a TV station in Macedonian language.
Both news supplements framed the event
from an ethnocentric perspective. In some
of the focus group discussions, we identified
that the participants of both ethnic groups
developed divergent interpretations from
the news coverage and constructed frames of
ethnic self-victimization which were directed
towards justification and legitimization of the
political claims of their own ethnic group.
Furthermore, we checked these findings
through a survey conducted on a sample
representative for the entire audience in
Macedonia. We have established that large
segments of the audiences belonging to one
ethnic community perceive the media of the
‘Other’ ethnic community as ethnocentrically
oriented, but also that these perceptions
are very much related to their pre-existing
ethnocentric attitudes. For example, ethnic
Albanians’ perceptions are much more
negative towards the media in Macedonian
language: 80% of them think that these media
blame the Albanians for the conflict, 61%
think they do not pay attention to peace and
co-existence or 52% think they reinforce the
tensions between the two communities. Asked
about their opinion about the news coverage
of the clash that happened in May 2015 in
Kumanovo, 66% of the Albanians agreed that
the coverage of the media in Macedonian
language could have jeopardized existing
interethnic relations. On the other side, it
is interesting to note that both Albanians
and Macedonians agree that politicians are
misusing media to create tensions in order to
divert public’s attention from other issues.
Our results indicated also that media
assistance strategies implemented so far in
the post-conflict Macedonian society did
not sufficiently put attention to supporting
the media with integrated newsrooms and
editorial policy which take into consideration
the negative consequences of the one-sided
and polarizing reporting for the audiences.
This is especially relevant for the public
broadcaster which has not ever change its
divergent editorial policy since the armed
conflict in 2001.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE ROLE OF MEDIA IN VIOLENT CONFLICT
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-118
www.neweurope.eu
by Dr. Christian Baden &
Dr. Keren Tenenboim-Weinblatt
Senior Lecturers at the Department of
Communication and Journalism at the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
On ritualized conflict: Why the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict is a poor guide for
understanding other conflicts
ISRAEL-JERUSALEM
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in many ways
regarded as the mother of all contemporary
conflicts. Virtually everybody has an opinion
about it, it focuses global media attention
and mobilizes public opinion like no other
conflict – and even in politics, proposing
another plan to resolve the intractable conflict
is considered the coronation of diplomatic
efforts.
Also in research, the ongoing
confrontation between Israelis and
Palestinians has received a disproportionate
amount of attention: Reliably providing
readily accessible ground for studying conflict
to generations of academics, no little amount
of what we know about conflict derives from
this unusually rich and well-documented case
study.
Also within the research of the
INFOCORE project, which set out to
put conflict research on a more solid,
comparative footing, the Israeli-Palestinian
case plays a prominent role. Alas, comparing
data from this conflict to five other ongoing
confrontations (in Syria, the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Burundi, Macedonia
and Kosovo), we found several consequential
differences in the underlying dynamics. How
instructive, then, can the insights gained
from the Middle East conflict be for our
understanding and policy regarding other
conflicts?
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, unlike
most other contemporary confrontations,
a ritualized conflict. Having long accepted
that either victory or a mutually satisfactory
solution appears unlikely, both sides maintain
the confrontation through a targeted use of
violence that serves symbolic purposes as
much as it pursues actual conflict objectives.
In cyclically recurring episodes of escalation,
they reaffirm their claims to victory and
legitimacy, but stop short of unleashing the
disproportionate effort that might more than
superficially alter the conflict situation.
However, most other conflicts are not
like this. Even those confrontations looking
back on long historical legacies rarely follow
predefined scripts and roles, and generate
new conflict narratives with each escalation.
Where the Israeli-Palestinian experience
leads us to expect reasonably clearly
defined, separate collectives with strong
shared identities and purpose, most other
conflicts are characterized by a messy mesh
of overlapping and cross-cutting conflict
lines. Struggling to redefine current conflict
issues, conflict actors foreground different
combinations of ethnic, religious, political,
and other divisions. Are Albanians and
Macedonians on one side in Macedonia’s
Palestinians in the West Bank city of Hebron protest by throwing stones against Israeli soldiers and security forces, 18 November 2012.
protests against the authoritarian
government, and what role do ethnic ties
play in the Burundian coup d’etat? In the
confusion of fast-moving conflict, numerous
actors reshape the outlines of opposing
groups and form variable alliances – often
leaving fuzzy edges and sizeable groups
without unique affiliation. Also widely
recognized conflict elites ready to provide
definite mission statements or commit their
respective constituencies in diplomatic
negotiations are the exception much more
than the rule.
Outside the Israeli-Palestinian case,
conflicts thus rarely lend themselves to
being described as a collision of two, wellstructured
and antagonistic perspectives.
On the one hand, stable, ongoing conflict
narratives pre-organize journalists’ and
others’ interpretations and enable them to
rapidly comprehend and even anticipate new
events in Israel and the Palestinian Territories.
A host of permanent Tel Aviv correspondents
and diplomats stand ready to provide
informed coverage and analysis of every new
development, enabling confident, simple and
often polarized evaluations. On the other
hand, this is not true for any other conflict.
As journalists laboriously collect unreliable
information from often remote locations and
disorganized sources, the multiplicity and
fluidity of perspectives characterizing other
conflicts leads their attempts at balancing
“both” sides ad absurdum. Defining the
position of “the” Syrian secular rebels, or
identifying the key issues in “the” conflict
in the DR Congo fails simply because both
conflicts are deeply fragmented, and each
possible source has a somewhat different
view on these matters. Lacking a clear
framework for evaluating and making sense
of recent events, reports often struggle to
make sense of ongoing developments, and
provide little guidance for policy or public
concern: Supporting or criticizing Israel
is considerably easier than condemning
or endorsing any specific party in the DR
Congo, despite the often gruesome violence.
In place of another episode in a well-formed
conflict narrative, whose continuation we
can easily extrapolate, we obtain a delayed
patchwork of interpretations that may
or may not reflect conflict actors’ actual
understandings of the current confrontation.
Viewing other conflicts through the lens of
the Israeli-Palestinian template tends to
impose an amount of structure that is not
redeemed by the actual, messy and in large
parts unclear situation.
Inversely, also insights from other
conflicts bear the potential to raise important
misperceptions of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. Recurring fears of unchecked
escalation – such as a third Intifada or
reoccupation of Gaza – overlook that actors
are generally unwilling to incur major risks
EPA/ABED AL HASHLAMOUN
as long as the intractable conflict removes
the prospect of decisive victory. Focusing
violence on limited objectives with symbolic
value, the understanding that actual victory
is unattainable effectively contains escalation.
Also efforts at halting ongoing escalation –
through appeals, international pressure
or attempts at mediation, which may
successfully alter the fluid dynamics of other
conflicts – underestimate the momentum
exerted by the familiar scripts of mutual
overreactions designed to assert either side’s
determination to uphold its cause.
As long as both sides act out their scripted
parts, attempts at affecting the course of
events may prove difficult if not futile. At
the same time, breaking out of the ritual
risks also removing the safety catches of
the bounded escalation, inviting either side
to try and violently redefine the situation.
The challenge consists in finding ways to
shift the narrative underlying the ritualized
confrontation without reintroducing the
unpredictable dynamics of other conflicts
to the powder keg of the Israeli-Palestinian
case. Especially as other conflicts in the
region – from the ongoing Kurdish struggle
to the retreating but hardly disheartened
democratic and Islamist rebels in Syria –
increasingly sprout elements of ritualized,
intractable violence, distinguishing the very
different dynamics of conflicts should be a
priority for both research and politics.

ISSUE#1193 | January 2017
THE ROLE OF MEDIA IN VIOLENT CONFLICT
NEW EUROPE: OUR WORLD IN 2017
Page-119
www.neweurope.eu
by Marie-Soleil Frère
Senior Research Associate at the National
Fund for Scientific Research in Belgium
and Professor at the Université libre de
Bruxelles. Her research focuses on the
media in Francophone sub-Saharan
Africa.
BELGIUM-BRUSSELS
In Burundi, a small landlocked post-conflict
country in Central Africa, the independent
broadcasting sector was destroyed in May
2015, following a coup attempt against the
regime of President Pierre Nkurunziza. More
than 80 journalists, some of them accused
of being accomplices to the putschists, were
threatened and left the country, while their
media outlets were damaged and forbidden
to operate. Supported for a decade by the
“peace-building” industry, shown as a model
of professionalism and pluralism, Burundian
journalism now faces huge challenges, both
inside the country, where the space for free
speech keeps shrinking despite a pluralist
façade, and outside, where Burundian
journalists in exile have established alternative
media outlets.
Burundi, a small and poor country in
Central Africa used to enjoy, for a decade,
one of the most professional and vibrant
media landscapes in the region. In particular,
the Burundian radio stations served as
a role model in Francophone Africa, for
their involvement in peace-building and
democratic consolidation efforts.
Indeed, after a long civil war (1993-2003),
at the beginning of which the country had
experienced a “hate press”, Burundi had slowly
recovered, with the support of the “peace
building” industry (be it through initiatives
from the UN or international NGOs). At the
end of the 1990’s and beginning of the 2000’s,
several radio stations (Bonesha FM, Radio
Publique Africaine, Radio Isanganiro, Radio-
Télévision Renaissance) were established
with an aim of contributing to reconciliation
and promoting human rights. Composed
of mixed newsrooms, gathering Hutu and
Tutsi journalists, mostly trained on the job,
the radios helped to show that the conflict
in Burundi, even though apparently ethnic,
was rooted in isolated political ambitions and
strategies, and that both communities could
live and work together.
From peace journalism
to a watchdog role
In 2005, when the first post-conflict
elections were organized, granting power
to the former rebel group CNDD-FDD,
the Burundian media sector had become
a role model of pluralism and journalistic
professionalism. But, after the 2005 polls,
the relations between the ruling party and
the media outlets became more difficult.
The new government could not understand
that the press continued to act as a watchdog,
providing critique, denouncing mishaps (like
journalists from the private media used to do
with the former regime) and giving a voice to
Burundian journalism in crisis
Kenyan activists and Burundians hold flowers and placards during a protest against killings in Burundi, in
Nairobi, Kenya, 18 December 2015. EPA/DANIEL IRUNGU
the political opposition, after the new team
wad democratically elected.
Progressively, the CNDD-FDD regime
developed mechanisms aiming at putting
pressure on the independent media and
controlling the space of free speech: the press
law was reformed in 2013, imposing new
constraints on the media; the regulatory body
CNC (National Communication Council)
was used to repress the media, threatening
or suspending some of them; journalists
were arrested and brought to court, in an
obvious attempt to make them silent, control
was exerted on the public media (mainly
the national broadcaster RTNB, Radio
Télévision nationale du Burundi). Last but
not least, the regime started to create its
own “private” media: Rema FM, Radio
Umuco and Star Radio, all of them devoted
to support the ruling party. Established in
2008, Rema FM started to attack verbally
(quite aggressively) the opponents and
prominent members of civil society including
human rights defenders and private media
managers, especially the ones belonging to
the Tutsi community.
The situation became even tenser after the
2010 elections, as political parties from the
opposition withdrew from the polls, leaving
an empty space in all democratic institutions.
This had important consequences for the
media sector, as the private media and civil
society organizations progressively filled the
vacuum, positioning themselves as the only
space left for critique.
The brutal closure of a pluralist
media landscape
Eventually in April 2015, President
Nkurunziza was appointed by his party
CNDD-FDD as the party’s candidate for
the upcoming elections (a third candidacy
was problematic, as it was not in line with the
new Constitution adopted in 2005 and the
Arusha Peace Agreement). Demonstrations,
widely covered by the private media, started
in Bujumbura. There was a violent and
disproportionate repression of the pacific
demonstrations, but these nevertheless went
on. Mid-May 2015, some military high rank
officers attempted a coup and, during the
uncertainty surrounding the military clash,
supporters of the putschists went to Rema
FM and looted it. The next day, the police
and the Imbonerakure (the youth wing of the
ruling party) destroyed the four main private
stations, which had broadcast the statements
of the putschists the day before: Bonesha FM,
RPA, Radio Isanganiro, and Radio Télévision
Renaissance.
Consequences were twofold. On the one
hand, the huge majority of the Burundian
population (who is illiterate and lives in the
countryside) was deprived of any access
to independent news. On the other hand,
dozens of journalists and the top managers
of the closed radios, threatened and even
accused of being “accomplices” of the coup,
fled to the neighbouring countries Rwanda,
Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania
and Uganda, as well as to Europe.
In Burundi, the circulation of complete,
professional and independent information
was suddenly very limited. The only
remaining independent outlet was the weekly
newspaper Iwacu which has a circulation
of around 2,000 copies, mostly sold in the
capital city. Iwacu website became a precious
source of reliable information and daily views
grew to 80.000. The company has launched
a web TV and a web radio.
The web as the main alternative
In a country that was among the least
connected in the world (not even 5% of
the population had access to the Internet
in 2015), the web has become the place for
“alternative” media to expand. Some online
initiatives have emerged locally trying to
overcome the lack of information. SOS
Medias Burundi was created within hours
after the closure of the radio stations: it is an
informal network of anonymous journalists
who collect factual data about violence and
casualties. Yaga is a network of bloggers
(some of them using a pseudonym, some
signing with their real name) trained and
supported by Radio Nederland. Twitter,
Facebook and WhatsApp have become
the main conveyors of information and the
place for debate. For instance, two radio
programmes, Inzamba and Humura Burundi,
produced by the exiled journalists in Kigali
are disseminated through social networks.
Social media have also become the place
for the “information battle” between the
government (and especially the President
Nkurunziza’s communication adviser, Willy
Nyamitwe) and the political opposition, civil
society and journalists in exile.
But the outreach of theses initiatives
and these debates can only be limited as the
penetration rate of Internet remains low, even
though urban people try more and more to
provide equipment to their relatives in the
countryside. Most of the people in rural area
can only turn to international broadcasters
(if they happen to still have short waves
receivers), especially BBC and VOA, which
are broadcasting daily slots in the national
language Kirundi. RPA has also started to
broadcast a daily programme on short waves
from abroad.
Concerned about maintaining an image
of pluralism, the government has developed
two strategies regarding the broadcasting
sector: on the one hand, the regime has
encouraged the establishment of so-called
“community” radio stations in small towns:
these are supposedly autonomous, but in fact
totally devoted to supporting the ruling party.
On the other hand, in February 2015, one of
the banned stations, Radio Isanganiro, was
allowed to start broadcast again, after a newly
appointed director signed an agreement with
the regulatory authority imposing conditions
for the station to operate. The former
director, the editor in chief and the director
of the programmes were not associated to the
relaunch of the station.
There is little room left for independent
journalism and complete and balanced
information in Burundi. The journalists
operating inside of Burundi are under daily
pressure and experiencing constant fear,
while their colleagues abroad are facing
difficult working conditions and tend to turn
into political activists. While political experts
view the current Burundian situation as a
major failure for the peace-builders, questions
arise in the journalistic community about
the former promoters of peace-journalism:
indeed, the ones who advocated for a model
of professional journalism in Burundi are
today unable to guarantee the security of the
journalists who paid the price for remaining
independent.

It’s all about
connections
At AT&T, we know that making
connections is critical to success.
Around the globe, we keep businesses
connected with their customers and
the world through our network.
We’re also keeping people connected
on public policy issues impacting the
communications industry.
Visit our AT&T Global Public Policy
blog at www.attglobalpolicy.com to
learn more.
© 2016 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved.