Murder of LGBT people in Iraq | EU Asylum protection of LGBT people

This piece of news brings the shocking developments in Iraq horribly close to me: death squads in Iraq target homosexual and transsexual people, as the Gay City News reports.

At least four gay people have been murdered in the last week alone, as the group "Abu Nawas", an Iraqi gay refugee group based in London reports. The Badr corps, the military arm of the Supreme Council of the Islamist Revolution in Iraq is the primary group targeting and executing people for their sexual orientation.

The leader of the Supreme Council, the Shiite Ayatollah Sistani has issued a fatwah demanding the killing of homosexual people in late 2005.

EU Asylum for LGBT people
An EU directive (2004/83/EC) that includes persecution of homosexuality as a reason for asylum (though indirectly) will enter into force in October 2006. From then on, every EU country will have to provide the possibility to request asylum for LGBT people.

Various countries, one of them Austria, already provide the possibility of granting asylum for LGBT people. Despite this, effective protection of LGBT people is often lacking, as the example of Austria shows: to my knowledge less than 10 people have successfully requested asylum under this provision in recent years. A main reason is that the risk of persecution for sexual orientation or gender identification is often a general threat. Asylum procedures, on the other hand, want the asylum seeker to prove and document a personal or individual threat. (See guideline of ILGA-Europe)

The focus for future work, therefor, will lie on loosening the burden of proof, especially if the asylum seekers are from countries where the danger for LGBT people is as obvious as in Iraq.

The hard-guy approach of the French government towards the union and student demonstrators has led to the severe injury of Cyril Ferez, a unionist on saturday, who currently is in a coma. Ferez was, as various eye-witnesses report, severely injured by the CRS, a special police commando. Risky and violent actions are usually decided upon by the interior minister himself, Sarkozy.

Le Monde
Telepolis

Spring Council 2 | Jobs and Growth

As this week's European Council meeting will concentrate on growth and employment (additionally to energy, that I've already tackled), I want to take a closer look at the current European strategy for jobs.

The neoliberal premises to job growth are now in practice in some countries for about 10 years or more. The experience with it is finally here. If we look at the European best-performers (Sweden, Finland, Denmark, UK), they proof the neoliberal premises astonishingly wrong. And here's why:

Premise 1: Monetary stability
Monetary stability (=low inflation) means budget restraint, and budget restraint means few public investment. This scheme is true for many countries since more than ten years. Those countries that spent more on public investment (which is, after all, investment in the future) are now doing particularly better both in jobs and in growth (Scandinavian countries, UK). Moreover, monetary stability blocks new private investment.

We should, therefor, push for a reform of the European Central Bank (ECB). Growth has to become a Bank's goal equal to monetary stability. Public investment shall no longer be punished by the ECB.

Premise 2: Competition in political structure
The Barroso commission sees downwards-competition in taxes, labor regulation and social services as beneficial in a global context. In fact, the European countries are not competing against the world, but primarily against themselves (the European trade balance is positive and growing, meaning it is very competitive).

Cutting in social spending has not turned out to be an incentive for growth and jobs. In fact, the countries that kept up a good social security are again best-performers.

Countries shall have the right to compete. But instead of obviously unsuccessful down-competing social standards (that shall be secured europe-wide), a more flexible macro-economy (see premise 1) can ensure that differently developed economic regions take different actions.

Premise 3: well-paid jobs cost growth
In many countries, wage raises have widely trailed the raise in productivity for the last ten years or more. This has severely damaged the economy, as less money is spent by the employees. Cheap jobs may make European products more competitive internationally in the short run, but keep in mind: more than 80% of European trade happens within the Union. Sacrificing internal consumption for exports is therefor a bad deal and hurts our export competitiveness in the long term severely.

Countries that keep wage increases in line with inflation and productivity have therefor been more successful.

Premise 4: liberalisation
Liberalisation in power, gas and telecommunication has shown two phenomenons: higher consumer prices and creation of huge monopolies (EdF, GdF, E.on, etc.). Both are counterproductive, hurt the economy and endanger access to public goods. The EU has to make regulation of the liberalised markets more democratic and more attentive. New markets (like pensions) should not be opened, as the effects (less growth and fewer jobs) will probably be similar.

Doing good politics means learning from experience. If the Union and the Barroso-commissison has any plans to do successful growth and jobs politics, they will follow the Swedish, Finish (and to some extent) British example.

Barroso's outworldly comments on the French students

José Manuel Barroso seems to be not entirely satisfied by his job as the Commission's president. Seemingly unhappy with the somewhat technocratic character of his position, he enjoys himself in the role as the neoliberal posterboy of the Union. Not to his benefit, sad to say - and definitely not to the benefit of the Commission and the Union.

Commenting on the French protests against the CPE of this weekend he states that Europeans show "nostalgia for revolution, but fear of reform", as EUobserver.com reports. Barroso has shown a great interest in producing soundbites that depict him as an uncompromising fighter for social cuts and corporate benefits. But this latest quote reveals more: not only is it ridiculous from a theoretical point of view (revolution is, if nothing else, more, and not less than reform). It also show's the complete disorientation of Barroso and his neoliberal sidekicks as soon as they are confronted with the voice of the European population.

His hard-boiled sacrifice-more-and-get-less rethorics works only when the European electorate is shut out. Confronted with public reaction to his politics he is not at all able to find support for even the most basic elements of his politics.

After all: even from a liberal perspective is is simply not comprehensible what the benefit of tying up young adults in disadvantageous forced contracts could possibly be.

The French public now makes the democratically questionable and politically wrong approach of the Barroso-Commission obvious for the second time within a year.

And Barroso plays a risky game: the quixotic and widely unpracticable character of his politics widely antagonizes the European public and risks its willingness to move out of the status quo. If Barroso doesn't change course now he will be the prime culprit for a motion-less Union for years to come. It's not the French students being outworldly - Barroso is.

Netherland's Rita Verdonk threatens LGBT asylum seekers

In the beginning of march, Dutch Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk threatened to end a six-month moratorium on deporting LGBT asylum-seekers back to Iran.

Deporting LGBT asylum seekers to Iran where they face torture and execution would be a serious breach of the Netherland's legal obligations, as Human Rights Watch pointed out in a recent letter to the minister.

The European Social Democracy has widely abandoned the fight for the right of people who are persecuted in their homeland to seek asylum in the Union in recent years. This was for strategic reasons: the weakest are always the first target of the right, and many Social Democratic parties followed them in the bashing of immigrants, asylum-seekers and muslims. We leave the stage to small-scale Eichmanns like Rita Verdonk.

The right readily reacts to this left misconception of "strategy" by cracking down on a new group of people (this is how real "strategy" looks like). If we give up support for one group of people, we'll weaken support for the other issues we care for, too.

Johanna Dohnal, social democratic Austrian women minister once said: "To hold one's horses for tactical reasons usually turns out to be a mistake." It's heartening to read that maniacs like Verdonk now face stiff opposition in the Netherlands.

EU forgeign policy | UN Human Rights Council | Belarus

Today's decision of the UN General Assembly to replace the infamous Commission on Human Rights with a new body, the Human Rights Council, marks a major success of the Union's forgeign policy.

Despite the resistance of the US (who, together with Israel and 2 pacific island states voted against the Council) the Union pushed successfully for a reform of the UN human rights structure. The new body will hopefully allow to keep frequent human rights violators out and voice critizism more frequent and substantiated. Finally, term limit will keep the US out of the new body after it had a seat in the Commission since its existence. This will make human rights politics less dependent on the US' partisan interests.

The EU has recently faced criticism for not making a stronger stand for human rights, eg. in the 2006 Human Rights Wach report. The support for Kofi Annan, the cooperation with NGOs like Amnesty and the firm push for the reform is a good response of the EU. Good job, Javier.

Thumbs up also for Benita Ferrero Waldner, the Union's foreign relations commissioner: the incredible dictatorship right in the heart of Europe, Belarus, gets finally more into the focus of the Union as the elections come close. Last month saw the kick-off for the Union's dissident broadcast service for Belarus. The commissar now voices regularly criticism on human rights abuses in Belarus, most recently the arrest of opposition member Anatoly Lebedko and various NGO representatives. Also positive: US and EU's cooperation on the issue.

That's how European foreign policy should look like: strong internationalism within the boundaries of the UN and firm standing for human rights in the wider European region.

Spring Council 1 | Nuclear power is back | Privatization fetish endangers energy security

In preparation for the Spring Council (that will take place March 24 - 26) we'll have a closer look at the current developments in the Lisbon Agenda (that's, basically, economy, jobs, education, energy ... so, everything).

Today, let's have a look at the Commission's green paper on energy ("A European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy"). You think that's boring? Well. It's not exactly party, but the paper gives a chill of another kind.

1. Why has energy become such a strategic cornerstone of Lisbon?

The more technical a topic gets, the less attention it receives from the mainstream media. Energy seems to fit this pattern pretty much. But this lack of attention is hazardous, pun intended. And here's why:

2. Nuclear Power is back

The turn is quiet but steady: nuclear power is back (do something, greens!) and we're not going to like it. Since the start of the Iraq war, the EU has given more attention to the European dependence on oil and gas from Russia and the Near East. This has lead, on the one hand, to a stronger focus on renewable energy (not much, though, although the Kyoto goals are already pretty much out of sight). On the other hand the Commission (and the Parliament) is pushing for nuclear energy again.

This reorientation is further supported by the nuclear industry's rising interest in participating in both the European growing need for energy and the world's rising demand for civil nuclear technology. It seems that the Greens do finally have a hot topic again ... if they decide to take it.

3. Privatization endangers security of energy supply

One of the results of privatization and rise of competition in the field of energy is that investments into infrastructure has shrunk sharply in the last years. Investment in infrastructure (eg. European north-south lines or peak-demand-plants) make sense only in long term, but are not supported by an immediate market need. That's an easy lesson, remember the brownouts in the US and Italy in 2004. The Commission, though, argues that lack of infrastructure prevents a fully competitive market.

Experience gained in countries that opened their energy markets for full competition (like Germany of Austria) shows that the market opening did not make competition and cheaper prices kick in. Quite the contrary: most providers merged to huge companies that now function as quasi-monopolies (public or private). The prices are way over the prices before the market opening.

Unlike many replacable consumer products, most utilities do not support market mechanism. After all, as there cannot be 5 different waterpipes there cannot be 5 power lines for every household. A "market" in power (as in water and gas) is artificial and can therefor only be sustained when all investments into infrastructure and security and stability are taken over by the public.

The "competitive energy market" that the Commission is pushing for in its green paper therefor means: less stability and security + higher prices by energy-monopolies + higher public costs for infrastructure.

It surprises in some way that the Commission still fetishizes the privatization of the energy market so much, although all facts suggest that this will endanger both the economy by higher prices and security of energy supply (not to mention the well-known risks of nuclear energy).

The Balkan Vision

"If you have a vision you better see a doctor." Austria's ex-chancellor Franz Vranitzky is said to be the creator of this infamos quote.

Realism is the new must-do for European governments after the French and Dutch electorate rejected so heartlessly one of the biggest visionary projects of the European Union, the Treaty for a European Constitution. Politics as usual, that is the credo of Barroso and the governments for now, and it seems to work out - at least for the moment.

Major problems have been avoided since last year's infamos referendums. Barroso and the Austrian presidency play the ball low and pride themselves in symbolic politics instead (like the hilarious fund for the victims of globalization).

Avoiding the big controversies means to avoid facing the European population for now, and it seems that this is exactly what the Union has in mind. But doing the Big Easy comes with a price: sticking with the status quo.

But this is exactly what the Europeans don't want: last year's negative referendums have been sparkled exactly by a current unhappiness with a bureaucratic, yet neoliberal and undemocratic status quo.

In this grey and rather sad European present, last week's announcement of the Union that the accession of all South-East European countries is the final goal is more than welcome. Serbia, Bosnia and Co. will certainly profit from it. But it's good for the Union as well. After all said and done: the enlargement was the biggest and most successfull policy of the Union ever. It brought peace, strengthened democracy and stabilized rule of law.

In contrast to the theatrical, hysteric but shallow constitution, accession of the Union's dirty and grubby neighbours is neither a new not a very compelling idea for the European bureaucracy and the governments. But exactly the lack of hollow illusions make the Balkan enlargement a pretty healthy vision for a change.

CIA victim at European Parliament

Khaled El Masri, the German citizen who was kidnapped in Macedonia and detained and tortured in Afghanistan was heard as a witness by the European Parliament commitee on CIA activities today.

Temporary EP Commitee on CIA activities | Hearing of Khaled El Masri

Dirty complicity | Council of Europe report on CIA activity

Quite unacknowledged by the public, the Council of Europe has published its report on the CIA flights, kidnappings, secret detention centers and abductions of suspects to torturing countries two weeks ago.

The member States were asked to answer questions on how they protect their citizens from actions of foreign secret services, and their measures to uphold the civil liberties guaranteed by the Convention on Human Rights. As various countries, most important Italy and Turkey, did not fully comply with the inquiry, today the Council sent follow-up letters to 37 of 46 member states.

The responses by the European governments reveal not only a shocking nonchalance towards the crimes committed by the CIA on European territory but also a stunning lack of will to protect the European citizens and the civil liberties in the future.

CIA's criminal kidnappings

The kidnapping of Abu Omar on the streets of Milan by CIA agents is the best-documented case of criminal "rendition". He was subsequently transported via the American military airbases in Aviano (Italy) and Ramstein (Germany) to Egypt where he was tortured.

Khaled al Masri, a German citizen, was kidnapped due to a name mistake in Macedonia and detained in Kabul for 5 months; and 6 Bosnian citizens were kidnapped in Bosnia and transported to Guantanamo by CIA agents. The footnote: none of the mentioned "suspects" were ever indicted nor was the slightest evidence found.

The Council report states quite clear that "the information about existing controls over the activities of secret services reveals a lack of democratic oversight". Only a few European secret services are under parlamentary scrutiny, and almost no country (except Hungary) has at least a legal framework for controlling foreign agencies, not to mention effective control in practice.

CIA flights

The same lack of theoretical and practical control mechanisms is true for the use of European air space for "extraordinary rendition" by the CIA. "Extraordinary rendition", the transport of suspects to third countries where they are tortured for information subsequently handed over to the CIA again, is of course illegal in every European country. International agreements on air traffic, domestic laws and technical standards would all allow a more effective control. But, currently, there are no practical safeguards to prevent the US from similar activity in the future.

EU governments' complicity

The fact that many countries chose not to answer the Council's questions fully raises questions on the willingness of some European governments to protect the European laws and its citizens from criminal activity by the US.

Especially the case of al Masri, where the German interior minister Schilly was fully informed about the kidnapping is only the most outrageous case of European governments' complicity with the criminal torture system upheld by the United States.

The fact that the Abu Omar-kidnapping obviously interferred with an Italian surveillance of the suspect is a cynical metaphor of how US-style "counter-terrorism" obstructs and ultimately endangers serious security efforts in Europe, let alone our liberties and our freedom.