There are a large number of areas in a large number of countries where there is a dominant ethnic minority (vis-a-vis the majority nationality in the main part of the country). In Estonia for example North East Estonia, where there are 95% ethnic Russians living in the city of Narva. The same applied for Kosovo and Serbia to a certain degree and the same applies to South Ossetia and Abkhasia in Georgia, Transdnistria in Moldova. This also applies to Scotland and Wales in the UK, parts of the Netherlands, the Basque country in Spain, etc etc.
The current doctrine of international law does not allow for independence for these regions. This principle was breached in the case of Kosovo, and this has also fueled Russian resolve to attack Georgia and try to take South Ossetia and Abkhasia. It is clear that the agressor in Georgia’s case is Russia which has embarked on a development route, which can be described as a neo-Fascism with neo-Soviet crust. However, things should not have been made so easy for them by allowing Kosovo to become independent.
In the EU the role of the Member States is diminishing, there are common values, common principles regarding rule of law, democracy, human rights, etc, which are respected in all of these states. Thus is does not matter much where you live or which nationality you are. The same situation must be strived for in other countries with conflict situations as well. The international law and principles should be strong enough to guarantee a minimal level of protection for all human beings, regardless of where they live.
If we were to accept the example of Kosovo and agree now also to the “right” of South Ossetians to become independent (and merge with Russia), there will be no end for conflicts, both internal and full wars. The world has become a much more dangerous place and it is the job for the community of democratic countries to act decisively to guarantee the peace. Otherwise who knows which country will be next…
Now that my active participation with TEN and EYP is over, I have been focusing my activities on human rights issues. Namely, I am working to establish in the long-term an Estonian Human Rights Centre, the first step has been to create the Human Rights Centre at International University Audentes.
One of the projects I have undertaken is to give expert advice on human rights as one of the legal experts for the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency. One of the first tasks for our team was to complete a Study on Homophobia and Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation – Estonia (download PDF) which was one of the basis for FRA’s comparative report “Homophobia and Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation in the EU Member States Part I – Legal Analysis” (full report in PDF, press release).
In the fall, the Human Rights Centre will publish its own report on Human Rights in Estonia in 2007.
In an interview to the Associated Press on board the flight back from Khanty-Mansiisk president Ilves explains why he walked out of the Fenno-Ugric Congress, and gives his thoughts on Russian developments. Nice balanced reporting from the AP, including the final quote from Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission:
“The EU is completely against all kinds of totalitarianism,” European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said. “We reject totalitarianism, including Soviet totalitarianism.”
I wrote an article on the Irish No vote to EU, in which I make the rather unpopular argument that EU treaty modifications are so complex that they are not suitable for referenda. The Irish no-vote is an indirect consequence of the 1987 decision by the Irish Supreme Court, requiring Ireland to always put all EU treaty modifications to a referendum.
If we started the EU from scratch today, it would be much different, but we have to look at the historical context in which it developed and make best of the system we already have in place. The voters are indirectly represented in two ways, the Lisbon treaty has been approved by the European Parliament, which consists of representatives of EU citizens, and it has been represented by 18 member state parliaments, which have also been democratically elected by the people.
It is interesting to note the comments section for my article, where there is actually quite a lot of meaningful debate on what is the meaning of democracy in today’s world (along with the usual name-calling and personal insults).
It appears that the best hope for a more integrated Europe has gone. The Lisbon Treaty, already a Plan B after the failure of the Constitutional Treaty has been rejected by the voters in Ireland, the only country where a referendum was held. It is a sad day for Europe, as it appears there is no Plan C.
Populist rightwingers can continue their lies and misinformation about the European Union.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights, abolishment of the pillars and streamlining lawmaking process are now all on hold.
I do not understand who say that this was a democratic vote. It was not. 3 million Irish people decided to hold back 500 million Europeans. The No campaign was based on misrepresenting, fearmongering and unashamed populism, which muffled the Yes vote. The whole situation is absurd.
Responding to ca 30 000 petitions, here are some notable quotes from the draft document approved by the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament:
12. Emphasises that alternative gas pipeline routes, which do not disturb the marine environment, should be analysed first, and notes that it is possible to run such routes to the Russian border overland, solely through European Union Member States;
14. Supports the Swedish Government’s Decision of 12 February 2008 refusing to grant Nord Stream AG permission to build the gas pipeline due to significant procedural and substantive shortcomings and in particular the lack of an analysis of an alternative route and of the option of abandoning the construction of the pipeline;
19.Expresses its belief that routing the North European gas pipeline through EU territory would enable it to meet the strategic and economic objectives set out in Decision 1364/2006/EC whilst avoiding extensive environmental damage;
20.Calls on the Council and Commission to use every legal means at their disposal to prevent the construction of the North European gas pipeline on the scale proposed by the investor;
The Motion for a Resolution will now be considered by the European Parliament. Nord Stream has responded to the document as well, claiming that the Committee has misunderstood the environmental impact assessment study process:
The Committee has prejudged Nord Stream, without waiting for the information contained in the EIA which will address the concerns raised.
In my opinion, this project will never materialise, as there is simply no objective justification for it in light of where the EU is going. If one looks at the EU as a whole the project makes no sense as Russia could connect to EU directly by land without the need for an expensive and environmentally dangerous underwater pipeline. If the EU wants to diversify it energy supplies, then having another route to the already dominant provider is not going to help anyone.
The Nord Stream project as it is should be scrapped, and its TEN-E status removed due to change in circumstances. I am unsure how this is done procedurally, but surely there must be a way.
In Estonia the MPs expenses that they have claimed for reimbursement by the taxpayers have been a constant source of ricidule. The groceries, the “meetings with voters”, etc.
Now it seems that the UK public also finally is able to join in the “fun”: this Guardian article reveals expenses claimed by Tony Blair and other UK parliament politicians. Blair paid for a dishwasher, for example, from his £ 22 000 (ca 500 000 EEK) yearly expense allowance. Together with accusations of outrageous spending and forgery related to expense allowances in the European Parliament, is an issue that is more serious as it seems. The sums have no real impact to the taxpayers, because they are nominal compared to the total budgets, but it nevertheless angers the voters and destroys their trust in the parliamentary system.
The expense amounts should be removed, wages of MPs should be transparent and no room should be left for fraudulent or unethical behaviour. The people’s trust in democratic institutions is too precious to risk for these benefits sake.
It was announced yesterday that there are going to be changes in the accreditation of Estonian higher education institutions, mainly that institutional accreditation is going to be introduced. This means that any university which passes this will be operate with constant fear of losing some of its programmes and can focus on continuous institution-building, rather than worrying only about specific curricula. This also allows the universities to be more efficient, flexible and synergetic.
I do not really know what exactly this means for my current employer, but in any case it is much better to finally have clarity on these issues. Too long has the Estonian higher education system been in legal limbo, and it is too long that certain practices and obviously worthless institutions have been allowed to exist.
In my opinion having a competitive and efficient higher education market is a prerequisite for Estonia’s long term economic development. The stepts announced yesterday will definitely bring us closer to that, but there are also many uncertainties in the application of the quality reform. There is a threat, that could derail the reform, or not bring the desired results.
Although there has been much talk about being internationally competitive, Estonia’s higher education laws do not really allow for meaningful international cooperation to take place (joint degrees and diplomas have still not been allowed for example). This is not a problem only for Estonia, but the whole EU: in a situtation where there is a common market, common laws on commercial activities, movement of goods and provision of services, the higher education market has remained fractured. This is due to lack of coordination: even the much discussed Bologna reform remains to be completed.
Universities are still very national entities: we talk mostly about UK, Belgian, French, German, Finnish, etc universities, but not European universities. Compare this with the US, where location of a university does not really matter that much (Harvard is Harvard, regardless of its location).
For Estonia, the best option would be to be open. Open to students coming in and supportive of students going out. Open to cooperation with other universities in the strive for internationalisation of higher education. This requires a significant shift away from the current local-student-oriented approach, real competitions for staff instructors, and, in most areas, shift away from Estonian as the full language of instruction.
It also requires that universities develop its own niches where they can offer world-class education and research. Estonia is way small for everything under the sun to be taught here, locally. But we can concentrate on a few areas where we can be internationally competitive.
… and I am not referring to the magazine. This article by Ulrich Beck very clearly articulates what I have believed for a long time: that the time of the nation-state is over and that the EU is the model of a new type of governance which requires a change of paradigm.
Recent Comments