He hit one of the benches, bled severely to his head, and was taken to the hospital. It seems he will survive, we will see in what shape. The man works as an electrician for the national television. He makes about 300 euros a month. He has two children, one of which suffers from autism and apparently requires therapy that costs over 5o euros a week. His wife was paid 150 euros as a carer for the boy with autism, an allowance which had been cut by 25 percent in the governmental austerity drive. The family was indebted to banks. This is the information about the man provided in the hours following his act by his collagues. Before he jumped, the man screamed “You have killed our future!” and “You have taken the bread away from my children’s mouths!” Probably much more information will emerge, but all the crucial information is there. This is a sane person, not someone deranged. He was working a normal job, a decent job supposedly. He is not an exception in any way, he is just a normal person. But he must have not been able to see any way out, any solution, any answer. The despair must have overtaken everything else. One would expect his act would awaken the consciences of those in the parliament. Many seemed shocked. But they’ll all just express regret and move on. The opposition will use this gesture to emptily criticize the government’s austerity plan. The government will go on with the cuts, insisting it is the only way (they in fact did go on with the parliamentary session, after a minimal pause). They will shed a tear for the televisions. They will then fuck off to Poiana Brasov and Monaco and wherever else, to stuff themselves with Christmas meals and exchange luxurious gifts with their pretty mistresses and reliable business partners. Life will go on next year. And probably quite a few other people will jump from balconies, from their own, not the parliament ones, in anonymity. Quite a few old people will freeze to death in the lines for free bread. Loads more will pass away quietly, not affording the medicine, not affording the heating bills, not seeing a way out.  It’s as bad as that. Today showed how Romanians crack, little by little, not going in the streets to scream their anger, just taking it all in, until they can’t take it in any more, till they crack, one by one, alone.

“Ce ne lipseste? Ce liant

A fost substras de la-nceputuri

Nisipului ce face valuri

Redesenate de-orice vant,

Sau ce mortar fara de care

Zidul se-nalta spre neant,

Ca sa se naruie grabit

De presimtirea unui gand?

Ce ne lipseste? Doar petale,

Ce nu se strang intr-o corola,

Si numai fire lungi de lana

Ce nu pot tese un covor,

Si pietre vajaind prin aer

Nestranse intr-o baricada,

Doar disperari desperecheate

Si conservate in umor.

(Ca niste foetusi otraviti

De chiar metabolismul mamei

Si pusi in spirt- dovezi si mostre-

A vietii scurse fara rost)

Ce ne lipseste? Clei de oase

Frante pe roata, un cuvant,

Intraductibil in sfarsitul

Unde noi insine am fost.”

(Ana Blandiana- Liant)

According to Frontex spokesman Michal Parzyszek the ‘Research and Development Unit’ of Frontex has researched extensively the possibility of employing automated border control equipment, including UAV’s, during 2010.

“In the domain of land border surveillance, there is a wide spectrum of possible technical means that can be employed to provide effective surveillance including: daylight and infrared cameras, ground radars, fixed ground sensors, mobile systems, manned aircraft and satellites. However, it is clear that Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) could also play an important role in further enhancing border surveillance in the future, though they face a number of technical and other challenges” the call read.

Frontex staff has not responded to inquiries of …. about information on the participants in the event or its possible participation.

Frontex’s interest in the emerging surveillance regime appears to overlap with a strong political will in Brussels to push ahead with securitisation of EU external borders as well as with business interests becoming increasingly active in the emerging European homeland security sector.

During the last two years the development of an integrated European Borders Surveillance System (EUROSUR), of which the policy objectives are influenced extensively by Frontex’s research on security issues, has become an attraction for producers of security equipment like Unmanned Aviation Vehicles, best known as ‘Drone Planes’, as well as other surveillance systems.

EUROSUR project was initiated on 2008 by the European Commission in order to control influxes of irregular migrants and contribute to the prevention of cross-border crime and to enhance search and rescue capacity.

As Ben Hayes has disclosed in his path breaking report “Neoconopticon”, a detailed account of the emerging European homeland security sector published for Statewatch and Transnational Institute, EUROSUR is backed by a plethora of security research projects funded with EU money that involve big defence companies. Hayes mentions two important examples. The OPERAMAR project, led by Thales Underwater Systems in conjunction with Selex (a Finmeccanica company), promotes the interoperability of European and national maritime surveillance assets. STABORSEC consortium, led by Sagem Defense Securite, recommended 20 detection, surveillance and biometric technologies for standardisation at the EU level.

The specifics of the relationship of Frontex with security business interests remains unclear but it has become notable after the conclusion of ‘European Security Research and Innovation Forum’ (ESRIF) that ran between 2007 and 2009, bringing together individuals and groups from the research community, the private business security sector and European Intuitions as well as representatives of European MS.

While EUROSUR and ESRIF are not formally connected they are both products of the wider European Security Research Programme, supervised by the European Commission, and involve the same political and commercial interests.

Frontex chaired the third working group of ESRIF (WG3) of the forum of which the rapporteur has been the Italian defense corporation Finmeccanica. WG3 object was border controls and maritime surveillance.

Frank Slijper, an acknowledged author on the emerging security-industrial complex in Europe and member of the anti-militaristic initiative Kampagne tegen Wapenhandel, said to …. that the forum has been more than an opinion exchange of security issues. “ESRIF was THE place in Europe where these supply and demand actors met in a structured formalised setting, a win-win situation really for all sides on the forum”.

“Such initiatives are steps that enable military integration at a later point. First getting the ‘softer’ side of security within the EU, and then through its common linkages getting the military sector fully involved. Note the number of arms companies on board of ESRIF (Safran/Sagem, Thales, EADS Finmeccanica etc.), who post 9-11 have all set up special (homeland) security divisions in their companies as that has been a new growth market for their companies”.

Beyond ESRIF, during the last two years Frontex is a regular participant in conferences and forums promoting the securitisation of controls in Europe alongside groups lobbying in favour of corporate interests. Last month it attended Security Research Conference together with CoESS, (a group founded in 1989 by a joint initiative of several national associations of private security companies belonging to EU Member States).

It often sits in conferences promoting security research together with big lobby groups like the Aerospace and Defence (ASD) association (which promotes Aeronautics Industry as a strategic priority for Europe) and the Security Defence Agenda (SDA) (a Brussels based think tank that provides a platform for the meeting of EU institutions and NATO, with national government officials, industry, the international and specialised media, think-tanks, academia and NGOs).

In its initiating position paper the European Organisation for Security, a new umbrella lobby group concentrating the interests of the security and defence industry, launched May 2008, defines Frontex role as “not only providing a common risk assessment, but also supporting and coordinating the definition, test and validation of elements of a common Architecture, such as EUROSUR, and be a relevant interlocutor for the supply industry sector”. Soon it could transform into a customer as well since the new European regulation mentioned already will offer the multimillion budget agency the option to acquire equipment directly.

While questioned, during a phone interview with …. about the agency’s relationship with the security industrial complex spokesman Michal Parzyszek has similarly described Frontex as “a broker between research institutions, private business and national border guard authorities”.

Regarding the issue of the possibility that Frontex is being lobbied by corporate interests MEP Franziska Keller answered that “we are not able to know who goes to Warsaw, at Frontex headquarters, and with whom they meet elsewhere”. Asked who knows she answered, “I think nobody knows”.

AF

Frontex’s field of operations covers an extended patrol network throughout the whole southern naval flank of the EU and beyond, from the shores of Mauritania and Senegal in north western Africa to river Evros. Frontex itself does not today own technical assets for border control nor does it have its own crew to navigate them: both are made available by individual member States on voluntary basis. The equipment used for joint operations is listed in the Centralized Record of Available Technical Equipment (CRATE) which the Member States make available for the needs of a joint operation upon request of Frontex for limited period of time. Similarly, the Member States provide experts according to the operation’s needs.

The agency is also actively assisting MS in the training of national border guards, including the establishment of common training standards. For this task it has developed a network of Partnership Academies (Frontex Partnership Schools) in nine Member States. (Iasi – Romania. Cesena – Italy. Traiskirchen – Austria, Espoo / Imatra – Finland, Gatwick / Dover – United Kingdom, Apeldoorn – The Netherlands, Vilnious and Medininkai – Lithuania, Bratislava – Slovakia, Luebeck – Germany. These training centres host Frontex-organised training courses focused on small groups (of 10 to 20 participants) as well as training development conferences.

FRONTEX co-operates with detention centres and police stations, establishes contacts with third country embassies that are issuing travel documents for persons to be returned. It also works as an information sharing platform between countries. “If there is an agreement between Sweden and Nigeria for the return of 30 people, Frontex spreads the info to other countries, asking if they have people to return there and if they want to join the flight” Michal Parzyszek, spokesman of Frontex clarified for …. “By the end of June this year 26 such flights took place returning approximately 1330 persons”. (To: Nigeria, Kosovo –Kosovo Albanians- Cambodia, Georgia, Armenia, Ecuador, Colombia, Burundi and Iraq). This is a significant increase in repatriation flights since last year when Frontex, according to its information, coordinated 30 flights in total.

Some days ago Frontex has funded and organised its own first charter flight to deport undocumented aliens. According to ‘Le Monde’ on 28 September, “in a deliberately low-key operation,” 56 Georgian migrants arrested in Poland, France, Austria and Germany were flown from Warsaw to the Georgian capital Tbilisi. In 2011, Frontex, which has been granted a budget of 676 million euros for the period 2008-2013, plans to organise and finance between 30 and 40 charters to repatriate migrants who have illegally entered the EU.

Still all this seems moderate in front of the super powers offered to Frontex by an amendment of regulation No.2007/2004 that established the agency, which is finalised these days in the European institutions.

The new regulation No 2010/0039, which …. has read, revolutionises the militarisation of border surveillance and migration control by giving Frontex the capacity to:

- Collect and process personal data of suspects for involvement in illicit border activities

- Deploy liaison officers in third countries

- Initiate itself joint operations and pilot projects in co-operation with MS

- Acquire or lease itself equipment for border surveillance

- Increase its human and financial resources

- Evaluate MS on border management

- Integrate common core curricula in the training of national border guards

- Formalise a code of contact for returns, to be applied in every case

- Take on direct responsibility for returns after request of a MS

- Develop and operate an information system capable of exchanging classified information

Last but not least, it is article 2 paragraph 3, that appears as an insignificant detail, predicting an ‘increasing role on research and development for the control and surveillance of external borders’ that promotes the agency into a key player between the European institutional apparatus and the emerging European homeland security industry.

A.F.

“There are political forces that advocate in its favour, for extra funds and powers, on the grounds that Frontex is the instrument that Europe has to utilise against illegal migration. Its powers enlarge while questions of authority remain unanswered”.

But while the agency grows over a cutting edge policy frontier it provokes divisive issues even among European MS. On 26 April 2010 the European Council passed a supplementary decision (2010/252/EU) on the Schengen Borders Code regarding the surveillance of the sea external borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by Frontex. The new rules provided that member states hosting Frontex led missions will have to take responsibility for all illegal immigrants saved on the high seas, meaning the asylum requests would be theirs to consider.

Malta and Italy disagreed with the new rules considering them as another mechanism of pushing the burden of asylum requests to the MS at the external borders of the union. Maltese MEP Simon Busuttil from the Nationalist European Party initiated a procedure against them to European court on the basis that they exceeded the European Council and European Commission’s powers under the EU Treaties.

MS have been divided over the issue and have moved to clarify their positions as a letter sent by the Justice Minister Hirsch Ballin to the Chairman of the Dutch Senate on 3 September 2010 proves. According to the letter, which …. had access to, the Dutch government’s position regarding handling of asylum requests made by migrants who are intercepted at sea during Frontex coordinated operations is that “An asylum request can only be submitted to the responsible authority of the state in which territory – including the territorial waters – the application is made”.

The process is ongoing through the European courts but meanwhile Malta withdrew from Frontex operations. Consequently Frontex ceased operations in its territorial waters. Still the letter of Minister Ballin sets another issue unexplored so far by MS. While consideration for where responsibility lies during operation is resolved between MS, Frontex is excluded.

This literally means that personnel on duty for the agency’s operations has been given the executive powers to intercept, detain, ‘screen’ and identify people eligible to be returned in a frame that exempts Frontex from any responsibility for the violation of human rights.

“We have addressed that issue since 2007 when Frontex became involved in refoulements, while it was clearly described in its mandate that had not such authority. The Commission and the council have not responded and nobody investigates allegations for irregularities. Without monitoring and if necessary criminal investigations it will not be possible to learn. We want the European Parliament to take over the control of the agency so we can check these things” Keller commented.

Technically it’s the MSs who bear responsibility since they provide human resources and equipment for Frontex, Keller says. “Frontex appears to operate in a vacuum of executive power control, it has enormous authority which grows even bigger every day without essentially answering back on why and how it decides, negotiates and implements its policies”.

A.F.

It is only minutes after 10pm when an insisting spot appears on the radar of Frontex’s rubber speedboat patrolling west of the Greek island of Lesvos, five kilometres from the Turkish coast, against irregular migrants’ intrusions.

The two Finish border guards, part of the multinational force deployed in Lesvos and many other islands along the naval frontier, decide this is a considerable warning. After approaching their target they switch off the engine and lights. One climbs up and starts scanning around with his night goggle while the other explains “it is very difficult for the radar to spot small rubber boats, during the moonless nights you might pass next to them without noticing. They are like tiny stealth boats”.

Frontex is a code name for the ‘Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union’. The agency appeared in 2004 and was operational already in 2005. Since autumn 2009 its crews have been increasingly patrolling the Turkish-Greek naval frontier after migrations influxes into Europe shifted from northern Africa to the Aegean Sea.

The Finish patrol is present here in the frame of an available force Frontex can deploy in order to support Member States in exceptional situations. These corps are composed of national Border Guards having the right to act on the territory of other Member States.

But this time there will be no incident, just a false hint. “Since Frontex established its presence traffic along the sea has been reduced almost 70 percent” says one of the guards who requested anonymity from …. to board their boat. “The facilitators have pushed the traffic north, now they send people to cross through Evros”, the river that marks the north-eastern border between Greece and Turkey.

And Frontex is following them by extending its operations overland. Its personnel has been operation in Evros for many months already but some days ago the agency announced for the first time the deployment of pre-structured rapid intervention packages, established with the Regulation (EC) No 863/2007 of 11 July 2007. The so called Rapid Border Intervention Teams (RABIT) will be present in Evros soon, raising the involvement and the numbers of officers of the agency in a European member state in unprecedented levels.

Maintaining a de facto high level of professionalism Frontex co-ordinates sea patrol, reconnaissance flights, and sea shore or overland operations as well as an expert’s network charged with identifying the real country of origin of detained irregular migrants, a process that Frontex has coded as ‘screening’.

Still Evros is a treacherous passage and officially it has cost already the lives of at least 50 people attempting the crossing only during the first six months of 2010. The real number could be remarkably higher. Consequently it has attracted criticism about the Greek and European external border and migration policy, including Frontex’s hands on approach in militarising European borders.

Natasha Strachini, a member of the well known group of ‘Lawyers for the Rights of Refugees and Migrants’ has recently returned from a monitoring trip in Evros. She believes that Frontex’s strategy is to transfer responsibility for refugees handling to third countries bordering the EU. “Border guards in Evros are detaining and returning to Turkey people coming from Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Afghanistan citizens were released until lately but it seems they are now also kept longer, meaning they might soon also start being transferred back”.

Upon arrival of the agency in Greece efforts intensified to revitalise a refoulement protocol initially put in place between Greece and Turkey in 2001, but remaining inactive since then. Since its involvement in South-Eastern Europe Frontex has played a proactive role in promoting bilateral co-operation over the control of migration influxes and returns of arrested irregulars between European frontier countries and their neighbours, most notably Spain-Morocco and Italy-Libya.

But this policy has compromised the rights of many refugees. “If Frontex is present on the field it means they are aware of the irregularities taking place. There is strong proof about illegal refoulements and denial of fundamental human rights both in Greece and Turkey” Strachini said.

People who fail to establish their eligibility for international protection during ‘screening’ proceedings are the ones who become subject to return. But activists of the group ‘Welcome to Europe’ (w2E) involved extensively in fieldwork with migrants throughout the country as well as pro-refugee lawyers maintain serious doubts about the ‘screening’ methods. “It is unknown to everyone who these screeners are and how they conduct interviews. It is people with undisclosed credentials operating under an obscure mandate which in a ten minute conversation determines the lives of people” says anthropologist and W2E member Salinia Stroux.

Still Frontex takes precautions not to formally compromise either the human rights of people subjected to screening or the mandate of its experts there. During IPS visit to Lesvos it has become obvious that the experts ‘suggest’ the country of origin, which is then registered formally by national police authorities. In the presence of …. the then Latvian team leader in Lesvos received a verification phone call by experts and then informed local police about the nationality of people apprehended at sea the night before by a Romanian patrol.

A direct interview with a screener has been denied by the team leader of the mission on the island. Requests for interviews with screeners present in Lesvos during the summer have been denied or ignored repeatedly by British, Danish and Norwegian border guard authorities.

Similarly in every field operation of Frontex a representative of national authorities is present, technically bearing responsibility for proceedings.

Last May Frontex signed a co-operation agreement with the Fundamental Rights Agency to help it “integrate a fundamental rights approach into its activities”. Officers dispatched from national authorities to the pool of human resources of Frontex will be informed on basic human rights issues.

Asked whether this approach reveals an effort to create a buffer zone between Frontex’s capacity to directly impact the migration policy of European Member States and shape the character of operations in the field, without at the same time formally bearing responsibility for the irregularities that occur, Strachini answers, “the border is a wild frontier. If you have experienced that, you know that no mandate can clearly contain all possibilities that something might go wrong and expose an institution exercising executive power there. So generally speaking yes, it seems that Frontex is shaping a panopticon reality. It will be present everywhere, but exposed nowhere”.

On 1^st of October Frontex opened its first regional headquarters in Greece, establishing a permanent presence in the country. The offices are situated on the tower of the building of the Greek Coastal guard Piraeus, the biggest port of the country, which architecturally, and ironically, matches the idea of panopticon perfectly.

Questioned about Frontex’s accountability the Finnish crew in Lesvos distinguished clearly between the dimensions of a security operation at sea and the one of international security politics. “What we do here is to compromise facilitators and protect endangered people at sea. This is significant and legitimate. There is a lot of politics involved regarding Frontex, but the sea is not the place one can get these answers” they said.

A.F.

Η αλήθεια είναι ότι το ραδιενεργό ξανθό τσουλούφι και ο Σάσα ειναι φίλοι, κομμάτι μιας ωραίας παρέας που Παρασκευή απόγευμα έχει μαζευτεί σε ένα σπίτι και τα πίνει γελώντας, κοροϊδεύοντας και σαρκάζοντας τον εαυτό της με μια άνεση και φυσικότητα που δεν συνάντα κάνεις εύκολα.

Όσο για την αντίφαση ανάμεσα στην υιοθεσία δυτικογενων επιρροών και τον πατριωτικό συναισθηματισμό που παρατηρείται στους δυο φίλους είναι μια κλασική έκφραση της σύγχυσης που έχουν να αντιμετωπίσουν οι νέοι σε μια χώρα που τα τελευταία είκοσι χρόνια έγινε αρκετές φορές αντικείμενο κριτικής και στόχος βομβών ενώ ενδιάμεσα δεχόταν ανήθικες προσκλήσεις για ταξιδάκια στις Βρυξέλλες. Ψηλά γράμματα, μέχρι να κάνω την ανάλυση το ραδιενεργό τσουλούφι έχει οριζοντιωθεί στο καναπέ και κοιμάται ύπνο μακάριο ενώ ο Σάσα έχει εξαφανιστεί «λόγο στομαχικών διαταραχών», όπως λέει το ιατρικό ανακοινωθέν.

Η φιλοσοφία απέτυχε και απόψε, και έχει αποτύχει γενικά, σκέφτομαι αναχωρώντας. Η νυχτερινή βόλτα με το αυτοκίνητο είναι ότι απομένει για παρηγοριά…

Φτάνει κανείς στο Βελιγράδι για πρώτη φορά έχοντας την αίσθηση ότι επιστρέφει σε αυτή την πόλη έπειτα απο καιρό. Ίσως επειδή είναι το μέρος που έχει συμβολικά ταυτιστεί περισσότερο απο κάθε άλλο με όσα συνέβησαν τα τελευταία είκοσι χρόνια στην περιοχή. Αντί όμως για την απομονωμένη πρωτεύουσα μιας ηττημένης χώρας βρίσκεται σε ένα αστικό κέντρο που η καθημερινότητα του είναι εξοργιστικά δραστήρια και η νύχτα του αποπνέει ακαταμάχητη γοητεία.

Δύσκολα φαντάζεται κανείς όταν περπατά γύρο απο το Πλάτο, την πλατεία στον ομφαλό της πόλης, και  χαζεύοντας τους αμέτρητους φοιτητές να πηγαινοέρχονται με φόντο ακριβά καταστήματα βαφτισμένα με τα ονόματα γνωστών πολυεθνικών κολοσσών και οίκων μόδας, ότι αυτή είναι η πρωτεύουσα μιας χωρά διχασμένης ανάμεσα σε δυτικόφιλους και υπερπατριώτες.

«Ξέρεις το Βελιγράδι ήταν μια ανοιχτή πόλη ακόμα και όταν οι χώρες του Ανατολικού μπλοκ ζούσαν μέσα στο ποιο πυκνό σκοτάδι» λέει η Βέσνα, δημοσιογράφος που έχει ζήσει εδώ όλη της τη ζωή. «Ήταν κατά κάποιο τρόπο ένα ουδέτερο σημείο συνάντησης για τους πολεμιστές του ψυχρού πολέμου και ανοιχτό σε επιρροές δυτικές και ανατολικές εκατέρωθεν. Υπήρχε μουσική σκηνή, εκθέσεις, κινηματογράφος, νυχτερινή ζωή, ζωντάνια που ανεξάρτητα απο όσα έγιναν επιβίωσαν και επηρεάζουν ακόμα το χαρακτήρα της.» Όσο μιλάει η τζαμαρία που βλέπει στην Πλατεία της Δημοκρατίας, μερικά μέτρα απο το Πλάτο μετατρέπεται σε οθόνη όπου καλόγουστος κόσμος περιμένει ήρεμα ένα ραντεβού, παρέες φεύγουν ενθουσιασμένες σε άγνωστη κατεύθυνση, φοιτητές αράζουν πίνοντας μπίρες.

Η νύχτα στο Βελιγράδι προχώρα γρήγορα και όποιος πειραματιστεί μαζί της συναντά απίστευτες πτυχές της πόλης και των ανθρώπων της. Σε μια πλατφόρμα στο ποταμό Σάββα πιτσιρικάδες χορεύουν και τραγουδούν ‘Λίγο Ουίσκι, λίγη Κόκα Κόλα’ και αλλα σκυλάδικα χείριστης ποιότητας, στο ‘Πλάστικ’ τα ηλεκτρονικά μπιτ πριονίζουν τα αυτιά των νεολαίων, ενώ σε ένα ημιυπόγειο στην περιοχή Δαλματίνσκα οπού είναι κρυμμένο το μπαρ ‘Ανθοπωλειο’ ο κόσμος ακούει μουσική χαλαρά, κουβεντιάζει χωρίς να ξελαρυγγιάζεται και μια παρέα διασχίζει τη νύχτα παίζοντας βελάκια και ποδοσφαιράκι.

«Το πρόβλημα με εμάς είναι ότι κάθε τρεις μήνες πάμε να ψηφίσουμε στις ποιο σημαντικές εκλογές για την ιστορία της χώρας» λέει ειρωνικά ο Νέμανια, φοιτητής στο οικονομικό πανεπιστήμιο του Βελιγραδίου, που κανείς δεν τον παίζει ποδοσφαιράκι γιατί σκίζει. «Πόσες φορές μπορείς να το επαναλάβεις αυτό πριν καταλάβεις ότι πρόκειται για μια φάρσα; Ε λοιπόν εδώ μιλάμε για την μεγαλύτερη φάρσα όλων τον εποχών.»

Η περίπτωση του δεν είναι αυτή του πρώην ρομαντικού φοιτητή που ανακύπτοντας το ρεαλισμό αρχίζει τη μακρά και βασανιστική απομυθοποίηση της πραγματικότητας. Η πλειοψηφία των νέων μιλάνε με παρόμοια απογοήτευση και ακόμη περισσότερο με περιφρόνηση για την πολιτική και τους πολιτικούς. Ωστόσο κανένας δεν δηλώνει απλός αδιάφορος ή άσχετος με το θέμα. Στην πλειοψηφία τους οι νέοι μοιάζουν να ζουν έχοντας αποδεχτεί ότι πρόκειται για αναγκαίο κακό που υπάρχει για να κάνει τι ζωή δυσκολότερη.

«Στην αρχή πληρώσαμε για το πόλεμο» συνεχίζει ο Νέμανια με τον κοφτερό κυνισμό του «έπειτα για το εμπάργκο και τον Μιλόσεβιτς, ύστερα ξανάπληρώσαμε για το Κόσσοβο και τους βομβαρδισμούς, τώρα πάλι θα μας πουν να πληρώσουμε για το Κόσσοβο, δεν είναι κάπως πολλά για μια χώρα που ο βασικός μισθός είναι λίγο πάνω απο 400 ευρώ» λέει ξεσπώντας σε γέλια.

Ωστόσο όταν η κουβέντα έρχεται στα του βιοπορισμού το πράγμα σοβαρεύει. Η ανεργία στη χώρα πλήττει κυρίως τους νέους που φαίνεται να γνωρίζουν καλά τη σημαίνει επιβίωση. Με μια αξιοπρεπή δουλειά δεν βγάζεις το χρόνο πάνω απο πέντε χιλιάδες ευρώ ενώ οι τιμές στα μαγαζιά καμιά φορά εκπλήττουν και αυτούς που εισπράττουν ευρωπαϊκούς μισθούς.

Εδώ ο κόσμος έχει έναν ιδιαίτερα καυστικό τρόπο με τον οποίο καυτηριάζει τις δυσκολίες και τις ιδιαιτερότητες της πραγματικότητας του, μείγμα του κυνισμού που απέμενε κληρονομιά απο την εποχή του πολέμου και αυτοσαρκασμού. Τα αποτελέσματα του είναι όντως αξιοσημείωτα. Η περιοχή γνωστή ως ‘Κοιλάδα της Σιλικονης’, κάτι σαν το Κολωνάκι του Βελιγραδίου που πράγματι έλκει μερικούς απο τους πιο υπερβολικά καλλωπισμένους τύπους και τύπισσες στην πόλη είναι ένα απο αυτά. Ένα άλλο είναι το ειρωνικό ‘Head and Shoulders’, με το οποίο βαφτίζονται τα παλικάρια που κυκλοφορούν με το κεφάλι ξυρισμένο και το στιλ του σκληρού πορτιέρη.

Ωστόσο αυτοί δεν είναι λίγοι και όταν τους γνωρίσεις δεν είναι επίσης και τόσο αστείοι. Είναι μια μικρή απόδειξη της απότομης στροφής πολλών νέων προς την ακροδεξιά που σε όσους έζησαν στη Σερβία τη δεκαετία του ενενήντα προκαλεί άγρια ανατριχίλα. «Είναι το αποτέλεσμα της μειοδοσίας στο φτηνό εθνικισμό, μεγάλο ταλέντο τις πλειοψηφίας των Σέρβων πολιτικών», μονολογεί η Γέγια που εργάζεται για ένα διαδικτιακο ειδησεογραφικό κόμβο και προσπαθεί μαζί με άλλους να στήσει ένα πρόγραμμα που θα εισαγάγει σε μερικά σχολεία ένα θεατρικό πρόγραμμα εμπνευσμένο απο το ‘Θεατρο της Απελευθέρωσης’ που σχετίζει τέχνη και κοινωνικό προβληματισμό. «Στη Σερβία οι μητέρες όσων χάθηκαν στο πόλεμο τραβάνε τα πάνδεινα για να μπορέσουν να διαδηλώσουν ενώ οι ακροδεξιοί μαζεύονται όποτε και όπου θέλουν και έχουν όποια διευκόλυνση χρειαστούν».

Στο βορειοδυτικό τμήμα της πόλης, πέρα απο τον ποταμό Σάββα απλώνεται το ‘Νέο Βελιγράδι’, μια περιοχή στην οποία απλώθηκε αστικός ιστός απο τα τέλη τις δεκαετίας του 50 και έπειτα. Σήμερα αποτελεί το ποιο υπερσύγχρονο κομμάτι της πόλης, με τεράστιες λεωφόρους που το χαράζουν οριζόντια και κάθετα, ουρανοξύστες και γιγαντιαία εμπορικά κέντρα, τράπεζες και ατελείωτες σειρές μπλοκ πολυκατοικιών που ταξιδεύουν βαθιά στον ορίζοντα. Διασχίζοντας τους δρόμους του το χάραμα  θυμίζει στιγμιαία περισσότερο άκεντρο προάστιο μεγαλόπολης στις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες παρά Βαλκανική πρωτεύουσα. Κατά τη διάρκεια της μέρας οι χιλιάδες που ταξιδεύουν προς το παλιό Βελιγράδι δημιουργούν κυριολεκτικά μεταναστευτικό ρεύμα. Στην επιστροφή ενδίδουν σε αχαλίνωτο ‘shopping’ και χαζεύουν τις τελευταίες παραγωγές ‘blockbuster’. Μια χαρά υπερσύγχρονη συνύπαρξη του άστυ με τη φιλοσοφία της αγοραίας κατανάλωσης. Μοιραία αναρωτιέσαι ότι εάν αυτή η χώρα δεν είχε απομονωθεί για μια και μισή δεκαετία το Βελιγράδι θα φιγουράριζε σήμερα σαν πρωτεύουσα των Βαλκανίων. Μοιάζει σχεδόν καταδικασμένη να παίξει αυτό το ρόλο που ακόμη και σήμερα πεισματικά αρνείται.

Η μέρα ξεκινάει με πυρετώδης ρυθμούς. Όσοι δεν επέστρεψαν ακόμη απο το ξενύχτι μοιάζουν με κακοκαρδισμένα σαράβαλα σε πίστα ράλι. Στο σαντουιτσάδικο που σερβίρει ότι έχει απομένει ο κόσμος μασουλάει μελαγχολικά παρατηρώντας τον περίεργο τρόπο με τον οποίο ξεκινά ακόμη μια μέρα σε μια μεγαλούπολη. Δεν υπάρχουν πολλοί στο Βελιγράδι που θα απαντούσαν με βεβαιότητα για το τι θα φέρει η επόμενη μέρα. Οι μεγαλύτεροι έχουν συνηθίσει αυτή την αβεβαιότητα και την αντιμετωπίζουν ψύχραιμα. Οι νεότεροι δεν μπορούν να είναι αισιόδοξοι για το μέλλον, γιατί δεν το επιτρέπει το παρελθόν.

A.F.  2007

Some days ago the Turkish airlines declared interest to purchase the Serbian national carrier ‘JAT’. The same time the uncertain attempt of Greece to tap the bailout mechanism has spread panic in the country and beyond, deepening the undergoing crisis of the monetary union. Beyond their news worthy value, both are consequences provoked by gigantic geopolitical processes that rapidly shape tomorrow’s world. The first one is the result of Turkey’s steady return as a sincere regional power cemented in the strategic doctrine of Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmet Davutoglu’s, that envisages the future of his country as a core regional power with ever increasing global ambitions. A strategy pursued by a sophisticated foreign policy that promotes the country’s economic interests and attempts to cure Turkey’s old wounds. Initiatives in the Middle East, rapprochement with Syria and opening up to Iraq, opting for a mediator’s position between the West and Iran over its nuclear ambitions and taking on Israel, because of its aggression against Lebanon and Palestine in various occasions, have been somewhat spectacular and attracted more public attention.

But Turkey’s silent return in the Balkans has been equally effective. During the last decade it has established itself, politically and economically, as a key factor in Bosnia, Kosovo and Albania, by utilizing successfully cultural proximity. Moreover its new philosophy leads it to seek to improve relationships and acquire strategic assets beyond traditional boundaries, thus the interest for ‘JAT’. Contrary to what traditional analysis might suggest, Davutoglu’s doctrine is not provoked by plain national aspirations or imperial nostalgia. Some years ago Davutoglu went to teach at the International Islamic University of Malasya, at Kuala Lumbour. It was there that the 49 year old professor of international relations has foreseen the coming of an era. “The textbook that I chose without giving much thought to it was George Sabine’s ‘A History of Political Theory,’” he said. “Then I walked into the class and I saw that all students were either Malay, Chinese, Hindu, or Indonesian. They all came from ancient civilizations. But Sabine’s book started from the Greeks, moved to the Romans, then to feudalism, Renaissance, Enlightenment and so on. It was as if there was history of thought beyond the history of Europe. I could not teach that to those kids.”

Davutoglu has realised the inevitable rise of the periphery, with Asia at its core. Ha knows that basing foreign policy directives entirely on a Western paradigm is not the best option anymore. He is working hard in order to recreate his country foreign policy perspective, making EU integration and Turkey’s relation to the West one among many priorities, instead of a one way perspective. His best ally is his country’s capacities that provide him with strong chances to succeed. Turkey’s demographic potential and expanding domestic free market is the best growth cocktail. The cherry is its enlarging educated middle class. This is a country modern enough to face the future in the eyes and if Devutoglu has read the age correctly, it will indeed rise like a regional giant. On the other hand it is difficult not to notice how deep the corrosion of solidarity among European partners will have advanced when the epilogue of the Greek crisis is finally written. Let aside the nightmare scenario of a domino effect that will compromise the monetary union, which remains persistently alive despite the daily expressions of commitment by European leaders. People now know that European partners are eager to talk the talk but rethink about it before they walk the walk.

And this is why the European unification project has reached a Rubicon. The monetary union has failed to overcome its first crisis without major damage, both in currency and political terms. The ‘markets’ and European citizens know that the still vibrant European countries, Germany at the core, are not prepared to compromise their chances for standing up to the challenges of the new era in order to prolong the ‘slow death’, as Soros characterised Greece’s tragedy, of their messy and defaulting south-eastern partners. For the Balkans the price will be enormous. European enlargement will slow down and the European perspective, that together with a lot of easy cash appeased ethnic conflict in the region during the last ten years, will fade. On top of this the impact of the Greek crisis will lay severely on the region. The Greek banking sector, key actor for providing with cash the development plans of Balkan neighbours, is now choking. Standards and Poors downgraded again some days ago four major Greek banks that hold a brave share of the banking sector in the Balkans. The integration of western Balkans will be tougher without Greek capital support. More than anything else, its stabilising impact in Macedonia, especially after the 2001 conflict, will be compromised. Greek direct foreign investment, the major financial source, is flying rapidly away, while the country is sinking on a dangerous nationalist limbo. Gruevski is planning to spend millions, in a poverty stricken country, to materialise a faraonic plan for exhibiting the Macedonian historical glory of his country at the centre of Skopia.

Another grave move set to alienate further Albanians inside and Greeks outside the country. Prospects do not look bright and time passes ruthlessly quickly. Meanwhile the Balkan region is lost in controversies completely disregarding unprecedented changes taking place elsewhere. Bosnia’s leaders have made a priority out of wasting limited resources in order to segregate further their schooling systems. Dayton has reached its limits as a post conflict arrangement of the country while the upcoming elections next September has polarised society badly. In Kosovo Serbs and Albanians are entrenched over the dispute about the fate of northern Kosovo and the verdict of the international court over the legality of the unilateral declaration of independence. The death of Yugoslavia, lasting for over two decades already, still seems to dictate the daily agenda in the region. Domestic politicians and policy makers ought to admit that unless a major conceptual change takes place the future of the region is to remain the backward of bigger interests. Standing in between forces that have foreseen the undergoing global restructuring, and are determined to survive by breaking up given political norms, the broader Balkans ought to drastically change their perspectives.

Without a regional oracle and brought on their knees by recession they run the danger of losing years in the making of various ‘great’ national dwarves. Domestic confrontations will increase the social misery and prolong the underdevelopment of the region. Deepening political co-operation and pursuing closer links and mutual facilitation of economic and political priorities is a better way to go. The European fixation of the Balkan countries will remain as a political priority but practical reality dictates that it should co-exist with alternatives. A regional confederation might be fiction given the widespread animosity. But there are other ways to come closer and join forces. Consider how impossible the Coal and Steel Community would sound as an idea in 1945. Necessities are stronger than feelings, something the people of the Balkans know well.

http://socialistworker.org/2010/06/01/victims-of-romanian-crisis

The Romanian government plans to cut 25 percent of salaries of state employees and 15 percent of pensions and state assistance (including unemployment benefits and mothers’ allowances). Romanian President Traian Basescu announced the cuts in early May, after negotiations with the IMF delegation. In a final assault against common sense and decency, the government is invoking “national security” concerns to legally justify the pension cuts.

This week, the government is adopting them, without a parliamentary vote. On May 31, education staff will start a general strike, with administrative staff and metro workers going on solidarity strike. Strikes are scheduled to continue all next week, to support an attempt of the opposition to pass a motion of censure against the government. 

In 2009, Romania took a 20 billion euro loan from the IMF and the EU. An installment of this payment is due in June and IMF officials warned that the money is conditioned by limiting the 2010 budget deficit at 6.8 percent. Without any measures, the deficit is estimated to go beyond 9 percent of GDP. 

The president explained that the IMF money is crucial because lending on the financial markets would be too costly for Romania and could lead to a rise in the indebtedness of the country to over 60 percent by 2013. With the specter of Greece hunting Southeastern Europe, such a perspective is worrisome.

 But even the head of IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, declared May 20 that the IMF had said no (!!!) to the announced cuts, and had proposed instead tax hikes and differential taxing of incomes combined with smaller cuts in salaries to contain the deficit.

 The IMF, with a history of imposing disastrously harsh financial conditions on its debtors, says the government is too tough. This is serious cause for concern, regardless that the IMF is coming out with these statements merely to preserve its image (that is, they expect much worse effects than in previous austerity plans they themselves imposed).

 The government’s plan met with considerable opposition across the country. 

Over 4 million of Romanian pensioners have monthly incomes of less than 300 euros so the cuts would be devastating for them. Young doctors and young teachers make 250 euros per month; take a quarter of that off, and there is no reason for these people to work in the country any more. This year, over 5,000 doctors have submitted papers to leave the country or are in the process of resigning, according to the National College of Medics. 

Even some business leaders were critical. No VAT increase should be good news for the private sector. But some business leaders argue cuts alone, without any measures to stimulate the economy, would just lower consumption and lead to tax increases later on.

 There were no discussions with unions or business representatives and certainly no public debate over these measures before they were announced. All opposition parties are against the cuts, if only out of populism. Even the Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania—allied with Basescu’s center-right Liberal-Democrat Party in government—had said they disagree with cuts of the smallest pensions.

 A protest in Bucharest organized by trade unions brought over 30,000 people to the streets on May 19. This rally followed daily protests (attended by hundreds) from pensioners, mothers with babies and teachers in all major cities in the country. The government did not budge, except to say that the minimum pensions (of around 80 euros monthly) and minimum wages (of around 150 euros monthly) would not be diminished.

 Such determination could be considered a sign of strength from the government. Actually, it is a sign of weakness.

 The president said the cuts would be accompanied by reforms meant to improve tax collection rates, heighten transparency in public acquisitions, reduce fraud in accessing social assistance and eliminate unnecessary administrative staff – without specifying these measures. Certainly, such reforms are needed.

 But who in Romania believes they will indeed be implemented now if they haven’t before? 

In fact, no one does, not even the government. The government does not trust itself and the state apparatus it manages to implement state reform or a mix of measures that would involve both income cuts and tax hikes. This is why it has chosen the simplest way, cuts across the board, even though cuts would solve nothing but this year’s deficit problem while bleeding the most vulnerable. 

In Romania’s case, the cuts signify more than a neo-liberal preference for austerity among the leaders (though this is certainly the case with the governing Liberal-Democrats and the EU and the IMF from whom they take their advice on financial strategies). It is also an issue of the inability of the government and the state apparatus to handle more sophisticated approaches which would include targeted investments, making public spending more transparent, combating corruption in state bureaucracy, alongside differentiated tax increases.

 The poorest are made to pay for the leaders’ weakness. And poor Romanians are angered. But Romanians are also quite resilient, unlike fellow Greeks to the south. Their political culture does not include taking to the streets. 30,000 people attending a protest in Bucharest is a large number for this country, but people acted obediently, dispersing quickly. The energy did not seem to be enough to sustain many more actions. 

Those attending the unions’ rally in Bucharest called for the fall of the government. Yet people know they cannot trust other parties either, since they have all been in government before, sharing the responsibility for the inefficiency of the state.

 For a person making 200-300 euros monthly in Romania these days, a difficult call lies ahead: to protest or to keep silent, knowing each day of strike means one day of pay less when the salary already drops by a quarter. That the poorest don’t get mobilized is a norm in political science. It will be tested in Romania soon. 

Still, there are positive signs. Unions are acting together and brought out large numbers of people. The Socialist party, under new leadership, spoke firmly in defense of the poor and against the vices of capitalism, after two decades of ideological ambiguity. And poor people are finally questioning whether all the sacrifices demanded of them as necessary are indeed so. This is all rather new for Romania. 

P.S. In a recent development, the government announced that it will resort to an article in the constitution invoking the need to protect “national security” in order to pass the measures. This is needed because the pension is considered an inalienable property right, hence cuts in pensions would be unconstitutional. This claim of “protecting national security” through cuts is both hypocritical and a further attack on the democratic process in this country (in addition to the completely opaque way in which these measures were decided on and passed).

- A spate of spectacular arrests against former government ministers, officials and magistrates were carried out by the police. Footage of the Hollywood-style nighttime raids was made available on the Ministry of Interior website and relayed by mass media. On one memorable occasion, Chief Prosecutor for the District of Sofia, Roman Vassilev, ordered the former defence minister on the floor and called him a “criminal”. He was later reprimanded by his superiors but such behaviour is more and more appreciated by the public at large. Online forums are bristling with calls for retribution and calls for summary justice (though my sample is very limited and, admittedly, there are those who are outraged by the brutal display of force by the police and government)

- The government and its law-and-order Interior Minister Tzvetan Tzvetanov have announced plans to create a ‘special tribunal’ to try cases of organised crime and corruption.

- Boyko Borissov has announced plans to have Tzvetanov as his party’s candidate for the presidential elections at the end of 2011. The party in government, GERB, even wanted to impeach the incumbent President and hold elections this year but the idea was dropped. The muscled duo is looking more and more as a Balkan version of the Putin-Medvedev spectacle. Only that Medvedev is better spoken (not saying too much, when you’re comparing with the former cops Borissov and Tzvetanov) , puts on a reformist face for the west and shaves more often.

- In a recent opinion poll (23-26 April), Tzvetanov goes ahead of Borissov for the first time: some 60 percent approve of him, while the macho Prime Minister is a close second with 56. His top-ranked ministers are exuberant Vejdi Rashidov who continues to amuse with drunken remarks, nationalist pop historian Bozhidar Dimitrov who is busy with piling up diplomatic gaffes with Bulgaria’s neighbours, and foreign minister Nikolay Mladenov – backer of Bulgaria’s presence in Afghanistan, US military bases in the country, a politician with a standing record of navigating well the winds of domestic politics. Public approval is obviously reserved for tough law-and-order political figures and amusing charlatans with a flair for the sensational. But anyway – where are the alternatives?

- The same poll finds that the police and the government are the most popular institutions in Bulgaria, with 44% approval rating. The Constitution or the democratic system are not in the list and obviously they are not considered as institutions. The parliament, which can be seen as an expression of democracy and popular will, trails at back of the lot with 28% approval. It is all pretty mind boggling given that the police force is notoriously corrupt and inefficient and the government has been mired into jumbled economic policies from day one, coupled with appointing obviously incompetent officials in high positions.

And some disturbing signs (again an eyesore) on the rise of fascism in Bulgaria (history repeats itself, will it be a farce after the tragedy?):

- Ultra-nationalist VMRO has found a new lease of life, after it was rocked by leadership squabbles, by sponsoring a nationwide petition on referendum against Turkey’s EU membership. They say 100,000 signatures have already been collected. It is interesting to know who is funding the initiative of the likes of neo-fascist Angel Djambazki and Communist-era secret services informant Karakachanov.

- A number of neo-Nazi groups marched in downtown Sofia on May Day, calling for ‘social justice’ and ‘national autonomy’.

- The leader of neo-fascist Ataka, which is the fourth-largest party in parliament, strongly supported the creation of special anti-corruption tribunals. At a “roundtable” – where supposedly divergent views were to be expressed – he monopolised the conversation and in his typical fascist fashion accused opponents of the move of being in favour of criminality. Even pro-government “Dnevnik” condemned this in an editorial.

These are only some of the worrisome developments. While in Hungary, the Fidesz government, even if not unproblematic itself, has publicly distanced itself from the fascist Jobbik, the populist Borissov has no qualms in holding onto the far-right Ataka party. His own agenda is becoming more and more authoritarian, backed by many of the personalities and relationships forged in the underworld of the early 1990s, in line with the schemes of power holders from the pre-1989 secret services and present-day cops, spies and shadowy business people.

De ce Clegg?

Claudia Ciobanu

O ziarista de aproape 70 de ani, editor la Index on Censorship, mi-a spus intr-o seara ca, dupa o viata intreaga de votat Laburistii, de data asta va vota cu Lib-Dems. Cred ca asta e unul dintre principalele motive ale popularitatii lui Nick Clegg: frustrarea alegatorilor de stanga cu Laburistii (de altfel, asta si avertizeaza unii Laburisti, ca Clegg va rupe voturi de la ei, lasand loc liber pentru Cameron).

Dincolo de asta, cum se discuta mult, Clegg este outsider-ul in aceste alegeri, preferatul celor care s-au saturat de principalele doua partide politice si al celor care isi doresc reformarea sistemului electoral: de la first-past-the-post la proportional. Clegg cere reforma electorala dar o si reprezinta, pentru ca la regandirea sistemului electoral s-ar ajunge daca alegerile de la inceputul lui mai nu ar produce un invingator categoric (cu cat mai multi voteaza cu Lib-Dems, cu atat sansele pentru un “hung parliament” cresc). Multi britanici critica sistemul electoral, considerand ca e nedemocratic ca votul pentru un partid mai mic sa fie irosit. Dar, dincolo de sistemul electoral, ce se intampla in Marea Britanie—respingerea principalelor partide, dorinta de “schimbare”—este un fenomen larg european. La ei, acutizat de scandalul de anul trecut, cand s-a dovedit ca parlamentari din toate partidele au folosit ilegal bani alocati pentru a doua
locuinta.

De ce e Clegg vocea “schimbarii”? Cameron, desi are destula tractiune cu argumentul ca, dupa atatia ani cu Laburistii la guvernare, numai Conservatorii pot aduce o schimbare radicala, e totusi un nou Blair in plan imagistic. Din pacate, Clegg e si mai frumusel decat el, are un aer si mai fresh si a aparut mai recent in prim-plan. Asta ii submineaza prospetimea lui Cameron. La Laburisti, situatia e si mai tragica. Brown nu poate fi perceput ca proaspat in nici un caz, nu poate fi vocea schimbarii. Mai grav, Laburistii au dezamagit prin insusi falimentul Cool Britania, revelarea ca Third Way-ul lui Blair este un imparat gol. Si au dezamagit mult prin sustinerea razboiului din Iraq (plus atitudinea mizerabila a lui Blair in audierile despre implicarea in Iraq, in care a enervat pe multi neasumandu-si, nici in al 13-lea ceas, ca s-a mintit atunci cu privire la existenta demonstrata a armelor de distrugere in masa). Si-au alienat propriul electorat, in
timp, facand politici pe care stangistii britanici nu si le-ar fi dorit niciodata.

Dincolo de aceste sentimente generale, sunt, totusi, politicile promovate de candidati. Spre deosebire de Romania, in Marea Britanie candidatii dezbat cu adevarat, iar mare parte din electorat asculta. Clegg are un mesaj, nu este numai un rezultat al frustrarii, al oboselii.

Criza economica si somajul sunt importante. Cameron propune reducerea rapida a deficitului, Brown amana deficitul, nedorind sa renunte la cheltuieli bugetare esentiale in perioada de criza. Sunt doua viziuni economice diferite, se poate vota ideologic. Clegg aici merge mai degraba pe o linie de stanga, promitand sa protejeze zone cheie (educatie, sanatate), sa reduca taxe pentru cei mai saraci, sa taxeze bancile si proprietarii de case foarte scumpe.

Securitatea e iarasi o tema importanta pentru alegatori. Dintre toti, Clegg a fost singurul critic al implicarii in Iraq si este poate cel mai grabit cu retragerea (posibil si din cauza ca e cel mai departe de guvernare). Insista sa se reevalueze cheltuielile militare si sa nu se investeasca intr-o noua generatie de dispozitive nucleare Trident, in contradictie cu Laburistii si Conservatorii. Clegg mai spune, enervandu-i pe ceilalti doi, ca Marea Britanie nu mai trebuie sa faca exact ce dicteaza Statele Unite in politica externa, in ciuda relatiei speciale dintre Washington si Londra.

In privinta imigratiei, legata de securitate, el cere gasirea unei formule de reglementare a statutului imigrantilor aflati in Marea Britanie de peste 10 ani, prin acordarea de cetatenie, in functie de merit. Cameron si Blair vorbesc numai despre inasprirea controlului imigratiei (Cameron mult mai radical).

Mai sunt si alte teme. Desigur, in functie de pozitiile ideologice, britanicii simpatizeaza cu unul sau altul. Ce vreau eu sa spun este ca mesajul lui Clegg exista si e important pentru o parte de electorat, ca are raspunsuri reale pentru o parte din electorat, dincolo de efectul sau de prospetime, care il face simpatic multora.

De ce il place stanga pe Clegg? Posibil fiindca ataca chiar esenta modului in care un stat occidental, instarit, isi defineste la ora actuala pozitia in lume. Linia urmata pana acum de Marea Britanie: ii ajutam pe americani in lupta impotriva teroristilor musulmani, indiferent de dovezi, indiferent de costuri, umane si financiare. Ne pastram siguranta noastra, a cetatenilor UK, securizandu-ne granitele impotriva imigrantilor, asa cum fac toate statele UE. Ne izolam, deci, in oaza noastra de bunastare occidentala, ne inarmam si continuam sa luptam pana ii vom distruge complet pe teroristi. Indiferent cum numesc ei asta, promovarea democratiei, lupta pentru securitatea mondiala, etc, ceea ce se intampla de fapt este numai si numai protejarea bunastarii europene. Dar atitudinea asta e falimentara, pentru Marea Britanie si pentru lumea intreaga. Razboaiele din Iraq si Afghanistan se intind la nesfarsit si produc mai multa insecuritate. Intre timp, Marea
Britanie, tara atator musulmani, se confrunta cu home-grown terrorism. Zice bine Clegg. Caci pana cand Vestul nu isi va schimba atitudinea fata de restul lumii, terorismul nu va disparea. Si britanicii pot incepe de acasa, respectand strainii care muncesc de ani de zile, de generatii, acolo. Da, de ce sa dea bani pentru alta generatie de dispozitive nucleare in timpul unei crize economice atat de severe? De ce sa se investeasca in sisteme complexe de monitorizare a tuturor strainilor, a intregii societati? De ce sa nu se faca pace in interiorul Marii Britanii, mai intai, folosindu-se toate resursele pentru locuri de munca, pentru infrastructura? In zona unde am locuit eu in Londra, care era, nu intamplator, locuita aproape exclusive de negri (in zona 2 din Londra, deci nu foarte departe de centru, de City), abia acum, dupa zece ani de promisiuni, se va pune in functiune metroul. Probleme cu banii. Cat de mult costa asta comparativ cu Tridenturile? Si
cat de mult poate face pentru sansele cetatenilor britanici negri, a imigrantilor din acea zona, a musulmanilor britanici, sa munceasca, sa comunice cu restul populatiei, cat de mult poate contribui la desegregarea Londrei—care exista, in ciuda aparentelor.

E o viziune pe care o au multi stangisti si pe care Laburistii nu o reprezinta. Mai mult, cei de stanga sunt cei care in general doresc reforma electorala, considerand ca sistemul proportional e mai democratic. De asta a sarit Clegg in fata lui Brown. Pentru electoratul conservator, dilemele sunt mai mici. Pentru cei de stanga, alegerea nu e usoara.

Cum spunea un comentator britanic, singura sansa a lui Brown e sa puna mult accent pe politicile clasice de stanga (combaterea saraciei, garantarea venitului minim, combaterea somajului, sustinere de la stat). Sa dea impresia ca se va reveni la un Labour Real dupa esecul New Labour. Dar multi stiu ca nu sunt sanse prea mari sa se revina la un Labour Real in perioada de criza. Multi nu vor ierta niciodata invazia din Iraq si pe Blair. Lupta e, probabil, intre Cameron si Clegg. Probabil, Cameron castiga, dar sunt inca sanse pentru hung parlimament.

Popularitatea lui Clegg inseamna ca si in Marea Britanie, ca si in restul lumii pe timp de criza, mai multi dintre noi vrem sa ridicam din nou intrebarile fundamentale din politica si economie (ce sistem electoral? Neo-liberalism sau Keynesianism? Cum ne definim natiunea si cat de deschisi suntem fata de restul lumii? Care e directia noastra ca stat?)