European Union

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/logo_g7_thumb_169_1495706311_1495706311_129_97shar_c1.jpg

On 26 and 27 May 2017, Italy is hosting the meeting of the G7 leaders. The summit focuses on the global economy, foreign policy, security of citizens, and environmental sustainability. European Council President Donald TUSK and European Commission President Jean-Claude JUNCKER represent the EU at the summit.

Download this video here.

There are now more than 65 million refugees and displaced persons worldwide, according to the latest figures from the United Nations. These people have fled terror, poverty, violence, persecution and discrimination in regions torn apart by conflict and crisis – not least the Syrian civil war, currently the world’s greatest humanitarian disaster, which human rights organisations say has claimed the lives of around 300,000 people and wounded a million more.

The violence in Syria has triggered a mass movement of refugees and displaced persons: there are now 6.6 million displaced persons in Syria itself and a further five million refugees in neighbouring countries. This makes Syria the largest origin country of refugees worldwide. Most have sought sanctuary and the chance of a new life in Turkey (2.5 million), Lebanon (1.1 million), Jordan (664,000) and Northern Iraq (250,000). Many of these host countries also need support in providing for and integrating the new arrivals.

In Iraq, for example, local communities are themselves bearing the brunt of armed conflict: in the past two years alone millions of Iraqis have been displaced or forced out of their villages by violence. More than 200,000 have fled to other countries.

As part of its response to the crisis the international community held the Supporting Syria and the Region Conference in London in early 2016, pledging more than €9bn to improve living conditions in and around Syria. During a follow-up conference held in Brussels in February this year the international community reconfirmed the necessity to meet the massive needs of the populations inside Syria and in neighbouring countries. The pledged funds will be used to ensure that all refugee children in the region have access to schooling, to improve healthcare, and to support employment creation programmes for refugees. Jordan, Lebanon, northern Iraq and Turkey are also the focus of the European Union’s Regional Trust Fund in Response to the Syrian Crisis. This fund invests in education, training and the social integration of refugees and provides psychosocial support for the many people who are deeply traumatised by their experiences.

“We live in a globalised world, and interaction is its lifeblood”

Development cooperation is vital: it helps to create livelihoods and prospects for refugees in their new homes outside the war zones. But it is almost powerless when it comes to curbing wars and armed conflict. So the debate about aid for war refugees cannot simply be subsumed within the broader context of long-term international cooperation.

The movement of refugees to Europe raises one question with growing urgency: is the fact that people are still leaving their homes and attempting the journey a sign that development cooperation has failed? The answer sounds both simplistic and cynical: development cooperation is not about preventing people from taking action. It is about providing support and improving people’s skills and living conditions, wherever they may be, and enabling them to earn a decent living. But this requires long-term commitment, patience and a strategic approach, as well as a degree of flexibility.

We live in a globalised world, and interaction is its lifeblood. Success depends not only on free but regulated movement of goods, capital, services and ideas; it relies on the movement of people across national borders. Globalisation is an arrangement based on reciprocity, and together we must resolve how we should shape all these mutual relationships. Needless to say, our European values must be built into the solution, and one of these values is assisting people in need.

On behalf of the German government, and often with co-funding from the EU, GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Internationale Zusammenarbeit)is committed to creating jobs and providing access to education and decent housing in the countries around Syria. Supporting refugees and the communities that offer them sanctuary is fundamental to our work. GIZ combines short-term aid, aimed at alleviating suffering, with medium-term and long-term infrastructural projects designed to increase the capacity of host countries to manage the crisis.

In northern Iraq, where more than a million displaced people and 250,000 Syrians have sought refuge since late 2014, GIZ is working on behalf of the German government to help these individuals regain a measure of control over their lives. Refugees and host communities are participating in a cash-for-work programme that provides a temporary income to cover basic needs. For the participants, the work is a welcome break from enforced passivity. Various employment options are available: road-building, school refurbishment and maintenance of sanitation systems.

“Development cooperation is vital: it helps to create livelihoods and prospects for refugees in their new homes outside the war zones”

The daily wage is skills-dependent and amounts to €20 to €30 for up to 50 days. The refugees can spend their wages on additional food for their families and school books for their children. To avoid social tensions the schemes always benefit the local community as well. This employment drive, initiated by the BMZ (the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development) and largely carried out by GIZ, reached 58,000 people in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey by 2016. With these broad-impact, short-term projects we are offering people hope and helping to create new prospects for their futures.

As well as rapid measures to improve living conditions, psychosocial support has a vital role to play. Refugees on the move are extremely vulnerable, with few defences against sexual assault, extortion or physical violence. GIZ supports them as they deal with these traumatic experiences. In northern Iraq community centres have been set up in refugee camps to offer mental health services and counselling. They have already reached around 250,000 people, helping them to gradually rebuild their lives.

In the medium to long term, further capacity-building in these countries will be essential, with many of them still engaged in their own development processes. On behalf of the German government, we have been working for many years in water-poor Jordan, providing access to clean water and raising awareness of the need to use this vital resource sparingly. Partly because of our cooperation with local partners, Jordan was better equipped to manage the arrival of the Syrian refugees.

Our cooperation has also helped to mitigate the social conflicts that can arise when large numbers of refugees place increased pressure on this already-scarce resource. Much of Jordan’s precious water is lost because its supply network is in a poor state of repair. Making a virtue of necessity, we have invested in training plumbers. So far around 300 Syrian refugees and Jordanian women have completed the training programme, which has encouraged them to build their own future.

These small, innovative and inspirational projects have a vital role to play. But long-term engagement is also needed to offer brighter prospects for people in the crisis region around Syria. And this is precisely the purpose of development cooperation: to make a sustainable investment in the future.

IMAGE CREDIT: radekprocyk/Bigstock

The post Building a bridge between powerlessness and hope appeared first on Europe’s World.

We are meeting here in Taormina as the G7 to discuss the most pressing global issues. There is no doubt that this will be the most challenging G7 summit in years. It is no secret that leaders who are meeting today, sometimes have very different positions on topics such as climate change and trade. But our role as the EU is to do everything to maintain the unity of the G7 on all fronts.

Most importantly, unity needs to be maintained when it comes to defending the rules-based international order. Each day we are confronted with these strategic global problems that pose a threat to peace and security in Europe, in Asia and in the Middle East. From the war in Syria and Russian aggression in Ukraine, to nuclear and ballistic missile tests in North Korea, and land reclamation and militarization in the South China Sea. If our group is not determined and united enough, the situation in the world can really get out of hand.

I expect that the G7 will demonstrate unity regarding the conflict in Ukraine. We fully support Ukraine's independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty. A solution to this conflict can only be reached with the full implementation of the Minsk agreements. Since our last G7 summit in Japan we haven't seen anything that would justify a change in our sanctions policy toward Russia. Therefore, I will appeal to the other G7 leaders to reconfirm this policy.

The G7 should also remain united when it comes to ending the brutality in Syria. We should be ready to increase our efforts to defeat terrorism in Syria, and to find a political settlement. A special responsibility rests on the shoulders of those who, like Iran and Russia, have become involved in the crisis and cooperate with the Assad regime. Instead of wasting time, they should use their influence to enact a real ceasefire, stop the use of chemical weapons and ensure safe and immediate humanitarian access to all the people in need.

Finally, let me say that we also need G7 unity in managing the migration crisis. This is a global challenge, but here in Sicily it is also a real, local problem. The EU's goal has been to at least keep the current level of international cooperation in addressing this crisis. Whether we will succeed, remains an open question. Thank you.

 

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/8a57421e-413e-11e7-a1cf-bc764e092fac_43.35_thumb_169_1495712390_1495712390_129_97shar_c1.jpg

On 25 May 2017, Donald TUSK, President of the European Council, and Jean-Claude JUNCKER, President of the European Commission, meet Recep Tayyip ERDOĞAN, President of Turkey.

Download this video here.

During my meeting with President Trump, we discussed foreign policy, security, climate and trade relations. 

My feeling is that we agreed on many areas. First and foremost, on counterterrorism, and I am sure that I do not have to explain why. But some issues remain open, like climate and trade. And I am not 100 per cent sure that we can say today -we meaning Mr. President Trump and myself- that we have a common opinion about Russia, although when it comes to the conflict in Ukraine, it seems that we were on the same line. 

However, my main message to President Trump was that what gives our cooperation and friendship its deepest meaning are fundamental Western values, like freedom, human rights and respect for human dignity. 

The greatest task today is the consolidation of the whole free world around those values, and not just interests. 

Values and principles first - this is what we, Europe and America, should be saying.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/consilium_16302_37976_21964_48.78_thumb_169_1491580129_1491580129_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Ministers of European Affairs, Industry, Research and related areas meet in Brussels on 29 and 30 May 2017 to try to reach general approaches on the reform of type-approval for cars and on two directives of the "Services package" to improve the single market. They are due to adopt conclusions on industrial policy; on a space strategy and on monitoring and reporting of research and innovation.

Download this video here.

This Tuesday, while most of us where thinking of other things, I was at the Social Market Foundation, talking about Brexit and euroscepticism.

In the course of questions at the end, I was asked whether British pro-Europeans displayed the same range and variety of positions as sceptics, to which I noted mobilisation hadn’t really happened. A bit more harshly, I said that a lot of pro-EU activity consists of going a demo in London, followed by lunch at Pizza Express, which probably wasn’t enough.

As a general rule, if I’m going to be snippy, then I feel I should explain myself, so you can judge better whether it’s warranted or not.

In essence, pro-Europeans have faced two interlinked issues, one on the supply side and one on the demand side.

Demand: a lack of fundamental challenge

If we consider mobilisation around the issue of European integration, then identity plays an important role. For sceptics, the threat to a core part of their social identity – their nationality – has endlessly been used to move people to action: we often focus on the control part of “let’s take back control”, but we also need to consider the half-hided ‘us’ too. National identity is taken as natural and eternal, a bedrock on which we act out our daily lives and our sense of community: the Manchester attacks demonstrate that all too well.

As such, eurosceptics have always had a strong identificational base from which to work. If you want to take that to a more extreme position, then all euroscepticism might be conceptualised as nationalism, dressed in either the language of the left or the right: I hesitate to go that far, but the point is well-made.

By contrast, pro-Europeans lack the same depth of emotional belonging. Very few people indeed consider themselves just ‘European’ and those that do are typically the sort of people I mentioned in my talk: cosmopolitan types, who see the EU as part of a bigger package of European-ness. In broad terms, these are people who will have the resources and the inclination to be able to continue their Anywhere-ish lifestyles post-Brexit. Thus, the loss of EU membership is painful, but not necessarily critical in the same way that national identity is for sceptics.

This isn’t to suggest that the substantial volumes of people who have turned out (and continue to turn out) for pro-EU demonstrations don’t really care, but rather that they have more space to adapt their identification politics and so less incentive to translate action on the streets into concerted political activity.

Supply: the costs of dominance

On the other side of the equation is the paradoxical over-supply of broadly pro-EU policy outcomes. Once EU membership was secured, the political and economic establishment moved to take that as a given. Certainly, there were many issues and problems with the specifics of that membership, but the broad thrust was one of participation, that being the best way to change the things one didn’t like.

Seen in this light, pro-Europeans had no strong incentive to create specific political organisations, partly because so many others seemed to be doing that for them, partly because the issue was so environmental and structural as to make action for membership per se appear rather ridiculous. This is underlined by the sole mobilisation that did take play, namely among federalists, who were the only ones not served by the array of groups already out there.

This is true across the EU, where groups specifically devoted to promoting the EU are few and far between. If there is a difference in the British case, then it is that in the UK there was never really the same attempt by groups to turn European positions into more pro-active ones, or to integrate more fully the European with the national: instead, the British line has been very instrumental, both for politicians and economic agents.

 

None of this is to say that pro-EU mobilisation is impossible, but rather it will face persistent difficulties, even as the UK moves towards departure from the organisation. While there will logically be an associated shift in the establishment to a non-member status, this will not address the identificational issue, which will be made all the more complicated should there be very limited barriers to access. That membership was tried, and failed, is something that will cast a long shadow on those that would have the UK join once more.

The post Why don’t pro-Europeans mobilise? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/ec0bfa4c-4d74-4958-9bea-ad25dc264110_thumb_169_1495712137_1495712136_129_97shar_c1.jpg

On 25 May 2017, Donald TUSK, President of the European Council, and Jean-Claude JUNCKER, President of the European Commission, meet Donald TRUMP, President of the USA. This is the first meeting between these leaders.

Download this video here.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_c96321.r21.cf3.rackcdn.com/15448_169_full_129_97shar_c1.jpg

In 2013-2014, EU-Canada relations are being upgraded through negotiations on a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and a Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA).  CETA is a ground-breaking agreement which will provide for an ambitious liberalisation of trade and investment relations.

Download this video here.

Plenary session and committee meetings, Brussels

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

When, a few weeks ago, Timothy Garton Ash suggested that I present the laudatio on the occasion of his receipt of the Charlemagne Prize, we could not have  predicted  that our ceremony would be held in the atmosphere of grief and rage because of a certain tragic event. Yet another crime perpetrated by Islamic terrorists seems to confirm the view that we have found ourselves at the very heart of a global civil war. However, the dominant feeling we have is, first of all, the feeling of solidarity with the victims' families and with the UK. And who knows better the meaning of “solidarity” than our laureate ? Timothy, we are with you today,  in our hearts and our thoughts, in Manchester.

 I responded to the Professor 's call with satisfaction and without a moment's hesitation. Not just because of my natural vanity and a feeling of  pride at having been cast in this role by one of the most eminent historians and intellectuals of our time, whose books have offered  me and my whole generation (not only in Poland  and Central Europe) important guidance - for exactly thirty years. And not because he asked me to deliver my remarks in Polish - although I cannot conceal my great pleasure at that suggestion. The most important reason is the feeling - on my part at least - of a special  community with Professor Timothy Garton Ash. Firstly, the community of the road we have travelled; secondly - a community of the  political creed; thirdly - a community of moderate optimism.

Our common road began at the Gdańsk shipyard in August 1980, during the great  strike which gave birth to  “Solidarność” movement. It was there that the desires of all Poles under the communist yoke came together in one focal point: the desire for freedom of speech and creed, for the  truth in public life, the rule of law, human dignity and curbing the omnipotence of the ruling party. At that time I was busy organising an independent student movement, while Timothy was doing research for his book on the Polish revolution. Several years later we published the book in the underground publishing house. It immediately became obligatory reading for the elite of  illegal " Solidarnosc".  As I was reading it, I came to realize that I was involved in the making of history - which was of exceptional significance to a politically involved historian. (Yes, we are both historians; or, strictly speaking, I was just an ordinary student of history; Professor Ash is history's  extraordinary teacher.  I do see the difference -  take my word for it - but, just for the duration of today's ceremony, please let me feel a member of the same fraternity). 

We both profoundly believed in the idea of integration of all Europe and in its future success, and we both worked as hard as we could for it to become reality. My merit here is much smaller: after all, as a Pole I had my egoistic stake in my country's accession. Professor Ash was much more of an idealist in that process; nevertheless, his efforts have brought about very practical results indeed. Not so long ago the tables were turned. During the Brexit dilemma our the winner of today's prize, minding his own good interest, campaigned for the UK to stay in the EU; so did I - and I did it on idealistic grounds. Except that my efforts did not produce any practical results. Let me mention yet another experience we have in common: we were both intensely scrutinised by the Stasi, which resulted in some thick and exceptionally interesting dossiers.                                                 

This is no time or place for nostalgic journeys to the distant past, especially as our protagonist is often referred to as the master of the history of the present. But there is one thing I would like to strongly underline: for the reasonable and struggling Poles, your presence in the difficult moments, your insight,  your empathy, which - forgive me - one would not expect of an Englishman, which accompanied us, Central Europeans on our road to freedom were (and still are) priceless and of the highest order. And then, last but not least, our wives are Polish and we both feel good about that.           

Secondly - the community of political creed. We believe that what unites Europe, what is, or should be, shared by all Europeans is our allegiance to freedom and a few principles, which may seem slightly old-fashioned, but which together constitute a political phenomenon ( in my personal opinion the most important human invention) that has been named “liberal democracy”. Today's Europe is a melting pot of nations and ethnic groups, of many religions and languages, of different traditions and fates. What gives a meaning to our coexistence in this - objectively speaking - best, but still quite troubled spot on Earth is freedom in its different dimensions.  It is also this freedom, besides  culture, which gives a meaning to the West in a political sense. Anyone who tries to alter this,  from within or without, has to be told clearly and repeatedly that freedom is the essence of Europeanism. 

This is why it is so important to keep our relations with the United States as close as possible and as long as possible - at least for as long as this value remains a priority also on the other side of the Atlantic. Tomorrow I am meeting President Trump and I will try to convince him that euroatlantism is primarily cooperation of the free for the sake of freedom; that if we want to prevent the scenario that has already been named by our opponents not so long ago in Munich as the “post-West world order”, we should watch over our legacy of freedom together.      

Our third common trait is moderate optimism. Things are becoming slightly more complicated here. Last January Professor Ash wrote in an article for The New York Review of Books that had he been cryogenically frozen in January 2005, he would have gone to rest as a happy European. At the time the continent was in the process of unification, full of euroenthusiasm, the European constitution was about to become a fact, the common currency - contrary to sceptical opinions - turned out to be a success, the UK under Prime Minister Blair clearly recognised that the English Channel was much narrower than it had seemed, and euro-enthusiasts in the EU's close neighbourhood, as for example in Kiev, were getting a second wind. 

In his article, Professor Ash goes on to say: Cryogenically reanimated in January 2017, I would immediately have died again from shock. For now there is crisis and disintegration wherever I look”. He mentions problems with the euro, Brexit, an anti-liberal drift in his beloved Warsaw and Budapest (as well as in many other places on our continent and elsewhere), the uncertain future of integration, the distrust surrounding the idea and practice of free movement of persons (indeed, one of the main reasons for Brexit), Russia's intervention in Ukraine. Add to this the tragic attacks in Paris, Nice, Brussels, Stockholm, Berlin, Copenhagen, London and Manchester, as well as the still unresolved problem of the mass wave of refugees and migrants.  

Under such circumstances, a politician who displays optimism, even on a moderate scale, is likely to be perceived , at best, naïve, even if he produces rational arguments  in support of his viewpoint. But I will take the risk As for the euro, recent talks with the Greeks within the Eurogroup framework look  quite promising. After a long conversation with the new President of France I know that we have found a new formidable supporter of a reform of the common currency. Ukraine vigorously stands by its pro-European line, one of the results of which is the new visa-free regime. Central Europe is a testimony to how strongly the people - as opposed to some governments - are attached to the European Union and determined to fight for their presence there. In the face of Brexit, the EU-27 countries have become more tightly united than ever before, although I realise this is poor consolation for our prize-winner. The election results in Austria, the Netherlands, Bulgaria and France, as well as the election forecasts for Germany show that the idea of an integrated, democratic Europe is stronger than the populist discourse. This is not enough to bring back the mood of 2005, but provides sufficient justification for Professor Ash's concluding remarks from his article: “On a bad Europe day, and there were too many of those in 2016, one does feel like going into cryogenic hibernation; but this is no time for freezing. The starting point for fighting well is to understand exactly what consequences of which aspects of the post-wall era's economic and social liberalism … have alienated so many people that they now vote for populists, who in turn threaten the foundations of political liberalism …. Having made an accurate diagnosis, the liberal left and liberal right need to come up with policies, and accessible, emotionally appealing language around those policies…. On the outcome of this struggle will depend the character and future name of our currently nameless era.” 

I take this message from Professor Ash as an obligation also for myself and I say it in all seriousness. One of the most important films by Andrzej Wajda for our whole generation was - in Polish - Popiół i diament. The literal English translation of this title is “Ash and Diamond”. It takes on a special meaning in the context of our ceremony today. In your particular case, dear laureate, 'ash'   means  'diamond. 

On 24 May 2017, the Council and the European Parliament reached a provisional deal offering regions hit by natural disasters a significant increase in EU support. 

Once adopted by the Council and the Parliament the agreed new rules will provide for the EU to meet up to 95% of the reconstruction costs of regions affected by earthquakes, floods or other natural disasters. This signifies that the EU's financial contribution for some regions will almost double from the current level of 50%. Total EU support for disaster stricken regions could reach €9.8 billion for the period 2014-2020. This is in addition to the €500 million from the solidarity fund which the EU is able to mobilise each year to help member states cope with natural disasters. 

"No region in the EU is safe from natural disaster. Today's agreement to increase EU support is an expression of our solidarity. It recognises that we are all vulnerable and have a shared interest in supporting each other in coping with natural disasters", said the Maltese parliamentary secretary for EU Funds and President of the Council, Dr. Ian Borg. 

The increase in the EU financing rate will apply to payments from the European fund for regional development (ERDF). The total volume of the EU financed part of the ERDF of around €196.4 billion for the period 2014-2020 will remain unchanged. 

Next steps 

After today's approval by the Council's Permanent Representatives Committee, the draft regulation has still to be adopted by the Parliament and the Council to enter into force.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/CSDP_EN_thumb_169_1386868371_1386864753_129_97shar_c1.jpg

The Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) enables the Union to take a leading role in peace-keeping operations, conflict prevention and in the strengthening of the international security.

Download this video here.

AMENDMENTS 1 - 258 - Draft report EU political relations with Latin America
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/b58976fe-409f-11e7-a726-bc764e093073_16.49_thumb_169_1495644208_1495644208_129_97shar_c1.jpg

Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, meets Western Balkan countries leaders, on 24 May 2017, in Brussels.

Download this video here.

Due to their vulnerable geographic position and complicated history, the Lithuanian people have seldom felt secure. The exception is the period from 2004, when Lithuania became a member of the European Union and NATO, to 2014, when Russia invaded Ukraine and occupied and annexed Crimea.

A 2012 survey suggested that more than 60% of Lithuanians did not see any major threats to their country, but another in 2016 indicated that 60% now believed Russian foreign policy to pose a serious threat to their country. Direct military invasion is considered the most devastating risk, but hybrid activities, such as those employed by Russia in Ukraine, are seen as a more likely threat. Russia’s previous tactics towards Lithuania have included economic blockades, trade wars, political pressure and interference in internal politics.

Russian aggression against Georgia and Ukraine have made Lithuanians anxious that Russian President Vladimir Putin also intends to intimidate the Baltic states. These fears were reinforced by Russian militarisation, the uneven military balance in the region and frequent snap exercises directed against NATO. Russian armed forces outnumber NATO’s by ten to one. There are also serious geographical ‘holes’ in Baltic defence. Russia’s hybrid strategies are difficult to identify and attribute in the early stages, and may not even fall under the scope of NATO’s Article 5 mutual defence clause.

In response to this deteriorating security environment, NATO has taken a number of steps: the deployment of four NATO multinational battalions in the Baltic states and Poland by the end of 2017, to remain on a rotational basis; an additional American brigade in Poland, on a bilateral basis; the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF), approved at NATO’s 2014 Wales summit, to be used in the case of aggression.

These measures have increased the Baltics’ sense of security. But new studies suggest that they would not be sufficient to defend against a large-scale conventional attack. A recent report from RAND, a think-tank, argues that Russian forces could reach the outskirts of Baltic capitals within 60 hours, and that seven brigades deployed in the region are needed to prevent such an outcome.

Lithuania has devoted a considerable amount of attention to improving its own defence capabilities. Since 2014 it has steadily increased defence spending, planning to reach two percent of GDP by 2018. It has invested in equipment and reintroduced conscription. Measures are being taken to reduce the country’s vulnerabilities against hybrid attacks, and these steps are strongly supported by politicians and the public.

Whether this is sufficient to ensure Lithuania’s security will depend on developments in Russia and transatlantic dynamics. New security challenges might require new reinforcements. Belarus is building a new nuclear power plant 50 km from Vilnius, with Russian investment. This project may be a geopolitical tool to blackmail Lithuania – a sign that more creative security strategies are needed.

IMAGE CREDIT:CC/Flickr – Maciek Lulko

The post Defence reinforcements: how much is enough to defend Lithuania? appeared first on Europe’s World.

The Council reached a general approach on the proposal for a revised directive on audiovisual media services (AVMS) . The aim of the proposal is to respond to the unprecedented technological and market changes that the digital shift has brought about in order to preserve the competitiveness of Europe's audiovisual industry, while preserving fundamental values such as the protection of minors, media pluralism, cultural diversity and consumer protection. 

Following intensive work in Council under the Slovak and Maltese Presidencies, the Maltese Presidency obtained an agreement today at the Council on a compromise text that provides the necessary rules to shape technological developments in order to protect our citizens and particularly our children from harmful audiovisual content, such as hate speech, violence and terrorism, whilst preserving freedom of speech.

The main elements of the text are the following:  

• TV broadcasting and on-demand services will now have to apply the same rules. Furthermore; the scope of the directive has been extended to include video-sharing platforms and social media services that provide a significant amount of audiovisual content.  
• more effective jurisdiction rules and strengthened cooperation procedures were provided for to deal with problems relating to cross-border services, for instance those arising from providers established in one country but targeting an audience in another.  

Furthermore, it will be easier for a member state to take action if it considers that a programme coming from a provider in another member state presents a serious risk to its public security or public health:  

• the promotion of European works will also apply to on-demand service providers in order to ensure cultural diversity. They will have to include in their catalogues a minimum 30% quota of European works. Members states will also have the possibility to require a financial contribution from media service providers, including those established in another member state, with exemptions for start-ups and small enterprises;

Furthermore, and equally important ,more flexible rules on audiovisual commercial communications are also foreseen, but with more stringent requirements on alcohol and cigarette advertising. Provisions guaranteeing the independence of national regulators, safeguard of media pluralism; the transparency of media ownership and ensuring accessibility for people with disabilities are also included.  

Minister Bonnici said "We are very proud to have reached an agreement on audio-visual media services. This is a complex directive which touches on very sensitive issues such as the internal market, fundamental rights and freedoms, cultural diversity and the protection of minors.

But the marketplace and technology are developing rapidly. We have to ensure that the relevant rules keep pace with these changes. Today's agreement in the Council  constitutes a further step forward in the completion of the Digital Single Market, which is vital for Europe's future prosperity.

Next steps 

The agreement at the Council will pave the way for starting negotiations with the European Parliament, with a view to adopting the directive as soon as possible.

Background 

The Commission presented its proposal  in May 2016 as part of its Digital Single Market Strategy. 

The proposal has been under examination in Council during two presidencies and a progress report was presented by the Slovak Presidency in November 2016. 

The Culture and Education Committee (CULT) voted its report on 25 April 2017 and the EP plenary granted a mandate to the CULT Committee on 17 May to start negotiations with the Council.

The Economic and Financial Dialogue between the EU and the Western Balkans and Turkey
Brussels, 23 May 2017

Representatives of the EU Member States, the Western Balkans and Turkey, the European Commission and the European Central Bank, as well as representatives of the central banks of the Western Balkans and Turkey[1] met for their annual economic policy dialogue.[2] The submitted 2017 Economic Reform Programmes (ERPs) of the Western Balkans and Turkey, outline the medium-term macroeconomic and fiscal framework as well as structural reforms (affecting areas such as labour markets and education, energy, innovation and the business environment) to enhance competitiveness and long-term growth. Participants regretted that Serbia's ERP had been submitted with a significant delay. The programmes cover the period 2017-2019.

Participants took note of the Conclusions of the Presidency on 13 December 2016 which states that the General Affairs Council took note of the Commission's communication on the EU Enlargement Policy and the reports, which have a strengthened focus on economic governance. The dialogue on economic governance with the Western Balkans and Turkey is meant to prepare them for their future participation in the EU economic policy coordination. The dialogue reflects to some extent the European Semester process at EU level.

Participants recalled the commitment to set out a new set of targeted policy guidance to support efforts towards fulfilling the Copenhagen economic criteria. In this context, Participants agreed that the elements of the 2016 policy guidance which had not yet been fully implemented remained valid and needed to be addressed by policymakers in the Western Balkans and Turkey.

 [1]    Montenegro, Serbia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Albania and Turkey are candidate countries for EU accession.

 [2]    The conclusions of this dialogue are without prejudice to EU Member States' positions on the status of Kosovo.   

General : This year's Charlemagne Youth Prize has been awarded to the Erasmus Evening radio show from Poland. The ceremony took place in Aachen, Germany, on 23 May.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP