Once upon Avon... there was many people living happy in their own countries, The Europeans, went to their countries and call them uncivilised because they just have had a different culture. We, -our ancestors- the Europeans went there, taked them out from their houses and forced them to adopt our costumes and our behaviour in the name of "God", of course of the Europeans God, not the native God - Gods.

Now, a lot of years after, they use our language, pray to a supposed existing God, use suit and tie and live in big buildings, moving with cars, looking for money and more money to live as the Europeans (and now as the Americans -USA-), in the name of progress.

They have had many things in their countries (metals, petrol, copra, fish...) that we need for our life style, to make more things that we think we need and we go to their countries and as now are not interested as slaves, we just pay a bunch of money to a corrupted Authority and we take all the materials that we want from their countries. Does not matter if we finish all their fish, or to extract metals we contaminate and deforest millions and millions of square meters. If they are hungry because no trees=no rain... it doesn’t matter because we payed for that, our money was in the.... who knows.... account and we can go next Sunday to pray in the church and give some money to the missioners to try to said our heart "shut up". For those things, we organize wars, wars between them to have the control of some things we want (diamonds, coltan...), be the “owners” of the resources, and have much money even less than one per ten thousand of the real profits that the company has. Other times we look for estrange reasons to bomb their countries and destroy their lives because we want their petrol. Dirty oil that we need to move from place to place in cheap flights or using the car to go to the corner to buy the newspaper on Sunday. Than bloody oil and the use we do of it is the responsible of the global warming. 

Global warming... it does not matter, we have resources in our rich countries to put some walls in the beach and we can go to the swimming pool. We can do beaches in the top of the mountains and ice camps in the hottest south of Europe... because "everybody has the rights to develop...”

Well.... it happened, now we can’t make a law to forbid the religious missioners to go to "poor" countries to convince the natives that we, the white Europeans - and USA- are better than them and they need to be our slaves.

Now... we cannot try to say that people that they need to be back to the forest because their culture is a real culture with the same importance that ours.

Now... we can try to preserve their languages... even in mp3 to use in the future in the museums...

Now... They need money to buy our products, and consume

Now.... They need cars, satellite dish TV, fashion clothes, go discos....

Now... They need money, much money to live as we said them that they must to live.

They need to buy chemicals for their vegetables, they need oil for their cars and...

Well... I think you know what I am talking about...

Then....

What is going to be the solution?

Of course, we can forbid them to come to our rich countries to try to get some money to try to live as we do. Of course, we can send more money to their countries to help the corrupted politicals to be richer and make more visible and high the distance between class, between rich and poor...

However,...

I want to suggest something.

Don´t send more money and more humanitarian help (except in disasters). Permit them to live, to survive with dignity.

Stop to give money to NGOs, which just do assistantial help, many times in the name of their God with the money of us all. If they want to promote their faith, they can do it... with their own money. 

Micro credits works, improve it.

Do you want to stop migrants... give them a good life in their own country.

If a country wants to kill them in the name of God because they are gay....The solution is not pay to the government of that country to stop them in the border (and... at the time... kill them there because their sexual option) . Just force that country to respect the human rights and if not... just a block a real and hard blocking, no materials can leave that country and if something is necessary with big importation taxes, which will move the importation companies to buy in other countries, more open.

If a country promotes inter-racial wars or genocides.... Block them, economically, politically... in all senses.

If a country destroys the environment... block it.... (Well... may be we need to block ourselves too).

We have the money, and then we have the power.

That does not sound very good, and less in the fingers of an activist... but... unfortunally is true.

We need to help the self-development of those countries.

For that reason, I propose:

 - With EU founds -even administrate by the member states, regional or local governments, or NGOs- cannot be payed any service, work, consult, or spend a cent in a company which:

        1) Discriminate workers (gay, lesbian, bisexuals, transsexuals, women, immigrants, black people, handicapped, elderly....) or with their normal work can discriminate this or other minorities. 

        2) Sub-contract or has important commercial relationships with companies, which discriminate minorities. 

        3) Their commercial relationships promote the poverty or damage the environment in other countries, especially in 3td world.

        4) do bad "praxis" in their commercial relationships with other countries (give for free baby powder milk to recent mothers but not in enough quantity to feed the kid, just enough until the mother tits are dry, and then they need to buy more powder milk or the baby will die)(deforest million of miles to feed cows which will finish being burgers)....

Give economical support or reduce taxes to companies that invest in that tirth world countries, specially to small companies which paying good salaries send a part of their production to those countries. We are in a globalize world and it means we can produce parts of any component in different places. Why not to produce in each small village or smaller group of 4houses in the middle of the dessert some components (normally small pieces because then the transport to our factories will be more environmental friendly) taking care no intermediate, no any person or company will be in the middle and the payment will be done directly to that persons as their own salary. Is complicated to do because corruption, but... probably the experts will find the system to guarantee that.

Promote direct sells and direct import of small amounts of products of their countries. If we take out the intermediate people and companies, the price that the final consumer will pay, would be cheaper and the money that the producer receives would be more.

 At least in the contracts of materials, services, constructions or anything payed with the EU money needs to be guaranties that the companies are "clean companies" civil and environmental friendly, respecting the human rights and working for that.

The economical help of the EU to those companies will be much cheaper than the "Frontex" or to pay planes to return illegal immigrants. Companies which open schools (not religious) or protect or develop forest, which clean waters or do any other thing in the 2td world countries not only can receive some money from us, from the EU citizens -we pay the taxes- if not that companies can have much more publicity and better image which will put them in better position under the final consumer eyes.

And a NGO register, which will be able to be inscribed all not religious charities and when a charity is inscribed in that register -and checked - the companies donations will have a big tax refund, will help the small companies which wants to collaborate but have no contacts or can’t do it directly, they could help so just with their money and the real NGO will take care and promote that activities, supervising it.

Finally, I want to said, that the Mediterranean Foundation we decided to organize in order of collaborate between activists of the south of Europe (from Portugal to the Danube) is so going to work in that direction. 

 Thnaks for your comprhension!

Although fear might be a natural first reaction to what's new and to what we don't know, we have to go beyond that and fully understand what is around immigration - and reffuse the right-wing tactics that play with fear and that keep us from seeking to understand the complexity of immigration questions... 

I do not really understand your comment and the link you are refering to. The PES/PSE never did put into question any international conventions and the rights of immigrant workers. You must have confused something. If not, please specify where exactly the PES/PSE ever stated the contrary.

Thanks! 

Being a non-politician, I am not convinced that "immigration" has the same meaning to everybody. There are the notions:  legal immigration - illegal immigration - political immigration - economical immigration. How do these terms relate?

In its most narrow perception: Immigration refers to the movement of people between countries. While the movement of people has existed throughout human history at various levels, modern immigration implies long-term permenant residence.

With an open mind for immigration,  I personally feel there is a difference of opinion if for example two "illegal" immigrants, both from third world countries, one being a highly qualified  civil engineer with exceptional skills,  and the other one being a low profile citizen, will be allowed to immigrate into an E.U. country, based on economical immigration. (in other words, the first one is 'benificial' the other one is not). Ethical considerations will most likely state that there can be no distinction between the two. Yet, it is commonly known  that the reality is different.

Other burning question is that if the civil engineer  is "encouraged "to immigrate in order better accommodate our  Western needs  for skilled professionals , how will that effect the futher and future development of his country of origin?      

How many immigrants can a country absorb before it effects security and stabilisation?

In my opinion, on the long term, there is only one good solution to remedy immigration. We must contribute to and invest more in the development of such underdevelopped countries. How this can be achieved will need in depth coordination with and cooperation from the countries involved, and with respect of each others culture.

 "Socialism means peace, not war.  However it seems hard for EU politicians to admit it. Here are some facts: 90% of Bulgarian people were against Serbia bombing in 1994 but officially Bulgaria helped bombing and killing people.  I believe 80 to 90% of Europeans are against Iraq occupation or military presence in Afghanistan – what are we doing there?"

In Europe the Kosovo question highlights the core problem - uncritical following of US foreign (cowboy) policy - of EU.  The results one can see now: 

Year 2008 has showed the chaotic stage of international Kosovo administration. Local administration has been in same situation already earlier due parallel institutions, corruption, ethnic tensions, tribe dynasties etc.

When Albanian majority declared Independence Feb. 2008 the idea was to transfer international administration from UN to EU. However the only internationally accepted resolution 1244 - which says that Kosovo is part of Serbia - stayed valid. So that about independence which in mistake was was accepted through some 40 countries.

The unclear situation between UN and EU has now came conflict also between Nato and EU in relation cooperation between Kfor troops and EULEX-mission. Already earlier Kosovo status as special case has served as example to many other ethnic conflict around the world.

Isn´t it now finally time to confess the made mistakes and start new chapter through local stakeholders in stead of quackery by outsiders. I think that the best international crisis management would be to create opportunities for local agreement by means of stick and carrots. This could make it possible to transfer focus from legal nitpicking to long lasting development of economy and democratic process.

I am sure that countries in Balkans have more realstic, pragmatic and true picture about Balkan problems than americans.  This voice should be heard also in Brussels.

http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.php-URL_ID=1513&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

MJS FRANCE, AUBE ( 10 )

In your article you ask what we think about some proposals:

- We must spread a European vision in the world, especially in Africa.

I like the terms : « a European vision in the world, » although I see no reason to aim more at Africa than elsewhere.

After more than 2000 years of war-faring, 6 countries decided to put an end to war. The 6 became 9, then 10, then 12. Germany was reunited, and only recently when Romania and Bulgaria joined, we put a definite end to the cold war. Nevertheless we bear the effects of all those wars, and the best way to stabilize the region is to include the Balkans into our Union. In 50 years we went a long way, but there is still much to do. We have to help the poorer countries develop and reach the same standard of living that we enjoy. The challenge is huge, but worth it, and only once we unite, then we will share peace with our neighbors. Our european project can’t exclude the Balkans nor stop at the Dardanelles, the Middle East has to pacify, and Europe has to show the way.

-We must make clear choices in Africa: Shall we support the dictators or the social democrats?

Supporting dictators makes things easy ; you only deal with one man, and not with a a parliament, but in the long run it doesn’t pay. US policy in Latin America always supported dictators which was bad for everyone, especially latin american people. Europe does not impose itself through war, but by setting an example of peace and development.  

-We must do more to end poverty, working together with NGOs and trade unions. A clear commitment to (real) development aid is necessary.

Definitely

-In our paper we are too enthusiastic about the role of the NATO. We should rather advocate a stronger role of the United Nations.

NATO made sense during the cold war, but it is time that we change policy. We need a clear EU foreign policy, a policy of peace and development. Our philosophy is different from that of America ; war is not a means for us to advance. War is not a way to solve things, what is more, it seems to be a failure : the US is bogged in Iraq and Nato in Afghanistan. We need a european defense strategy independent from NATO.

The UN is important, but the Iraq war showed that it is sometimes helpless. Had we spoken of one voice at the time, maybe we could have avoided that useless inhuman war. Nevertheless as long as the palestinian situation continues, it will be very difficult to have peace in the Middle East.

In this beautiful sunny day, I hear the tanks rolling just under my window. It is not war, it is France’s national day and military hardware is rolling back to their barracks after the traditional parade. Isn’t it absurd to continue with that tradition ? A tradition which is meant to show military strength ?

I’m confident we will succeed. It is sometimes difficult, but all in all we are going in the right direction. Be it the Constitutional treaty or the Lisbon treaty, or some other way, we have to  get rid of unanimity, we have to take the next step. Our peoples need to see clear, to see a project clearly stated. We need a clear ambitious project, something to look up to. We have the project, and ambitious it is.

We are here to humanize globalization, that by itself should be enough to make us enthusiastic.

We are here to bring peace and prosperity to the world.

We are here to bring social justice to our society.

But we are in the opposition, so we have to work hard in order to have as many PES MPs elected as possible, in the coming elections. We want MPs that work hard and none of those who are mostly absent.

Very interesting interview of John Bolton, former US Undersecretary of State and Ambassador to the United Nations popped to my eyes a ouple of weeks ago which gives more clear picture about US foreign policy. The highlights of Mr. Bolton´s comments in Interfax interview were e.g. following:

Extract from the interview you may find by copy/pasting following

 http://www.interfax.com/17/406278/Interview.aspx

Mr Bolton really hit the nail on the head. I also think that the cause to the main problems in Kosovo is hesitation to admit old mistakes. The solution would be starting from clean table. Shall we wait US elections or does someone courage start earlier.

Last week U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Daniel Fried said that the U.S. is satisfied with the progress Kosovo. He also add that:

“It is a place completely independent, regardless of whether a UN resolution says that exists or not. It is independent. Kosovo has been recognized by two-thirds of the EU sates, Europe, Japan and Australia. It is as an independent country. I feel sorry that Russia has chosen to make this thing more difficult rather than to ease it, risking the stability but also the European future of Serbia”.

Few comments:

James Bisset was Canada’s ambassador to Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania. He is widely recognized as one of the foremost authorities on Balkan politics. I agree with most of his analysis and quote one of them here:

“United States policy in the Balkans has been dysfunctional since March 1992 when their Ambassador, Warren Zimmerman, persuaded Izetbegovic the Islamist leader of the Bosnian Muslims to withdraw his signature to the Lisbon Agreement. This decision which led to US acceptance of the results of an illegal referendum and recognition of the first Muslim state in Europe triggered civil war in Bosnia and led directly to the death and destruction that followed. In the following years US decisions have proven to be equally disastrous for the region.

The decision of the United States government to support the cause of the terrorist KLA in its armed rebellion to secede from Yugoslavia is another example of US policy making gone wrong.Their current policy supporting independence for Kosovo is but another chapter in an unfolding series of strategic errors.

United States policy in the Balkans has been characterized by cynicism, duplicity and short term tactical gain. By backing Islamist aims in the region and supporting terrorist groups in Kosovo there might be the immediate advantage of establishing a large military base in Kosovo or appeasing further Albanian demands by advocating independence for Kosovo but in the long term it will backfire.”

To me it is alarming, that this US policy has made both during democratic and republican US presidents and not only in Balkans but e.g. in Iraq also. Future shows if the change will come with new president, will he change old advisers also. And will US succeed to gain support for these actions either through the use of NATO or by persuading the European Community or the newly emerging states of Central and Eastern Europe to get on side.

More views about Balkan case e.g. in BalkanBlog:   http://arirusila.wordpress.com

Si toutefois des hommes et des femmes font des efforts considérables pour venir en Europe au point de risquer leur vies, ce n'est pas que pour bénéficier de notre système social, qui dans certains pays comme la France est en train de se dégrader. C'est pour travailler. Ce sont les "meilleurs" de leur pays qui émigrent, c'est une chance pour nous!

 J'aimerai disposer des chiffres pour pouvoir contrer, voir combattre ceux qui ont peur de l'autre, celui qui par sa culture, par son faciès est différent. Cette peur est peut-être "naturelle", "ils" sont différents. J'ai lu quelque part que 2,5 millions de personnes viennent en Europe chaque année, ça peut paraître beaucoup, mais ça ne représente que 0,5% de notre population de presque 500 millions. Sur ces 2,5 millions, 2 millions arrivent en forme régulière. Ils viennent pour étudier, pour travailler, pour retrouver leur famille, et ils travaillent. Seulement 0,1% vient illégalement. Avons nous besoin de faire une "directive de la honte" pour ce pourcentage infime de migrants? Quelle est la proportion qui ne s'intègre pas? 

On avance souvent des arguments économiques: "ils nous coûtent cher".  Le coût d'un enfant en maternelle est bien supérieur à celui d'un étudiant universitaire. Le migrant arrive prêt pour travailler, nous épargnant les coûts de formation. 

Le migrant sans papiers est forcé de travailler au noir. Il est moins cher que le travailleur légal. Là se trouve l'hypocrisie de notre sociéte. Les grandes entreprises font appel à des sous-traitants qui forcés de reduire leurs coûts font appel aux illégaux; une manière de contourner la loi.

La directive retour comporte des volets inacceptables, mais elle à le mérite d'exister. 18 mois de retention maximale paraît trop long, mais 9 pays membres n'avaient pas de limite du tout! et cette histoire de renvoyer des enfants même à des pays qui n'ont jamais été les leurs!

 Faisons confiance à nos parlementaires pour humaniser ce texte qui comporte des volets qui nous font honte, mais ne laissons pas les euroceptiques dans notre sein profiter pour taper sur l'Europe, sans distiguer entre la droite et la gauche!

Carlos 

Hanneke: I actually think that the Netherlands is much more advanced than Denmark when it comes to LGBT rights. Thanks for the insights - and I agree: there's much more to do, also in the countries that see themselves in front!

I also agree very much that Europe shouldn't 'blindly' compare itself to the US, as many politicians do in the debate about fees. Yes, US universities might be richer - but are they really the right role model for European universities?  Social and educational systems are very, very different in Europe and the US. We shouldn't forget our own values while developing our universities and educational system.

Hope to meet again everybody in Madrid in December.