title
stringlengths 15
139
| content
stringlengths 459
61.8k
| author
stringlengths 0
519
| description
stringlengths 37
471
| keywords
listlengths 0
5
| category
stringclasses 23
values | datePublished
stringdate 2023-01-02 06:25:02
2025-10-28 21:57:05
| url
stringlengths 35
74
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Listen: Google to sign EU’s AI code of practice. What are the concerns?
|
Google has confirmed, today, it will sign the European Union’s Code of Practice for General Purpose AI. The Code is a voluntary rulebook designed to help companies comply with the EU’s AI Act, a landmark law that regulates artificial intelligence based on the risks it poses to society. But critics ask: is Europe protecting its citizens or putting itself at a disadvantage in the global AI race? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here: Google has confirmed, today, it will sign the European Union’s Code of Practice for General Purpose AI. The Code is a voluntary rulebook designed to help companies comply with the EU’s AI Act, a landmark law that regulates artificial intelligence based on the risks it poses to society. But critics ask: is Europe protecting its citizens or putting itself at a disadvantage in the global AI race? This move puts Google in line with companies like OpenAI and the French AI firm Mistral, who have already signed the Code. Microsoft says it is likely to follow. The Code sets out guidance for developers of powerful, general-purpose AI systems, like Google’s Gemini, OpenAI’s GPT-4, and Meta’s Llama and includes principles around safety, transparency, and copyright compliance. The final draft of the Code was presented by the European Commission last week. It is still awaiting approval by EU member states and the Commission’s AI Office, but that could happen as early as this week. Once approved, companies can formally sign the Code, just ahead of the August 2nd deadline, when the AI Act’s obligations for general-purpose AI begin to apply. While Google supports the Code, it has voiced concerns. Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs, said the company hopes the Code will improve access to secure and high-quality AI tools for European citizens and businesses. But he also warned that certain provisions, including changes to copyright interpretation, long approval processes, and the potential exposure of trade secrets, could slow innovation and damage Europe’s competitiveness. Meta, the parent company of Facebook, has so far refused to sign. Their legal team said the Code introduces legal uncertainties and goes far beyond what’s required under the AI Act. Meta argues that these rules risk stifling AI development across the continent. Now, the EU’s AI Act is the first comprehensive AI law in the world. It places binding obligations on AI developers depending on how risky their models are considered to be. The EU argues that this is necessary to ensure safety, uphold fundamental rights, and protect creative work. However, the regulation is being introduced at a time when global competition in artificial intelligence is accelerating, particularly between the United States and China. The European Commission estimates that if adopted effectively, AI could boost the EU’s economy by €1.4 trillion per year by 2034. But there are growing fears that strict rules may hinder the continent’s ability to compete. In an open letter earlier this year, top executives from major European firms, including Airbus and BNP Paribas, urged Brussels to delay the AI Act by two years. They warned that overlapping rules and unclear guidelines could harm innovation and reduce Europe’s global influence in AI. The United States government has also weighed in, calling parts of the EU’s digital agenda, including the AI Act, unjustified trade barriers. Despite the criticism, the EU remains firm. A Commission spokesperson said earlier this week, “We are not moving on our right to regulate autonomously in the digital space.” So what’s next? If the AI Office approves the Code in the coming days, AI providers can begin signing it formally, likely before the AI Act’s general-purpose provisions take effect on 2 August. Companies that sign up will be expected to follow the Code and are likely to face fewer regulatory inspections. Those that don’t may see greater scrutiny under EU law. The Commission will also set up an AI Office to oversee enforcement and support implementation across the bloc. Although the Code is voluntary, it signals how the EU expects AI developers to behave going forward. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs
|
Evi Kiorri
|
In this episode, Evi Kiorri looks into Big Tech's willingness to comply with the EU’s flagship AI Act and what’s at stake.
|
[
"Digital",
"Health & Society"
] |
digital
|
2025-07-30T10:40:49.367Z
|
https://euobserver.com/digital/ard84cc227
|
Germany's Muslims and Israel
|
While there is strong interest in how German and European citizens view foreign affairs, there is still reluctance to understand — and distinguish — how naturalised migrants, especially Muslim citizens, perceive their countries' stances on key international and regional issues. This is particularly evident when European governments take military action, intervene, or adopt diplomatic stances toward Muslim-majority nation, whether in past cases like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or more recent contexts such as Iran and Gaza. The recent incident in which dozens of Iranian activists and intellectuals filed a complaint with Germany's federal court, challenging German chancellor Friedrich Merz’s remarks praising Israel for “ doing the dirty work for all of us ” in its military strikes on Iran clearly highlights the growing disconnect between Germany’s official stance and the sentiments of its migrant citizens. Ignoring Muslims’ perspectives and political attitudes impacts not only migrants, but also the cohesion, democratic integrity, and stability of European societies as a whole. Regardless of whether one agrees today that “ Islam belongs to Germany ,” about five to six million Muslims live there — nearly three million of them German citizens — comprising six to seven percent of the population. With 25.8 million Muslims across Europe (4.9 percent), Germany, like much of Europe, is no longer a homogeneous society. Although Germany's diversity is largely shaped by immigration, its foreign policy fails to represent the views and concerns of its Muslim migrant population. This is evident in relation to Israel, its military operations and intervention in Gaza and Iran. Frustration over this exclusion is largely prevented from surfacing in public discourse and protests, as Germany’s stringent preventive antisemitism policies tend to suppress criticism of Israel and its government. Restrictions, bans, and raids Several Muslim politicians and even civil servants have been pressured to resign after criticising Israel’s disproportionate military actions in Gaza. German authorities have restricted protests , banned pro-Palestinian events and speakers, raided activists' homes, and prohibited Palestinian symbols. Amnesty International urges Germany to end these crackdowns and adopt a human rights–based approach. Germany’s legal and institutional measures against antisemitism, including laws against Holocaust denial and hate speech, and initiatives like the federal commissioner and national strategy, are rooted in Germany’s historical responsibility towards Jews and the state of Israel. While rooted in moral commitment, these policies today raise complex questions, particularly regarding their implications for freedom of expression and Germany’s strong and largely unconditional diplomatic and military alignment with Israel. This seems to have led to growing concern and dissatisfaction among Germany’s Muslim citizens, which is often not publicly admitted. This dissatisfaction seems to be much higher compared to those already reported among native Germans. Fear of prosecution and legal consequences, including possible loss of citizenship, has led many German Muslims to avoid publicly criticising the government’s stance on Israel’s military actions and civilian casualties in Gaza — despite it being a major concern within Muslim migrant communities. Counterproductive strategy? This raises the question: does Germany’s approach truly prevent antisemitism, or is it ultimately counterproductive? When freedom of expression is restricted and protests are criminalised, people are left with few legitimate ways to express themselves. Suppressed feelings often find other outlets — sometimes peaceful, but sometimes violent. As Gordon W. Allport noted, violence is often preceded by the institutionalisation of hatred and negative attitudes. Many seem to have forgotten that ISIS, one of the most brutal movements in recent history — emerged largely as a consequence of the US invasion of Iraq. The group attracted significant numbers of Muslim youth from Europe, frustrated by the domestic and foreign policies of their own governments. Today, it is imperative to prevent the resurgence of similar anti-Western sentiments and movements by rethinking our current approach. Although violent incidents in Germany and elsewhere are often attributed to failed integration policies, little attention is paid to the host countries’ shortcomings in embracing heterogeneity and responding fairly and effectively to the recognition and accommodation of diversity. Migrant integration is frequently viewed solely as a domestic policy issue, managed by ministries of migration, refugee affairs, or similar agencies responsible for its development and implementation. However, what is often overlooked in this process is the role of foreign policy and external political actions, which can significantly influence the sense of belonging among citizens with migration backgrounds. Many feel alienated when foreign policy fails to fairly reflect their perspectives on international issues or contradicts their cultural, religious, or ethnic heritage. A balanced foreign policy that takes into account the views of Muslim communities on global and regional issues can strengthen national cohesion. This can be achieved through meaningful consultation and engagement with religious leaders and mosques. Notably, the German Islam Conference , established in 2006, has not been mandated to advise on such sensitive foreign policy matters, an opportunity that remains largely untapped. Ensuring Muslims feel heard and represented in policy discourse reduces the appeal of extremist narratives, helps prevent youth radicalisation, and counters the risk of diaspora communities being exploited by countries of origin during times of crisis. Dr. Mojib Rahman Atal is an Afghan-German migration expert with a PhD in migration studies from the University of Erlangen–Nuremberg and worked with various German organisations in Afghanistan before relocating and resettling in Germany. He has evaluated the German federal government’s civil engagement in Afghanistan and is the author of the book . Dr. Mojib Rahman Atal is an Afghan-German migration expert with a PhD in migration studies from the University of Erlangen–Nuremberg and worked with various German organisations in Afghanistan before relocating and resettling in Germany. He has evaluated the German federal government’s civil engagement in Afghanistan and is the author of the book
|
.
|
Fear of prosecution and legal consequences, including possible loss of citizenship, has led many German Muslims to avoid publicly criticising the government’s stance on Israel’s military actions and civilian casualties in Gaza — despite it being a major concern within Muslim migrant communities.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-30T06:39:38.024Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arc2a83a7f
|
No EU majority yet for suspending Israel from Horizon programme
|
EU countries failed to agree on suspending Israel's access to the bloc’s Horizon research programme during a meeting on Tuesday (29 July), despite growing criticism over Israel’s military actions in Gaza. But pressure is mounting. If the situation on the ground doesn’t improve, a majority of EU countries is expected to approve the first sanctions against Israel in the coming weeks, EUobserver has learned. The proposal , presented by the European Commission on Monday, received support from a group of EU ambassadors during a technical meeting in Brussels. While some said they are still reviewing the details, they indicated they are likely to back it. “I'm not sure that there is a qualified majority at this stage,” an EU official told EUobserver. “Too early to say”. Hungary, Austria, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic rejected the suspension. And a few countries, including Germany, said during the meeting that they need more time to study the details. The proposal was not put to a vote due to procedural rules. Under EU rules, until the EU Commission publishes the proposal in all official languages, expected next week, any approval would require unanimous support. After this step, the suspension of Israel from Horizon requires the approval by a qualified majority under EU law — meaning a majority (15 EU states), representing at least 65 percent of the bloc’s population. The Danish EU Council presidency is expected to convene a working party group to discuss technical details in the coming days. If there is a qualified majority, a new meeting will be convened to vote on the proposal, despite the summer recess and ahead of the informal ‘Gymnich’ of foreign affairs ministers. The suspension follows the controversial agreement between the EU and Israel to "substantially" improve access to food and medical supplies in Gaza, which was also discussed during Tuesday's meeting, where several member states argued that "Israel is not living up to its commitments," another EU official said. It also comes after concluding that Israel had violated Article 2 of its association agreement on human rights compliance. In her report at the time, EU top diplomat Kaja Kallas corroborated UN allegations that Israel was guilty of "indiscriminate attacks ... starvation ... torture ... [and] apartheid”. "The humanitarian situation has deteriorated to an unprecedented and unsustainable level, driven by ongoing bombardments, military operations, mass displacement, and the collapse of basic services," the commission said , justifying the legal basis for the sanction. The proposed Horizon suspension will cover the access of small businesses in Israel from accessing the European Innovation Council accelerator, a €10.1bn program. Earlier this month, lawyers of the JURDI Association filed an “action for failure to act” with the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg against the EU Commission and Council for their failure to act on the crimes committed by the Israeli government in Gaza. According to Alfonso Dorado, the lawyer who filed the complaint at the EU Court of Justice: "Nothing prevents the commission from suspending all bank transfers (credits) for this programme and others; this is done by a specific act of the commission, pending the council's decision, for example. There is no real will to do so, but the levers are there". 'Inaction amounts to complicity' Meanwhile, a cross-party group of some 40 MEPs also called on Tuesday for further sanctions, including the suspension of the trade agreement with Israel and individual sanctions on Israeli officials. “It is a moral imperative for governments and the international community to act. Silence and inaction amount to complicity,” they said. The Netherlands on Tuesday also took domestic measures against the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, imposing travel bans on two Israeli ministers, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. “The decision is based on their repeated incitement of settler violence against Palestinians, calls for illegal settlement expansion, and advocacy for ethnic cleansing in Gaza,” explained Dutch foreign affairs minister Caspar Veldkamp in a letter to the parliament on Monday. An internal EU commission report, seen by EUobserver, says that over 1,060 Palestinians have been killed while trying to access food from the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) between 27 May and 21 July, while child malnutrition rates have nearly quadrupled. It is estimated that over 59,200 Palestinians have been killed and more than 143,000 injured since October 2023 — averaging one death every 12 minutes and over 119 deaths daily in July alone.
|
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.
|
EU member states failed to agree on suspending Israel's access to the bloc’s Horizon research programme during a meeting on Tuesday — despite growing criticism over Israel’s military actions in Gaza.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-29T19:36:52.998Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar95324cfe
|
Listen: Israel denies starvation in Gaza as the EU proposes symbolic sanctions
|
There is no relief for Gazans. On Monday alone, at least 78 Palestinians were killed, including children and people queuing for food and medicine. This, despite Israel announcing the 10 hour so-called “humanitarian pauses” in certain non-combat zones. But how are Israel’s claims about aid and civilian safety being contradicted by humanitarian organisations and even by Western leaders? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here: There is no relief for Gazans. On Monday alone, at least 78 Palestinians were killed, including children and people queuing for food and medicine. This, despite Israel announcing the 10 hour so-called “humanitarian pauses” in certain non-combat zones. But how are Israel’s claims about aid and civilian safety being contradicted by humanitarian organisations and even by Western leaders? According to the UN and aid agencies, the humanitarian crisis has reached famine levels. More than 80 people have died of starvation this month, including 24 children. The World Health Organization says that acute malnutrition has tripled in northern Gaza. UN aid trucks are routinely looted by desperate civilians or worse, never reach their destination due to Israeli military restrictions. Meanwhile, Israel insists there is no policy of starvation calling the reports outrageous and the humanitarian agencies “fanatical organisations”. Prime Minister Netanyahu claims no one is starving in Gaza and the aid flow continues. But images of skeletal children and looted food trucks tell a different story. Even Donald Trump, who isn’t known for restraint, contradicted Netanyahu this week, saying: “Those children look very hungry... you can’t fake that.” Now, this is one of the worst crises of our time. And after months of inaction, the European Commission has finally proposed suspending part of its association agreement with Israel, specifically, access to Horizon Europe, the EU’s €95 billion research and development programme. The focus is on the European Innovation Council, a €10 billion fund that supports Israeli startups. This move is just a symbolic one but it would be the EU’s first tangible move to pressure Israel. And of course not everyone is on board. Germany, Italy and two others have blocked consensus. Berlin is key here and Friedrich Merz, usually pro-Israel, now calls the crisis “catastrophic.” And then there’s the Netherlands. Traditionally supportive of Israel, but now pushing for a broader review of trade ties and Dutch PM Dick Schoof says enough is enough. But let’s be honest, these are baby steps. And they follow months of delay, despite mounting death tolls and societal pressure. So what can we expect here? Pressure is growing, diplomatically and from within. In the UK, Keir Starmer says he wants to recognise a Palestinian state before the next general election. This is a significant shift in British foreign policy, and a clear sign that the political mood is changing. And it’s not the only one, within the UK Jewish community, views are shifting. The editor of Jewish News called the Gaza crisis “also Israel-made.” Another high-profile figure quit the Board of Deputies, now calling Israel’s actions “genocidal.” And in Israel itself, two domestic rights groups, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, broke ranks this week, accusing their own government of genocide. These are not fringe voices. They say Gaza has been bombed, starved, displaced, and left “stripped of humanity.” Israel, of course, denies these charges, arguing it’s targeting Hamas and doing its best to avoid civilian harm. But the death toll, now nearing 60,000 people, tells another story. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs
|
Evi Kiorri
|
In this episode, Evi Kiorri exposes how Israel’s claims about aid and civilian safety are being contradicted by humanitarian organisations and even by Western leaders.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-29T11:58:49.501Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arba10769e
|
Ukrainian Nobel Prize winner: what are European countries waiting for?
|
Oleksandra Matviichuk (41) is a Ukrainian human rights lawyer and head of the Center for Civil Liberties, recognised with the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize for her work documenting war crimes and defending democracy during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Under her leadership, the organisation has played a key role in advocating for justice, supporting political prisoners, and monitoring human rights violations, establishing her as a prominent voice in international efforts to uphold civil liberties in the region. We’ve interviewed her. There are no existing institutions that can prosecute Putin and the top political leadership and military command of the Russian Federation for the crime of aggression, even the International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction in that case. All the crimes that we document are the result of the decision to start a war, making the establishment of a Special Tribunal for Aggression essential to fill this gap in responsibility. It is very important that a historic agreement was signed between Ukraine and the Council of Europe on 25 June, marking the beginning of its establishment. Because in the 21st century, our task is to ensure that justice does not depend on how and when the war ends. This is a revolutionary idea: if we want to prevent wars in the future, we must punish the states and leaders who start wars now. The Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals after World War II were a precedent in a sense, but in fact, they were courts of the victors of the war. An unspoken norm was fixed that justice is the privilege of the victors. But justice cannot be a privilege; it is a basic human right. A lot has changed since the Nuremberg Tribunal, but Ukraine had to make enormous efforts to convince the international community that we should not wait and make justice dependent on the outcome of the war. If there is a crime, and it exists, if there are people who committed this crime, and they exist, then there must be punishment. There are only two options: either the €300bn of frozen funds go to Ukraine – or they go back to Russia. There is no third option ... Is Europe prepared to make the largest single investment in the Russian war machine, amounting to €300bn? In my opinion, we need to stop calling it double standards. We need to talk about the fact that countries in different parts of the world violate international law and, depending on their political sympathies, choose one strategy or another. This does not concern only Western countries. Let us look at how many African and Latin American countries vote at the UN General Assembly on the Russian aggression against Ukraine. Or let us remember that even after the International Criminal Court announced an arrest warrant for Putin, the president of South Africa invited him to the BRICS summit. South Africa is a country that filed a complaint with the International Court of Justice about the genocide in Gaza, but at the same time, it turns a blind eye to Russia's aggressive war, declaring neutrality. There is always more to do, but first, we start with words of gratitude for the support Ukraine has received, which was crucial for survival in the first years of this full-scale war. The war has already lasted 11 years — the world only became aware of it in 2022 with the large-scale invasion. But there are a whole series of things that must be done now. I'll give just one example: there are €300bn in frozen Russian state assets in the G7 countries, notably Belgium. This sum exceeds all previous aid to Ukraine. And it's logical: the aggressor must pay for the damage caused. It's clear that Russia will refuse. But there are frozen funds that could be transferred to a trust fund — for the restoration of Ukraine, for compensation to victims, for weapons procurement, for everything our European partners currently don't have the money for. And as we can see, we can hardly count on American funds anymore. But the funds have to come from somewhere. Yet nothing has been done to confiscate these funds. There are only two options: Either the funds go to Ukraine — or they go back to Russia. There is no third option. Because they are frozen under a sanctions regime that must be renewed unanimously every six months. And it is easy to imagine that Viktor Orbán, for example, would block the extension. Then the funds would have to be transferred back to Russia on the same day. My question is: What are the European countries waiting for? Are they prepared to make the largest single investment in the Russian war machine, amounting to €300bn? It is obvious what Russia would use this money for. Officially, 40 percent of the Russian budget goes into military spending alone. The essence of the occupation is that the Russians can do whatever they want to a person, just because they can People don't understand what an occupation is, and they don't want to delve into it, even though there is a huge amount of information. There are regular UN reports, to start with. They might look dry, bureaucratic, but in fact, they let you immediately understand that occupation is not just changing one flag for another. Occupation is forced disappearances, rape, illegal imprisonment, erasure of your identity, forced adoption of your children, filtration camps and mass graves. Occupation does not reduce human suffering, it simply makes it invisible, because people have no way to protect themselves. Occupation is war under international humanitarian law, just in a different form. For 11 years we have been documenting the crimes committed by Russia in the occupied territory of Ukraine. I can illustrate the essence of the occupation with one specific example. This is the story of the children's writer Volodymyr Vakulenko. He wrote wonderful works for Ukrainian children, and a whole generation grew up on his "Daddy's Book". During the Russian occupation, he disappeared. I know his family. The family believed until the end that he, like thousands of other Ukrainian civilians, was being illegally held in Russian captivity. But when the Ukrainian army drove the Russians out of the Kharkiv region, we found mass graves in the forest near the city of Izyum. And these were graves where there were hundreds of bodies of men, women, and children. Some of them had their hands tied behind their backs. And in grave No. 319 there was the body belonging to Vakulenko. He was tortured and beaten. One can ask, why would the Russians kill a children's writer? Because they could do it. The essence of the occupation is that the Russians can do whatever they want to a person, just because they can. This is a very difficult question to answer simply. For example, people accept the forced imposition of Russian citizenship, because otherwise they would simply risk being deported from their home. On the other hand, people who contribute to the occupation in a way that is defined by the Criminal Code of Ukraine such as crimes, must clearly understand that they will be held responsible. Changes to the criminal code were made back in May 2022, introducing articles on collaborationism. Ukrainian human rights activists criticised these changes for not fully complying with international standards, however. The practice has developed quite contradictorily. On the one hand, there are people who should be persecuted, but they are not. On the other hand, we see people who, obviously, did not do anything that could be considered strengthening the occupation regime through crimes, but for some reason they ended up under criminal proceedings. I think there are several things that keep me going. First is a sense of responsibility. This is the most documented war in the history of mankind. In our database, which we are conducting together with partners, we have more than 88,000 episodes of war crimes. These are not just numbers. Behind these numbers are specific human destinies. It is really very important to me that these stories do not remain recorded only in national archives, but become the basis for justice and for returning to people their names, violated rights and restoration of human dignity. Second, I know that all our efforts are meaningful, even though the challenge we face is enormous. If we do nothing, we will not achieve the future we strive for. Therefore, fighting for this future is always the best strategy.
|
Maryna Svitlychna is a Ukrainian journalist, living in Italy since 2022. She works at Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa, particularly focusing on Ukraine.
|
Activist Oleksandra Matwijtschuk has called on European countries to use the €300bn in Russian frozen assets to rebuild Ukraine, warning that the risk is fueling Putin's war machine.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-29T06:40:03.365Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar483cf789
|
Indonesia-EU free trade agreement: good faith and equal treatment
|
The recent announcement by Indonesian president Prabowo Subianto and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen of a "political agreement" on the Indonesia-EU Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) marks a significant milestone after nine years of negotiations. This breakthrough is both an economic opportunity and a chance to rebuild trust between strategic partners at a time when global trade faces unprecedented challenges. Indonesia and the EU have both recognised that strengthening economic ties is essential in today's global trading environment. Indonesia has been actively diversifying its trade relationships through bilateral and multilateral frameworks like ASEAN, while the EU seeks to expand export markets and enhance competitiveness. The path to this point has been marked by numerous roadblocks, with agricultural trade — particularly palm oil — at the centre of disputes. The EU's Renewable Energy Directive (RED) II , which effectively excluded palm oil from renewable energy targets, led Indonesia to file a WTO complaint in 2019. The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) has created additional tensions. However, these challenges have created opportunities for constructive dialogue and mutual understanding. Despite the political agreement, some important issues remain to be resolved, but there are clear pathways forward. The January 2025 WTO ruling on the RED vindicated Indonesia's position, finding that while the EU has the right to pursue environmental objectives, certain aspects of RED II's implementation discriminated against palm oil in violation of international trade rules. This ruling provides a clear framework for bringing RED measures into WTO compliance, creating a foundation for more equitable trade relations. Opportunities for collaboration The EUDR presents opportunities for collaboration. Indonesia has consistently advocated for four key elements: greater smallholder inclusion, recognition of Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) certification, acknowledgement of Indonesia's substantial deforestation reduction efforts, and recognition of Indonesian data for risk benchmarking. These represent practical steps toward achieving shared environmental objectives while ensuring fair treatment for Indonesia's 2.7 million smallholder farmers, who deserve access to global markets. The EU has the opportunity to demonstrate leadership by providing concrete assistance and capacity building for small farmers. Supporting the development of a compliance module for ISPO certification would help Indonesian producers meet EU standards while strengthening environmental protections—a win-win outcome. The EU's own farmers recognise the importance of practical compliance solutions, and this shared understanding can bridge the gap with developing country producers. EPP solutions The EU's internal disagreements over the EUDR reflects growing recognition of these realities: the European People's Party's proposals for implementation timelines and introduction of a "negligible risk" category, supported by agriculture ministers from member states, show a willingness to find new solutions. An additional delay would provide valuable time for Indonesian smallholders to prepare while allowing meaningful EU support to materialise. A "negligible risk" category could drive wholesale improvement of the EU's risk benchmarking approach, creating more nuanced and technically sound criteria. This presents the commission with an excellent opportunity to simplify procedures for farmers while ensuring equal treatment for all countries and firms — moving beyond geographic preferences toward merit-based assessments. The EU has correctly maintained that the FTA and EUDR operate on separate tracks. However, regulations affecting Indonesia's largest exports — palm oil, coffee, cocoa, and rubber — present opportunities for innovative solutions that serve both trade and environmental objectives. Indonesia-EU relations have overcome challenges before and can do so again. The foundation for success lies in principled approaches based on good faith negotiation and non-discriminatory treatment. Šefčovič's 'special treatment' EU trade commissioner Maroš Šefčovič's recent commitment that Indonesian products will receive special treatment is a promising start. The real success will come through collaborative implementation of trade rules and environmental regulations that work for all stakeholders. The EU's reputation as a rules-based actor in international trade creates opportunities for leadership in ensuring environmental measures are scientifically sound, technically feasible, and non-discriminatory. By recognising the genuine efforts of partner countries to achieve sustainability goals and providing necessary technical and financial support, the EU can help developing country producers meet higher standards while strengthening global environmental protection. Indonesia has made remarkable progress, investing heavily in sustainable palm oil production, reducing deforestation rates by 90 percent, and developing robust certification systems. These achievements demonstrate our commitment to sustainability and our readiness for partnership based on equal treatment and mutual recognition of efforts. The political agreement provides a clear framework for progress. The work ahead involves ensuring that trade rules serve both economic development and environmental protection. This is not only achievable but represents a unique opportunity to demonstrate that sustained good faith engagement and mutual respect can create lasting solutions. With genuine commitment from both sides, the Indonesia-EU partnership can become a model showing that trade and sustainability are indeed complementary elements of a more prosperous and environmentally responsible future. Eddy Martono is chairman of the Indonesian Palm Oil Association (GAPKI) Eddy Martono is chairman of the
|
Indonesian Palm Oil Association
|
Progress on the Indonesia-EU trade agreement is an opportunity to rebuild a critical relationship at a time of unprecedented change, writes Eddy Martono, chairman of the Indonesian Palm Oil Association.
|
[] |
stakeholders
|
2025-07-29T06:12:48.384Z
|
https://euobserver.com/stakeholders/ar6dcca287
|
Starvation as a weapon: what Gaza’s empty plates reveal about the war
|
In Gaza today, hunger is not a consequence of war. It is a deliberate instrument of it. More than 38,000 Palestinians have been killed in the past nine months. But those numbers alone fail to capture the slow violence — the war not of bombs, but of blocked trucks and rationed calories. It is a form of warfare that turns food into leverage, and humanitarian aid into a tool of domination. Israel’s strategy goes beyond the battlefield. By tightly controlling the entry of food, water, and medicine into Gaza, it has transformed the basic mechanics of life into a system of punishment. The result is not merely famine, but engineered collapse Convoys are delayed, flour deliveries are rerouted, and fuel for bakeries and desalination plants is restricted. This is not an oversight. It is the architecture of siege, where every calorie becomes conditional. The result is not merely famine, but engineered collapse. Children are dying not only from airstrikes, but from dehydration and malnutrition. Entire communities have been forcibly displaced into narrow pockets of southern Gaza like Rafah, only to find aid arbitrarily delayed, often for days or weeks. In some areas, only one meal a day reaches tens of thousands of people. Elsewhere, nothing arrives at all. This system is not random. It is the product of a tightly managed policy — one that has dismantled Gaza’s civilian aid infrastructure and placed the flow of humanitarian assistance under military coordination, through intermediaries operating without transparency. Independent Palestinian-led humanitarian networks, which once distributed aid, have been sidelined or bombed. What remains is a structure where starvation is no longer a byproduct of war, but a tactic within it. July 20 made that clear. 58 civilians were killed while waiting for food near Zikim in the Northen side of Gaza City. There were no armed clashes in the area. Just hungry men — fathers, sons, and workers — standing in line for flour and canned food. They were gunned down in broad daylight, in what should have been a zone of protection, not execution. This was not an isolated incident. In recent weeks, we’ve seen civilians bombed while collecting aid, shot at near checkpoints, and trampled in stampedes caused by chaotic and unsafe distributions. The food lines of Gaza have become death traps — places where the hope of nourishment is met with the threat of annihilation. And yet, even as the suffering grows, the war continues. Inside Israel, a dangerous split is emerging. Military officials are reportedly expressing doubts about the war’s endgame, while political leaders double down, rejecting ceasefires and proposing fantastical plans for re-engineering Gaza’s demographics. Some speak openly of “voluntary displacement,” others of humanitarian enclaves managed by foreign contractors — ideas that ignore the reality on the ground and the resilience of the Palestinian people. But this war will not be resolved through false promises or force. It demands a shift from domination to justice. For months, I have coordinated humanitarian operations in Gaza — not from abroad, but in the field. I’ve led convoys, negotiated local ceasefires, and pleaded with armed actors and desperate communities alike to allow safe and fair distribution of food. This work is not always successful. But when it is, it proves that a different path is possible. That path is now taking shape. We are piloting a field-driven humanitarian framework — one led by vetted, nonpartisan Palestinian professionals and guided by international standards of accountability. It includes local committees to manage aid, coordination mechanisms to avoid overlap, gaps, or redundant distributions, and clear principles to prevent factional capture. This is not a future vision. It is happening now, wherever the system allows space for it. But without international recognition and support, this model cannot expand. And without a political decision to stop the war, no aid mechanism can keep up with the scale of suffering. This is not simply a humanitarian crisis. It is a test of the international system’s credibility. The Geneva Conventions are not optional. Using hunger as a weapon is not just inhumane — it’s a war crime, no less grave than bombing shelters or targeting civilians. One kills with silence and delay, the other with noise and fire — but both are deliberate, and both are crimes. Let us be clear: this is not about Hamas. It is about a policy that treats 2.2 million people — most of them children — as enemies by birth and burdens to be managed. It is about a siege that doesn’t distinguish between civilian and combatant, that dismantles not just buildings but the very idea of Palestinian survival. What Gaza needs is not more press conferences. It needs a ceasefire, full humanitarian access, and the restoration of Palestinian civilian control over aid — not as a concession, but as a right. Anything less will be remembered as complicity. Mahmoud Shehada is a humanitarian operations leader from Gaza, working for Committed to Good , coordinating aid delivery, civilian protection and cease-fire efforts as well as leading critical aid convoys, evacuation operations and humanitarian negotiations with all parties to the conflict. This op-ed is in a personal capacity. Mahmoud Shehada is a humanitarian operations leader from Gaza, working for
|
Committed to Good
|
Children are dying not only from airstrikes, but from dehydration and malnutrition. Entire communities have been forcibly displaced into narrow pockets of southern Gaza, only to find aid arbitrarily delayed, often for days or weeks. In some areas, only one meal a day reaches tens of thousands of people. Elsewhere, nothing arrives at all.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Rule of Law",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-29T05:55:45.049Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar687d904f
|
Listen: The EU-US tariff deal: A costly compromise or strategic win?
|
On Sunday, US president Donald Trump and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen met at Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland. After four months of tense negotiations, they reached an agreement on tariffs. But what does this deal actually mean for European industries? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here: On Sunday, US president Donald Trump and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen met at Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland. After four months of tense negotiations, they reached an agreement on tariffs. But what does this deal actually mean for European industries? Welcome to Long Story Short, Europod’s daily podcast that breaks down what matters most, in just five minutes. I’m Evi Kiorri, here to make Europe’s latest, long story… short. The deal imposes a 15percent US tariff on most EU goods, including key exports such as cars, pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. That’s significantly higher than the pre-Trump average of 4.8 percent, but lower than the 30% rate Trump had threatened if no agreement was reached by 1 August. In return, the EU has agreed to several large commitments: like an annual purchase of $250bn worth of US energy products, including oil, gas, nuclear fuel and liquefied natural gas for three years, totalling $750bn. Then a pledge to invest $600bn in the United States, including purchases of US military equipment. And the removal of tariffs in select sectors. Aircraft and component parts, certain chemicals, generics, semiconductor equipment, agricultural products and critical raw materials, will move to zero tariffs under the deal. However, some tariffs remain unchanged. Steel and aluminium exports from the EU to the US will continue to face a 50 percent levy. The US administration has also confirmed it retains the right to increase tariffs in the future if it deems the EU is not fulfilling its commitments. Trump has described the agreement as “probably the biggest deal ever reached,” while von der Leyen said it brings “stability and predictability” for citizens and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic. Now, for Germany, whose economy relies heavily on automotive exports, the agreement reduces US tariffs from 27.5 percent to 15%, which is a considerable financial relief. Chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed the deal for averting economic disruption. Italy, another major European exporter to the US, also expressed support, calling the outcome "stable and sustainable." However, some EU leaders and industry bodies have expressed concern. France’s EU affairs minister called the deal “unbalanced.” Germany’s Federation of Industries described it as “an inadequate compromise,” warning of the impact on export-heavy sectors. So, the deal offers short-term market stability, and the EU’s large-scale purchases of American energy and military equipment signal a deepening financial and strategic alignment with Washington. So what’s next? The EU will now need to follow through on its investment and energy commitments to avoid further US tariff action. Washington has already signalled that rates could rise again if those pledges aren’t met. Meanwhile, Brussels is under pressure to diversify. Talks with India, the Gulf states, Indonesia and Mercosur are expected to speed up as the EU looks to reduce its reliance on the US market. The deal also creates friction in Ireland. Northern Ireland will reportedly face a different tariff regime than the Republic of Ireland, raising questions about stability under the Good Friday Agreement. For now, a trade war has been avoided, but the long-term impact of higher tariffs and costly commitments will shape EU-US relations for years to come. But that’s all for today on Long Story Short, a podcast by Europod in partnership with the Sphera Network. You can also find us on the EUobserver website, go check it out. Thanks for listening. I’m Evi Kiorri, and I’ll be back tomorrow at 12:30 with more insights in just five minutes. See you then! Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs
|
Evi Kiorri
|
In this episode, Evi Kiorri breaks down the tariff agreement reached by U.S. President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen after months of intense negotiations.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-28T15:37:55.156Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar651b9d08
|
Macron's recognition of the state of Palestine: bravo or déjà vu?
|
France's historical decision to recognise the state of Palestine at the upcoming United Nations General Assembly in September immediately triggered a series of questions from my former colleagues — is France changing its foreign policy towards Palestine and Israel? In fact, recognising the state of Palestine is perfectly in line with France's foreign policy, it is the rest that isn't. In 1989, French president François Mitterrand hosted Yasser Arafat, leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), although the latter was considered by some to be a terrorist organisation. Was Mitterrand a fool to host Arafat? On the contrary — it brought hope to the region. The Palestinian leader had just declared that he recognised the state of Israel in the 1967 lines as per UN resolutions — an immense concession for peace. Meanwhile, Israel has never recognised the State of Palestine as we stand under Netanyahu's sixth government. Now, by finally recognizing the state of Palestine, France sends a strong message that international law still matters in 2025 — in contrast to the ways Israel has been breaking it, including with today's mass starvation of the people of Gaza. Among the permanent members of the UN Security Council, France is the only western country to do so, a clear signal for the UK, Germany and other western powers to also stick to their commitment to support a two-state solution. France may be the 148th UN member state to do so, but its recognition bears more weight than usual. France was one of the two European empires colonising most of the Arab world just a few decades ago. It fought hard to keep Algeria under its rule to then pull out with a million European settlers in disbelief. France promised Israel the nuclear bomb in exchange for Israel's reluctant participation in the 1956 Suez war against Egypt — and kept its word. Today, the ruling far-right coalition in Israel takes pride in wiping out the entire Palestinian population of Gaza, with some members of the Knesset even boasting that the world does not seem to care if 100 Palestinians are killed overnight. This September, when France officially recognises the state of Palestine in front of the UNGA, they will be proven wrong. But the genocide is now However France still has a lot more to do, alongside its EU partners : there is a genocide happening now. As an easy starter, it must stop criminalising peaceful calls to boycott, divest and sanction products from illegal Israeli settlements, in line with its embarrassing condemnation by the European Court of Human Rights, which rejected France's claim that those calls were indirectly antisemitic and urged France to respect the right to freedom of expression. Finally, its own Court of Cassation confirmed the calls to boycott were legal in 2023. Second, products imported from illegal Israeli settlements are still not banned from entering the EU, unlike products from Ukraine's Russian-occupied Crimea. Will France follow Ireland's call in accordance with the legal opinion of the International Court of Justice, which states that countries should "take steps to prevent trade or investment relations" that maintain illegal Israeli settlements on land France recognises as part of the state of Palestine? Dual-nationals? Third, France has an estimated 4,000 binationals serving in Israel's military right now. Some have been taking part in war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide as documented and verified by France's leading human rights NGOs. Yet none have been arrested, not even binational snipers accused of summary executions of Palestinian medical staff, or those accused of torture against Palestinian prisoners — the cases linger in court — while neighbouring Belgium has started to arrest Israeli war criminal suspects. Beyond internal housekeeping, France has a lot more to do on the international stage. Will it join other EU member states in supporting South Africa's case at the International Court of Justice against Israel, or will it continue to allow Netanyahu to fly from Hungary to the US using France's airspace in violation of the Rome Statute of the ICC, to which France is a founding member? Will it join Slovenia and Sweden in banning far-right fascist ministers of the Israeli government, or will it shy away, as it did in November 2024, and allow supremacist minister Bezalel Smotrich to attend a (later cancelled) private event on French territory? Perhaps most importantly, France has not yet convinced Italy or Germany to join the vast majority of EU governments in favour of suspending the trade chapter of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Despite unprecedented discussions, Europeans again fell into Netanyahu’s trap when he unilaterally decided to bomb Iran and used it as another excuse to postpone any concrete EU measures against his devastating policies. France has a duty to deliver as a former colonial power in the region, but also as one of the many countries who collaborated with Nazi Germany during the Holocaust, sending tens of thousands of innocent women and men to death. Our duty as Europeans is to ensure that both nations live in peace and security: the local Palestinian nation, who never took part in the Holocaust unlike some of our European grandparents, and the new Israeli nation that was created following the Holocaust, at the expense of millions of innocent Palestinians. It matters that France recognized the state of Palestine. But it matters even more to prevent what history will recognise as a genocide. If I ever return on a mission to the Palestinian Territories with Macron's parliamentarians, I will no longer be embarrassed to visit a mere technical office representing France to Palestine: it will then be France's embassy to the — still occupied — state of Palestine. Yet as president Macron met with injured children from Gaza last April in Egypt, I doubt he told them France will recognise the State of Palestine to heal their wounds. Maybe he felt the same way that I felt when I visited France's navy ship Dixmude, which he had stationed only 39km away from Gaza in 2023-2024 to provide urgent medical care to thousands of evacuees. I kept thinking: France's army is right next to Gaza, it could bring livesaving aid to millions. If only there was more political will. Schams El Ghoneimi was policy adviser on the Middle East and North Africa for Renew Europe , president Emmanuel Macron's political group at the European Parliament, from 2020 to 2025. Schams El Ghoneimi was policy adviser on the Middle East and North Africa for
|
Renew Europe
|
Recognising the state of Palestine is perfectly in line with France's foreign policy — it's the rest of Paris' actions that aren't, writes the former policy advisor for Renew Europe for the Middle East.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
*
|
2025-07-28T06:59:26.675Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/ar9a0fb426
|
Israeli arms firm could lose EU funds over Gaza drone-kill video
|
Israeli state-owned arms firm Rafael could lose EU grant money after posting a PR clip on X in which its drone, the Spike Firefly, killed a man in Gaza. "If evidence of non-compliance arises within the context of the action, all appropriate measures will be implemented ... including the possibility to recover fully or partly the awarded funding from the grantee," an EU Commission official told EUobserver. The "action" referred to a video clip posted on Rafael's corporate channel on X on 7 July in which a Spike Firefly killed what looked like an unarmed non-combatant walking down the street in northern Gaza. The clip prompted public outrage on social media and was subsequently taken down by Rafael, but not before it had been downloaded by angry viewers . Rafael declined to answer EUobserver's questions about the incident. But the EU official said the Commission was "aware of the recent [X] post" and had referred the case to an "independent ethics advisor" attached to its flagship 'Horizon Europe' scientific research programme. The Horizon ethics advisor, Katerina Hadjimatheou , is a criminologist at University of Essex in the UK. Rafael received €442,750 of EU money in 2023 in an Horizon project on "underwater security", which had purely "civil applications". The Israeli defence ministry (€100,000) and Tel Aviv University (€299,000) also received EU money from the same project. "The ethics advisor will assess the relevance of the information provided [on Rafael] ... and will keep the commission informed of the evaluation findings," the EU official said, without giving a timeframe for the assessment. The official cited articles 14 and 11 of the Horizon grant agreement, which said beneficiaries had to comply with "all applicable legal obligations under EU, international, and national law". "The grant agreement also obliges all the beneficiaries to ensure that basic EU values are respected," the EU official said. The drone video aside, Rafael is a major contractor for the Israeli defence ministry whose equipment has been widely used in Gaza, where Israel has killed over 59,000 people in what the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague has called a "plausible" genocide. Five Italian leftwing and Green MEPs have written to the Commission asking whether "it will move to suspend or exclude Rafael from future EU-funded research activities". Seven European academics from British and Italian universities, including University of Edinburgh in the UK and University of Molise in Italy, also criticised EU funding of Rafael in an expert opinion addressed to Hadjimatheou on 19 July about Rafael's "marketing video" showing the "targeted killing of an unarmed civilian walking alone down a street". "The use of such footage to advertise weaponry not only normalises potentially unlawful violence against civilians, but also reflects a corporate culture fundamentally at odds with the values and legal responsibilities underpinning Horizon Europe," they said. "Funding a partner that is directly complicit in war crimes … could result in serious accountability implications for the EU Commission," they added, referring to a case against EU institutions filed at the EU Court of Justice over its alleged failure to adhere to the ICJ genocide ruling. Rafael's drone systems were also "reportedly active during the 1 April 2024 [Israeli] strike that killed seven humanitarian workers from World Central Kitchen [a US-based charity], despite the convoy's prior coordination and visibility markings," the academics' letter said. And the €100,000 in Horizon funding for the Israeli defence ministry was equally "morally indefensible and legally impermissible under EU and international law", they also said in an "addendum" to Hadjimatheou on 20 July. Meanwhile, Rafael's website described the Spike Firefly as a "miniature loitering munition" that weighed 2.2kg and had a range of 5km. The firm reported total orders for all its products worth NIS52bn (€13.2bn) in 2023, with 57 percent coming from foreign buyers. It has also seen record-breaking income since the Gaza war began in 2023, including a 27 percent boost in sales last year. "That a company profiting from, and flaunting arms used against civilians in one of the most intense and destructive wars in recent history concurrently receives public research funds from a peace-oriented program like Horizon Europe's Underwater Security, raises serious and grave concerns," the British and Italian academics said on 19 July. The EU Commission declined to say if any other Israeli arms firms were receiving Horizon money. But an investigation published by EUobserver in June showed that another drone maker, Israel Aerospace Industries, had received millions of euros from the European Defence Fund.
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
Israeli arms firm Rafael could lose EU grant money after posting a PR clip on X in which its drone, the Spike Firefly, killed a man in Gaza.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Rule of Law"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-25T06:52:13.516Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar3d4c0186
|
France to recognise Palestine statehood in September, as EU slams Israel on aid
|
"The recognition of a Palestinian state is not a taboo for France,” French president Emmanuel Macron said earlier this year in February. Later, in April, he told the press that France would move forward in the coming months, aiming to make the official announcement during a UN‑hosted conference on the two-state solution initially scheduled for June — but then postponed due to Israel bombing Iran. The conference, which will finally take place on 28 and 29 July, is hosted by France and Saudi Arabia. But neither the French president nor the crown prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammed bin Salman are expected to attend, downgrading the encounter to a simple ministerial meeting. On Thursday (24 July), Macron announced on social media that France will recognise Palestine as a state, at the UN General Assembly in September. “True to its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognise the state of Palestine,” he said. “The urgency today is to end the war in Gaza and to provide aid to the civilian population,” Macron added. “It is essential to build the state of Palestine, ensure its viability, and enable it, by accepting its demilitarisation and fully recognising Israel, to contribute to the security of all in the Middle East”. Faced with US opposition and without backing from the UK, France previously said that the decision to recognise Palestine would not be unilateral. However, the deadlock in international diplomacy, not least among EU member states, the humanitarian situation in Gaza, and the growing support from Global South countries seem to have pushed Paris to move forward. France, home to the largest Jewish and Muslim communities in western Europe, would become the largest Western country and the first G7 economy to recognise Palestinian statehood. Spain, Ireland and Norway formally recognised a Palestinian state in May 2024; Slovenia followed suit in June 2024. Macron’s announcement was condemned by Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu on social media, arguing that such a move “rewards terror” and risks creating “another Iranian proxy”. “A Palestinian state in these conditions would be a launch pad to annihilate Israel — not to live in peace beside it,” he said. Israeli defence minister Israel Katz also said : "Macron's announcement of his intention to recognise a Palestinian state is a disgrace and a surrender to terrorism … Instead of standing with Israel in this time of trial, the French president is acting to weaken it.” The US also rejected Macron’s plans. “This reckless decision only serves Hamas propaganda and sets back peace. It is a slap in the face to the victims of 7 October,” said US secretary of state Marco Rubio. Palestine's statehood has so far been recognised by 147 of the 193 member states of the United Nations. But the two most pro-Palestinian EU member states, Spain and Ireland, welcomed Macron's move. “I welcome France joining Spain and other European countries in recognising the state of Palestine,” said Spain’s PM Pedro Sánchez. "This is an important contribution towards implementing the two-state solution, which offers the only lasting basis for peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians alike," said Ireland's deputy PM and foreign affairs minister Simon Harris. British conditions Ahead of the French-Saudi summit next week, British prime minister Keir Starmer said he would hold an “emergency call” later on Friday (25 July) with France and Germany to discuss the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. “While the situation has been grave for some time, it has reached new depths and continues to worsen. We are witnessing a humanitarian catastrophe,” he said in a statement . “We all agree on the pressing need for Israel to change course and allow the aid that is desperately needed to enter Gaza without delay,” he also said. The UK has argued that a ceasefire would create the political conditions for London to recognise the Palestinian state in the face of the two-state solution. Divided EU Friday’s call follows technical discussions in Brussels over the controversial EU-Israel “understanding” on access to humanitarian aid in Gaza — which several EU countries consider insufficient. The deal included a “substantial increase” of daily trucks for food and non-food aid entering Gaza, the opening of crossing points, the reopening of the Jordanian and Egyptian aid routes, enabling the distribution of food supplies throughout the Gaza Strip, and the resumption of fuel deliveries. During Wednesday's talks, most EU countries condemned the worsening humanitarian crisis, including starvation, denial of aid, and attacks on civilians and aid workers. The Netherlands denounced Israel's failure to comply with the agreement, pointing to specific breaches, including Israel’s refusal to allow 116 aid trucks into Gaza and the limited delivery of humanitarian aid. France, Slovenia and Sweden strongly supported the need for decisive EU action, while Spain made references to the EU’s obligation under international law. Germany, for its part, called for real monitoring of the situation on the ground. Hungary and the Czech Republic appealed to the importance of maintaining dialogue with Israel. So far, there is no EU common position over which steps to take , as most measures require unanimity. EU foreign affairs ministers will revisit the issue during their informal ‘Gymnich’ meeting in August, but no new decisions on Israel relations are likely to be taken before October, when ministers next hold formal talks.
|
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.
|
France will officially recognise Palestinian statehood at the UN in September, amid growing EU criticism of Israel’s failure to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza. Home to the largest Jewish and Muslim communities in western Europe, France will become the largest Western country and the first G7 economy to recognise Palestinian statehood.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-25T06:30:43.830Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arc08489d0
|
Bulgaria to join the euro - while Hungary watches from the sidelines
|
Bulgaria is due to adopt the euro on 1 January 2026. There has been much political debate in the country in the run-up to joining the eurozone, and many residents remain sceptical. In contrast, the vast majority of Hungarians support the euro, yet the government is not taking any steps to achieve this. "Today's report is a historic moment for Bulgaria, the euro area and the European Union," said EU economy commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis back in June. He was referring to the green light given by the European Commission and the European Central Bank for Bulgaria to become the 21st member of the eurozone on 1 January 2026. Dombrovskis emphasised that the euro is more than just a currency: it is a symbol of European unity. Bulgaria will become a member of the zone, following Croatia, which adopted the euro in 2023. And recently, Romania has also announced plans to meet the necessary economic conditions for eurozone entry by 2029. Hungary, on the other hand, does not seem open to adopting the euro, despite a recent Eurobarometer survey showing a remarkably high proportion of Hungarians, 75 percent, support the euro. This is far higher than the average for non-eurozone countries (55 percent) and well ahead of Bulgaria’s 45 percent support. Inflation fears or geopolitical anchor? Over the years, surveys have consistently shown that around 55-60 percent of Bulgarians oppose the euro, or at least do not want it to be introduced soon. This is mainly due to inflation concerns, but pro-Russian sentiment among parts of the Bulgarian population also plays a role. For 35-40 percent of the population, mainly in Sofia and other large cities, eurozone membership is not seen primarily as an economic milestone for the poorest EU member state, but rather as a geopolitical anchor that secures Bulgaria's place at the heart of the EU, as opposed to the continuing fears of Russian influence. Bulgarians are most concerned about rising prices . "This is the main fear associated with the euro," says Dimitar Ganev, political analyst and director of the Bulgarian polling company Trend. According to experts, joining the euro area will not significantly change the fundamentals of the Bulgarian economy, except for a reduction in transaction costs for the export-driven economy According to him, the population's scepticism about the eurozone began after the Greek financial crisis in 2009, when the euro started to be viewed negatively in Bulgaria. Opinion poll data from 2007 and subsequent years show Bulgarian support for the euro at over 60 percent, virtually the same as the EU average. Back then, the euro was widely seen as a natural part of EU membership. “Then came the Greek crisis and the endless talk of eurozone debt,” explains Ganev. Parvan Simeonov, an analyst at the Myara polling agency, offers another reason why Bulgarians are reluctant to give up their current currency, the lev: "We live in an ageing society, which by nature is sceptical of change." In addition, "Bulgaria lies at the crossroads of cultures, with a long tradition of balancing between East and West." Rationally, he says, Bulgarians tend to lean toward Germany, "but emotionally they are drawn to Russia. Trust in the EU remains high, and confidence in Germany is particularly strong." Five years in eurozone’s waiting room According to experts, joining the euro area will not significantly change the fundamentals of the Bulgarian economy, except for a reduction in transaction costs for the export-driven economy. According to the Bulgarian Statistical Office, nearly 70 percent of Bulgaria's exports go to the EU; however, the changeover will not affect the EU export volumes. The Bulgarian lev has been pegged to the euro at a fixed exchange rate of 1.9558 since 2001. So in practice, the Bulgarians gave up the most important powers of an independent monetary policy decades ago, without having an equal say in its conduct. This is about to change, as the Governor of the Bulgarian central bank will also gain a seat on the European Central Bank's Governing Council. Five years ago, Bulgaria entered the eurozone’s 'waiting room', the Exchange Rate Mechanism II (ERM II), where, according to the main rule, countries must spend at least two years fulfilling all the requirements for adopting the euro, from macroeconomic stability to the interest rate and low inflation. Despite the five year opportunity, authorities in Sofia failed to use the opportunity to launch a major, large-scale public information campaign about the benefits of the common currency — something that could have helped convince sceptical citizens. Pro-Russia third party This created political space for Vazrazhdane (Rebirth), the third political force in the Bulgarian parliament and largest pro-Russian populist party, to stir up the population against the common European currency through fake news and rallies. In February 2025, party representatives took part in a protest outside the EU’s representation in Sofia that culminated in a building being set on fire. Bulgaria's president, Rumen Radev, a former soldier who has been in office since 2017 and is widely believed to be working on the foundations of a future party, tried to capitalise on the discontent by calling a referendum on postponing the euro’s introduction. Parliament eventually rejected the initiative, but tensions rose sharply. And earlier in June, another demonstration organised by Vazrazhdane paralysed traffic in downtown Sofia. Party representatives, who have recently signed a cooperation agreement with Russia’s ruling United Russia party, attempted to occupy the parliamentary podium to block the session. Clashes also broke out between Vazrazhdane MPs and members of the liberal, pro-EU Democratic Bulgaria Alliance. "First, they take our money, then they take Bulgaria itself, but they underestimate the Bulgarian people. We have woken up and we want our lev back," said Kostadin Kostadinov, leader of Vazrazhdane. "Protesting is a democratic right," responded former prime minister Boyko Borissov, leader of the ruling GERB party, who called Bulgaria's current situation in Brussels "humiliating." Borissov pointed out that when EU Council meetings end in Brussels, the president asks non-eurozone member countries to leave. "That's where the real decisions are made, and when Vazrazhdane protests, it effectively excludes Bulgaria from the negotiating room. But I want to get the country in there," Borissov said. Why doesn't Hungary have the euro? Unlike Bulgaria, there is no real social divide in Hungary over the euro adoption. Since Hungary joined the EU in 2004, public support for adopting the euro has steadily increased, according to Eurobarometer surveys. The problem, however, is that Hungary has never fulfilled the economic criteria required for joining the eurozone. Among other things, these include keeping the budget deficit below three percent of GDP, maintaining public debt under 60 percent, ensuring relatively low inflation, and finally, a country wishing to introduce the euro must peg its currency to the euro exchange rate for at least two years without disruption. While the EU expects all member states to meet these criteria to some extent, fixing the exchange rate remains a sovereign decision of each country. This month, the new chief of Hungary’s largest lender ( OTP Bank Nyrt ) called for the adoption of the euro. However, the Fidesz-KDNP government led by Viktor Orbán, in power since 2010, has repeatedly made it clear that it has no intention of switching to the euro. Before 2010, although leftwing governments had differing views on euro adoption, it was clear that the country was still far from meeting the necessary criteria. As early as 2004, the year of EU accession, the target date for introducing the euro was pushed back, from the originally planned 2008, to 2009. Under the government of Ferenc Gyurcsány, the key economic indicators deteriorated further away from the required levels, and the 2008 global financial crisis rendered nearly all prior estimates obsolete. Ironically, Hungary came closest to meeting the eurozone requirements during the crisis-management period, under PM Gordon Bajnai, as the terms of the IMF loan taken to stabilise the economy imposed euro-like fiscal discipline. Even then, the indicators fell short of the levels required for eurozone accession, but the issue of joining the common currency was firmly on the agenda. Although the Orbán government, benefiting from the favourable global economic climate of the 2010s, managed to bring many indicators close to the required levels for the euro changeover, at that time, there was still no political will to introduce the euro. However, the spending spree that began during the Covid-19 pandemic completely shut the door on any potential eurozone aspirations. The most critical issue is the budget deficit, which the government has failed to reduce to the required three percent level for some time, partly as a result of lower-than-expected growth. Public debt is another issue: the country remains well above the 60 percent threshold. In Hungary, unlike in Bulgaria, the lack of progress toward the euro is not about public support, but political will. The government considers maintaining the forint as a matter of national sovereignty: joining the eurozone would reduce the Hungarian National Bank's room for manoeuvre, eurozone membership would require more accurate and transparent budget, and it would no longer be possible to manipulate the forint exchange rate. Krasen Nikolov (Mediapool, Bulgaria), Lola García-Ajofrín (El Confidencial, Spain) and (EUrologus, Vienna). Moravecz Kata is a journalist for the Hungarian media outlet HVG.
|
Moravecz Kata
|
Bulgaria is due to adopt the euro on 1 January 2026. There has been much debate in the country in the run-up to joining the eurozone, with many citizens remaining sceptical. In contrast, the vast majority of Hungarians support the euro — yet the government is not taking any steps to achieve this.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Green Economy"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-07-24T06:49:24.900Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar78d8c06e
|
Libya: 'We need more than window-dressing on migration'
|
Europe’s migration crisis is not just a humanitarian emergency or a border control problem. It’s a strategic breakdown. From the English Channel to Lampedusa, irregular migration continues to dominate headlines and decide elections. The response thus far from many European capitals has been predictable: short-term containment measures, bilateral return agreements, and new offshore processing schemes. And yet the flow continues, unabated and undeterred. Criminal networks that traffic in human lives adapt. Public pressure rises. And the policies, in turn, grow more reactive. To treat migration as a standalone issue is to miss a much broader point. Irregular migration is a symptom — not the disease. The deeper problem lies in a fragmented European foreign policy, the erosion of state sovereignty in transit countries, and the pervasive influence of malign non-state actors in eastern Libya, led by the renegade general Haftar and his international backers (foremost among them Russia) who malevolently weaponise irregular migration to strong-arm European decision-makers on a range of critical issues —including the recognition of Haftar’s secessionist regime based in Benghazi. Strategic blind spots Across north Africa and beyond, these forces have been quietly reshaping migration into an effective lever for political pressure. In Libya, for example, irregular migration has not only become a source of illicit income for criminal networks — but it is also a strategic tool used by the authorities in the Haftar-controlled east to exert influence, extract concessions, or disrupt the European agenda. These networks do not operate in isolation. They are often embedded in local structures and enjoy quiet backing from international players who see irregular migration as a bargaining chip — not a humanitarian concern. Their goal is not stability, but leverage. Equally concerning, is the European tendency to engage with these actors in good faith — despite their open disdain for political, legal and diplomatic norms, as well as ethical standards. This spectacle played out in full this month when an EU delegation was abruptly expelled from eastern Libya for the apparent crime of adhering to established diplomatic protocol. Many of these Haftar-aligned groups have a lengthy rap sheet of human rights violations, autocratic behaviour, and disregard for international law. While cooperation with such actors may be tempting for European policymakers eager to secure quick wins on migration and border security that placate domestic audiences, these efforts often amount to little more than window dressing. The reason for this is clear: the Haftar-led regime and its loyalists lack any genuine commitment to democratic principles, human dignity, and legal accountability. Their willingness to violate human rights, cooperate in abuses, or pursue agendas that undermine regional stability makes them unreliable and dangerous partners. Their actions are difficult to predict, and their goals more than often run counter to those of their European counterparts. By engaging these forces sans preconditions or pressure, Europe risks further entrenching them – and turning the serious humanitarian crisis of migration into an exploitable political tool, increasingly used to blackmail and coerce European states and institutions. This is not just a policy failure. It is a strategic vulnerability. Unless Europe urgently reconsiders whom it empowers and on what terms, irregular migration will continue to escalate – not simply as a movement of people – but as a symptom of geopolitical exploitation and structural disorder. The human cost of delay The result is chaos. Libya, like other transit states, bears the burden of this political ambiguity. Non-regulatory migration continues to grow, and with tragic human consequences. Smuggling routes expand inland while migrants and refugees are left vulnerable to extortion, violence, and exploitation. European engagement remains focused on border control and externalisation. Proposals like the Rwanda model reflect the desire to contain the issue offshore –— to move people — not solve problems. But as we’ve seen time and again — such deals — however politically useful, rarely survive legal or logistical scrutiny. What is needed is a shift in mindset, from reaction to strategy, from containment to cooperation. A four-point reset If Europe is serious about addressing irregular migration, four changes are essential: Deterrence cannot work without alternatives. Safe pathways, such as those piloted through Safe Mobility Offices in Latin America , should be replicated in north Africa. These can divert irregular flows by offering legal entry for asylum, work, or family reunification. Europe must cease dealing with actors who profit from people smuggling and border disorder as security partners. A clean break from engaging with illegitimate authorities — such as those in eastern Libya — combined with sustained political and economic pressure on subversive parallel state structures, is key to safeguarding Libyan state sovereignty, which in turn is essential to restoring border security. Post-Brexit paralysis on migration must end. A UK-EU admissions agreement rooted in shared responsibility – not unilateral returns — would help rebuild cooperation and restore credibility in clear, legal migration pathways. Voluntary repatriation programs remain vastly underused and underfunded. Europe and the UK must align funding to support returns that are humane, supported by reintegration services, and tied to development incentives for countries of origin. If Europe is to regain control of its migration policy, it must first regain clarity in its strategy. Irregular migration is not just a movement of people — it is a reflection of how Europe engages with the world, and how the world responds in turn. The solution lies not in building higher walls or signing risk-shifting deals, but in crafting partnerships based on accountability, long-term interests, and mutual respect. The time for fragmented fixes is over. What is needed now is a coordinated vision — one that sees migration not as a threat to contain — but as a reality to govern wisely and humanely. Walid Ellafi is minister of communication and political affairs for the state of Libya.
|
Walid Ellafi
|
The response to irregular migration from Africa thus far from many European capitals has been predictable: short-term containment measures, bilateral return agreements, and new offshore processing schemes, writes Libya's minister of communication and political affairs.
|
[
"Migration",
"Africa",
"Opinion"
] |
*
|
2025-07-24T06:38:08.537Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/arf1f52089
|
I'm a doctor who worked in Gaza — and I'm disgusted at Kallas
|
Two weeks ago I sat across the table from several EU officials in Brussels. I, and other doctors who have worked in Gaza, told them what we witnessed there. We conveyed testimonies from our Palestinian colleagues in Gaza, told them about families targeted in their homes, violence against ambulance crews, and the calculated damage to hospitals and essential medical equipment. I was part of a delegation of healthcare workers who have worked over several years in Gaza. We travelled to Brussels in desperation, knowing full well that medical care and humanitarian aid won’t bring about an end to the violence. Diplomats and advisors nodded, offered sympathies “off-the-record”, then proceeded to do nothing. Instead, there was a press conference. A promise of slightly more aid. More platitudes and self-congratulatory remarks. As if that were enough, politicians throughout Europe will now break for their summer holidays. At the very same time, colleagues in Gaza tell us every day that nothing has changed. The same hospitals are targeted, while ever more are left in ruins. The same colleagues attempt to care for tens of patients on the floors of emergency rooms, often without the basics — paracetamol, saline or gauze. Perhaps more trucks with food will now arrive. But that will not stop Israel’s strikes on tents, schools and hospitals, or the Israeli snipers who shoot at those who queue for something to fend off starvation. Offering bread and water with one hand, while supporting those who drop bombs with the other, is a perverse distortion of our collective moral, legal and political responsibilities. I am an emergency doctor. I have worked and supported colleagues in many countries affected by conflict and forced displacement. But the extreme nature of Israel’s violence and systematic destruction in Gaza far overshadows anything I have ever seen. I saw ambulances and UN vehicles riddled with bullets. Of those ambulances that could safely reach the emergency room, they were often so overcrowded that the wounded lay bleeding on top of each other. My colleagues and I treated a child with a gaping chest wound and a collapsed lung. Another boy — 12 years old — was brought in on a donkey cart by his brother. He was pale from massive blood loss. We patched his wound while we waited for space in the operating room. We reviewed him later only to find him semi-conscious, bleeding out into the mattress. His father wept by his side as we tried to find blood for an emergency transfusion. On another day, we treated a pregnant woman critically injured by an airstrike. We had no pain relief for her as we rushed to insert tubes into both sides of her chest. Her daughter sat beside her, silent and in shock. Her baby was delivered prematurely and survived, but the woman would later find out that her husband and others in her family had been killed. Disturbing and depraved These were everyday occurrences — of such a scale that they would have overwhelmed the capacities of any of the most advanced hospitals in Brussels, Berlin or Rome, at least three times over. In several hospitals we found equipment that had been sabotaged or destroyed — I saw ultrasound cables deliberately cut, machines smashed, and wards burnt by Israeli soldiers who had occupied the Red Crescent Hospital in Khan Younis. To be clear — what I witnessed in Gaza was a form of manufactured human suffering of the most disturbing and depraved proportions. Yet the EU insists on inaction. Shortly after our visit, the EU's top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, confirmed what Palestinians, legal experts, and those who have worked in Gaza have known for a long time: that Israel may be in breach of its obligations under Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement — the clause that makes respect for human rights a condition of trade. Of course this came as no surprise to our Palestinian colleagues and those of us who have worked in Gaza. But it was, for a brief moment, an overdue step in the right direction. That confirmation should have triggered serious political action. But the outcome of the EU’s review is nothing but vague promises to revisit the situation every few weeks. 2.1 million Palestinians in Gaza can’t wait another day. Every single day, tens — and often hundreds — of Palestinians are killed, starved to death, or succumb to treatable diseases. As those with the power to act plan their summer holidays instead, I ask Kaja Kallas, president Ursula von der Leyen, and all EU officials who bear the responsibility to hold Israel to account, whether any of you can confidently say you have done everything you can to end the horrors inflicted on Palestinians in Gaza? Dr James Smith is an emergency doctor who has repeatedly served in Gaza in the past few months, and recently travelled to Brussels to brief EU officials.
|
Dr James Smith
|
As doctors who have worked in Gaza, we went to Brussels to urge immediate action. How to find the words to convey the anger and disappointment as I listened to Kaja Kallas announce recently that the EU will do absolutely nothing in response to the spiralling situation in Gaza.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-24T06:38:00.516Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arde8071a7
|
China and the EU: partners for mutual success
|
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the European Union. Over the past half-century, China-EU relations have withstood the tests of global changes and maintained a stable momentum of development. This enduring partnership has strongly supported mutual progress and brought tangible benefits to nearly two billion people in China and Europe. The prospects for pragmatic China-EU cooperation remain broad. As China advances toward high-quality development and actively boosts domestic demand, European businesses are finding ample space to expand in the Chinese market. A large number of EU companies have invested in China, witnessing the country’s reform and opening-up as well as the development of Chinese modernisation while also reaping substantial returns. In the early 1980s, German automobile manufacturers were among the first to seize market opportunities by investing and building factories in China. Today, brands such as BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen derive over 30 percent of their global sales from the Chinese market, with profits in China reaching up to 30 times those earned in their domestic markets. In sectors such as chemicals, optics, aerospace and aviation, European products account for more than 30 percent and in some cases over 50 percent of China’s total imports. China’s investment in Europe has entered a new stage Since the early 2000s and accelerating after 2009, China’s cumulative investment in Europe has exceeded $100bn [€85.2bn], and annual investment flows are now roughly on par with EU investment in China. By the end of 2023, China had established over 2,800 directly invested businesses across all 27 EU member states, employing more than 270,000 local workers. China-EU green cooperation contributes to the economic transformation of both sides. This year marks the 10th anniversary of the and the 20th anniversary of the China-EU Climate Change Partnership . The two sides have achieved fruitful results in cooperation in areas such as environment, energy, circular economy, and water resources, effectively advancing respective green and low-carbon development while making positive contributions to global sustainable development. In recent years, China’s electric vehicle and new energy battery industries have become key drivers of a new wave of investment in Europe, further strengthening the bonds of cooperation and injecting strong momentum into China-EU collaboration in the green and low-carbon sector. European products such as dairy from Ireland and the Netherlands and olive oil from Spain have become part of the daily lives of Chinese consumers China and the EU have achieved mutual success with practical cooperation delivering benefits to people on both sides. With deeper high-level opening-up, China places greater emphasis on meeting the growing needs of its people for a better life. European products such as dairy from Ireland and the Netherlands and olive oil from Spain have become part of the daily lives of Chinese consumers. The “From French farms to Chinese tables” initiative has become a signature of China-France cooperation, enriching Chinese palates while delivering tangible benefits to French farmers. The China-EU Geographical Indications (GI) Agreement is the first comprehensive and high-level bilateral agreement on GI protection that China has signed, marking a milestone in China-EU cooperation on intellectual property rights. Since its entry into force, premium products like Anji white tea, Jinhua ham, Zhouzhi kiwifruit, and French champagne have entered each other’s markets, helping preserve cultural and natural heritage and injecting new momentum into deeper China-EU collaboration. As of June this year, the China-Europe Railway Express had operated over 110,000 trips, transporting goods worth more than $450bn and connecting 229 cities across 26 European countries, significantly enhancing connectivity across the Eurasian continent. Ambassador Cai Run is the head of the Chinese Mission to the European Union Ambassador Cai Run
|
is the head of the
|
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the European Union. Over the past half-century, China-EU relations have withstood the tests of global changes and maintained a stable momentum of development.
|
[] |
stakeholders
|
2025-07-23T09:44:45.998Z
|
https://euobserver.com/stakeholders/ara6b64a78
|
Protests on streets of Ukraine as Zelensky dismantles corruption bodies
|
In the first anti-government protests since Russia’s full-scale invasion, thousands of Ukrainians rallied in Kyiv and other major cities on Tuesday evening (22 July) after lawmakers passed a law that would weaken key anti-corruption bodies. In the capital, protesters shouted “Shame!” while many carried out placards saying “Veto the Law,” “Fuck Corruption,” and “No Corruption in Government”. Earlier on Tuesday, Ukraine’s parliament approved amendments to draft law No. 12414, granting the prosecutor general sweeping powers over investigations by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO). The bill was passed with the support of 263 lawmakers, with 13 votes against and 13 abstentions. But NABU had previously warned ahead of the vote that if this bill were adopted, the head of the SAPO would become a “nominal figure,” and NABU would lose its independence, turning into a unit of the prosecutor general's office. In a Facebook message aimed at calming public concern, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky assured citizens that the country’s anti-corruption system would continue to function. “The anti-corruption infrastructure will work, only without Russian influence – it needs to be cleared of that,” he said. He added that NABU and SAPO would carry on with their duties, while stressing the importance of the prosecutor general in ensuring accountability. For its part, the Kyiv-based NGO Anticorruption Action Centre (AntAC) has accused the newly-appointed prosecutor general, Ruslan Kravchenko, of orchestrating this "assault" on anti-corruption institutions. “The timing … correlates directly with ongoing investigations involving individuals in Zelensky's inner circle,” they also noted. As part of its anti‑corruption reforms, largely driven by Ukraine's aspiration for future EU membership, NABU, SAPO, and the Bureau of Economic Security (BEB) were created. Notably, they should be independent of the government, under European standards. Inner circle These bodies have uncovered alleged corruption schemes involving former deputy prime minister Oleksii Chernyshov and his business partner Timur Mindich, as well as within the presidential office, reportedly linked to chief of staff Andriy Yermak. Additionally, investigations have implicated former defence minister Oleksii Reznikov in separate corruption allegations over military procurement. Earlier this month, Vitaliy Shabunin, one of the most well-known anti-corruption activists in the country — and AntAC board chairman — was also charged with systematically evading military service, in what is widely seen as a politically-motivated vendetta. Tuesday's vote in the Verkhovna Rada followed questionable searches targeting staff of NABU, in a joint operation by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI), and the Prosecutor General's Office on Monday. But operations reportedly proceed without judicial warrants, raising questions about their legality. Before Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky signed the bill into law, the human rights group Center for Civil Liberties (CCL) urged him to veto the draft law, arguing that it poses a direct threat to the rule of law and human rights. “We also appeal to European institutions to persuade the Ukrainian authorities to revoke draft law No. 12414, as it contradicts the founding principles of the European Union,” they said in a statement on Tuesday. The CCL was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2022. Brussels responds The European Commission have also raised concerns over recent events — that appear to be a direct attempt to undermine the independence and functioning of Ukraine’s anti-corruption institutions. “Independent bodies like NABU & SAPO are essential for Ukraine’s EU path. Rule of law remains in the very centre of EU accession negotiations,” EU enlargement commissioner Marta Kos said on X. “The dismantling of key safeguards protecting NABU’s independence is a serious step back,” she also said. A commission spokesperson also said that EU financial support to Ukraine is “conditional” on “progress in transparency, judicial reform, and democratic governance” and that Brussels will be closely watching next developments. The German foreign office also warned Kyiv that “the independence and strength of Ukraine’s anti-corruption institutions have been key to reform efforts of recent years”. “Ukraine will continue to be measured against their progress,” it said. But Zelensky's move comes at a bad time, just days after the recent more pro-Ukraine shifts in Donald Trump's policy.
|
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.
|
In the first anti-government protests since Russia’s full-scale invasion, thousands of Ukrainians rallied in Kyiv and other major cities on Tuesday evening after lawmakers passed a law that would weaken key anti-corruption bodies.
|
[
"Rule of Law",
"Ukraine"
] |
rule-of-law
|
2025-07-23T06:32:50.697Z
|
https://euobserver.com/rule-of-law/ard908a24d
|
Europe must call Zelensky’s bluff on new anti-corruption law
|
In less than two days, Ukraine destroyed the most credible anti-corruption institutions it had spent over a decade building — institutions that had become a global model for uprooting oligarchy. Monday (21 July) was the day of pretext. Law enforcement — under the control of president Volodymyr Zelensky — launched a sweeping assault on Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies. Seventy extrajudicial searches were carried out. Offices were raided, sensitive data accessed, and a surprise security clearance review was initiated. The stated rationale? A hunt for Russian spies. The real target? The independence of Ukraine’s specialized anti-corruption agencies. Tuesday (22 July) was the day of legislative murder. Zelensky’s party joined forces with pro-Russian and populist factions in parliament to pass a law that strips the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) of independence. Some lawmakers shouted “Shame!” as the bill passed. Zelensky signed it immediately — before the public or Ukraine’s allies could fully grasp the implications. This was not just a bureaucratic reshuffle. It was the political assassination of Ukraine’s most vital democratic achievement since the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. Before 2014, the world had no proven path to dismantling entrenched oligarchy. So Ukraine pioneered a new model: with its legal system compromised, reformers teamed up with civil society and international partners like the FBI to create independent institutions empowered to investigate and prosecute grand corruption. NABU and SAPO earned trust at home and abroad, and their success made them targets — not only for corrupt elites in Kyiv, but also for Vladimir Putin, who called out these agencies by name the day before his 2022 invasion. The new law gives Ukraine’s prosecutor general — appointed by the president — sweeping authority to transfer NABU cases to prosecutors of his liking, close cases he deems sensitive, and usurp other powers from SAPO. In effect, it places the last bastion of independent governance under presidential control. The backlash has been swift. Martial law Thousands of Ukrainians — who cannot vote under martial law — are streaming into the streets to protest the death knell of Ukrainian anti-corruption, while the security services send threatening messages to the organisers. The anti-corruption activist who was targeted with flimsy charges earlier this month is soon expected to face even more repressive charges of treason. Others fear they’re next. This won’t be tolerated by the Ukrainian people, 90 percent of whom rank corruption as the nation’s second worst threat after the war. Why would Zelensky do this? Two reasons: consolidation of power and protection of corrupt allies. First, Zelensky and the head of his presidential office, Andrii Yermak, now rule Kyiv with an unchallenged grip. Oligarchs and independent media have been sidelined . Parliament and law enforcement have been brought to heel. Independent officials in reconstruction and defence procurement have been dismissed. Earlier this month, Kyiv unlawfully blocked the appointment of a new head of the Bureau of Economic Security. Seeing little pushback, the office of the president turned its sights on NABU and SAPO. Zelensky's inner circle Second, the timing of this power grab responds to corruption investigations closing in on Zelensky’s inner circle. In June, NABU named deputy prime minister Oleksii Chernyshov a suspect in a land-for-kickbacks scheme. Another investigation involves Tymur Mindich, a longtime Zelensky ally. Even if NABU and SAPO’s independence were restored tomorrow, these cases may already be compromised — now that the president’s office has access to their files. With diplomatic words having failed to prevent this, Ukraine’s allies must display their willingness to act. The European Union and international donors should make clear that no further financial assistance or progress toward EU accession will be possible until the law is fully repealed. Don’t open Pandora’s Box of 'reforms', which would attempt to subvert the institutions by more subtle means; simply return the Criminal Procedure Code to its pre-Tuesday text. The United States, traditionally the strongest voice for reform in Ukraine, is no longer reliable. Ukrainian civil society suspects that Yermak was emboldened by a recent visit from Keith Kellogg, the US envoy for Ukraine and Russia. We are told that when Kellogg called Yermak on Monday about the attack on NABU, Yermak was ready with a response tailored for the Trump administration: he told Kellogg that the US shouldn’t interfere now, because they’re probing the NABU officials who closed the case against Hunter Biden. That leaves Europe to lead. Fortunately, the EU now holds the two most powerful levers: money and membership. The European Commission should follow up on its initial statement by making it clear that they have put their pencils down on even technical advancements to Ukraine’s EU accession. Donors — including the EU Facility, IMF, World Bank, and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development — should condition all future disbursements on the full restoration of NABU and SAPO’s independence. For three years, Ukraine’s allies have rightly praised the country’s fight for democracy and the rule of law. But those principles must apply not only on the battlefield, but also in the halls of government. If Europe fails to defend Ukraine’s anti-corruption institutions now, its support for Ukrainian democracy will ring hollow. Josh Rudolph is managing director and senior fellow for strategic democracy initiatives at the German Marshall Fund of the US think-tank. Josh Rudolph is managing director and senior fellow for strategic democracy initiatives at the
|
German Marshall Fund of the US
|
Tell Kyiv it won’t get any money or EU accession until president Volodymr Zelensky's new anti-corruption law is rescinded, writes Josh Rudolph of the German Marshall Fund.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-23T06:18:55.934Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ard027d63d
|
Open letter from 34 ex-EU ambassadors: 'Act now against Israel'
|
We, 34 former ambassadors of the European Union, were appalled and outraged by the slaughter of innocent Israelis and hostage-taking on 7 October 2023 by Hamas and others. No cause can justify such acts, and we condemn them outright. Today, however, we are witnessing the horrifying spectacle of Israel carrying out, on a daily basis, atrocity crimes against the Palestinian people — above all in Gaza, but also in the occupied West Bank, amounting to a systematic campaign of brutalisation, dehumanisation, and displacement. The European Union and nearly all of its member states have failed to respond meaningfully to these horrific events. As former ambassadors of the EU we dedicated our professional lives to upholding and promoting core European values and international law, building the reputation of the European Union and defending the interests of its peoples. Those interests and that reputation are now in serious jeopardy as a consequence of EU inaction. About 10 percent of Gaza’s entire population, including tens of thousands of children, have been killed, maimed and seriously injured by the IDFs indiscriminate bombardments For over 21 months, the Netanyahu government has pursued a relentless campaign of violence and destruction in Gaza. About 10 percent of Gaza’s entire population, including tens of thousands of children, have been killed, maimed and seriously injured by the IDFs indiscriminate bombardments. Most of Gaza has been reduced to rubble. Those who survive bombs and bullets face hunger, malnutrition, disease, and a collapsed health system deliberately targeted by Israel. The ongoing siege is starving the population by blocking supplies of humanitarian aid from UN agencies and international NGOs. Replacing UNRWA and other established international providers of aid to Gaza by a politicised and militarised aid operation run by mercenaries is a violation of the UN’s humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence which all UN member states — including Israel — must respect in their entirety. The concrete humanitarian measures reportedly agreed under the deal the EU high representative Kaja Kallas secured with Israel have not been made public , nor has the arrangement ever been confirmed by the Israeli authorities. To the contrary, since Kallas’ announcement of 14 July, hundreds of men, children and women have been killed by Israeli soldiers while desperately seeking food and water for their families. This includes an alarming number of civilian deaths caused by IDF shooting at Zikim, one of the key border crossing points, that we understand formed part of the humanitarian EU agreement with Israel. Concentration zones Now, with appalling predictability, Israeli leaders are forcing swathes of Gaza’s population into concentration zones — militarised enclosures designed to confine civilians under intolerable conditions, with the clear aim of pressuring them into 'voluntary' displacement. This, along with other illegal Israeli policies in the West Bank, constitutes de facto forcible population transfer, a serious war crime under international law. The Israeli ministers of defence, finance and security have all openly called for the permanent removal of Palestinians from Gaza, and a senior “migration administration” has been created to facilitate it. These are calculated steps towards ethnic cleansing. Meanwhile, in the West Bank, violent Israeli settlers, with full military protection by the IDF, have waged a campaign of terror against Palestinian communities. Homes are torched, inhabitants are murdered, families expelled, water sources poisoned, herding animals stolen, olive groves destroyed, and land annexed in violation of international law. The perpetrators who act with impunity are armed and encouraged by state officials. These settlers are not rogue actors — they are the frontline agents of a government-driven agenda to annex and ethnically cleanse Palestinian land. The evidence of Israeli malfeasance and its flagrant violation of all known humanitarian and human rights laws is overwhelming. The United Nations, humanitarian organisations, and independent observers — including Israeli and Jewish voices — have documented these crimes in detail. The International Court of Justice has determined that there is a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza and that Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestine is not only unlawful but even constitutes the crime of segregation or apartheid. European public opinion and the majority of young people, including in countries like Germany and Italy, are clearly in favour of their governments acting to stop this horror. We welcome the recent condemnation of Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank by 28 foreign ministers, including 20 EU member states, but words are not enough. We call urgently on all EU leaders and governments, especially those who prevented the Foreign Affairs Council, on 15 July, from acting against Israel’s egregious humanitarian and human rights violations, to take all necessary and feasible measures under international, European, and national law to bring these atrocities to an end. Action should comprise the following: 1. Resume international aid deliveries immediately at scale and flood the Gaza strip with humanitarian supplies, in full respect of the core principles of international humanitarian law. 2. Suspend with immediate effect all arms and dual-use exports to Israel. 3. Ban trade with Israel’s illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian territory and prohibit EU and member states' commercial and investment relations with any entity or company doing business in or benefiting from Israel’s illegal settlements. 4. Suspend all preferential commercial arrangements for Israel under the Association Agreement. 5. Cancel Israel’s participation in Horizon Europe and all dual-use research, academic and technology programs of the EU. 6. Impose targeted sanctions on Israeli ministers, government officials, military commanders, and violent settlers responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, facilitating genocide and carrying out State-sanctioned terrorism. 7. Support international and national judicial mechanisms — including the International Criminal Court and domestic courts under universal jurisdiction — to bring perpetrators to justice. 8. Provide political, legal, and financial support to Palestinian civilian victims, human rights defenders, and humanitarian organisations operating under impossible conditions. 9. Recognise Palestinian statehood on the occasion of the UN conference in New York of 28-29 July, to create the necessary prerequisite for a two-state solution. On 17 July, the Day of International Criminal Justice, the European External Action Service recalled that in regard to crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocides… “history has too many moments when silence followed horror…” The world will remember how the EU and its member states respond to this catastrophic tragedy. Silence and neutrality in the face of genocide constitute complicity. Inaction emboldens perpetrators and betrays every principle the Union and its member states claim to uphold. While continuing to call unceasingly for the return of the hostages, a permanent ceasefire and the end to the war, the European Union, long a champion of human rights and the rule of law, must act now in the name of international law, humanity, and justice for the Palestinian people — or risk forfeiting its credibility, influence and moral standing in the world. Mikael Barfod Sven Kühn von Burgsdorff Geoffrey Barrett Jeremy Lester Alexander Baum Christian Manahl Thierry Bechet Brian McDonald Kenny Bell Hugues Mingarelli Aad Biesebroek James Moran Jean-Claude Boidin Francesca Mosca Jean-Francois Cautain Elisabeth Pape Peter Beck Christiansen Philippe Van Damme Tim Clarke Wiepke Van Der Goot Dominique Dellicour Marc F. Wolff Michael Doyle Richard Wright Karen Fogg Claudia Wiedey Erwan Fouere Gerardus Gielen William Hanna Geert Heikens Andrew Jacobs Rupert Joy Androulla Kaminara John Kjaer Mikael Barfod Sven Kühn von Burgsdorff Geoffrey Barrett Jeremy Lester Alexander Baum Christian Manahl Thierry Bechet Brian McDonald Kenny Bell Hugues Mingarelli Aad Biesebroek James Moran Jean-Claude Boidin Francesca Mosca Jean-Francois Cautain Elisabeth Pape Peter Beck Christiansen Philippe Van Damme Tim Clarke Wiepke Van Der Goot Dominique Dellicour Marc F. Wolff Michael Doyle Richard Wright Karen Fogg Claudia Wiedey Erwan Fouere Gerardus Gielen William Hanna Geert Heikens Andrew Jacobs Rupert Joy Androulla Kaminara John Kjaer
|
An open letter by 34 former European Union ambassadors calling for immediate and effective measures against Israel’s unlawful actions in Gaza and the West Bank.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-23T06:17:08.249Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar2eedce06
|
|
West slams Israel for 'drip feeding of aid' as new assault hits central Gaza
|
“The war in Gaza must end now,” 28 nations (mostly European) said in a joint statement on Monday (21 July), warning that civilian suffering has reached “new depths.” The statement, signed by 17 EU member states, plus Japan, the UK, Switzerland and Australia, and EU equality commissioner Hadja Lahbib, comes after the EU reached a controversial “ understanding ” with Israel to “significantly” increase humanitarian access in the Strip. The countries condemned the "drip feeding of aid" to Palestinians in Gaza and said it was “inhumane” and "horrifying" that over 800 people had been killed while seeking aid — with most deaths linked to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation , a US contractor brought in by Israel to distribute aid following its dismantling of the UN system. “The Israeli government’s aid delivery model is dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity,” the statement said. “The Israeli government’s denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable.” The statement demanded an immediate ceasefire and compliance with international law, while condemning the ongoing forced displacement and settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Notably, the statement was not signed by EU top diplomat Kaja Kallas, as well as 10 EU countries, including Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia In response, Israel’s ministry of foreign affairs dismissed the declaration as “disconnected from reality,” claiming it sends “the wrong message to Hamas.” US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee also described it on social media as “disgusting” and “embarrassing,” blaming the signatories for pressuring Israel while ignoring Hamas’s responsibility. But while the several foreign ministers were preparing their strong words about the need for Israel to respect international law, the Israeli Defence Forces were preparing a ground assault in Deir al-Balah in central Gaza. Israeli tanks entered the area under a new evacuation order affecting between 50,000 and 80,000 Palestinians, many of whom were already displaced. Gaza’s health ministry reported that over 130 Palestinians were killed and more than 1,000 injured across Gaza within 24 hours. The UN’s World Health Organisation (WHO) reported multiple Israeli airstrikes hit its staff residence, as well as its main warehouse located within the evacuation zone. “Israeli military entered the premises, forcing women and children to evacuate on foot toward Al-Mawasi amid active conflict. Male staff and family members were handcuffed, stripped, interrogated on the spot, and screened at gunpoint,” the WHO said in a statement. The UN agency also said it will remain in Deir al Balah to continue its operations and warned that “there is no safe place to go”, given that 88 percent of Gaza is now under evacuation orders or within Israeli-militarised zones. It is estimated that 1.35 million Palestinians need shelter. But no shelter supplies have been allowed to enter Gaza for 140 days, the UN said, adding that the fuel crisis continues, putting at risk the operation of life-saving infrastructure like hospitals. The latest in a long line of declarations that trigger more frustration than real change on the ground also comes ahead of the UN conference this month to discuss post-war plans for Gaza. Notably, the statement was not signed by EU top diplomat Kaja Kallas, as well as 10 EU countries, including Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia. Meanwhile, Belgian authorities arrested and questioned two Israeli citizens seen at Tomorrowland music festival after the Belgian pro-Palestinian groups Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF) accused them of war crimes. Last week's Bogotá summit of the Hague Group saw 12 countries announce sanctions against Israel, including arms inspections and weapon restrictions, and a renewed legal action over the humanitarian situation in Gaza. "Negotiating with Israel on how to manage what remains of Gaza and West Bank, in Brussels, New York or elsewhere, is an utter dishonour [to] international law," said on Tuesday (22 July) UN rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who herself has been hit with US sanctions. Albanese also said that states should suspend trade ties with Israel, and that those who are calling for a ceasefire should impose an arms embargo.
|
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.
|
Western nations condemn Israel’s “drip feeding” of aid, as ground attacks ramp up in central Gaza — worsening the civilian suffering and humanitarian situation.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-22T07:05:13.017Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ard1a029db
|
Protecting consumer rights: 'dynamic pricing' must not enrich the few
|
Imagine queuing online to buy a ticket to see your favourite band, and after several hours of waiting, you realise the ticket price has tripled. This is what happened to Oasis fans in 2024. Ten million fans in 158 countries queued for hours on the Ticketmaster website, only to discover that the prices had jumped from €160 to €400 at the final checkout, without any proper explanation or reasoning. Recently, the same happened in Spain with concert tickets for Puerto Rican singer Bad Bunny. In both cases, UK and Spanish public institutions accused Ticketmaster of inflating the prices, which were not clearly disclosed until the very last stage of the purchasing process. This situation leaves consumers vulnerable, leading them to buy tickets at a price that they might not have accepted had they known it in advance. This is called dynamic pricing, and it does not only happen with concerts and festivals. Many of us might be familiar with this practice when buying flight tickets, ordering a taxi via apps like Uber or Cabify, purchasing tickets for a football game, or buying goods on e-commerce platforms. This practice only benefits large companies, to the detriment of consumer rights. For instance, in the cultural sector, giants like Live Nation and Ticketmaster control 70 percent of online ticket sales and the concert venue market. This enables exaggerated price hikes for concerts and highlights the defenceless position of consumers. On top of this, these large companies take advantage of consumers’ vulnerability, especially when they are in emergency situations and with limited or no access to other alternatives. This is what happened in Spain during the blackout last April. Companies such as Cabify, Uber and Bolt took advantage of the fact that millions of people were left without electricity, telephone, or transportation to increase their prices by more than 300 percent in cities like Barcelona. What’s even more, a recent study by academics at the University of Oxford found that many Uber drivers in the UK are earning less per hour since the app introduced dynamic pricing a couple of years ago. This proves that dynamic pricing also damages working conditions, ultimately serving to line the pockets of a privileged few. The European Commission was clear in the past: dynamic pricing is not an illegal practice. But at the Socialists and Democrats Group in the European Parliament, we believe that dynamic pricing can be a smokescreen for exploitative pricing models, which go against consumers’ rights. We will not leave our consumers alone to face this abusive practice. Therefore, we are calling on the commission to present legislation to address this problem and protect consumers, particularly with the upcoming Digital Fairness Act. Consumers’ rights come first We must send a clear signal to our consumers, assuring them that we are not leaving them behind or placing them in the hands of large corporations. Ticket prices are often not publicly disclosed in advance, leaving consumers unaware of the costs they will really have to bear. This is why, in the frame of enhancing transparency on dynamic pricing (which automatically adjusts prices in real-time according to the demand), more investigation on these practices is needed; and this should be a priority for the commission. Consumers need to be informed, from the very beginning of their purchases, when dynamic pricing is being used and what to expect regarding the prices (price fluctuation, number of tickets). It is outrageous that they only find out during or, even worse, at the end of the transaction. Moreover, we are also determined to fight to limit the price increases by setting a maximum allowable percentage. Our consumers cannot be left at the mercy of large multinationals: dynamic pricing is not about high demand; it is a scam. Laura Ballarín Cereza , is a Spanish MEP and coordinator of the Socialists & Democrats on the internal market and consumer protection committee. Laura Ballarín Cereza , is a Spanish MEP and coordinator of the
|
Socialists & Democrats
|
Look what happened to Oasis fans in 2024. Ten million fans in 158 countries queued for hours on the Ticketmaster website, only to discover that the prices had jumped from €160 to €400 at the final checkout. The Socialists & Democrats group believe dynamic pricing can be a smokescreen for exploitative pricing models — which go against consumers’ rights.
|
[
"Green Economy"
] |
green-economy
|
2025-07-22T06:47:28.407Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/ara694ebc8
|
How Europe mirrors Trump’s hardline anti-immigration agenda
|
Images of the US campaign against illegal immigration have been seen and shared around the world. Launched by US president Donald Trump immediately on his return to power, the ongoing crackdown betrays America's drift into authoritarianism. It also shows something else: Europe's own migration policies are not so different. As soon as Trump retook the presidency in January 2025, he launched a massive deportation campaign against illegal immigrants. Arrests and incarcerations by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – the agency responsible for border control – are going on across the country. According to the White House, ICE has arrested 100,000 undocumented immigrants since Trump took office. An estimated 59,000 people are currently being held in ICE detention centres, and several tens of thousands of detainees have already been deported . The American president's stated aim is to expel 3,000 people a day. These numbers must be put in context, says political scientist Cas Mudde . “I think many Europeans have a skewed view of the US, seeing it too positively when Democrats have the presidency and too negatively when the Republicans are in power," he said. "Fact is, immigration raids and particularly deportations have been very high under presidents Obama and Biden too.” “The main difference is that the state focuses almost exclusively on undocumented foreigners with a criminal record under the Democrats, and takes a more indiscriminate approach under the Republicans,” Mudde also said. According to a paper from the Migration Policy Institute, the Biden administration did indeed naturalise nearly 3.5 million people (a record for any presidential term), while expanding legal avenues for migration. But it also carried out a record number of deportations. An ICE document counts more than 271,000 in the last year of Biden's term. That was the highest number in a decade, surpassing that of Trump's first term. “Trump is expanding on the anti-immigration apparatus of previous administrations”, said Mudde. “His attacks on universities build upon arguments broadly used by liberals (from the Biden administration to the New York Times), for instance in the alleged “antisemitism” [among pro-Palestinian student movements] on university campuses. This simply shows, again, that there is no hard line between the 'mainstream' and the far-right ,” he added. The borders America's ongoing anti-immigrant crackdown has received a great deal of media coverage. It is unprecedented in that it has brought into the everyday lives of millions of Americans the kind of brutality that is usually reserved for a distant place: the border. For several months now, both social media and the mainstream media have been abuzz with images of people being arrested — on the street, at work, and even in the corridors of immigration courts . The profile of the individuals swept up is revealing: almost half of those currently in detention reportedly have no criminal record . That contradicts the rhetoric of the Trump administration, which claims to be targeting mainly criminals. In its quest for arrests, the US government would also like to target people with temporary-protection status or work permits, depriving them of their residency and exposing them to possible deportation. A part of American public opinion strongly disapproves of the Trump administration's conduct, as evidenced by the demonstrations that have broken out across the country. The US government has already had to back down on certain points, notably concerning arrests in the agricultural and hospitality sectors, which are heavily dependent on immigrant labour. 'I think many Europeans have a skewed view of the US, which they see too positively when the Democrats are in the presidency and too negatively when the Republicans are in power. The fact is that immigration raids and especially deportations were very high under presidents Obama and Biden as well' Having run short of funds, ICE received a colossal boost to its budget in early July. It can now use over $100bn [€85.6bn] until 2029 (compared to a previous budget of less than $10bn per year) to recruit staff, expand detention capacity and increase deportations to unprecedented levels. Virtually overnight, ICE has become the most well-funded federal law enforcement agency in the nation's history. “While the authoritarian turn is abrupt and quite extreme, the Trump administration has lost almost every court case related to its authoritarian agenda”, cautions Mudde. “Hence, there is an authoritarian attack on a constitutional democracy, and it is far too early to decide who will win.” A similar situation in Europe? For Mudde, asking whether a similar situation is taking place in Europe is to ignore what is, and has been, happening in a host of mostly east/central European countries like Hungary, Poland, Serbia and Slovakia. "But liberal democracy and the rule of law have also been undermined by mostly mainstream parties in Austria and the Netherlands , to name but a few,” he said. In combination with an acceleration of anti-immigration rhetoric, the presence of far-right parties at the reins of certain European countries has led to a proliferation of widely-criticised migration policies. An EU Commission bill allowing for the creation of “return centres” in third countries has been attacked by human-rights organisations, who see it as a short-termist measure at odds with international law. A memo from the Polish EU Council presidency circulated before the proposal was published, only adding to those concerns. As the NGO Statewatch noted : “The prevailing position [amongst member states] is to have the legal basis framed in a flexible way that would also allow for more tailor-made applications in agreement with the potential host countries of the hubs and would prevent judicial scrutiny that could put the implementation of this innovative solution at risk.” In short: the proposal should be formulated in such a way that the launch and operation of the detention centres are not hindered by the courts — as was the case with the 'Rwandan solution' in the UK or the agreement between Italy and Albania . Abuses are indeed reduced by legal constraints on the treatment of refugees and asylum-seekers. But some governments are already operating on the fringes of the law. In Greece, 1,626 refugees and migrants were placed in pre-removal detention centres in 2024, according to a report by the NGO Refugee Support Aegean (RSA). Afghans and Syrians are the two groups most frequently placed in such detention (7012 and 5724 people respectively). For RSA, this state of affairs raises “serious concerns about the legality and appropriateness of imposing deprivation of liberty”. After all, the overwhelming majority of them are refugees who cannot be deported to their country of origin. About 14 percent of detentions were challenged in 2024. That low figure was influenced by the difficulty of appealing and the lack of legal assistance in Greece. Yet 42 percent of the objections to detention examined by the courts of first instance last year were deemed admissible. Meanwhile, no convictions were handed down against the police for illegal arrests or deportations, nor for informal arrests or refoulements. Despite the fall in the number of expulsions actually carried out, the number of expulsion orders increased last year, to 31,629 (compared with 29,869 in 2023). “We continue to point out that the police authorities are circumventing European law by issuing indiscriminate expulsion decisions against newly arrived asylum-seekers”, comments RSA. Criminalisation A 2025 report by PICUM , an organisation supporting undocumented migrants, illustrates how migrants and the people who assist them are increasingly being criminalised in Europe. In 2024, at least 94 migrants were prosecuted for facilitating irregular immigration, and 142 human-rights defenders for supporting exiles. In 2023, the European Commission proposed a change in the rules on tackling human trafficking. For Silvia Carta , an advocacy officer for PICUM, the proposed revision of the Facilitation Directive “will expose people to the risk of criminal prosecution simply for crossing borders or helping others in need.” In late 2024, several NGOs (including PICUM) filed a complaint with the European Ombudsman denouncing the commission's failure to properly assess the impact of proposed new laws to combat migrant trafficking. For Carta, “the European Ombudsman's decision to open an inquiry against the commission is an important recognition that this proposal risks violating fundamental rights and that the commission has not taken these risks seriously.” According to Frontex, the agency responsible for policing the EU's external borders, illegal entries into Europe decreased by 20 percent in the first few months of 2025, totalling 63,700. The agency attributes this drop to tighter border controls and the weather. This obscures a darker reality. So far in 2025, 752 people have died attempting to cross the Mediterranean, according to the International Organization for Migration . Most of those deaths occurred along the central Mediterranean route. Far from being moved by the plight of migrants, some politicians see brutality as a straightforward goal of migration policy. 'Police raids [targeting migrants] are not unique to the United States. We've seen them all over Europe' On 28 June 2025, the Greek government appointed Thanos Plevris, an Islamophobic and antisemitic far-right politician, as migration minister. Back in 2011, when he was a member of the Greek parliament, Plevris detailed his vision of border defence: “Guarding borders cannot be done without losses, and to be clear, without deaths. Guarding borders means deaths.” He was talking at a rally organised by the far-right magazine Patria. He also elaborated on his understanding of reception policies. “If [the migrants] are not worse off [here], they'll come. They must be worse off [than in their country of origin]. Their life, their hell, must look like paradise compared to what they'll experience here.” Institutional distrust Civil society is also affected by migration policies. In a report published in late 2024, Amnesty International denounced Spain 's migration policies as a step backwards in terms of respect for human rights. Specifically, Amnesty points out that the country, alongside Germany and Sweden, is one of the EU's biggest practitioners of ethnic profiling, thus revealing the “structural racism that exists” there. In 2024, 3,031 foreign nationals were expelled from Spain for various reasons relating to national security, according to the Spanish interior minister. These figures represent an increase of almost 50 percent on the number of expulsions processed three years earlier. “Police raids [targeting migrants] are not unique to the United States”, points out Garyfallia Mylona, advocacy officer for PICUM. “We've seen them all over Europe, in migrant camps in Calais , in France; in parks , train stations and restaurants in Belgium; in nail bars and car washes in the UK." "All too often, undocumented migrants also risk detention and deportation if they try to access public services. For example in Germany , where most public authorities are obliged to report them to the immigration authorities,” Mylona also said. Arrests and reporting requirements do not just harm individuals and divide families, they also spread fear and distrust of institutions among migrant communities. For Mylona: “Political leaders on both sides of the Atlantic must promote inclusion and strong social protection systems, instead of sowing division and violence.” The violence seen today on American streets is echoed in that unfolding in the Mediterranean, at the Poland-Belarus border and along the Balkan route . Across the world, the criminalisation of migration marches on. Trump's America is no exception. European countries — not just those run by the far-right, and not just those traditionally considered authoritarian — were already descending the slippery slope on which the United States has now embarked. Adrian Burtin
|
is a French journalist based in Brussels. The piece was translated by
|
The violence seen today on American streets is echoed in that unfolding in the Mediterranean, at the Poland-Belarus border and along the Balkan route.
|
[
"Migration"
] |
migration
|
2025-07-22T06:46:25.649Z
|
https://euobserver.com/migration/ar9fd84f2d
|
Srebrenica, Gaza — what happened to 'never again'?
|
This month, I stood in silence by a graveside and watched as seven coffins were lowered into the soil. But this was no normal funeral. Those being laid to rest had been killed three decades earlier alongside more than 8,300 men and boys, over a period of several days in July 1995. This was Srebrenica and I was there with thousands of others, beneath a hot sun, looking out across a lush valley filled with white marble headstones that fanned out as far as the eye could see. The seven people being buried were only being laid to rest now because — like many of those brutally executed in the campaign of genocide against Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica — their bodies had been moved multiple times, using heavy machinery, sometimes across hundreds of kilometres and across multiple mass burial sites. All of this is a concerted effort to erase the evidence of these massacres and impede future investigations into these crimes. As a result, the remains of nearly a thousand people presumed killed during those days are still missing. Before coming to the graveside, the mourners and dignitaries had gathered in one of the cavernous halls of a former battery factory. In 1995, it had been the temporary headquarters of a lightly armed Dutch contingent of a UN peacekeeping force assigned to safeguard more than 20,000 civilians seeking refuge from the approaching army of Republika Srpska. In this same hall, children, women and men had sheltered, hoping for protection. But the international community failed to meet its most basic obligations under international humanitarian law, and they were fatally let down. The so-called UN safe area was overrun. Men and teenage boys were separated from their families and executed. Women and children were forcibly transferred from Srebrenica, and many women and girls were raped and killed. 'Never again'? In this same hall, besuited representatives of governments from around the world now gathered. As promises of “never again” fell from the mouths of these state officials whose governments persist in transferring arms to Israel which has not relented in its genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, I felt the hypocrisy hang heavy from the rafters. In her speech, Munira Subašić, one of the Mothers of Srebrenica , spoke of the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza and reminded the audience that grief knows no boundaries and that silence is never neutral. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, and neighbouring Serbia, denial and historical revisionism persist despite the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia finding that the crimes committed in Srebrenica were part of a well-planned and coordinated operation and amounted to genocide. The masterminds behind the operation, Bosnian Serb leaders Ratko Mladić and Radovan Karadžić , were found guilty of genocide by the same tribunal. Yet justice, truth and reparations remain elusive for many survivors and victims’ families. Far too many perpetrators of this and other crimes have never been brought to justice. Whilst in Srebrenica, I was reminded of other mass graves in Chemmani, near Jaffna, Sri Lanka — and how, earlier this year, routine building excavations had unearthed 19 human skeletons . Yet another mass grave resulting from the bloody assault on Tamil populations in the north of Sri Lanka likely during the civil war. Some of the skeletons were of babies. Another belonged to a child buried under the clay with their UNICEF-issued bag, a toy, a bangle, and a slipper. It was a haunting reminder that no one — no matter how young — was spared from violence and mass killings in a state that has avoided accountability for these crimes since 2009, despite multiple UN resolutions calling for it. Tamil mothers of the disappeared continue to demand justice , truth and accountability as hope fades and time passes. In Potočari, the commemoration ceremony prompted tears of pain and rage, and a quiet grief. The wounds as fresh as they were 30 years ago. For the Mothers of Srebrenica, justice does not lie in the empty words of world leaders that converge in Potočari once a year to shake hands and take photos in front of a sea of graves. “Never again” means stopping genocide before it happens. Justice means knowing where their loved ones are buried, finding out the truth about what happened to them, and seeing the perpetrators held to account in a recognised court of law. It is about reparations, healing and seeing a world in which crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide are prevented and ended. If world leaders really mean “never again”, they must bring a swift end to Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. They must ensure the perpetrators of international crimes, wherever they occur, are held to account, and they must demonstrate genuine commitment towards justice and human rights for all. The white marble headstones in Potočari should remain on their conscience. Dinushka Disanayake is deputy director for Europe for Amnesty International , and attended the anniversary ceremony in Srebrenica. Dinushka Disanayake is deputy director for Europe for
|
Amnesty International
|
As promises of “never again” fell from the mouths of state officials at the Srebrenica commemoration — whose governments persist in transferring arms to Israel, which has not relented in its genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip — I felt the hypocrisy hang heavy from the rafters, writes Amnesty International's deputy director for Europe.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-22T06:44:06.342Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar549585a2
|
Contrasting expectations ahead of Japan and China summits in focus This WEEK
|
The European Commission’s launch of plans for a seven-year spending plan worth €2 trillion between 2028 and 2034, was its final major act before the summer holidays. And with the European Parliament now also in recess, this week is dominated by two EU summits in Japan and China on Wednesday (23 July) and Thursday (24 July). EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and her European Council counterpart Antonio Costa will first fly to Tokyo , where the two sides are expected to look at plans for joint public-private partnerships on rare earths and other critical materials as they look to reduce their reliance on China. In briefings ahead of the summit, EU officials were candid that Japan is the bloc’s closest ally in the region. They plan to launch a ‘‘competitiveness alliance’ with Japan and to hold further talks on a defence and security partnership. “Historically, we have been brought closer by adverse circumstances,” an EU official told reporters on Friday (18 July), pointing to mutual concerns about unfair competition from China, who they have also accused of “weaponising” access to rare earths and minerals needed for the EU’s digital and green transitions. The EU commission reckons that the 27-nation bloc relies on China for 98 percent of its rare earth supply and reacted angrily to China imposing export restrictions on them in June. Japan and the EU will also launch a new "economic two-plus-two" dialogue to bring together their foreign and economy ministers. Expectations are far lower for the one-day summit in Beijing on Thursday (24 July). Despite hopes that US president Donald Trump’s tariff wars would lead Brussels and Beijing to bury the hatchet on their own trade disputes this has not happened. Last month, the EU banned China from the bloc’s medical devices market in protest at China’s own trade barriers. Chinese President Xi Jinping will not attend the EU summit, which marks the 50th anniversary of EU-China diplomatic ties, another sign of the tensions in relations. “We know that we don’t see eye to eye with China on a number of issues”, said one EU official. Instead, the summits value is being framed through the prism of “having open and candid dialogue”, said one EU official. “We want to convey key messages so that they know what our concerns are,” the official added. EU officials will push for a ‘level playing field’ in trade and economic matters, a reference to Brussels’ complaints that China unfairly subsidises and protects its own industry and markets. But there could still be a joint declaration on climate and environment policy, which EU officials say would be an important sign ahead of the COP climate summit in Brazil in November. "Let’s see," the official said, implying that China is still a fundamental partner on the environment and climate. Officials have played down the prospect of an agreement on minimum pricing for electric vehicles. Last year, the commission imposed additional tariffs ranging between 17 percent and 38 percent on Chinese electric cars after concluding that China was subsidising its car makers resulting in the average Chinese made EV being more than €10,000 cheaper than the Europe-made average. Next Tuesday, meanwhile, EU justice and home affairs ministers will gather in Copenhagen for two days of talks on migration policy. The talks will focus on returns systems, new solutions to manage irregular migration and combating drug trafficking, before covering data, organised crime and children’s rights on Wednesday (23 July).
|
Benjamin Fox is a seasoned reporter and editor, previously working for fellow Brussels publication Euractiv. His reporting has also been published in the Guardian, the East African, Euractiv, Private Eye and Africa Confidential, among others. He heads up the AU-EU section at EUobserver, based in Nairobi, Kenya.
|
This week is dominated by two EU summits in Japan and China on 23 and 24 July.
|
[
"Agenda"
] |
agenda
|
2025-07-21T05:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/agenda/ar51f0935f
|
EU document shows flimsy nature of Israel aid deal
|
Last week, EU top diplomat Kaja Kallas announced a deal with Israel to improve the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, where 2 million Palestinians were starving under a blockade imposed by Israel. The measures included a “substantial increase” of daily trucks for food and non-food aid entering Gaza, the opening of crossing points Zikim, Netzarim, and Kisufim, the reopening of the Jordanian and Egyptian aid routes, enabling the distribution of food supplies throughout the Strip, and the resumption of fuel deliveries. But the European Union doesn’t have any presence on the ground, making it rely on Egyptian and Jordanian authorities and UN bodies for monitoring, EUobserver has learned. And any monitoring by UN bodies, especially UNRWA, its Palestinian aid branch, is being rejected by Israel. “We are now focusing on implementation and monitoring … we are in talks so that we can have a way to jointly assess progress,” said an internal EU document seen by EUobserver, which contained details of the accord. “This agreement is a start and it serves as a basis to work on the next set of challenges,” also said the document, which was prepared by the EU’s external action service, and which is published in full below. The deal is the result of talks between Kallas and Israeli foreign affairs minister Gideon Sa’ar, who was in Brussels earlier this week, after a lobbying trip to Berlin and Bratislava to avoid EU sanctions. The EU aid deal also comes after Kallas presented EU foreign affairs ministers with a report in June, which concluded that Israel had violated Article 2 on human rights compliance of the EU-Israel association agreement, which governed bilateral trade. In her report, Kallas corroborated UN allegations that Israel was guilty of "indiscriminate attacks ... starvation ... torture ... [and] apartheid”. The Gaza aid deal was originally called an “agreement with Israel to expand humanitarian access” in Kallas’ statement on 10 July. But a week later, her office had rebranded it as an “understanding” between the parties. The focus on terminology may seem pedantic, but details matter in diplomacy. When officials talk about an “agreement,” it is often related to a binding or signed document that can be monitored and enforced. In general, “agreements” are stronger and lead to more transparency and accountability. But “understandings” leave room for ambiguity, implying a desire to avoid full diplomatic, official, or legal recognition of the accord. “The EU gave Israel a green light to continue the Gaza genocide … in exchange for verbal commitments from Israeli officials to allow breadcrumbs and bandages and without any means of being able to monitor the implementation or enforce these commitments,” said Hussein Baumi from Amnesty International. “The EU and member states have legal and moral obligations to suspend the association agreement with Israel,” he also said. But there is no EU common position over which steps to take, as seen in the foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels last Tuesday. Spain and Slovenia had pushed for an arms embargo and the suspension of the EU-Israel association agreement, but both measures would have required unanimous approval, while Hungary and Germany stood opposed to either move. France and Luxembourg had advocated further targeted sanctions against violent settlers in the West Bank. But Hungary also opposed this move, which likewise needed a consensus. ‘Worse than ever’ Meanwhile, the European Union has said the situation on the ground in Gaza was improving thanks to Kallas’ diplomacy. The EU linked the improvements to the resumption of the Egyptian and Jordanian aid routes and the opening of the Zikim crossing point in northern Gaza since 7 July. The improvements also included the entry of 80 aid trucks on one day into Gaza and the resumption of fuel deliveries, EUobserver has learned. But despite the reported increase in the number of trucks entering the strip, much of the food was still not reaching those people who needed it, as most of the aid was being stolen, given the lack of security for humanitarian workers. UN and experts on the ground also painted a much darker picture than Kallas, saying there was ongoing killing of Palestinians, obstacles to food distribution, starvation, and shortages of critically important fuel. On 12 July, two days after the EU-Israel deal was announced, Israel also reimposed a ban on all swimming and fishing activities on the Gaza coastline. The UN said that food cargo collection from the Zikim crossing resumed on 11 and 12 July after a pause since 26 June. They said 20 trucks were offloaded on 12 July, but cargo collection had paused again since 13 July. And fuel was so limited that this threatened the continued operation of lifesaving services, such as hospitals or community kitchens, according to the latest UN update. “The situation is worse than I’ve ever seen it,” said Carl Skau from the UN World Food Programme last Friday during a briefing to journalists, adding that “starvation is spreading,” with 500,000 people facing life-threatening levels of malnutrition and 90,000 children in need of medical treatment due to lack of nutrients. “Not a single aid truck entered. Starving civilians didn’t ration the little food they had, trusting EU promises that more would arrive. Black market dealers and opportunists hoarded what little remained, anticipating shortages,” also said Ramy Abdu, the chairman of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, who was living in Gaza, on Friday (18 July). The EU has also rejected any cooperation with the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation , a US contractor brought in by Israel to distribute aid following its dismantling of the UN system. EU ambassadors in Brussels were to be briefed every two weeks on the developments on the ground by Kallas’ staff, with the next briefing to take place on Wednesday (23 July). EU foreign affairs ministers will revisit the issue during their informal ‘Gymnich’ meeting in August, but no new decisions on Israel relations are likely to be taken before October, when ministers next hold formal talks. When reached out to by EUobserver, the Israeli mission to the EU said it was unable to answer questions in time for publication. Israel has killed over 58,000 people in Gaza, including about 18,000 children, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Palestinian group Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October 2023, killing about 1,200 people and taking some 250 hostages.
|
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.
|
A leaked EU document outlines the toothless nature of a Gaza aid "understanding" between the EU and Israel: non-binding, ambiguous, and difficult to monitor.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
*
|
2025-07-18T14:19:12.552Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/arc78d91d3
|
Listen: Why should Georgia's crackdown on democracy worry Europe?
|
Eight months after Georgia’s disputed parliamentary elections, the country has taken a dramatic turn towards authoritarianism. The ruling Georgian Dream party has passed law after law to silence independent media, criminalise protests, and punish dissent. But how did a country once hailed as a frontrunner for EU accession end up targeting its own political opposition and journalists and what does this mean for the rest of Europe? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here: Eight months after Georgia’s disputed parliamentary elections, the country has taken a dramatic turn towards authoritarianism. The ruling Georgian Dream party has passed law after law to silence independent media, criminalise protests, and punish dissent. But how did a country once hailed as a frontrunner for EU accession end up targeting its own political opposition and journalists and what does this mean for the rest of Europe? Welcome to Long Story Short, Europod’s daily podcast that breaks down what matters most, in just five minutes. I’m Evi Kiorri, here to make Europe’s latest, long story… short. Journalists are being fined, followed, harassed, and in some cases, jailed. New legislation restricts freedom of expression and bans coverage of court trials. Journalists have been physically assaulted while doing their jobs, some nearly killed. Over 100 assaults were documented during the protests last winter, but none have been investigated. At the heart of this escalating crisis is the case of Mzia Amaghlobeli, the founder of the independent outlet Batumelebi. She now faces up to seven years in prison, accused of “attacking a police officer” after placing a protest sticker on a wall and allegedly slapping the police chief, who had just arrested her relatives without cause. The charges are flimsy. The evidence was manipulated, and her detention, pre-trial and without bail, has continued despite severe health concerns. But it’s not just Mzia. Journalists across the country are being fined thousands of euros under AI surveillance laws for covering protests. Meanwhile, the “Foreign Agents” law, modelled after legislation in Russia and the US, effectively labels independent media as enemies of the state. Now, Georgia’s authoritarian slide is a geopolitical test. While the EU froze Georgia’s accession process last November, the government took it as a green light to double down, and not as a warning to stop. These tactics: arresting opposition figures, arresting journalists, surveillance, media blackouts, smear campaigns, are being exported. From Hungary to Serbia, the same playbook is being copied very carefully. So, if Georgia collapses into full-blown authoritarianism, it will have a ripple effect far beyond the Caucasus. Economically, the EU has leverage. Germany is one of Georgia’s main trade partners. European funding still supports media organisations in the country. But money without political courage means very little. As opposition figures are arrested and journalists are fined into silence or jailed into submission, Brussels looks indecisive. And that carries a cost, especially when Russia and China are happy to fill the vacuum. So what can we expect there? Well, Georgian journalists are not asking for miracles. They’re asking for meaningful, visible support. International pressure works. Georgian independent media outlets are urging the EU to step up. That means denouncing the Foreign Agents law. Challenging it legally, at home and at the European Court of Human Rights. Offering emergency funding and legal support to journalists under attack. Coordinated public campaigns from European news networks could help put pressure where it counts: on the Georgian judiciary and political leadership. Because journalists are running out of legal recourse. And Georgia is running out of democratic space. But that’s all for today on Long Story Short, a podcast by Europod in partnership with the Sphera Network. You can also find us on the EUobserver website, go check it out. Thanks for listening. I’m Evi Kiorri, and I’ll be back on Monday at 12:30 with more insights in just five minutes. See you then! Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs
|
Evi Kiorri
|
In this episode, Evi Kiorri explores Georgia’s sharp turn toward authoritarianism eight months after disputed elections. Journalists face arrests, violence, and surveillance, while new laws silence dissent. But as the EU hesitates, Georgia’s crackdown risks spreading across the region.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-18T10:29:15.294Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar23b1087c
|
Slovakia caves to EU pressure on Russia sanctions
|
Slovak prime minister Robert Fico has given in to EU pressure on Russia sanctions, while claiming victory in a Facebook video full of threats and insults. His ambassador to the EU lifted Slovakia's veto on the 18th round of Russia sanctions in Brussels on Friday morning (18 July), enabling EU affairs ministers in the EU Council to formally adopt the measures. The 18th round tightens up a price cap on Russian oil sales, bans 105 more shady Russian oil tankers from EU ports, and forbids future use of two dormant Russia-Germany gas pipelines. It also imposes visa bans and asset-freezes on some 55 mostly Russian individuals and entities, and bans 22 small Russian banks from using Europe's 'SWIFT' wire-transfer grid. "We will keep raising the costs, so stopping the aggression becomes the only path forward for Moscow," said EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas on X. Polish EU affairs minister Adam Szłapka said: "We're very happy with this sanctions package". Fico had been vetoing it for the past six weeks in order to try to force the EU to let him keep buying Russian gas , in the face of European plans to ban Russian gas imports from 2028. He also said the potential cost of a lawsuit with Russian firm Gazprom, with which Bratislava has a long-term contract for gas supplies until 2034 , could be between €16bn and €20bn. But in the end, the Slovak populist PM backed down in return for a letter from EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, which promised to help Slovakia if the 2028 cut-off caused a financial shock. The letter, which contained no concrete financial commitments, recalled a previous "useless facing-saving declaration" granted to Hungary in a veto battle in January. And Fico admitted its flimsiness by threatening to veto the 19th round of Russia sanctions "if any of this fails ... with a smile on my face". He had also said in his own previous statement on 18 July that von der Leyen's letter was "insufficient ... nothing". Fico said he gave in on Friday because of "enormous pressure, threats, harsh words", without giving further detail. And he peppered his statement with pro-Russian and anti-EU remarks. Russia was the victim of "ideologically and obsessively anti-Russian proposals" and "the anti-Russian sentiment in the European Union is ... mad", Fico said, without mentioning Russia's invasion of Ukraine or its hybrid warfare against the EU. He called the gas cut-off plan "imbecilic" and spoke of scenarios in which "everyone in Europe were to die of hunger and cold". Russia supplied some 20 percent of EU gas consumption last year. Since the transit of Russian gas through Ukraine was halted at the end of 2024 , Slovakia has relied on supplies from Hungary, which mostly gets Russian gas through the TurkStream pipeline in the Black Sea. Fico travelled to Moscow last December to meet Russian president Vladimir Putin over gas deliveries, triggering harsh criticism in Europe.
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
Slovak prime minister Robert Fico has given in to EU pressure on Russia sanctions, while claiming victory and throwing around threats and insults.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-18T10:19:24.400Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar94f04b65
|
Devil in detail of new EU defence splurge
|
“The future EU budget must give new impetus to the creation of a true European Defence Union,” reads the €2 trillion long-term budget (2028-2034) proposal presented by European Commission this week. To do so, the Brussels-executive has unveiled a fund to boost Europe’s defence capabilities and space infrastructure, alongside funds dedicated to military mobility, and voluntary schemes under national and regional envelopes (one of the novelties in the new budget). But questions remain over eligibility criteria, how quickly funds can be deployed, and whether it will match the urgency of Europe’s evolving security needs. It is estimated that the €131bn allocated for defence and security under the mega Competitiveness Fund represents a fivefold increase compared to the previous allocation in the current budget — making it a clear signal of Europe’s new strategic priorities after the war in Ukraine and growing scepticism about US reliability in Nato. But the risk for potential loopholes remains, especially given that defence and arms experts remain a national competence. The defence and space fund merges existing programmes to grant flexibility, including the defence fund (EDF), industrial strategy (EDIS), industry programme (EDIP), procurement act (EDIRPA), and innovation scheme (EUDIS). “The idea is to meet the expectation of a number of member states to develop together flagship projects, namely projects of a large scale that no member state on its own would be able to develop,” an EU official told journalists on Thursday (17 July). But how the “European preference” would be applied (including eligibility criteria for member states and other details) remains unclear. “We're trying to strike that balance between our requirements in terms of European sovereignty and also being open to non-EU participation,” the official explained, adding that, in the case of acquisitions, the EU was willing to accept systems that integrate foreign components. In principle, the new defence fund will build on SAFE loans to member states, which requires 65 percent of components to come from the EU, European Economic Area countries, Switzerland, or Ukraine. The UK has a security partnership with the EU, but it is not directly involved in SAFE. Under a new budget architecture based on national and regional plans, member states will also be able to identify defence-related projects as well as dual-use infrastructure investments to request EU funds. Eastern border regions are expected to receive preferential treatment. "They are on the frontline of Europe's security and next MFF [Multiannual Financial Framework] will strengthen resilience where it's most needed," EU defence commissioner Andrius Kubilius said on X. Horizon, the EU’s flagship research programme, will also focus on the development of dual-use technologies, such as drones, that can be used for both civilian and military purposes. “It cannot be either procurement today or R&D. It needs to be both,” the EU official said. Defence R&D funding in the EU reached €3.9bn in 2022, according to Eurostat. However, according to the Dragi report , next-generation defence systems will require massive R&D investment. Meanwhile, the commission proposal also foresees €18bn investments in military mobility, alongside civilian infrastructure, through the so-called Connecting Europe Facility, which the commission says is almost 10 times greater than the amount currently allocated. And it maintains the European Peace Facility, with a proposal of €30.5bn, as an off-budget instrument aimed at funding defence capabilities (also outside the EU), despite the sour experience of payments to Ukraine being blocked by Hungary due to the need for unanimity. In what seems like a controversial move, the commission has also proposed to increase streams of revenues for the EU budget with five new taxes, including a fixed annual charge for big companies operating in the EU, with an annual net turnover above €100m. The turnovers of some of the biggest defence companies in Europe, including Airbus, Leonardo, Thales, Rheinmetall, actually run into billions .
|
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.
|
The European Commission has unveiled a fund to boost Europe’s defence capabilities and space infrastructure, alongside funds dedicated to military mobility and voluntary schemes under national and regional envelopes.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-18T05:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar71ccdb11
|
Major EU port ordered to stop arms shipments to Israel
|
A Belgian court has ordered a halt to arms shipments to Israel from the EU's second-largest port, as anti-genocide activists seek legal ways to break Europe's political inertia. The Brussels Court of First Instance ruled on Thursday (17 July) that a shipping container of components for Israel's Merkava tanks and Namer armoured vehicles cannot be sent from the port of Antwerp in Belgium, where it's now stuck, to Israel. It also ruled that the government of Flanders, a Belgian region which hosts the port, was liable for €50,000 fines for any other container of arms sent to Israel in future, in violation of Flanders' self-imposed arms embargo, which dates back to 2009. The Belgian court said in its strongly worded verdict that the authorities had a "crushing responsibility" to enforce the rules, given events in Gaza, where Israel has killed over 58,000 people, in what the International Court of Justice said last year was "plausible" genocide. The judge also said "the situation [on the arms embargo] is not under control", seeing as authorities didn't bother to monitor Antwerp arms shipments, unless shipping companies requested to have their own containers searched. "The Flemish arms embargo has proven to be an empty shell. It's like asking a poacher to please report his illegal activities to the local police station beforehand," said a Belgian civil society group, 11.11.11, which brought the legal action, along with sister groups Vredeactie, Intal, and the League for Human Rights. "Politicians are now taking recess, but genocide doesn't take a vacation. This verdict must be the starting point for true political responsibility," 11.11.11 added in its statement. Flanders' apathy to its own embargo has been mirrored by the Belgian region of Wallonia, which houses Liège airport, and by the Belgian federal government. An Israeli cargo firm called Challenge Airlines, which ships arms to Israel from around the world, sends Boeing 747s from Liège to Ben Gurion airport in Israel almost every day. The firm, which was forbidden from shipping arms to Israel via Belgium by a Belgian royal decree in 2024, told EUobserver the jets were carrying "fresh fish" . But nobody in the Wallonian government, the federal government, or in Liège airport said it was their responsibility to check if that was true. The Antwerp port breakthrough came amid a proliferation of legal challenges against complicity in the Gaza slaughter in Europe, with related cases seen in Denmark, France, the Netherlands, and the UK. French and Belgian lawyers in the JURDI Association have also filed an "action for failure to act" to prevent genocide at the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg against the EU Commission and Council. "The EU is in a situation of illegality today," said JURDI lawyer Farah Safi at a hearing in the EU Parliament in Brussels also on Thursday. Dima Issa, a campaigner at Palestinian group Al Haq, said legal action "on multiple fronts" was needed more than ever after EU foreign ministers opted not to impose any sanctions on Israel at their last meeting. Saskia Bricmont, a Belgian Green MEP, also said the past 21 months of killing and EU apathy had shown there was no political solution. "We feel useless - this is why we started exploring legal options," she said, speaking of her support for the JURDI case. Barry Andrews, an Irish liberal MEP, also voiced "a sense of shame at the EU's inaction". Israel drone video Bricmont and Andrews both urged the EU to take a hard look at its research grants to Israeli arms firms under Europe's Horizon programme. The EU risked funding "military firms implicated in genocide", Bricmont said. One Israeli firm, Rafael, posted a promotional video on X earlier this month for its drone, the Spike Firefly, which showed it killing what looked like an unarmed non-combatant in Gaza on 7 July. (It later deleted the post, but not before it had been recorded by outraged viewers). Rafael received €442,750 from the EU in a Horizon grant in 2023. EUobserver has approached Rafael and the EU Commission with questions about the incident.
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
A Belgian court has ordered a halt to arms shipments to Israel from the EU's second-largest port, as anti-genocide activists seek legal ways to break political inertia.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Rule of Law"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-17T15:31:30.941Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/area674da7
|
From palaces to protests: Hungary’s struggle at a crossroads
|
Budapest in mid-July presents a city of striking contrasts — a place where the grandeur of its architecture and the vibrancy of its communities stand in stark opposition to the deepening shadows cast by corruption and the erosion of democratic norms. Over the past week, a delegation from the European Parliament’s Anti-corruption Intergroup, led by representatives from across the political spectrum, visited Hungary. Their findings reveal a country where public wealth is diverted for private gain, yet where civil society’s resolve to defend freedom and dignity is stronger than ever. The price of corruption in Hungary One of the most telling episodes of the delegation’s visit was a tour of the Sandor-Metternich castle , located less than an hour from Budapest. The estate, recently renovated at a cost of more than five million euros from EU funds, was intended as a catalyst for local tourism and economic development. Instead, the castle has been quietly privatised at a fraction of its value. This case is emblematic of a broader pattern: European funds earmarked for the common good are routinely redirected into projects that benefit a select few close to the ruling elite. The privatisation of public assets, often at suspiciously low prices, has become a hallmark of the PM Viktor Orbán government’s approach to governance. The contrast between the ostentatious restoration of private estates and the crumbling state of public infrastructure could not be more stark. In conversations with local entrepreneurs, journalists, and civil society leaders, the delegation heard repeated accounts of hospitals falling into disrepair. In the midst of a heatwave, with temperatures soaring to 38 degrees, patients languish in wards without air conditioning. Funds meant for modernisation—including significant EU contributions—are lost to mismanagement and corruption, or diverted to pet projects such as private football stadiums. Meanwhile, reports have surfaced that Orbán’s son-in-law recently acquired one of Budapest’s largest hotels, the Marriott, further illustrating the consolidation of wealth among the regime’s inner circle. How funding fuels propaganda and weakens rule of law in Hungary Despite mounting evidence of systemic corruption and abuse of EU funds, the European Commission continues to transfer billions to Hungary. This policy has become increasingly difficult to justify, both to Hungarian citizens and to taxpayers across the Union. The EU Commission’s reluctance to act decisively undermines the credibility of the EU’s commitment to democracy, transparency, and the rule of law. Critics argue that the ongoing flow of funds not only enables the entrenchment of autocratic power in Hungary, but also erodes public trust in European institutions. Upon arrival in Budapest, visitors are greeted by a barrage of government-sponsored billboards attacking European leaders such as Volodymyr Zelensky and Ursula von der Leyen. According to local business owners, the Hungarian government now allocates six percent of its budget to “communication”—a euphemism for propaganda. By comparison, Germany dedicates 4.5 percent of its federal budget to education and universities. This massive investment in state-sponsored messaging serves to distract from the government’s failures, legitimise its actions, and foster a climate of fear and division. The recent ban on Budapest Pride must be understood in this context: a calculated move to mobilise conservative support and deflect attention from the regime’s deepening scandals and its miserable economic performance. The Hungarian middle class is losing out due to corruption and the government's attacks on the independence of the courts, leading to a chilling atmosphere for foreign investments. Budapest Pride signals hope and defiance Yet, amid the gloom, signs of resistance abound. This year’s Budapest Pride was the largest since the fall of communism, with an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 participants taking to the streets in defiance of the government’s ban and the threat of hefty fines. The demonstration drew support from the broad centre of Hungarian society. The Green mayor of Budapest and 70 MEPs shielded the free exercise of European fundamental rights to free assembly and free speech. The scale and diversity of the turnout sent a clear message: the desire for freedom, dignity, and self-determination cannot be extinguished by authoritarian decrees. Hungary stands at a crossroads. The regime’s grip on power is tightening, but so too is the determination of its citizens to resist. The European Union faces a critical test: will it uphold its founding values, or will it allow them to be eroded from within? The time for words has passed. Concrete action is needed to ensure that EU funds serve the people, not the powerful, and that the promise of democracy remains alive for all Europeans. All EU funds must be frozen so that the independence of the judiciary and media are sooner, not later restored. The struggle for Hungary’s future is not a local matter—it is a European one. The responsibility to act lies with all who cherish the principles of democracy, transparency, and human rights. Daniel Freund is a German Green MEP focused on transparency, strengthening democracy, and combating corruption.
|
Daniel Freund
|
Despite mounting evidence of systemic corruption and abuse of EU funds, the European Commission continues to transfer billions to Hungary. Concrete action is needed to ensure that EU funds serve the people, not the powerful, and that the promise of democracy remains alive for all Europeans
|
[
"Rule of Law",
"Opinion"
] |
rule-of-law
|
2025-07-17T13:08:09.657Z
|
https://euobserver.com/rule-of-law/ar3ebb6d80
|
Listen: The MFF wars have begun
|
The European Commission has officially proposed in a very confusing manner an almost €2 trillion budget for the 2028–2034 period. The biggest budget, in Ursula von der Leyen’s words, to be spent “for a new era.” Von der Leyen says this budget will make the EU’s cash pot “larger, smarter and sharper.” But critics warn it may just end up being leaner, meaner, and far more politically painful than she anticipates. So, what are the first reactions, and who wins and loses with the new MFF? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here: The European Commission has officially proposed in a very confusing manner an almost €2 trillion budget for the 2028–2034 period. The biggest budget, in Ursula von der Leyen’s words, to be spent “for a new era.” What are the first reactions, and who wins and loses with the new MFF? Welcome to Long Story Short, Europod’s daily podcast that breaks down what matters most, in just five minutes. I’m Evi Kiorri, here to make Europe’s latest, long story… short. Von der Leyen wants to increase defence spending fivefold, triple funding for borders and migration, and pour €100 billion into Ukraine, positioning it as “our most strategic partner.” At the same time, she’s proposing to simplify the EU’s complex funding system by folding emblematic policies like the Common Agricultural Policy and regional development into broader “partnership plans.” She also wants to shift the way the EU earns its money. Rather than lean on national governments, the Commission is proposing new EU-level taxes on large companies with turnover above €100 million, along with levies on tobacco and electronic waste. The carbon border tax and emissions trading scheme would also help fill the pot. But this confusing simplification comes with winners and losers. Farmers are up in arms after seeing agricultural funding slashed from nearly €390 billion to €300 billion. Dedicated biodiversity funds have been scrapped altogether. And cohesion money, the kind that helps underdeveloped regions catch up, is no longer protected by separate guarantees. Not surprisingly, criticism came very quickly. Green MEPs and NGOs, which are affected the most, are angry and call the move to drop nature funding “short-sighted.” Farmers demonstrated outside the Commission. And national governments, particularly those who pay more than they receive, were quick to raise eyebrows. Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden… all voicing concern that the budget is too big and too vague. Now this proposal attempts to balance wartime resilience, with record funding for defence and support for Ukraine, against mounting financial pressure in national capitals. From inflation to post-pandemic debt, European governments are in no mood to write blank cheques. France is struggling with its own fiscal crisis that could collapse the government. Germany says the budget must not grow. And remember, from 2028, the EU also needs to start repaying the €750 billion pandemic recovery fund, which is another €30 billion a year, nearly the size of the entire research budget today. On the geopolitical side, defence and energy are clearly front and centre. The EU wants to modernise electricity grids to bring down power prices and boost industrial competitiveness, especially as it tries to keep up with the US and China. The energy budget of the Connecting Europe Facility will grow from €6 billion to €30 billion. But critics point out that these flashy numbers don’t always add up, especially when adjusted for inflation or when older programmes are simply rebranded. And let’s not forget voices like Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orbán, who is already saying that European farmers mustn’t be “abandoned to bankroll Ukraine.” If that’s not a preview of upcoming battles, I don’t know what is. So what’s coming next? Well, the Commission just fired the starting gun on two years of negotiations, and they will be bitter. Every EU member state and the European Parliament must approve the final budget unanimously. That means 27 national interests, ideologies and bottom lines to reconcile. Some MEPs are already accusing the Commission of clever accounting, inflating the apparent size of the budget without increasing actual spending power. Others say it doesn’t do enough for competitiveness, cohesion, or the climate. And with national capitals keeping a close eye on their wallets, we can expect plenty of red lines and veto threats. Von der Leyen says this budget will make the EU’s cash pot “larger, smarter and sharper.” But critics warn it may just end up being leaner, meaner, and far more politically painful than she anticipates. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs
|
Evi Kiorri
|
In this episode, Evi Kiorri breaks down the European Commission’s proposal for a nearly €2 trillion EU budget for 2028–2034, described by Ursula von der Leyen as a budget "for a new era."
|
[
"Green Economy"
] |
green-economy
|
2025-07-17T12:47:13.339Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/ar028289b9
|
EU antisemitism chief faces calls to resign after leaked cable
|
MEPs have urged the EU to fire its antisemitism tsar over her controversial views on Gaza, which also "disturbed" fellow EU officials. "We believe that Ms von Schnurbein's reputation has been so gravely compromised by these revelations that we must call for her immediate replacement. We do not make this call lightly," said the 26 MEPs in a letter to the EU Commission, dated 16 July and seen by EUobserver. Katharina von Schnurbein, a German aristocrat, has been the commission's "coordinator on combating antisemitism" for the past 10 years. The 26 MEPs came from the centre-left Socialist & Democrats group, the liberal Renew faction, the Greens, and the Left group. The "revelations" referred to an EU diplomatic cable, leaked by EUobserver , about von Schnurbein's briefing to EU ambassadors in Tel Aviv on 29 May, in which she denigrated EU and UN reports on Israeli war crimes in order to quash talk of sanctions. Von Schnurbein also attacked EU staff who held charity events for Gaza for creating "ambient antisemitism". The MEPs said: "We believe these statements severely harm the EU's fight against antisemitism, and have the potential to damage the reputation of the Commission as a whole as a credible actor in this fight, in case no decisive action is taken". "Insinuating that facts established by these institutions [the EU foreign service and the UN] about Israel's actions could be 'rumours about Jews' is wrong, dangerous, and unacceptable", they said. "Framing of EU staff expressions of humanity and solidarity as fuelling antisemitism is smearing dedicated EU officials and empties the term antisemitism of meaning, undermining the fight against it," the MEPs said. Another one of von Schnurbein's Tel Aviv claims - that Palestinian militant group Hamas had clandestinely organised pro-Palestinian protests in Europe - was also "insulting to the hundreds of thousands of peacefully protesting European citizens, and is in no way factually substantiated," the MEPs added. And the MEPs noted that von Schnurbein had retweeted an "abhorrent" X post on 10 June, which described Swedish human rights activist Greta Thunberg as a Holocaust denier - indicating a wider pattern of inappropriate behaviour . EU staff 'disturbed' A group of EU officials, called EU staff for peace, were also "very disturbed" by von Schnurbein's activities, they said in an internal statement circulated in the EU Commission this week and also seen by EUobserver. EU staff for peace have organised bake sales to raise money for the Irish Red Cross, a charity working in Gaza via its sister organisation, the Palestine Red Crescent Society. And von Schnurbein's assertion, made in Tel Aviv, that they were stoking antisemitism, was not just "false, baseless", but also "very detrimental to organisers' reputation within the institutions and beyond," they said. "We hope that ... von Schnurbein will swiftly issue a firm denial of the EUobserver report," the EU officials added. The group also complained that some "managers" in the EU institutions had created "deliberate obstacles" and levelled "criticism" against their charity work, which indicated that von Schnurbein's views had gained traction in the EU hierarchy. "Stay tuned for other upcoming cake sales - starting with one at EEAS [EU External Action Service] this 17th July," they said, in a note of defiance. (The symbolic funds the bake sales have raised are, in any case, being put aside for the future, due to Israel's aid blockade on Gaza). Keffiyeh row in EP Meanwhile, the EU Parliament has also seen internal clashes over gestures of solidarity with Palestinian civilians being killed by Israel. On Tuesday, a young female technician in the interpreters' room in the committee on foreign affairs in Brussels was verbally confronted by a senior Spanish centre-right MEP, Antonio López-Istúriz White, for wearing a keffiyeh — a traditional Palestinian scarf. The incident, which caused the meeting to be interrupted, happened during a public hearing with researchers on how international court decisions affected the EU's role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "Civil servants are not here to make ideology," López-Istúriz White said during the meeting, threatening to file a formal complaint with parliament bosses. In the previous legislature, from 2019 to 2024, López-Istúriz White was the chairman of the parliament’s delegation for relations with Israel. He is also the former secretary general of the centre-right European People's Party group. Another centre-right MEP, Bulgaria's Andrey Kovachev, joined the attack, saying: "This [the keffiyeh] is not acceptable". But a leftwing Belgian MEP, Marc Botenga, jumped to the young woman's defence, pointing out that EU staff who had worn Ukrainian flags or symbols in the past had never been reprimanded, in what was a double standard. Ukraine hypocrisy "This is authoritarianism, we are in the house of democracy," Botenga told López-Istúriz White. The EU staff for peace group noted that its previous gestures of solidarity with Ukrainian victims had also been welcomed by superiors, in stark contrast to their Gaza initiatives. The EU Commission and von Schnurbein declined to comment. The commission previously told EU staff who were unhappy about the bloc's support for Israel not to protest or speak to press , but to keep their grievances quiet.
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
A group of MEPs has urged the EU to fire its antisemitism coordinator over her controversial views on Gaza, which also "disturbed" fellow EU officials.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Rule of Law"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-17T05:05:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar27fb23d5
|
Von der Leyen unveils €2 trillion crisis and competition budget
|
European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen on Wednesday (17 July) proposed a new seven-year EU budget of two trillion, or 1.26 percent of the bloc's GNI. That's an increase of almost €800bn compared to the EU's current €1.2 trillion cash pot (which represents 1.13 percent of GNI). Calling it the "most ambitious" EU budget ever proposed, von der Leyen described it as "larger, smarter, and sharper," tailored for a world where "crises are no longer the exception but the norm." The plan is meant to simplify EU spending by replacing 52 separate programmes with just 16 funds organised around three main pillars . The largest share—€865bn—would go to national and regional partnership plans, merging the common agricultural policy (€294bn) with cohesion, fisheries, social, and rural funding (€453bn) into a single instrument per country. Another €450.5bn would be channelled into a new European Competitiveness Fund, which is designed to boost the EU's industrial base and reduce dependence on foreign (especially Chinese) technology. The fund includes €131 for strategic technologies such as space, defence; €67bn for energy (a fivefold increase), €175bn for Horizon Europe research and innovation, and €55bn for digitisation. “This is real money,“ said clean industry commissioner Stéphane Séjourné in Brussels, by which he meant paid for by governments, not businesses. “But we also need private money to achieve our targets,” he added. Lessons learned? The commission is also tightening rules on green and social spending. Under a system of "mainstreaming," national plans must earmark at least 34 percent of total spending—around €700—for climate and biodiversity, and 14 percent for social objectives. This is inspired by the EU’s €723bn pandemic recovery fund (RRF) launched in 2021, which required member states to spend at least a third of their recovery money on climate-related investments. Von der Leyen described the one-off fund as “extremely successful.” It taught EU policymakers “the benefits of investment” and “proved effective in advancing the EU’s ambitions.” But in a report published last year, the European Court of Auditors warned that the performance of the RFF “cannot be measured” because milestones and targets “largely focus on outputs rather than results.” Member state reports “generally do not capture the support’s effects on recipients or the change in their situation. Moreover, none of them refer explicitly to impact.” Still, the RRF has become a model for large parts of the next EU budget, if the commission has its way. Von der Leyen also announced a new €400bn crisis facility based on joint debt, similar to the RRF. “It’s not for spending, but to be accessed if an unforseen crisis hits,” von der Leyen said. She added it could be triggered “as a shortcut” during periods of “extreme crisis,” but it would require unanimous approval from member states. Some countries have already signalled their displeasure. "As far as the Netherlands is concerned, new instruments for joint debt are therefore not on the table,” Dutch finance minister Eelco Heinen said on Wednesday. Tripling of migration budget Other areas flagged for substantial increases include migration and border management, which would see its budget tripled to €34bn, and disaster response, through a reinforced EU Solidarity Fund. The EU's external spending instrument, Global Europe, would be allocated €200bn, including €100bn for Ukraine and a flexible reserve for future enlargements. To support strategic investments, the commission wants to scale up the use of EU budget-backed loans (€150bn), offering member states—particularly those in the financial periphery that often pay higher interest rates—access to cheaper financing. Civil society and media freedom initiatives would be supported via the competitiveness fund and a new 'AgoraEU' programme, which is set to receive €49bn. While national contributions would remain stable, the commission wants to raise €58bn a year—or €406bn over seven years—through five new EU-wide taxes (also known in EU jargon as 'own resources'). This includes taxes on packages from non-EU countries and polluting companies, a fee on discarded electronics or e-waste, a tobacco levy, and a fixed annual charge for big companies operating in the EU, with an annual net turnover above €100m. The proposal drew immediate pushback from the European Parliament. "We will reject any attempt by the commission to renationalise the common agricultural policy and regional policy," warned Romanian centre-right MEP Siegfried Mureșan.
|
Wester is a journalist from the Netherlands with a focus on the green economy. He joined EUobserver in September 2021. Previously he was editor-in-chief of Vice, Motherboard, a science-based website, and climate economy journalist for The Correspondent.
|
The EU's €2 trillion budget aims to crisis-proof the bloc and lock in green and social spending, modelled after pandemic-era funding.
|
[
"Green Economy"
] |
green-economy
|
2025-07-16T16:55:35.940Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/ar0bca096c
|
Listen: Can the EU afford its €1.7 trillion future?
|
This afternoon, EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen is expected to present a draft proposal for the European Union’s next seven-year budget, officially called the Multiannual Financial Framework, or MFF. The current MFF, running from 2021 to 2027, stands at just over €1.2 trillion. But according to a leaked draft, the next proposal, covering 2028 to 2034, could reach €1.717 trillion, or 1.23 percent of the EU’s gross national income. That’s up from about 1.1% now. With political divides deepening and resources stretched thin, can this budget still deliver on Europe’s promises? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here: This afternoon, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is expected to present a draft proposal for the European Union’s next seven-year budget, officially called the Multiannual Financial Framework, or MFF. But with political divides deepening and resources stretched thin, can this budget still deliver on Europe’s promises? Welcome to Long Story Short, Europod’s daily podcast that breaks down what matters most, in just five minutes. I’m Evi Kiorri, here to make Europe’s latest, long story… short. The current MFF, running from 2021 to 2027, stands at just over €1.2 trillion. But according to a leaked draft, the next proposal, covering 2028 to 2034, could reach €1.717 trillion, or 1.23% of the EU’s gross national income. That’s up from about 1.1% now. That increase isn’t arbitrary. It’s partly meant to address growing pressures: Ukraine, climate transition, global competitiveness, and defence. The draft also proposes new “own resources”, in other words, EU-wide taxes, on things like electronic waste, tobacco, and large companies with a turnover above €50 million. A new €522 billion Competitiveness Fund is planned, while €190 billion would go to foreign policy – under what’s called “Global Europe”. €88 billion could be dedicated to Ukraine, and €946 billion earmarked for Europe’s social model and quality of life. But to free up money for these priorities, the Commission is also planning significant cuts potentially to agriculture, regional development, and cohesion funds. In short, this budget proposal is both bigger and more centralised. Now, this budget will define Europe’s strategic direction in a volatile world, where war is no longer a distant concept. From 2028, the EU will begin repaying debts from its COVID recovery fund, to the tune of €30 billion annually. That alone puts enormous pressure on the budget. Without fresh revenue streams, the EU will be forced to choose between cutting programmes or asking member states to contribute more. And that’s a tough sell, especially in countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, which are net contributors and already resistant to higher spending. Meanwhile, the Commission is proposing to centralise spending through a merged fund, combining cohesion, agriculture and security spending, with plans for so-called “National and Regional Partnerships.” This model, replicating the Recovery and Resilience Facility, has triggered warnings from the European Parliament and EU auditors over transparency, democratic oversight and the risk of sidelining local authorities. There’s a growing concern that what is being framed as “flexibility” may in fact be a shift towards executive control by Brussels – a consolidation of power that could come at the cost of regional equality and democratic checks. What’s next? Today’s proposal is just the beginning. The Commission’s draft will now enter a long, likely contentious, negotiation process with the European Parliament and member states, a process expected to last up to two years. The European Parliament has already set red lines. MEPs want to keep separate legal bases for agriculture and cohesion funds, safeguard programmes like Horizon Europe and the Social Fund, and introduce new crisis tools, from housing to child welfare. But without new EU income, like taxes on tech giants or carbon-heavy imports, even current spending will be hard to sustain. And if the Commission pushes its centralised model, it could face institutional pushback or legal challenges. So, the stakes go beyond the €1.7 trillion headline because this is about how Europe funds not just its priorities, but its political identity. But that’s all for today on Long Story Short, a podcast by Europod in partnership with the Sphera Network. You can also find us on the EUobserver website, go check it out. Thanks for listening. I’m Evi Kiorri, and I’ll be back tomorrow at 12:30 with more insights in just five minutes. See you then! Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs
|
Evi Kiorri
|
In this episode, Evi Kiorri covers the European Commission’s upcoming proposal for the EU’s next seven-year budget, the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2028–2034. With political divides deepening and resources stretched thin, can this budget still deliver on Europe’s promises?
|
[
"Green Economy"
] |
green-economy
|
2025-07-16T10:27:04.303Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/ar51b718bf
|
EU antisemitism coordinator breached her mandate
|
EUobserver’s recent reporting on Katharina von Schnurbein’s closed-door meeting with EU ambassadors in Tel Aviv has revealed a serious breach of institutional responsibility at the heart of the European Commission. Von Schnurbein, who has served as the EU’s coordinator on combating antisemitism since 2015, warned in that meeting that sanctions against Israel could feed “rumours about Jews.” According to the leaked diplomatic cable, she also downplayed reports of starvation in Gaza, questioned the legitimacy of EU protests, and repeated talking points from the Israeli government about media bias and Hamas manipulation. None of these claims is backed by her mandate or by evidence. More importantly, they reflect a troubling shift in the function of her office: from protecting Jewish communities in Europe to protecting a foreign government from legal and political scrutiny. This is not merely a case of personal bias. Von Schnurbein has publicly stated she grew up in a home in Bavaria that was "very pro-Jewish, pro-Israel" in the Times of Israel . Personal affinities are not inherently disqualifying, but when they begin to shape the actions of an EU official beyond the limits of their role, they present a serious institutional risk. The EU’s coordinator on antisemitism was never intended to act as a diplomatic shield. The position was established to strengthen protections for Jewish life across the EU, support education and prevention initiatives, and advise on security. Using it to cast doubt on international humanitarian law or to discourage policy tools such as sanctions undermines the legal integrity of the Commission and compromises the mandate itself. To suggest that holding Israel accountable could itself be antisemitic is to weaponise a human rights framework in defence of power, not principle Von Schnurbein’s recent intervention is especially troubling in the context of the EU’s ongoing review of its Association Agreement with Israel . That agreement grants Israel preferential trade access, including for arms and surveillance technologies. The review comes at a time when the International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel may plausibly be committing genocide in Gaza. The European External Action Service (EEAS) has also raised human rights concerns. To suggest that holding Israel accountable could itself be antisemitic is to weaponise a human rights framework in defence of power, not principle. In 2021, von Schnurbein herself correctly stated that “to hold Jews responsible for the actions of the government of Israel is unacceptable.” Yet her recent remarks reverse this logic, effectively implying that criticism of the Israeli government endangers Jews and should be treated as suspect. This conflation endangers Jewish communities rather than protecting them. It reinforces the antisemitic trope that Jews are collectively responsible for the actions of a state, while also turning legal critique into taboo. According to EUobserver’s reporting, several ambassadors pushed back during the meeting. One said plainly: “To bring up attacks on hospitals is not antisemitic. These are facts.” Others warned against blurring the line between legitimate criticism and hate speech. Their intervention underscores what is at stake: the right to uphold international law and human rights without fear of being smeared as antisemitic. The commission must act swiftly and decisively to repair the damage and safeguard the credibility of its antisemitism mandate. This is not a matter of political alignment. It is a question of institutional integrity. The next three moves To restore institutional credibility, the commission must take three urgent steps. First, the commission should publicly clarify the limits of the coordinator’s mandate. It is not the role of the antisemitism coordinator to interpret foreign policy, assess international conflicts, or weigh in on EU sanctions. Her office was not created to serve as a back channel for lobbying on behalf of a foreign government. Second, an independent review should be launched to assess whether von Schnurbein’s actions in this case were appropriate and whether safeguards are needed to prevent similar breaches in the future. Third, the commission should reaffirm the distinction between racism and rights-based advocacy. Criticism of a state’s military conduct, particularly when grounded in international legal findings, is not hate speech. It is a legitimate form of rights-based advocacy. Mislabeling it as hate speech weakens the EU’s ability to fight real antisemitism and erodes trust in its institutions. This moment demands clarity. Antisemitism remains a growing threat across Europe, and fighting it is a vital obligation. But that fight must remain principled and legally grounded. If the commission allows one of its own to conflate Jewish identity with a state’s actions and blur law with politics, it risks turning the antisemitism mandate into a tool for impunity. The credibility of the EU’s human rights commitments and the safety of Jewish and non-Jewish communities alike depend on drawing that line clearly. Alon Sahar is the author of Staatsräson Monitor , a newsletter critically examining German-Israeli relations, and an award-winning independent researcher, strategist, and filmmaker. His commentary has appeared in outlets including Der Spiegel, Mediapart, Der Freitag, and The Jerusalem Post. Alon Sahar is the author of
|
Staatsräson Monitor
|
Katharina von Schnurbein's view reflects a troubling shift in the function of her office: from protecting Jewish communities in Europe to protecting a foreign government from legal and political scrutiny.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
*
|
2025-07-16T08:55:01.385Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/ar94d2fb4b
|
EU delays Israel sanctions in 'green light for genocide'
|
Israel will not face any EU sanctions before October, as diplomats monitor a sketchy Gaza aid deal and human rights groups cry "betrayal". "We will keep a close watch on how Israel implements the deal and will update on compliance every two weeks," said EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas after meeting EU foreign ministers in Brussels on Tuesday (15 July) Her reports will be filed to the Political and Security Committee, a club of EU ambassadors in the EU Council, she noted. "We will keep [sanctions] options on the table and react if Israel is not in compliance," she said — looking ahead to the next foreign ministers' meeting, due on 6 October, after the summer recess. "More trucks and supplies are [already] reaching Gaza, more crossing points are open, we see electrical supplies being repaired," she added. Kallas had drafted the sanctions options following her "review" of Israel's actions , which said Israel was guilty of using "starvation" as a weapon of war, "indiscriminate" killing of civilians, "apartheid", and "torture" of prisoners. The main option under consideration was freezing Israel's EU free-trade perks, under an EU-Israel association agreement, worth some €1bn/yr to Israeli firms. But Kallas and Israeli foreign minister Gideon Sa'ar agreed an 11th-hour aid deal last Thursday, giving Israel-friendly countries, such as Germany and Italy, a pretext to put off action. The EU's aim was "not to punish [Israel], but to improve the situation on the ground [in Gaza]," Kallas said. The Kallas-Sa'ar deal was a verbal accord, rather than a text with figures and dates for aid deliveries, so there is no "mechanism" to delve into Irish deputy foreign minister Thomas Byrne said: "Lots of people around the table [in Tuesday's EU meeting] didn't want any further action [against Israel]". Trade sanctions aside, 26 member states had agreed to blacklist more extremist Israeli settlers, but Hungary, Israel's main EU ally, vetoed even this, Byrne said. Poland had also pushed for the listings, noting that Israeli fanatics had set fire to a 5th century AD Christian church in the West Bank last week, Polish foreign minister Radek Sikorski said. And the EU inaction came as a disappointment to Spain as well as Ireland. "Anything that allows food, medicine, fuel into Gaza will be welcome to us, but I want to know more about the mechanism," said Spanish foreign minister José Manuel Albares. (The Kallas-Sa'ar deal was a verbal accord, rather than a text with figures and dates for aid deliveries, so there is no "mechanism" to delve into.) Albares added that letting in food and medicine to Gaza was a "bare minimum" and that the EU should anyway impose an arms embargo on Israel due to the "unjustifiable violence in Gaza". Meanwhile, Israel's allies, such as Austria, also spoke out. The EU needed to keep open channels of communication "especially among friends [Israel]" to improve the situation in Gaza, said Austrian foreign minister Beate Meinl-Reisnger. "I think one should be very careful with the term 'genocide' and it will ultimately be the court [the International Court of Justice in The Hague] that has to judge it," she said, when asked by press on Israel's massacre of 58,400 people in Gaza so far. "Hamas [a Palestinian militant group] has it in their hands" to make peace, she added, by laying down arms and freeing Israeli hostages. German deputy foreign minister, Gunther Krichbaum, said: "It is important to point out that it was Israel that was attacked here [by Hamas on 7 October 2023]". "Israel has the right to defend itself," he said. Lars Løkke Rasmussen, the foreign minister of Denmark, which holds the EU presidency, also praised Kallas' deal, saying: "The most important thing is not megaphone diplomacy, but to change the conditions on the ground". Public anger The outcome of Tuesday's talks was sharply criticised by civil society, amid widespread public anger against Israel in Europe. "Now [EU foreign ministers] will head off for their summer holiday, while Palestinian families in Gaza suffer another day of atrocities," said campaign group Ekō. "Individual states have their own decision [to make]: Will they follow the EU into historical disgrace, or heed their people and take meaningful action?," Ekō added. Amnesty International's secretary general, Agnès Callamard, said: "The EU's refusal to suspend its [trade] agreement with Israel is a cruel and unlawful betrayal — of the European project and vision". "European leaders had the opportunity to take a principled stand against Israel's crimes, but instead gave it a green light to continue its genocide in Gaza," she added. Kallas' aid deal was "breadcrumbs", Oxfam's Bushra Khalidi also said. "Aid alone cannot stop this catastrophe. We cannot continue to watch children killed and say 'we are making progress'," she added. In one ray of light for Palestine, the French foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, said France and Saudi Arabia had renewed plans to hold a meeting in New York on 28 and 29 July on recognition of Palestinian statehood. But another campaign group, Somo, published figures on Tuesday showing what pro-Palestinian campaigners were up against. Money talks EU member states held €72.1bn in foreign investment in Israel in 2023 (compared to €39.2bn in the US), it noted. EU exports to Israel also grew by €1bn to reach €26.7bn in 2024. And the Israeli stock exchange soared by 213 percent in the past 21 months of war, which meant €194bn in market gain. "The EU is the main engine of Israel's economy of genocide," Somo said. Graeme Groom, an orthopaedic surgeon at King's College Hospital in London, who recently worked in Gaza, said: "We sat in Brussels and told EU officials what we'd witnessed: children pulled from rubble, families wiped out, hospitals under fire." "We believed the EU stood for human rights and we expected action ... and while diplomats head off on summer holidays, what am I supposed to tell my colleagues still working under fire in Gaza?", he said.
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
Israel will not face any EU sanctions before September, as diplomats monitor a sketchy Gaza aid deal and human rights groups cry "betrayal".
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Rule of Law"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-15T17:22:12.665Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar997fdd48
|
Listen: Foreign ministers weigh Israel sanctions as legal case targets EU inaction on Gaza
|
Today, EU foreign ministers are gathering in Brussels for their final meeting before the summer recess. The main item on the agenda is, of course, the EU’s association agreement with Israel, and whether Israel is living up to its human rights obligations under that deal. Following weeks of mounting pressure over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has presented a list of options that range from suspending trade with Israel to halting student exchanges. All because an EU review found Israel falling short of the human rights standards required by the agreement, while the latest reports are showing attacks on civilians at aid distribution centres. So, will the EU take concrete action under Article 2 of the agreement, or settle for monitoring Israel’s promises on humanitarian aid? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here: Today, EU foreign ministers are gathering in Brussels for their final meeting before the summer recess. The main item on the agenda is of course the EU’s association agreement with Israel, and whether Israel is living up to its human rights obligations under that deal. But will the EU take concrete action under Article 2 of the agreement, or settle for monitoring Israel’s promises on humanitarian aid? Welcome to Long Story Short, Europod’s daily podcast that breaks down what matters most, in just five minutes. I’m Evi Kiorri, here to make Europe’s latest, long story short. Following weeks of mounting pressure over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has presented a list of options that range from suspending trade with Israel to halting student exchanges. All because an EU review found Israel falling short of the human rights standards required by the agreement, while the latest reports are showing attacks on civilians at aid distribution centres. In response, the Israeli government struck a deal last week with the EU to significantly improve humanitarian access to Gaza. This includes increasing the number of aid trucks entering the territory, reopening key border crossings, and ensuring protection for humanitarian workers. It’s a promising development on paper. But Kallas herself made it clear that implementation is key, and so far, the pace has been underwhelming. The EU expects at least 160 trucks to pass through eight entry points, monitored by the EU’s envoy, the UN, and Israeli officials. Still, don’t hold your breath for sanctions, because there is little appetite among member states to rock the boat. Most of the options Kallas presented require a qualified majority, and she likely doesn’t have it. Now this is about whether the EU can maintain a consistent foreign policy, especially when it claims to stand for human rights and the rule of law. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the EU has passed 18 packages of sanctions, tough, coordinated, and with clear political intent. Yet, when it comes to Gaza, many argue that the bloc has responded with hesitation and double standards. Now, that legal contradiction may face a serious challenge. Because according to EUobserver , this week, a group of Franco-Belgian lawyers from the JURDI Association, including experts linked to the International Criminal Court, are filing a case with the EU Court of Justice. Their claim is that both the European Commission and Council have failed to act in response to alleged violations of international law by Israel. They’re invoking Article 265 of the EU Treaty, which allows legal action when an EU institution fails to act where it is legally required to do so. It’s unprecedented. And it could mark the first time the EU is forced to answer in court for what critics call its selective defence of human rights. Of course, this case won’t be decided overnight. But its very existence is a sign of growing frustration, not just in civil society, but within parts of the EU’s own legal and diplomatic machinery. So what comes next? Well, for now, foreign ministers have bought themselves time. The humanitarian agreement brokered by Kallas offers political cover and a chance to say, “Let’s wait and see.” But the hard truth is that if Israel fails to deliver on its promises, the EU may find itself right back where it started, with tough decisions it’s still unwilling to make. As for Kallas, her efforts have highlighted both the power and the limits of her role. She has shown the EU can exert leverage. But she’s also learning what her predecessors knew all too well: foreign policy in Brussels only works if the big capitals play along. And so far, they haven’t. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs
|
Evi Kiorri
|
In this episode, Evi Kiorri covers the main topic of the EU foreign affairs meeting: the situation in Gaza, the EU's trade deal with Israel and the different options to move forward.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-15T11:26:59.514Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ard15f95b2
|
How Meta enables deepfake financial scams — and EU AI Act isn't fixing it
|
Deepfakes are fake digital media generated using Artificial Intelligence (AI), including audio, video, and images that look real. Malicious deepfakes cause serious harm to people through non-consensual pornography, disinformation, and financial fraud. In a recent example, a French woman was reportedly scammed out of $800,000 [€685,000] by someone faking to be Brad Pitt. Using multiple deepfaked photos of the actor in a hospital bed, the scammer claimed he (Brad Pitt) could not pay his medical bills because his money was tied up in a divorce. This is just one of the many ways fraudsters weaponise deepfake technology to exploit trust, emotion, and the public’s fascination with celebrity. Malicious deepfakes aren't always dark web Deepfakes range from entirely synthetic videos and cloned voices to edited footage with fake vocal overlays, AI voice cloning making it easy to impersonate anyone. Malicious deepfakes are not only created with dark web tools but also with technology from legitimate providers. Stability AI’s image generator, Stable Diffusion, has been used to produce child sexual abuse material, leading to criminal prosecution. A 2024 UN Office on Drug and Crimes Report found that financial fraudsters had combined Google Face Mesh, an open-source system that maps facial expressions in real time, with other tools to generate deepfake scam videos. Open-source software is particularly attractive to scammers as it is freely accessible and can produce harder-to-trace deepfakes. Meta as enabler of deepfake fraud Digital platforms essentially act as intermediaries between scammers and the public. Meta plays a major role in this, with its platforms — Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp — commonly used to conduct deepfake scams. Deepfake ads reported on one Meta platform, often reappear on the same or another platform, with scammers typically continuing the promotion of fraudulent schemes through WhatsApp conversations. Internal fraud data from the UK bank TSB for 2021–2022 revealed that 80 percent of fraud cases involved Meta-owned platforms. Recently, a deepfake video of Dutch prime minister Dick Schoof appeared as a sponsored Facebook ad promoting a fake investment scheme. The video, falsely claiming that the investment initiative was supported by the Dutch Central Bank reached 250,000 views. Despite being reported to Meta by the Dutch national Consumers’ Association and Meta’s promise to act, the ad remained active afterwards. Similarly, a deepfake of former Fidelity International fund manager Anthony Bolton targeted retail investors, inviting them to join a WhatsApp group for stock tips. Reported to have appeared on Instagram in May 2025, the video continued circulating across Meta’s platforms, with a Facebook post featuring it on 21 June 2025 garnering over 500,000 views. The widespread misuse of Meta’s platforms for fraud led Danish TV presenters, whose images and voices were used in thousands of fake Facebook ads, to report the company to police in 2024. Meta’s automated and human moderation systems are dysfunctional, with the company prioritising ad revenue over public safety. According to a 2025 Wall Street Journal investigation, Facebook and Instagram staff were instructed to tolerate up to 32 fraud “strikes” before acting, with enforcement against scams deliberately deprioritised to avoid losing ad revenue. This is hardly surprising given that in 2024, $160.6bn of Meta’s $164.5bn revenue came from advertising. Existing EU rules aren’t making significant difference The EU AI Act requires AI systems to inform (by design) people that they are interacting with AI-generated content, unless it is obvious. Providers must also ensure such content in detectable through machine-readable markings and clearly label them as AI-generated or manipulated. Spain’s implementation of the act imposes fines of up to $38m or seven percent of a company’s turnover for violating these labelling rules. However, non-compliant AI tools allow fraudsters to bypass the rules, rendering fines meaningless and making platform-centred regulation and enforcement the most effective way to tackle deepfake fraud. The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) require platforms to implement mechanisms for reporting and swiftly removing illegal content. As a designated Very Large Online Platform (VLOP), Facebook has additional transparency obligations, including creating searchable public repository of advertisements. However, Meta’s DSA compliance has been criticised, among others, for inadequate staffing for moderation and making the reporting system difficult to access. Some EU member states, including France, have criminalised sharing non-consensual AI-generated content depicting a person’s words or image, unless it is clearly or explicitly marked as algorithmically generated. The offence in France carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison and a €45,000 fine when committed via an online platform. But criminalisation alone does not prevent harms, and scammers are rarely traced by authorities. In the UK, where comparable legislation called the Online Safety Act exists, a recent report by the Parliament’s Science, Innovation and Technology Committee concluded that platforms are either unable or unwilling to address harmful content, including fraudulent ads. Criminalising hosting of illegal content Mounting evidence suggests that Meta actively monetises financial fraud by deliberately allowing scam ads to run on its various platforms, constituting effective complicity with crime. There is already a call to hold Meta criminally liable for aiding and abetting organised crimes through algorithmic profiling and targeting of susceptible users for phishing and scam. The only way to compel platforms like Meta to act responsibly is criminalising and prosecuting the intentional hosting of illegal content, including fraudulent deepfake ads. Dr Asress Adimi Gikay is senior lecturer in AI, disruptive innovation and law at Brunel University of London . Andrew Kent is a LL.M candidate in AI, law and technology at the same university. Dr Asress Adimi Gikay is senior lecturer in AI, disruptive innovation and law at Brunel University of London .
|
Andrew Kent
|
Meta’s automated and human moderation systems are dysfunctional, with the company prioritising ad revenue over public safety. According to an investigation, Facebook and Instagram staff were instructed to tolerate up to 32 fraud “strikes” before acting, with enforcement against scams deliberately deprioritised to avoid losing ad revenue.
|
[
"Digital",
"Opinion"
] |
digital
|
2025-07-15T11:08:58.409Z
|
https://euobserver.com/digital/aradc7eaf8
|
Don’t repeat Recovery and Resilience Facility mistakes: local governments must shape EU’s long-term budget
|
As the European Commission prepares to unveil its proposal for the post-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework on Wednesday (16 July), attention is turning to how the EU will shape its long-term investment strategy. What is at stake is not just the amount of funding, but how and with whom those resources will be planned and implemented. At the EU annual budget conference in May, EU commission president Ursula von der Leyen made a shift in tone. For the first time, she spoke not only of “national” plans, but of “national and regional partnerships for investments and reforms.” This is more than a semantic change, but words must be followed by action. Without concrete steps, even the most inclusive language risks remaining just words. The new proposed investment architecture is set to build on lessons from the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). But unless a key flaw of the RRF is addressed — namely, the lack of involvement of local actors — the same mistakes will be repeated. If we want these partnerships to succeed, they must be co-created with the local and regional governments that will implement them. From green mobility to housing and digital infrastructure, success also depends on getting the governance right. Luckily, we do not need to start from scratch. The word “partnership” recalls an existing model: the Partnership Agreements used in the Cohesion Policy. These already require member states to involve local and regional governments in shaping investment strategies. In countries like Poland and Portugal, it has led to investments aligned with real local needs—revitalising industrial areas, developing green transport—showing that when local actors are at the table, EU funding delivers real impact. But this is about more than funding. As the EU aims to pair investments with reform, multilevel governance must become a central principle of the reform agenda itself. We are therefore calling for: 1. A that underpins new investment and reform partnerships, with transparent and structured mechanisms to involve local and regional governments in shaping priorities — both at national level and within EU processes such as the European Semester. 2. must be embedded in the reform dimension of these partnerships, ensuring that Member States local and regional governments to act as both planners and implementers. 3. and less stringent thematic concentration decided at Commission level to avoid the repetition of the challenges recalled in the mid-term revision of the RRF. The EU stands at a turning point. The next long-term budget is a chance to move towards a more democratic, grounded, and effective policymaking, or to repeat the mistakes of the past. Let’s not miss this chance. Let’s make partnership the rule, not the exception. Christopher Schnaudigel is co-president of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) , vice-president of the German Section of CEMR (RGRE), president of the county of Karlsruhe (German County Association). Ľubica Karvašová is an MEP, vice-chair of the Committee on Regional Development, Renew Europe coordinator in REGI Committee. Vladimir Prebilič is an MEP, rapporteur on Simplification of the Cohesion Policy, Greens/EFA Coordinator in the REGI Committee. Christopher Schnaudigel is co-president of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) , vice-president of the German Section of CEMR (RGRE), president of the county of Karlsruhe (German County Association). Ľubica Karvašová is an MEP, vice-chair of the Committee on Regional Development, Renew Europe coordinator in REGI Committee.
|
Vladimir Prebilič
|
As the European Commission prepares to unveil its proposal for the post-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework on Wednesday, attention is turning to how the EU will shape its long-term investment strategy. What is at stake is not just the amount of funding, but how and with whom those resources will be planned and implemented.
|
[] |
stakeholders
|
2025-07-15T09:48:54.217Z
|
https://euobserver.com/stakeholders/arf74d9ae1
|
Lawyers file case against EU Commission and Council for 'failure to act' on Gaza genocide
|
While we are all holding our breath for the possible initiatives against Israel that Kaja Kallas, the European High Representative for Foreign Affairs, could present on Tuesday (15 July) to the foreign affairs council, the lawyers of the JURDI Association (lawyers for the respect of international law), are taking action. On Thursday, they will file an “action for failure to act” with the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg against the EU Commission and Council for their failure to act on the crimes committed by the Netanyahu government in Gaza. This is a first: never before have two European institutions been brought before a court, in this case the European Court of Justice, for failure to act in the face of violations of international law. The Franco-Belgian lawyers, including advisers to the International Criminal Court and university professors, are now trying to do just that. And they are determined not to stop. They sent a letter of formal notice to the two institutions on 12 May and now, two months after that first warning, they are calling for proceedings to be opened. The novelty is that the legal battle will take place 'in-house' — without the need to involve international conventions or courts. The 90-page appeal is based on Article 265 of the EU Treaty , which aims to sanction a European institution for culpable inaction. Double standard In this case, the document states, “for failing to suspend, for 21 months (since October 2023), the EU-Israel Association Agreement, for failing to propose any sanctions or economic restrictions on the Netanyahu government, and for failing to take a public position on the risks of genocide and documented crimes”. “Alongside the 18 packages of sanctions against Russia, proposed by the commission and approved ( except for the 18th ) by the council, there is a double standard with regard to Israel that has now become intolerable,” explains Alfonso Dorado, French criminal lawyer, advisor to the International Criminal Court, and one of the authors of the appeal. The European Treaty provides for respect for international law, human dignity and fundamental rights, and gives the possibility to request sanctions if a third party does not respect EU principles. Syria, Belarus, Myanmar, Russia...not Israel This has been done with Syria, Belarus, Myanmar and, above all, with Russia. But nothing has been done with Israel. On the contrary, time continues to be wasted. Following the request on 20 May by 17 European countries to open a review of Article 2 of the Association Agreement with Israel, the European Commission's diplomatic service published a report on violations of international humanitarian law by the Israeli government. Six pages full of countless cases of violations, crimes and abuses against the Palestinian population, both in Gaza and in the Occupied Territories, in prisons and hospitals. A belated document, arriving 20 months after the start of the bombing of Gaza, but unequivocal. Except that it has so far had no consequences. On the same day the report was presented to European foreign ministers on 23 June , EU foreign affairs chief Kallas did not propose any compensatory measures . On the contrary, in the council press room, Kallas repeated three times that the “Commission does not want to punish the Israeli government” and that it would open a door for "dialogue to unblock the humanitarian situation on the ground." Finally, last week, a spokesperson for Kallas announced an agreement with Israeli foreign minister Sa'ar to allow trucks carrying food and medicine to enter both the north and south of Gaza. "This agreement is legally insufficient to remedy or neutralise the alleged failure, does not constitute a structural measure, a sanction or a response to the obligation to prevent genocide. On the contrary, it confirms the continuing failure, as it reveals that the EU continues to cooperate actively with Israel, while avoiding the application of its own conditionality mechanisms", responded Dorado. JURDI lawyers are now asking the judges in Luxembourg for an urgent procedure to compel the commission and the council to sever all trade and political relations with Israel and to issue a political statement on the risk of genocide in Gaza. Of course, the political situation in the council is very complicated. Suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement requires unanimity among governments, and here there remains a wall of opposition from Germany, Poland, Hungary, Greece and Italy against any sanctions. But even for those trade sanctions, which only require a majority, the same countries are blocking them. With their populations, they constitute a so-called 'blocking minority' and do not allow any decision to pass, even if they are in the minority of EU countries. “However, there are sanctions that the commission can apply as the executor of the European budget, without the need for governments,” explains Dorado. The suspension of Horizon Europe research funds is one such measure. According to a recent investigation by Follow The Money and other European media, these amount to more than €1bn in grants to Israeli universities, companies and ministries. In addition, as revealed by the consortia Investigate Europe and Reporters United , there are 15 projects underway for the development of weapons with the Israeli company Intracom Defense, based in Athens and owned by the public company Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). All projects are funded with European money from the European Defence Fund. According to many experts interviewed by investigative journalists, these projects are in clear violation of the ethical principles of the Defence Fund and should be suspended as soon as possible. This is not being considered by the upper echelons of the Berlyamont building, for the time being. These investigations are part of the evidence included by JURDI in the appeal that is about to reach the European courts. In addition to the European Treaty, international case law also supports JURDI. According to the judgment of the International Court of Justice of 2007 (Bosnia vs Serbia), which came as an answer to 1995 Srebrenica massacre, all international actors with the means to do so are called upon to do everything possible to prevent genocide, including European institutions, even if they are not signatories to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention of Genocide (ratified by 153 countries, including the United States and Israel). In addition to the suspension of trade agreements and research and development projects (including weapons), JURDI is calling for the suspension of financial transactions with the Belgian Swift system, sanctions against certain members of the Netanyahu government, sanctions against the most violent settlers. In the meantime, we must wait and see how the appeal to the Court of Justice will be received and, above all, whether its urgent nature will be recognised. But this is only the first step, and JURDI's lawyers do not intend to stop there. "The high representatives of the European Union must be careful, because one day they could be tried by the International Criminal Court for complicity in genocide. I can assure you that we will not stop; we have embarked on a long journey", said Dorado. Maria Maggiore is an investigative journalist with Investigate Europe . Maria Maggiore is an investigative journalist with
|
Investigate Europe
|
Lawyers specialising in international law will file an “action for failure to act” with the European Court of Justice on Thursday for the inaction of the EU Commission and Council in the massacres perpetrated by the Netanyahu government. This is the first time this has happened.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Rule of Law"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-15T05:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar48acfd1a
|
Listen: How the EU plans to respond to Trump’s 30% trade blow
|
Before the weekend, Donald Trump sent a letter to the European Commission announcing his plans to slap a 30 percent tariff on nearly all EU imports, starting August 1st. This caught Brussels off guard. An agreement was already on the table, one that included a painful, but tolerable, 10 percent base tariff. Most EU member states were willing to swallow that to avoid the worst. But the 30 percent tariff had the European Commission rushing for a response. So, what’s von der Leyen’s plan? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here: Before the weekend Donald Trump sent a letter to the European Commission announcing his plans to slap a 30% tariff on nearly all EU imports, starting August 1st. This caught Brussels off guard. Because an agreement was already on the table. One that included a painful, but tolerable, 10% base tariff, which most EU member states were willing to swallow in order to avoid worse. But 30% had the European Commission rushing to retaliate. So what’s Von der Leyen’s plan? Welcome to Long Story Short, Europod’s daily podcast that unpacks what matters most, in just five minutes. I’m Evi Kiorri, here to make Europe’s latest, long story short. So, in response, the European Commission is preparing a second package of countermeasures, targeting up to €73 billion in US products. But the measures will only kick in if there’s no deal. Von der Leyen is also trying to prove Europe doesn’t need to be dependent on the US at all. She’s pushing ahead with new free trade agreements, like the one announced over the weekend with Indonesia. It’s called CEPA, and after ten years of negotiations, it’s meant to strengthen supply chains for key industries like clean tech and steel, while giving European companies access to Indonesia’s booming economy. But let’s not sugarcoat what's actually happening here! The EU is already under pressure: from the war in Ukraine, economic slowdown, inflation. Key industries, especially Germany’s automotive sector and Italy’s steel producers, are already feeling the squeeze. A 30% tariff from the US would push many of them over the edge. Europe exports €1.4 trillion in goods and services to the US every year. But only a handful of countries, like Germany, Ireland, and Italy, export more than they import. So the damage won’t be spread evenly. Politically, this seems more like a test of strength. France’s Emmanuel Macron says Europe should prepare for a trade war. He’s calling on the Commission to show “determination” and accelerate credible countermeasures, including anti-coercion tools. Germany, on the other hand, is urging a more “pragmatic” approach. Chancellor Friedrich Merz even called Trump to de-escalate. But that calm tone hasn’t gone down well everywhere. So, what now? EU trade ministers are meeting today to coordinate a response. And Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič is expected to travel to Washington soon for direct talks. Meanwhile, von der Leyen is speeding up negotiations with other global partners, not just Indonesia, but also India, Thailand, and South America. Because the goal for Europe is diversifying. If Trump’s tariffs take effect on August 1st, retaliation is almost certain. But there’s still a narrow window for diplomacy. And behind all this there is one uncomfortable truth: global stability is wearing really really thin and the ground is shaky. But that’s all for today on Long Story Short, a podcast by Europod in partnership with the Sphera Network. You can also find us on the EUobserver website, go check it out. Thanks for listening. I’m Evi Kiorri, and I’ll be back tomorrow at 12:30 with more insights in just five minutes. See you then! Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs
|
Evi Kiorri
|
In this episode, Evi Kiorri covers Donald Trump's surprise announcement of a 30 percent tariff on nearly all EU imports starting in August — a move that caught Brussels off guard.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Green Economy"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-14T10:52:18.497Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar61c54372
|
Trump trade tariff madness: Four red lines for EU
|
The EU’s tariff negotiations with Donald Trump have been their toughest in living memory. For one the goalposts are constantly moving. Two days ago Trump wrong-footed the EU with a 30 percent duty on all EU exports on 1 August. The week before it was 20 percent. Before that it was 17 percent on all food. Tomorrow will he threaten 200 percent? It is difficult to negotiate with a jellyfish. The only predictable thing about Trump is his conscious unpredictability. Two, the EU is negotiating with a gun against its head — imposition of swingeing tariffs on 1 August unless a deal is reached that meets so far undefined US (forget EU) objectives. And three, the EU is divided. Between those like Spain and France who want to call Trump’s bluff (is it a real gun or just a water pistol?), refuse to kowtow to 'the Emperor', and hit hard with retaliatory measures if negotiations falter in the days ahead; and those - notably Germany, Italy, Ireland, Hungary - who will close their eyes to Trump’s clearly illegal tariffs if they can get sectoral carve outs for key sectors like automobiles, steel, pharmaceuticals, aerospace, or wines and spirits. As we write, EU trade ministers are meeting in Brussels to decide which way to move, but it seems certain that the EU will postpone again its imposition of retaliatory tariffs — due to enter into force this week — until 1 August to give negotiations a last chance. This may ironically only confirm Trump’s conviction that the EU buckles under threat — unlike China — and embolden him further. The US is also not slow to exploit this division amongst EU members. That quick and dirty UK deal It is buoyed by the quick and dirty deal done with the UK which sets the template for other agreements: a 10-percent tariff (only!) stays in place, a few sectoral deals — autos, beef, ethanol and so on. An aside here: with this agreement, the UK not only condones Trump’s illegal tariffs (it is forbidden under WTO rules to raise your tariffs or treat different countries differently), the UK itself also breaches WTO in giving the US preferential access for beef. Such insouciant dismissal of its international obligations makes the UK's claim, in its freshly-minted trade strategy, to be a champion of multilateralism look very threadbare. 'Perfidious Albion', one can imagine Emmanuel Macron thinking. Four EU 'red lines'? So what will be the EU’s red lines in a negotiation which will continue close to the 1 August deadline? I predict four based on my own experience as an EU trade negotiator. One is that while the EU has no choice but to accept the permanence of a 10-percent illegal tariff, it will not accept a 30-percent tariff unless there are major carve-outs covering a lot of trade; and will retaliate in kind if this threat materialises. Two. Because if it does not forge a unified position and retaliate, it is the end of the Common Commercial Policy . Macron realises this. Nor will the EU breach WTO law and give the US any preferential market access denied to other countries. Three, the EU will demand exemptions — zero duties or duty-free quotas — for at least some of the key export sectors mentioned above. The US has already signalled better treatment for aerospace (think Airbus) and spirits. If autos and pharmaceuticals can be added, that could push a deal across the line. France is pushing for wines and cosmetics. The EU would save itself from the humiliating situation of having a deal with the US that is worse than the UK’s. Brexit benefits anyone? And four, faced with an unreliable, aggressive, indeed some say psychopathic negotiating partner, the EU will resist pressure to choose between the US and China. Because, to paraphrase Princess Diana, there are three people in this relationship. The deals the US has so far inked — UK, Vietnam, and reportedly Cambodia — all require these countries to remove Chinese components from their supply chains. In the UK case, for example, British steel exported to the US may not have been derived from Chinese iron, nor come from companies under Chinese ownership: a problem on both counts. In the case of Vietnam, apparel, car parts, electronics, etc, with significant Chinese input or value-added will attract higher tariffs. China...and Ukraine The EU will not accept this, given the high degree of EU-China trade interdependence in everything from electric cars to electronics to green tech. And with an EU-China summit later in July, on the 50th anniversary of EU-China diplomatic relations, and with a febrile international trade climate, both sides are keen to keep their markets open, manage any trade friction in a business-like way, and identify fields of cooperation, for example, the green transition. What is less clear is whether the EU will accept any US demands to go easy on the big data platforms, either by relaxing the policing of content or waiving anti-competition penalties, both big asks of the US but which would require the EU to set aside the enforcement of their laws. Where the EU is more vulnerable is with respect to Ukraine. American support for Ukraine has blown hot and cold since 20 January. The EU simply cannot afford a complete breakdown in trade relations and a trade war with the US — its second biggest market after the UK. It could trigger a worldwide recession in which there are no winners, only losers. But more fundamentally, it might put the nail in the coffin of the US commitment to Ukraine. The US might turn its back more completely on security cooperation with Europe. Amidst any white smoke emanating from the White House, there should not be any negative impact on the US’s already wavering support for Ukraine’s existential battle. So an unpleasant and very one-sided negotiation with the US. Trump does not negotiate win-win outcomes. His playbook has not changed since The Art of the Deal: I win, you lose, got that? The EU is not used to negotiating with a mega bully in this manner and is only now, very late in the day, finding out that its standard approach of seeking compromise and mutual gains is mocked by the White House. It’s Venus against Mars. John Clarke was till recently a director for international relations in the European Commission and an EU trade negotiator. He was also head of the EU Delegation to the WTO and UN in Geneva. He is now a journalist, a fellow of Maastricht University and a fellow of the Royal Asiatic Society . John Clarke was till recently a director for international relations in the European Commission and an EU trade negotiator. He was also head of the EU Delegation to the WTO and UN in Geneva. He is now a journalist, a fellow of Maastricht University and a fellow of the
|
Royal Asiatic Society
|
The EU is not used to negotiating with a mega bully in this manner and is only now, very late in the day, finding out that its standard approach of seeking compromise and mutual gains is mocked by the White House, writes former EU trade negotiator John Clarke.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Green Economy",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-14T09:31:20.783Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar403b2352
|
Slovakia preparing to drop veto on EU's Russia sanctions
|
Slovakia will drop its Russia-sanctions veto this week if it gets a "political" EU promise on Russian gas, its prime minister, Robert Fico, has indicated. Fico has been blocking the 18th round of Russia sanctions on grounds that a separate EU Commission proposal on stopping all Russian gas purchases from 2028 will cost his country billions of euros. The issue is due to come to a head on Tuesday (15 July) when EU foreign ministers meet in Brussels. But on Saturday (12 July), Fico said he was ready to back down in return for high-level promises of post-2028 assistance. "We want to see something on the table that we can present to the Slovak Republic and say ... this will be the [EU] Commission's position and the member states' position toward the problem Slovakia will face as of 1 January 2028", he said. "We want political guarantees," he also said – a phrase he used several times in a long press conference in Bratislava, flanked by his foreign minister, Juraj Blanár, and agriculture minister Richard Takáč. "The prime ministers of big countries must give us guarantees," Fico said. "I believe that by Tuesday we will be able — at least at the level of some kind of statement — to say: 'Yes, this is where we stand'," he added. The "guarantees" concern compensation for potentially higher gas transit fees and Russian lawsuits against Slovakia after the 2028 cut-off. Fico spoke after meetings with the EU Commission and phone calls with Polish prime minister Donald Tusk and German chancellor Friedrich Merz. But the commission meetings didn't yield any legal guarantees. And from the little Fico revealed about his phone diplomacy, this didn't go well either. "Chancellor Merz said he is requesting the Slovak government to vote for the [Russia] sanctions. He said nothing more … it was a tough phone call," Fico said. Hungary has also, in the past, vetoed Russia sanctions, in return for "useless face-saving" declarations by the EU. And Fico tried to get ahead of that kind of criticism on Saturday. "I know that everyone will again say: 'My God, but you didn't secure anything!' I know how everyone will judge it, but we know what we're negotiating about," he said. He admitted that his position was frail, however. "We cannot – as you surely understand – live in the EU27 and act like a lone wolf, doing whatever we want … telling everyone 'no'," he said. And the populist leader also showed that part of the motive for his Russia grandstanding was his image. "I am not a little boy for someone to simply think that if they stamp their foot, Slovakia will immediately do what is needed," he said. Fico, who is friendly with Russian president Vladimir Putin despite Putin's full invasion of Ukraine in 2022, criticised Russia sanctions in general as "nonsensical, ideological, and harmful … [stemming] only from an obsession with Russia". He also voiced lack of solidarity with Putin's victims. "Why do we have to pay more because of Ukraine? It's all because of Ukraine. I'm sorry that there is a war there. I didn't cause that war," he said. He attacked opposition MPs in his rambling press event, including on grounds they supported transgender rights. And Fico attacked the Slovak press, saying they were so nasty about him that he risked being shot again.
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
Slovakia will drop its Russia sanctions veto this week if it gets a "political" EU promise on Russian gas, its prime minister, Robert Fico, has indicated.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine"
] |
green-economy
|
2025-07-14T04:30:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/ar07f93fe0
|
Listen: How Greece’s new asylum ban violates international law
|
Greece introduced on Friday (11 July) a controversial emergency law , suspending the registration of asylum applications for three months for people arriving by sea from North Africa. The Greek government defends the new law as a matter of national urgency. Foreign Minister Giorgos Gerapetritis cited a 350 percent increase in arrivals, claiming that two-thirds of those entering the country do not qualify for humanitarian protection. The newly appointed Migration Minister, Thanos Plevris, who assumed office following the OPEKEPE corruption scandal and is known for his far-right stance within the New Democracy party, took an even harder line, describing the situation as a "mass invasion" and declaring: "You are not welcome. Either you leave or you will be imprisoned." Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here: Greece introduced today, July 11th, a controversial emergency law, suspending the registration of asylum applications for three months for people arriving by sea from North Africa. Welcome to Long Story Short, Europod’s daily podcast that unpacks what matters most, in just five minutes. I’m Evi Kiorri, here to make Europe’s latest, long story short. The Greek government argues that this law is a matter of national urgency. Foreign Minister Giorgos Gerapetritis pointed to a 350 percent spike in arrivals and claimed two-thirds of them don’t qualify for humanitarian protection. The newly appointed (after the unfolding of the OPEKEPE corruption scandal) Migration Minister Thanos Plevris, who belongs to the far-right wing of the New Democracy party, took it even further, calling the situation a "mass invasion" and telling migrants: "You are not welcome. Either you leave or you will be imprisoned." The measure allows the suspension of asylum rights based on geographic entry points, specifically, maritime routes from North Africa. And it has already been passed in parliament, despite criticism from nearly every major human rights body in Europe. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Council of Europe, and a long list of legal experts, including Greece’s own former Deputy Prime Minister, have warned the move violates international law, especially the principle of non-refoulement. That’s the rule that prohibits returning people to countries where they may face torture, persecution, or serious harm. Additional measures announced by Prime Minister Mitsotakis included the arrest and detention of affected individuals, prompting human rights groups to warn that the legislation risks criminalizing the very existence of migrants. And Plevris, the migration minister, even proposed cutting food in reception centers to the “minimum caloric threshold” because meals are apparently “too hotel-like.” Now most of the people arriving from North Africa aren’t just economic migrants. Many are escaping war, poverty, climate disasters, or authoritarian regimes. We’re talking about people fleeing Sudan’s conflict, Libya’s chaos, or the growing instability in the Sahel. Greece is indeed overwhelmed, but what’s really on trial here is Europe’s collective responsibility. Because, with rising arrivals at Europe’s southern frontier, governments are cracking down instead of investing in faster asylum procedures, fair burden-sharing, or reception capacity. The political cost is of course rising populism. The financial cost is long-term instability. So what else can we expect on this? The Greek government says this is temporary and geographically limited. But rights groups argue that once emergency powers are normalised, they rarely go away quietly. And this isn’t Greece’s first time. A similar suspension was used in 2020 at the Evros land border. Since then, the EU has poured billions into migration control and border management, yet somehow reception centers are still overcrowded, and asylum systems still underfunded. The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Michael O’Flaherty, put it plainly: “The humanitarian situation would be manageable if authorities had addressed the lack of reception capacity in a timely manner.” Instead, we’re watching a shift from mismanagement to punishment. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has reminded Greece, and by extension, all of Europe, that while border control is a sovereign right, it can’t come at the expense of legal obligations. The right to seek asylum is not optional. It’s not suspended when inconvenient. And it certainly can’t be traded for electoral points. But that’s all for today on Long Story Short, a podcast by Europod in partnership with the Sphera Network. You can also find us on the EUobserver website, go check it out. Thanks for listening. I’m Evi Kiorri, and I’ll be back tomorrow at 12:30 with more insights in just five minutes. See you then! Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs
|
Evi Kiorri
|
In this episode, Evi Kiorri explores Greece's controversial emergency law, which suspends the registration of asylum applications for three months for individuals arriving by sea from North Africa.
|
[
"Migration"
] |
migration
|
2025-07-11T10:16:23.811Z
|
https://euobserver.com/migration/are2377658
|
27 ex-EU ambassadors: 'Suspend the Israel trade agreement'
|
We are a group of 27 former ambassadors of the European Union who have served in the Middle East/North Africa region and/or retain a strong interest in what is happening there. We wish to express our deep concern about the EU’s response to developments since the heinous attacks of 7 October, 2023. The deaths of many hundreds of innocent Israeli civilians and the taking of hostages by Hamas and others can never be justified and we unequivocally condemn those crimes. That said, the Israeli military campaign over the last 21 months has led to the deaths or serious injury of many tens of thousands of Palestinians, the vast majority of them innocent civilians, including an alarming number of children, as well as to an appalling degree of destruction of Gaza’s housing, medical facilities, schools, food distribution centres and infrastructure. In short, Israel’s reaction to 7 October has been, as stated by several UN instances, indiscriminate and completely disproportionate. We note that the International Court of Justice in its provisional orders issued last year concluded that there is a plausible risk of genocide. Moreover, the Israeli authorities’ continuous restrictions on aid delivery in Gaza and its victimisation of key humanitarian agencies like UNRWA has caused immense suffering among the remaining population, which is forced to live in what by any measure are utterly inhumane conditions. This is against all civilised international norms. We note that the humanitarian distribution system imposed by Israel and the US since April, which sidelines experienced UN agencies and international NGOs, and neglects core humanitarian principles of impartiality, neutrality and independence has only worsened the suffering. To add that there been a reluctance by the EU to take serious action against Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank and its government’s de facto encouragement of violent settler groups in their attacks on the Palestinian population there, as well as the further annexing of land in flagrant violation of international law. Against this background, the EU’s foreign affairs committee in May decided to review the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which covers all aspects of relations between the two sides, based on Israel’s alleged violation of article 2, which states that the two sides are committed to “respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this agreement." As you know, the term "essential element" in the language of the Vienna Convention means that if one side is found to be in breach of such an article, the other can suspend the agreement, in whole or in part. With the rule of law as a founding principle, the EU lives or dies by the full application of international law to its agreements, and in that regard needs must abide by the conclusions of this review. In the event, EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas made clear in her press conference on 23 June that Israel had in fact been found by the review to be breaching article 2 , but refrained from following through with concrete measures , in the hope that the situation on the ground would somehow improve, and that there would be further discussion at the foreign affairs committee next week. It remains to be seen whether a truly enduring ceasefire in Gaza will come to pass, but even if hostilities are paused, we believe that a clear message, beyond declarations, needs to be sent to the Israeli government that the EU will take effective action, if only to keep up the pressure on it until it is ready to silence its guns and choose diplomacy over aggression, something it manifestly failed to do when the previous ceasefire was broken last March. If consensus among the institutions and member states on a full suspension of the agreement is not forthcoming, we strongly urge the European Commission and External Action Service to at least propose the suspension of those aspects falling under ‘community competence’, notably the trade preferences and horizon research programme. This can be agreed by a qualified majority. Such a proposal should also include a complete ban on trade in all products and services from, as well any business transactions with, illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That said, failure to take any action will further tarnish the EU’s already damaged reputation in the region and more generally to its foreign policy in the wider world, where it has come in for serious criticism on the grounds of double standards vis-à-vis its principled and unambiguous stance on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Lack of any follow through on a breach of article 2 will also give sustenance to bad actors at home and abroad who search for a ‘cause celebre’ for their violent extremism. In these uncertain times, we naturally want to see the EU fulfill its role as a major player on the world stage, protecting its citizens, its interests and its values wherever it must, and advancing the causes which comprise its political DNA where it can. A significant part of this involves forging a more credible and consistent approach to the conflict in the middle east.
|
Geoffrey Barrett, Alexander Baum, Thierry Bechet, Aad Biesebroeke, Jean‑Claude Boidin, Sven Kuhn von Burgsdorff, Tim Clarke, Dominique Dellicour, Michael Emerson, Erwan Fouere, Karen Fogg, Marc Franco, Andrew Jacobs, Rupert Joy, Androulla Kaminara, John Kjaer, Jeremy Lester, David Macrea, Christian Manhal, Hugues Mingarelli, James Moran, Francesca Mosca, Elisabeth Pape, Philippe Van Damme, Claudia Wiedey, Alan Waddams, and Richard Wright.
|
An open letter on Israel/Palestine to EU Council president Antonio Costa, EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, EU Parliament president Roberta Metsola, and EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas & EU commissioner Dubravka Suica.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-11T09:15:03.205Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar1a42695e
|
Sweden fails to comply with green transparency law, UN body says
|
A UN body has concluded that Sweden is not complying with the Aarhus Convention , which grants journalists and civil society organisations the right to obtain environmental information from public authorities. The case centres on a complaint by EUobserver collaborator and journalist Staffan Dahllöf, which challenged the refusal of environmental information requests by the Swedish Chemicals Agency and two courts related to the pesticide chlorpyrifos. The UN Aarhus Convention , signed by all 27 EU countries, has been used on several occasions to shed light and legally challenge decisions that may harm the environment. Due to an EU directive adopted in 2003, that convention is binding law in all EU member states. The information requested was relevant to a decision on whether to approve the pesticide chlorpyrifos back in 2019. Draft findings from the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC), published on Monday (7 July), slammed Swedish authorities for not properly applying transparency rules. And in particular, for interpreting exceptions too broadly, particularly when the information is related to emissions, which usually should be made public. Six years after the journalist's complaint, the committee argued that Swedish authorities neither granted access to the information nor properly explained their refusal. And it recommended Stockholm to take “the necessary legislative, regulatory, administrative and practical measures” to ensure that there is no abuse in the application of exceptions, favour public interests, and clearly explain any decision to withhold information. “This UN body can be of help for journalists and citizens if we are patient enough. Hopefully, Sweden will now agree with the committee’s recommendations,” Dahllöf told EUobserver. Sweden has traditionally been seen as an example of transparency in policy-making, in contrast to some other EU member states and the EU institutions. But in this case, the tables were turned. EFSA, the European Food Safety Agency, released the requested documents held back by the Swedish authorities before the final decision was taken. The disputed pesticide chlorpyrifos was banned in the EU in January 2020.
|
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.
|
A UN body has concluded that Sweden is not complying with the Aarhus Convention, which grants journalists and civil society organisations the right to obtain environmental information from public authorities.
|
[
"Rule of Law",
"Green Economy",
"Health & Society"
] |
rule-of-law
|
2025-07-11T07:48:29.262Z
|
https://euobserver.com/rule-of-law/arfdcb1a1a
|
UK and France agree 'one in, one out' migrant deal, despite EU concerns
|
The UK and France have unveiled a ‘one in, one out’ agreement to remove irregular migrants, despite lingering concerns among EU countries that it could have implications on their own responsibilities. The announcement on Thursday (10 July) closed a three-day state visit to the UK by French president Emmanuel Macron, featuring a banquet with the British King Charles. "We all agree that the situation in the Channel cannot go on as it is so we're bringing new tactics into play and a new intent to tackle illegal migration and break the business model of the criminal gangs," UK prime minister Keir Starmer told reporters on Thursday. Both Starmer and Macron are under pressure at home to curb irregular migration, with the UK premier facing particularly strong scrutiny having promised to reduce the number of small boats carrying migrants across the Channel. Immigration and asylum policy is identified as the most significant policy issue in the UK by 51 percent of Britons, according to polling by YouGov, and has been seized upon by Nigel Farage’s nationalist Reform party. Farage, for his part, spent Thursday broadcasting from a boat in the Channel. Data published by the UK’s Home Office found that 38,023 people arrived in the UK on small boats in the year to March 2025, up 22 percent on the previous year. The UK government adds that these figures are still 17 percent fewer arrivals than the peak year of 2022. Under an initial pilot scheme, around 50 migrants would be sent each way, each week. UK officials have said that the numbers could be scaled up if the scheme works well. France will take back migrants who have illegally crossed the Channel in small boats, within weeks of their arrival, while the UK will accept a similar number of asylum seekers from France — the so-called 'one-in, one-out' principle — provided that the they can prove a family connection to the UK. The idea is that the guarantee that people crossing from France will be returned within weeks will hurt the business model of migrant traffickers. The agreement is the latest in a series of cooperation deals between Paris and London. Last month, the French government agreed to intercept small boats using six navy patrol vessels and to intercept boats within 300 metres of the French coast. However, Italy, Greece, Spain, Malta and Cyprus, a group known as the ‘Med 5’, wrote a letter to the EU commission expressing concern that the Franco-British pact could result in people deported from the UK being sent to their countries because of the Dublin Regulation which sees irregular migrants returned to the country where they entered the EU. On Thursday, commission spokesperson Markus Lammert told reporters that the EU executive was "working with France and the UK, as well as other [EU] member states to support solutions that are compatible with the spirit and letter of EU law." Meanwhile, Starmer and Macron also signed off on a joint defence procurement deal, referred to as an ‘Entente Industrielle’ to purchase new Storm Shadow cruise missiles.
|
Benjamin Fox is a seasoned reporter and editor, previously working for fellow Brussels publication Euractiv. His reporting has also been published in the Guardian, the East African, Euractiv, Private Eye and Africa Confidential, among others. He heads up the AU-EU section at EUobserver, based in Nairobi, Kenya.
|
The UK and France have unveiled a ‘one in, one out’ agreement to remove irregular migrants, despite lingering concerns among EU countries that it could have implications on their own responsibilities.
|
[
"Migration"
] |
migration
|
2025-07-10T15:30:59.104Z
|
https://euobserver.com/migration/ar5fa2a326
|
Von der Leyen's censure motion survival: a shallow victory?
|
The motion of censure against the European Commission of Ursula von der Leyen failed to secure the two-thirds majority needed to pass on Thursday (10 July) — as widely expected. Only 175 MEPs voted in favour, 360 voted against and 18 abstained. Around 77 percent of lawmakers took part in the vote, which would have required 360 votes in favour to succeed. While the motion ultimately failed, it revealed a weakened political leadership, casting doubt on the European People's Party (EPP) alliances. And adding to the interinstitutional infighting, the European Parliament is also threatening to sue the European Commission over its use of emergency procedures to fund the new defence spending plan. “It is undeniable that the commission and its president are losing support in recent months,” said Green MEP and co-president of the group, Bas Eickhout, arguing that their opposition on the motion “is not an endorsement of the direction of the commission”. Beyond von der Leyen's own EPP, the Greens were the only group who did not support the motion at all. The motion, tabled by the Romanian nationalist Gheorghe Piperea , received fewer opposing votes than the number of MEPs who supported the von der Leyen 2.0 commission at its approval vote in November 2024. And notably, that 2024 vote itself already showed a drop in support from the July 2019 vote that first brought her into office. And within the parliament’s so-called “democratic majority," a small number of MEPs from the liberal group Renew Europe, the Socialists & Democrats (S&D), and the Greens abstained. While abstaining is not the same as opposing, it does signal distrust and unease with her presidential style, her political priorities — or both. In a public statement explaining his abstention, Irish liberal Barry Andrews went one step further, specifically citing von der Leyen’s failure to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza . “President von der Leyen has been utterly silent on the ongoing genocide in Gaza, which we all can see with our own eyes … [she] has not once, not once, criticised blatant Israeli war crimes, … [she] has refused to consider any move toward trade sanctions on Israel… [her] inaction has helped undermine the system of international law and humanitarian law, on which the European project is based,” he said. But it has been von der Leyen’s EPP alliance with Giorgia Meloni’s European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group that was at the centre of the motion of censure. During Monday’s debate, S&D leader Iratxe García argued that the motion was the direct consequence of the EPP’s “misguided strategy” in the European parliament, pointing to its growing alignment and voting cooperation with rightwing ECR party. After the vote, Renew president Valérie Hayer also said: “We demand that she [von der Leyen] takes control of her political family to put an end to alliances with the far-right”. Breaking with their political groups, independent Irish MEP Ciaran Mullooly (Renew) and socialist Slovenian Matjaž Nemec supported the motion. Nemec told the Slovenian press that he supported the motion due to von der Leyen’s double standards on the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, her response to the Israeli attack on Iran, her rhetoric focused on war and armament rather than peace, and her undermining of the rule of law. But Thursday's vote also revealed deeply divisions within the ECR group itself. Despite actually sponsoring the motion, out of its 79 MEPs, only 39 voted in favour, while three abstained, two voted against, and 35 did not vote at all. Fragile alliances The motion was supported by Meloni’s ECR, Viktor Orbán’s Patriots, and the AfD’s Sovereign Nations — the ones dubbred earlier this week as “extremists” and “Russian puppets” by von der Leyen. But, as pointed out by Alberto Alemanno, professor of EU Law at HEC Paris, those groups are the ones helping von der Leyen’s mainstream centre-right party to dismantle the Green Deal, set up an anti-NGO narrative in the European Parliament and block an interinstitutional ethical committee. In contrast with what surviving a censure of motion usually means, Alemanno argued that this vote does not strengthen her political leadership, but rather will likely trigger increased scrutiny from all political parties (and the public) over the next four years. On Thursday, in what appeared to be a kind of ultimatum, Iraxte García said the next State of the Union speech, expected in September, must be a “turning point". "We will need clear signs of commitment," she said. Motions of censure against the European Commission are not new, but they rarely succeed. But the 1999 motion against the Santer Commission serves as a warning, as the commission resigned shortly afterwards due to political fallout.
|
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.
|
As expected, the motion of censure against the European Commission of Ursula von der Leyen failed to secure the two-thirds majority needed to pass. But it revealed a weakened political leadership, casting doubt on the European People's Party's alliances.
|
[
"EU Political"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-07-10T14:50:22.919Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/arc3df1627
|
Beyond rebuilding: The possibilities for solar and wind in Ukraine
|
Ukraine has been enduring almost daily missile attacks for over three years now, but that hasn’t stopped the country from moving towards a clean energy future. The Ukraine-Germany Energy Partnership is taking advantage of plentiful wind and sun in Ukraine to boost energy resilience and economic growth with a clean energy focus. Already, 17 percent of Ukraine's energy is from renewable energy sources, vital for providing reliable heat and electricity to hospitals, schools and kindergartens across the country. Solar and wind don’t just keep the lights on for these vital services amidst the destruction outside; they are showing exactly what is possible when international partners step up and invest in renewable infrastructure. The European Union has the resources to help Ukraine continue on this path towards a renewable energy reconstruction. The Ukraine Facility , designed to “aid the country's recovery, reconstruction and modernisation efforts”, promises to provide Ukraine with up to €50bn between 2024 and 2027. As Ukraine rebuilds its cities and broken energy infrastructure , placing renewable energy initiatives at the centre of these efforts will be vital for long-term energy security, environmental sustainability, and economic resilience. Achieving this, however, requires an effective financing mechanism that supports the development and implementation of these projects, especially considering the ongoing war and the challenges that it brings. Beyond solidarity, this investment is practical and economically advantageous. Reducing reliance on fossil fuel imports could save the EU around €2.8 trillion by 2050 while at the same time cutting emissions and strengthening Europe’s strategic independence. Ukraine is already clearly showing signs of this transformation with its ongoing advancements in wind power. This year, seven large wind farms with a combined capacity of up to 4GW are currently under construction , including the expansion of the Tyligulska wind farm, which is now the largest in the country . In addition, a €157m financing project from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), International Finance Corporation (IFC), and Black Sea Bank is aimed at developing a wind project in Ukraine, helping reduce dependence on dirty coal and gas. Solar power in Ukraine is also on the up. The EBRD and Goldbeck Solar are investing in up to 500MW of new solar capacity (Photovoltaic, PV) by 2028, with the first systems already underway. Also, the Resilient Independent Solar Energy (RISE) programme, developed with Ukrainian DTEK and Britain's Octopus Energy, is installing rooftop solar and battery systems in schools, hospitals and businesses. Decentralised is harder to attack These decentralised solutions give local communities more control over their energy and, most importantly, keep these vital services running despite the endless onslaught of attacks. Ukraine needs to move towards a decentralised renewable energy system that is stronger and harder to target. Large, centralised power plants are vulnerable and much more susceptible to attacks, but it is far more difficult for an aggressor to knock out hundreds of solar rooftops or distributed wind turbines. This is not just about climate or economic benefits; it is now a critical element of national security. Rebuilding Ukraine’s energy sector with renewables also offers major economic opportunities for European businesses. Companies that choose to invest now can build strong partnerships, gain early access to an emerging market, and help shape Ukraine as the first post-war nation fully rebuilt on clean energy. Early investment in renewables drives jobs and global leadership. If Europe waits, American companies could step in and take the lead, like they have with the critical raw minerals deal . If Ukraine's post-war reconstruction is done with renewable energy, knock-on effects could create millions of additional jobs in five key sectors: transportation, energy, healthcare, education, and water. Meaning a renewable post-war recovery can fully compensate for the jobs we lost during the war. Ukraine’s reconstruction can become a model for the world — a country rising from war to become a leader in climate and energy innovation. By choosing clean energy instead of restoring outdated coal-fired plants, Ukraine can show how to build a modern, resilient, and sustainable system from the ground up. The technologies needed are already cheaper over their lifetimes than fossil fuels . Rebuilding with outdated and dirty energy technologies would be a missed opportunity. Life in Ukraine cannot just be about surviving the current crisis. The country needs to inspire others by proving that it is possible to emerge from war stronger, with greater energy security and self-reliance. The choices EU and Ukrainian leaders make now will shape Ukraine’s energy system for generations and set an example far beyond Europe’s borders. The Ukraine Recovery Conference is the moment to turn this vision into reality. The EU must match its financial promises with practical support and political commitment. Together, we can transform one of Europe’s gravest crises into a new chapter of hope and a shining beacon of clean energy innovation. Svitlana Romanko is founder and executive director of Razom We Stand , the Ukrainian climate campaign fighting to cut off the money fuelling Russia’s war. Svitlana Romanko is founder and executive director of
|
Razom We Stand
|
With the Ukraine Recovery Conference taking place in Rome on Thursday and Friday, European leaders have the rare chance to rethink Ukraine and Europe's energy strategy simultaneously. This goes far beyond rebuilding —it's about turning Ukraine into a powerful example for renewable energy.
|
[
"Green Economy",
"Ukraine",
"Opinion"
] |
green-economy
|
2025-07-10T11:52:38.335Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/arbc7f62ad
|
Listen: Why EU antisemitism coordinator's actions matter
|
A senior EU official has been lobbying against sanctions on Israel, using claims of antisemitism and arguments that critics say cross the line from political advocacy into disinformation. According to a document brought to light by the EUobserver , Katharina von Schnurbein, the European Commission's Coordinator on Combating Antisemitism, made controversial remarks during a meeting with EU ambassadors in Tel Aviv on May 29. Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here: A senior EU official has been lobbying against sanctions on Israel, using claims of antisemitism and arguments that critics say cross the line from political advocacy into disinformation. But what does the leaked diplomatic cable reveal? Welcome to Long Story Short, Europod’s daily podcast that unpacks what matters most, in just five minutes. I’m Evi Kiorri, here to make Europe’s latest, long story short. According to a document brought to light by the EUobserver Katharina von Schnurbein, the European Commission's Coordinator on Combating Antisemitism, made controversial remarks during a meeting with EU ambassadors in Tel Aviv on May 29. At the time, EU foreign ministers were actively considering whether to suspend or sanction the EU-Israel Association Agreement, a 25-year-old deal worth at least €1 billion annually in trade gains to Israel. Von Schnurbein warned that reviewing the agreement could be based on “rumours about Jews,” and claimed that humanitarian actions in Gaza were being ignored by the media and the UN. She also described charity bake sales for Gaza within EU institutions as creating an atmosphere of "ambient antisemitism." According to the same leaked diplomatic cable dated June 6 and marked “sensitive,”which you can read in full on the EUobserver, her comments shocked several EU ambassadors. Some had already raised concerns about conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, even before these comments. Her remarks directly contradicted findings from the EU’s own foreign service, the UN Human Rights Office, and the International Court of Justice, bodies that have documented starvation, large-scale civilian deaths, and possible war crimes in Gaza. And yet, her language framed these findings as hearsay, implying they were driven by ethnic bias, and painting even symbolic solidarity with Palestinians as antisemitic. Neither she nor the EU foreign service offered any public comment on the matter. Now, this story isn’t just about diplomatic language. It’s about what the EU chooses to stand for during a deepening humanitarian crisis. Israel’s military campaign in Gaza has killed more than 56,000 people since October, according to humanitarian agencies. And yet, the EU continues to grant Israel preferential access to its markets, especially in high-value sectors like arms, tech, and cosmetics. Now, if trade sanctions are imposed, it would be the first time the EU takes a step so politically and economically significant. That’s why von Schnurbein’s intervention matters. By framing calls for sanctions as antisemitic, she didn’t just misrepresent policy, she attempted to delegitimise criticism altogether. That’s a dangerous move, especially when it risks silencing evidence of war crimes and civilian suffering. So, what now? On July 15, EU foreign ministers are expected to make a decision on the future of the EU-Israel trade deal. If sanctions are agreed upon, it would be a historic move, one that aligns trade policy with human rights obligations. But don’t expect it to be smooth sailing. Behind-the-scenes lobbying, like what we saw in Tel Aviv, is likely to continue. Officials like von Schnurbein hold no mandate on foreign policy, yet their influence in shaping political narratives can’t be underestimated. And the bigger question remains: Can the EU uphold its values when powerful allies are involved? Or will political convenience keep winning? Anyway, one thing is certain: solidarity with civilians under siege isn’t antisemitism, it’s a moral obligation. But that’s all for today on , a podcast by Europod in partnership with the Sphera Network. You can also find us on the EUobserver website, go check it out. Thanks for listening. I’m Evi Kiorri, and I’ll be back tomorrow at 12:30 with more insights in just five minutes. See you then! Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs
|
Evi Kiorri
|
In this episode, Evi Kiorri breaks down EUobserver’s exclusive report on controversial comments made by Katharina von Schnurbein, the EU’s antisemitism coordinator, during a May meeting with ambassadors in Tel Aviv.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-10T11:20:05.464Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arcd9a298e
|
Ukraine Recovery Conference — the problems of monopolies
|
Prices for construction materials in Ukraine have surged by 30–70 percent since the full-scale invasion. Cement, which accounts for up to 40 percent of construction input costs, has had one of the steepest hikes. This inflation cannot be attributed solely to increased energy costs, the cost of doing business in wartime, or currency depreciation. It coincides with years of rising market concentration, which has fostered an anti-competitive practice that must be stopped. The European Union has committed up to €50 bn to Ukraine’s reconstruction between 2024 and 2027 through the Ukraine Facility. This is the most ambitious reconstruction project since the Marshall Plan. In strategic sectors like cement, monopolisation is quietly driving up prices, choking competition, and undermining the principles the EU claims to support. The Ukrainian private sector is taking the matter into its own hands and fighting back against a recent merger in the cement sector. The fight, which will now be decided at the Supreme Court, should also concern EU and member state officials interested in the successful reconstruction of Ukraine. The outcomes will be critical to Ukraine’s EU accession prospects. In September 2024, CRH, a Dublin-based, US-listed conglomerate with a history of market abuse , agreed to acquire the Ukrainian assets of Buzzi Unicem, an Italian cement company. CRH now controls 46 percent of Ukraine’s cement market. Together with CemIn West, these two companies form a de facto duopoly with over 90 percent of the market share. In 12 Ukrainian regions, CRH’s dominance now ranges from 50 percent to a staggering 99 percent. Cement and security Cement is not just a construction material; it is a wartime necessity. It is used to build trenches, bunkers, fortifications and other critical frontline infrastructure. As market power consolidates, prices increase, supply chains face bottlenecks, and producers gain the ability to delay or withhold material with limited accountability, which threatens Ukraine’s security. This also directly strains the EU's ability to effectively support Ukraine as it holds the frontline against Russian aggression at Europe’s doorstep. After the war, demand for cement will only increase. "This is not just about cement. It’s about whether Ukraine's reconstruction will be an example of open, competitive, democratic recovery, or a missed opportunity corrupted by corporate power and weak institutions." Analysts estimate that 35 million tonnes of cement will be required to rebuild Ukraine’s infrastructure. The Kyiv School of Economics places the cost of building materials alone at over $65bn (€60bn). There's no question that this sector offers attractive investment prospects, and international interest is welcome. Its clearly essential to maintain fair market conditions to keep reconstruction affordable. This is particularly pertinent to the EU, which has pledged to foot its share of the reconstruction costs. A political test for the EU Ukraine has committed to aligning its competition framework with EU law as part of its accession path. But the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU), the body responsible for safeguarding fair competition, has consistently failed to act or respond to warnings. For example, there is the saga of TEDIS Ukraine . This is where the AMCU first permitted a series of acquisitions of tobacco wholesale firms by TEDIS, which, with market exits by smaller operators, led to a situation by which it obtained a virtual monopoly. Between 2013-2015 it obtained a market share of around 99 percent, of cigarette distribution nationally. Only at that point did the AMCU open an investigation, which ultimately failed following a withering judgment in the Supreme Court in 2021. In the pharmaceutical sector, BaDM and Optima form a duopoly controlling over 85 percent of wholesale distribution. This anti-competitive market structure has been linked to medicine shortages and inflated prices. Despite over a decade of public frustration, the AMCU finally only opened a formal investigation this year. There are growing concerns in Ukraine about the competence and integrity of the organisation. Pavlo Kyrylenko, AMCU’s chairman, is now personally under investigation for illicit enrichment totalling nearly 73 million hryvnia (€1.5m) but remains in office. For Brussels, all of this should ring alarm bells. A weak, compromised competition authority will be unable to uphold the legal and economic standards expected of EU candidate countries. The EU must work with Kyiv to support the AMCU in cleaning up its act. It is a simple economic truth that excessive market concentration raises prices. Infrastructure projects will cost more. Small and mid-sized firms will be squeezed out or blocked from entry. Delays and inefficiencies will strain local budgets. International partnerships will be harder to secure. In the end, EU taxpayers will foot the bill as inflated margins and profiteering absorb the EU’s investment. This is not just about cement. It’s about whether Ukraine's reconstruction will be an example of open, competitive, democratic recovery, or a missed opportunity corrupted by corporate power and weak institutions. The EU has leverage. It must use it to demand reforms, strengthen institutions like the AMCU, and condition future funding on transparency and enforcement. Rebuilding Ukraine is about more than bricks and mortar; it is about fortifying the foundations of a reformed economy. The integrity of Ukraine’s recovery and the credibility of the EU’s vision will be judged. A fair market landscape must come first because victory and an economically strong democratic Ukraine will not be possible without it. Alan Riley is a visiting professor at the College of Europe at the Natolin campus in Warsaw . A member of the advisory committee of the Energy Community, Vienna, and a senior fellow of the Atlantic Council, Washington DC. He specialises in antitrust, trade and energy law, and EU policy issues. Alan Riley is a visiting professor at the
|
College of Europe at the Natolin campus in Warsaw
|
In Ukraine's strategic sectors like cement, monopolisation is quietly driving up prices, choking competition, and undermining the principles the EU claims to support.
|
[
"Rule of Law",
"Ukraine",
"Opinion"
] |
rule-of-law
|
2025-07-10T10:51:16.167Z
|
https://euobserver.com/rule-of-law/ar07cc9407
|
EU antisemitism tsar lobbied against Israel sanctions
|
A senior EU official has been lobbying against Israel sanctions using bogus claims of antisemitism, according to a leaked diplomatic cable. Katharina von Schnurbein, the EU Commission's "coordinator on combating antisemitism", made the claims in a meeting with EU ambassadors in Tel Aviv on 29 May — in the middle of EU talks on possible trade sanctions against Israel. She "warned against the risk that review of the [EU-Israel] association agreement is based on 'rumours about Jews', as opposed to facts", in one comment. "News on IL [Israel] providing food in Gaza are ignored by the UN and media," she also said, in a second example. And she "warned against new forms of antisemitism, which she described as 'ambient antisemitism', i.e. creating an atmosphere in which Jews feel uncomfortable, even in European institutions, noting, for instance, the 'bake sales for Gaza'." The quotes come from a three-page readout of the meeting, sent by the EU embassy in Israel to its HQ in Brussels (the EU foreign service), dated 6 June, marked "sensitive", and published in full below. Von Schnurbein is identified in the text by her initials "KVS". EUobserver redacted the identities of individual EU states' ambassadors, who also spoke at the meeting, to protect their diplomatic work. The 25-year-old EU-Israel association agreement grants free-trade perks for Israeli arms, tech, wine, and cosmetics firms, worth at least €1bn a year. It was put under "review" on 20 May due to Israel's human rights violations in Gaza, where it has killed over 57,000 people — in a process that could see the first-ever EU trade sanctions against Israel agreed on 15 July, when EU foreign ministers meet in Brussels. Von Schnurbein's remarks that starvation in Gaza and other war crimes were mere "rumours" denigrated the factuality of reports by the EU Commission's own foreign service , by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and the findings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) — effectively trashing the whole UN system. Her phrase "about Jews", to describe allegations about Israeli state actions, framed those allegations as being ethnically motivated. And her nebulous claim that EU sanctions, as well as EU officials who baked cupcakes to raise funds for the Red Cross, a charity, could stoke "ambient antisemitism" even framed humanitarian gestures as a form of Jew-hatred. Von Schnurbein and the EU foreign service declined to comment when contacted by EUobserver. But, in any case, she misread the room back in Tel Aviv. Her "bake sale" briefing astonished some of the EU ambassadors around the table, EUobserver's source said. They had also held "internal part" talks prior their "exchange of views" with her, the readout noted, in which five of them had specifically warned "against the temptation of labelling criticism toward IL [Israeli] government as 'antisemitism'." There was "growing IL messaging in this respect," they'd said, including at a conference with Israeli foreign minister Gideon Sa'ar in Jerusalem on 27 May (which von Schnurbein had freshly attended). And one EU ambassador later told her face-to-face: "The IL side dismisses every accusation on attacks on hospitals as 'blood libels' ... [but] these are facts and to bring them up is not antisemitic". "The position of ... [several EU] governments (who could not be accused of having an anti-IL bias) towards the Israeli government was hardening, also due to the growing pressure by public opinion in their countries", said the EU diplomat who drafted the leaked cable. Von Schnurbein's Tel Aviv remarks contained other pro-Israeli disinformation. She cited conspiracy theories that "[Palestinian militant group] Hamas or other extremist groups were behind" pro-Palestinian protests in Europe and claimed Hamas had the power to "skilfully ... shift [global] media attention". There was a "need to build a 'trust based' dialogue with Israel … losing IL would be a loss for Europe", she also said. EU disinformation But for Eve Geddie, the head of Amnesty International's office in Brussels, von Schnurbein's portrayal of the Gaza situation was "not factual ... inaccurate, untruthful". Von Schnurbein, who was a 52-year-old German baroness and a career EU official, had "no qualifications to judge Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law and no mandate on EU foreign policy, yet she challenged the findings of the world's top authorities in the field", Geddie said, referring to the OHCHR and ICJ. Geddie described von Schnurbein's Tel Aviv language as having relied on a "worrying conflation of Jewish people in Europe with the state of Israel". And even though some ambassadors at the event had pushed back on "blood libel" slurs, given her senior title, von Schnurbein's lobbying was still "very damaging ... not entirely easy to dismiss", Geddie said. Amos Goldberg, a history professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, also said von Schnurbein had told half-truths. Part of the EU tsar's line was that pro-Palestine protests had begun immediately after Hamas' notorious attack against Israeli civilians on 7 October, for instance, which implied the protests were pre-planned and unlinked to Israel's subsequent conduct. But "she deliberately ignores the fact that Israel's air campaign and its leaders' genocidal and dehumanising discourse [against Palestinians] started on 7 October. The first month of this [Israeli] air campaign was the most lethal for children in the 21st century," Goldberg said. Von Schnurbein was "clearly indifferent to the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza ... she doesn't even mention it [in her Tel Aviv briefing]," he said. "She's hostile to any sign of solidarity with the Palestinians, calling it 'ambient antisemitism' - a clearly totalitarian term ," Goldberg said.
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
The high-level EU official was lobbying against Israel sanctions using bogus claims on antisemitism, according to a "sensitive" cable from Tel Aviv leaked to EUobserver.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-10T05:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar349d1cbc
|
Behind the scenes: Khalifa Haftar's son scuppered EU visit to eastern Libya
|
Fresh details are emerging into the deportation of EU home affairs commissioner Magnus Brunner and three European ministers on Tuesday (8 July) by authorities in eastern Libya. Pressed by reporters in Brussels, the European Commission on Wednesday (9 July) said the delegation had planned to meet the Libyan Arab Armed Forces, also known as the Libyan National Army (LNA). The commission refused to provide details, citing protocol issues as the reason why the delegation, composed of Brunner plus the interior ministers of Greece, Italy, and Malta were declared "persona non grata" by the prime minister of the eastern part of Libya, Osama Hammad. The delegation were slated to meet with Kremlin-backed Khalifa Haftar, the commander of the Tobruk-based LNA. But a Libyan source, who asked for anonymity due to security risks, says Haftar's son Khalid had lobbied on the behalf of Hammad to expand the meeting with their own ministers of interior and foreign affairs. "Due to the close relationship between the prime minister of eastern Libya, Osama Hammad, and Haftar’s son, Khalid, who is responsible for his father’s security, Hammad intervened and requested that the government be present at the meeting," said the source. The request was made after the European delegation, which describes itself as Team Europe, had met with prime minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah. Dbeibah heads the internationally-recognised government in the capital Tripoli. The source said the intention behind Hammad's request was to emphasise that any deal made with the Dbeibah government would be ineffective, as the general command is the actual authority controlling Libya’s main migration routes. "Hammad’s insistence on including government representatives in the meeting was an attempt to extract some form of recognition, albeit unofficial, from the European side for his government. It seems Khalid Haftar succeeded in convincing his father of this approach," said the source. The timing of Hammad's Tuesday directive declaring the delegation as persona non grata came shortly after Greece's foreign minister George Gerapetritis met with Khalifa Haftar at his headquarters in Benghazi. Brunner and the three interior ministers were then later deported from Benina International Airport. Another 141 people from Bangladesh were also deported, seperately. The diplomatic blow-up also comes at a time when more and more people are departing from Tobruk in east Libya in a desperate attempt to cross the Mediterranean by boats in order to reach Greece. Athens says around 8,000 migrants have reached the island of Crete since the start of 2025, sparking alarm among Greek authorities. Khalifa Haftar’s other son, Saddam Haftar, leads the Tariq Bin Ziyad Brigade and is chief of staff of the ground forces. A so-called "20/20 Unit", which is affiliated with the brigade, is reportedly responsible for smuggling migrants through the Tobruk naval base in northeastern Libya, near the Egyptian border. Many of those smuggled are said to come from Sudan, which is embroiled in a bloody civil war.
|
Nikolaj joined EUobserver in 2012 and covers home affairs. He is originally from Denmark, but spent much of his life in France and in Belgium. He was awarded the King Baudouin Foundation grant for investigative journalism in 2010.
|
Fresh details are emerging into the deportation of EU home affairs commissioner Magnus Brunner and three European ministers earlier this week by authorities in eastern Libya.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Migration",
"Africa"
] |
*
|
2025-07-09T14:31:32.436Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/ar4c3deea5
|
The 'Gaza Humanitarian Foundation' raises urgent legal questions
|
It says something troubling about our times that ballistic missiles receive more airtime than the slow deaths of children from hunger. In doing so, a paradox unfolds: while headlines obsessively chronicle military manoeuvres and political brinkmanship, an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe plays out largely unnoticed, echoing Hannah Arendt's concept of the banality of evil, as indifference quietly exacerbates global suffering. In Gaza, as highlighted by the International Crisis Group and others, a humanitarian tragedy is unfolding — complex, deeply politicised and entangled in political dynamics. Since October 2023, humanitarian access has been severely restricted. The newly-established Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) , created to distribute aid following the dismantling of the UN-led deconfliction mechanism, has become a symbol of the crisis: fortified hubs with biometric checkpoints, positioned across active conflict zones, offering insufficient calorie rations to people already debilitated by months of siege. The optics suggest aid, the outcomes suggest control. According to assessments by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) , nearly a quarter of Gaza’s population is living in Phase 5 conditions — that is catastrophic hunger. International law prohibits the use of starvation as a method of warfare. Yet the strategic calibration of aid flows — tightening during periods of low visibility and easing slightly when famine alerts spike — raises urgent legal questions. The GHF’s structure further entrenches this logic: Palestinians must navigate battlefields to reach controlled sites, with no access to basic services beyond dry food parcels. Aid has become not only conditional but coercive, its denial or distribution shaped less by need than by geopolitical choreography. This is not humanitarianism. It is managed deprivation, bordering on the instrumentalisation of human suffering for territorial and psychological ends. The result is what might be called a doctrine of humanitarian coercion, that is subjugation not only by force but by hunger. Beyond Gaza Beyond Gaza, the world bears witness to multiple silent crises. A closer look at Africa, for instance, reveals the magnitude of need, vividly documented by organisations active in international cooperation. In Angola, Mozambique and Niger, over 34 million people endure the daily reality of displacement, drought and violence . The lack of coverage is not an accident; it is systemic. Philosopher Judith Butler describes this in her concept of the "frames of war": the mechanisms by which some lives are rendered visible, grievable and worthy of intervention, while others are made invisible. These crises do not receive less attention because they are less severe. They are neglected because they are politically inconvenient. The calculus of global attention is brutally clear: airstrikes and fighter jets are simply more 'engaging' than drought-resistant crops or failing field clinics. The aesthetics of power attract coverage. The architecture of vulnerability does not. Yet in the midst of this neglect, communities resist. Women in Mozambique replant drought-resistant crops. Local health workers in Niger improvise mobile clinics under tarpaulin roofs. What they lack is not resilience, it is backing. And that absence of political solidarity speaks volumes about the hierarchies of global attention. The Iranian-Israeli conflict further underscores the dangers of a world order unmoored from legal restraint. Following Israel’s offensive strikes against Iranian military targets, the US joined the fray with a series of high-impact bombings targeting Iranian nuclear facilities. The legal justifications have been vague, contested and will at best be retroactively constructed. International law, as codified in the UN Charter, allows for self-defence only in cases of an actual or imminent armed attack. Pre-emptive strikes based on projected threats certainly make a thorough discussion necessary. Both Israel and Iran have invoked Article 51 to justify their actions. Yet legal scholars remain divided, and the consequences are not just academic. Each new erosion of the law’s clarity weakens the normative foundation on which civilian protection rests. When International Humanitarian Law becomes a matter of interpretation rather than obligation, it ceases to function as a restraint mechanism. The precedent risk is real. Others may observe what is tolerated here and replicate it elsewhere. We are not drifting into disorder. We are driving into it, eyes wide open. But this is not merely a descent. It is a reconfiguration. The dismantling of norms and the erosion of institutions do not represent chaos in the classical sense; they represent a new architecture of power, one where legal ambiguity becomes a tool of strategy. This is not the collapse of the international system but the emergence of a post-legal geopolitics, where perception trumps principle and might reshapes what is deemed right Global military spending Meanwhile, global military spending continues its upward spiral — $2.7 trillion [€2.31 trillion] in 2024—a 9.4 percent increase from the previous year , marking the steepest rise since the Cold War, while humanitarian appeals go underfunded, with organisations forced to ration life-saving interventions. According to the Global Humanitarian Overview 2025 — now followed by a 'hyper-prioritised' emergency appeal launched mid-June by OCHA — over 180 million people are targeted for assistance, while less than 13 percent of the required funding has been received halfway through the year. And yet, the institutions designed to help them are overburdened, obstructed and under attack. This moment demands more than moral outrage. It requires strategic reorientation. We must pivot from the illusion of security through militarisation to the reality of security through human resilience. That means investing in health systems, local agriculture, education and conflict prevention, not because it is altruistic but because it is rational. Because a world where millions are pushed into hunger and displacement is not sustainable, not governable and ultimately, not secure. Humanitarian aid and development cooperation must no longer be seen as discretionary. They are critical infrastructures of global stability. And they must be defended, not only in budgets and policies but in the narrative frameworks through which we understand power and responsibility. Yes, the warnings must stand. If we do not act now, we risk entrenching a world defined by perpetual crisis and institutional decay. We will look back and realise that the great undoing did not come through one single war or disaster but through accumulated silences, overlooked deaths, and missed opportunities. But there is also another path. Around the world, people — often with limited means — are building peace, resisting despair and stitching fragile hope into the fabric of their communities. They do not lack courage. They lack backup. The alternative to escalation is not naïve pacifism; it is strategic humanism. It is the recognition that human dignity is not a soft value but a hard requirement for any enduring order. And it is the commitment, from each of us, to stop looking away. Because the world will not change through spectacle. It changes when we stop looking away. Lukas Wank is the director of global responsibility at Austria’s platform of 38 NGOs working in international development and humanitarian aid.
|
Lukas Wank
|
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, created to distribute aid following the dismantling of the UN-led deconfliction mechanism, has become a symbol of the crisis: fortified hubs with biometric checkpoints, positioned across active conflict zones, offering insufficient calorie rations to people already debilitated by months of siege.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Africa",
"Opinion"
] |
*
|
2025-07-09T11:26:45.332Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/arcaac86e4
|
Trump slams Putin’s bullsh*t and promises Patriot missiles to Ukraine
|
Donald Trump’s patience with Putin is starting to wear thin. Five months ago, the US president insisted he trusted Vladimir Putin, who’s been leading the brutal invasion of Ukraine. He told reporters back then that Putin “wants peace” And that he trusted him on that. Today it seems that things have changed, but what has led to this shift? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here: Donald Trump’s patience with Vladimir Putin appears to be wearing thin. Just five months ago, the US president insisted he trusted the Russian leader, despite Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine. Back then, Trump told reporters that Putin “wants peace” , and that he believed him. Today, it seems something has changed. But what exactly prompted this shift? Welcome to Long Story Short, Europod’s daily podcast that unpacks what matters most, in just five minutes. I’m Evi Kiorri, here to make Europe’s latest, long story short. After what seems to have been a rather frustrating phone call with Putin, Trump now describes him as “very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.” And since yesterday, we’ve seen Trump reverse a brief pause on US weapons deliveries to Ukraine. He’s now pledged to send 10 Patriot missiles, far fewer than previously promised, but still a move Kyiv welcomed. For once, Trump also praised the bravery of Ukrainian fighters, a notable shift from his usual both-sides rhetoric, where Ukraine was often lumped in with Russia as prolonging the war. Still, this doesn’t mark a full U-turn. Trump has yet to back new sanctions on Russia, despite bipartisan support in Congress. And he continues to operate with his trademark unpredictability, swinging between praise and threats. Meanwhile, Russia presses on with its offensive. Just last week, Moscow launched its largest-ever drone attack on Kyiv, over 550 drones and missiles fired overnight. Ukraine is running low on air defence systems, and the 10 Patriots promised by the US might only cover one intense night of strikes. Trump’s shift isn’t just rhetorical – it has real geopolitical and financial consequences. US military aid to Ukraine remains divisive. Last week’s pause in deliveries, officially blamed on low Pentagon stockpiles, caught Kyiv off guard and frustrated European allies. Russia seized the moment to escalate. Critics argue Trump’s unpredictability, which raises concerns in both Kyiv and Brussels, ultimately benefits Moscow. Even his pledges of support come with mixed signals: reduced quantities, unclear timelines, and renewed calls for Ukraine to make concessions in a ceasefire. For Europe, the stakes are high. The outcome of this war shapes regional security, energy markets, and defence planning. Germany, for example, is debating whether to send its own Patriot systems to Ukraine or buy replacements from the US. So, what now? Trump’s frustration with Putin could signal a genuine shift, or just more strategic messaging. In Europe, leaders are preparing for continued uncertainty. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is expected at an aid summit in Rome this week, aimed at securing long-term reconstruction funds. On the battlefield, Ukraine’s call for reliable air defences is more urgent than ever. The 10 Patriot missiles are a symbolic gesture, not a solution. And the war shows no sign of stopping. Whether Trump’s comments mark a turning point, or just another tactical move, remains to be seen. That’s all for today on Long Story Short, a podcast by Europod in partnership with the Sphera Network. You can also find us on the EUobserver website, go have a look! Thanks for tuning in. I’m Evi Kiorri, and I’ll be back tomorrow at 12:30 with more insights in just five minutes. See you then! Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs
|
Evi Kiorri
|
In this episode, Evi Kiorri unpacks what may have led Trump to lose patience with the Russian leader — and what it means for the ongoing war in Ukraine.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-09T11:20:46.105Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar3b0d9eaa
|
Trump is working on regime change in Europe — fact, not conspiracy theory
|
On 27 May, an official document calling for regime change in European countries was published in Washington DC. Politicians all over Europe would do well to read this document carefully before they and their spin doctors start concocting strategies for their upcoming election campaigns. This time, what is at stake is not simply who will govern European countries. It goes much further: this American administration increasingly sees Europe as a political battleground. It considers elections in Europe — recently in Romania and Poland, and soon in the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and, as some speculate, France too — as an opportunity to get European countries governed by far-right leaders with Trumpian agendas. With those leaders, it wants to forge a ‘civilizational alliance’, one “forged in common culture, faith, family ties, mutual assistance in times of strife, and above all, a shared Western civilizational heritage”. Other European political parties should be opposed, as those are waging “an aggressive campaign against Western civilization itself”, which - yes – “increasingly affects American security’. The document, , was written by Samuel Samson, senior adviser for the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor in the US State Department. It builds on vice-president JD Vance's speech at the Munich Security Conference last February. Vance then professed that Europe’s “retreat from some of its most fundamental values” forms the biggest threat to Western values and democracy. 'Christian nations like Hungary' The State Department document, however, goes a step further. It states that “Europe’s democratic backsliding” harms American security, economic interests and freedom of speech. Because of this, it implies it is time for the US to act: far-right forces in Europe must transform their political systems so that Washington can form an alliance of civilization with “Christian nations like Hungary”. According to Samson, it is not America that undermines democracy by ignoring court rulings; demolishing public institutions; blocking visas of people who criticise president Trump; or picking migrants off the streets and dumping them in El Salvador or Libya. No, the paper states that it is Europe that is anti-democratic: Europe is “a hotbed of digital censorship, mass migration, restrictions on religious freedom, and numerous other assaults on democratic self-governance”. Today, Europe is largely governed by conservative parties that are decidedly more rightwing than 10 years ago, with some even governing with far right parties. Nevertheless, the State Department document describes Europe as a hotbed of ultra-leftwing zealots, a Europe “that replaces its spiritual and cultural roots, that treats traditional values as dangerous relics, and that centralises power in unaccountable institutions”. The text refers to Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, medieval Christianity and British common law, but makes no mention of the Enlightenment — the foundation of both European and US constitutional systems with its separation of church and state, individual liberty, representative government, the rule of law and a strong emphasis on rationalism and science. This document is in line with president Trump’s views on Europe. In a clear break with Washington’s Europe policy during the past 80 years, Trump does not see Europe as the centrepiece of US foreign policy anymore. What keeps him awake at night, is the rise of China, America’s main rival. Keen on avoiding a military clash with China, he intends to build a strong bloc against it instead. US vassals For this, he wants to line up all America’s allies — on American terms, meaning he plans to turn Europe and allies like Canada and Mexico into US vassals. Since they are resisting, they get far harsher American treatment than autocracies like Russia, Turkey or even China itself. By being ‘nice’ and accommodative with India or Russia, he tries to lure them into his camp and prevent them from allying themselves with China. Trump’s Western bloc is not centered around values or democracy. The focus is entirely different: to prevent China from growing too powerful. This is why Washington is forcing its allies, especially in Europe, into submission. Those who resist are punished. Trump's tariff wars, his attempts to torpedo the EU’s digital rulebook and his demand that Europe shoulders the financial and operational burden of Nato are just the beginning. Trump conquered America by starting an extreme culture war. Now he is exporting this war to Europe in order to flip governments. In every European election, he aggressively supports far-right candidates – PiS presidential candidate Karol Nawrocki in Poland, AfD leader Alice Weidel in Germany , far-right activist George Simion in Romania. Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders , who portrays migrants as criminals and calls Trump a “brother in arms”, also enjoys full White House backing. To Trump’s delight, Wilders supports Israel’s attacks on Gaza, Lebanon and Iran, and likes the controversial Gaza ‘Riviera plan’ which involves mass deportation of the Palestinian population. With elections scheduled in October, Wilders is aggressively pulling a Trump. Recent polls suggest most Europeans (especially in the west and south) are falling out of love with Trump’s America. They have understood that the transatlantic alliance, which underpinned eight decades of peace and prosperity in Europe, is no more. Now, they need to realize that America is not withdrawing from Europe, but is actually trying to subjugate it. Europeans need to take Trump’s interference in Europe’s democracies much more seriously, and fight back. Europe’s real threat is not wokeism (whatever that means anyway), but America trying to walk all over them. Fighting back, however, is only possible if political leaders see the broader, global picture and understand what is at stake. This broader picture should guide election campaigns, since this is what the ‘Trumpites’ are also doing. Instead of letting their agendas be determined by polarising, artificial identity debates imported from America, cheaply pitting citizens against one another, politicians should show responsibility and calmly show their electorates how to prevent Europe from turning into a copy or a colony of the United States. Caroline de Gruyter is a Europe correspondent for the Dutch newspaper NRC. She is also a columnist for Foreign Policy and De Standaard. This piece was adapted from a recent column for NRC. Caroline de Gruyter
|
is a Europe correspondent for the Dutch newspaper NRC. She is also a columnist for Foreign Policy and De Standaard. This piece was
|
On 27 May, an official document, The Need for Civilizational Allies in Europe, calling for regime change in European countries was published, written by a senior adviser for the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor in the US State Department, writes Caroline de Gruyter.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-08T10:07:42.693Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar0ec480cc
|
The EU's fence-sitting as Serbia's Vučić steps up violent state repression
|
Throughout months of popular protests against the Serbian regime, the European Union has stubbornly backed president Aleksandar Vučić. But now, Vučić’s increasingly brutal repression of peaceful protests has put the EU’s policy at an inflection point: continue its transactional indulgence of Vučić, or embrace uncertainty — but with it, potential real progress. Judging by the lack of response from Paris, Berlin, and the European Commission, the EU will try to sit on the fence for as long as it can. But accelerating events on the ground might soon force the EU into taking a position. At the close of a large protest in Belgrade on 28 June which drew over 100,000 people, speakers announced that the student movement was now a broader and called for civil disobedience. The protest gathering was followed by scuffles and violent police repression in Belgrade — and soon after, by traffic blockades throughout Serbia. In the week since, police and apparent auxiliaries in police uniforms and masks (including, according to eyewitnesses, personnel from the Republika Srpska in neighbouring Bosnia and Herzegovina) engaged in brutal beatings and sweeps of protesters, triggering popular outrage at the violence, amplified by the fact that Vučić proclaimed himself “satisfied” with the police. Despite state violence, the blockades and protests show no sign of easing. What began as a student protest against a corrupt system, sparked by the collapse of a railway station canopy in Novi Sad that killed 16, has now evolved into a widespread grassroots movement. Student delegations rode on bicycles to Strasbourg and ran in an ultramarathon to Brussels, in April and May, to press the EU to recalibrate its policy toward Serbia. EU officials avoided the cyclists, while the commissioners for enlargement, Marta Kos, and youth and culture, Glen Micallef, met the runners in May. A rhetorical shift only Kos has made a rhetorical shift, recognizing the aims and values of the student-led movement for change in Serbia as being fully consonant with the EU’s own proclaimed values and the acquis’ requirements. But this came off as weak to most Serbians and observers. The commissioners committed nothing — and EU policy remains unreconstructed. Vučić defied public admonitions from senior EU officials not to attend Putin’s 9 May Victory Day parade in Moscow. His defiance was rewarded a few days later by a visit to Belgrade by European Council president Antonio Costa, soon followed by EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas. Kallas, who called on Serbia to make a “strategic choice” on its geopolitical orientation, made her displeasure evident — but the two visits alone projected a power dynamic in which Brussels is the supplicant. There have been, as of yet, no policy consequences for Vučić’s geopolitical arbitrage, and there is no evidence that the Commission is rethinking its policy towards Serbia, which is a conspicuous outlier among the Western Balkan EU aspirants with an alignment with the Common Foreign and Security Policy hovering around 50-60 percent. Coordination between Belgrade and Moscow? In late June, following sharp public criticism from Russia’s foreign intelligence service, the SVR, of Serbia’s “betrayal” for arms sales via third countries to Ukraine, Vučić announced the suspension of foreign arms sales, including to Ukraine. Adding to the pressure on Ukraine’s defence, US shipments of vital Patriot missiles and vital 155mm artillery shells (also produced in Serbia) were halted at the beginning of July. It is worth considering the possibility that these moves were coordinated. While Vučić attended the Ukraine-Southeast Europe summit in Odesa on 11 June, he refused to sign on to the declaration which denounced Russian aggression, afterward making great pains to state that he did not “betray Russia.” Yet the commission still praised his attendance. Last week EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen spoke bilaterally with Vučić for a half hour —a rarity. The content of their meeting is unclear. But if it was meant to be a dressing down or admonition after the 28 June violence, it clearly made no impact. The longer the EU’s policy remains the same, the more Serbians will conclude that she effectively licensed Vučić’s crackdown. The commission (with the apparent backing of most member states) appears to believe that transactionalism, with financial inducements and the sidelining of difficult values issues, can secure EU interests in Serbia — and by implication, the Western Balkans as a whole. This inclination to consign its policy problem to a question of communications has become unsustainable and is accelerating the EU’s diminishing popularity among ordinary Serbians. This positions the Union as effectively working in concert with Vučić, who has aimed via media dominance to reduce the Union’s valence among Serbians (and increase Russia’s and China’s). Even more damaging is the fact that the EU’s timid messaging has in fact encouraged Vučić to step up his repression. He unleashed violent thugs on the protesters and launched a relentless media campaign denouncing the students as “terrorists” paid by Serbia’s enemies (e.g. Western governments) to topple the government — a “colour revolution” aiming at “regime change.” Vučić clearly reads EU indulgences as a license to maintain and even tighten his links to Moscow. Vučić’s increasingly brutal repression ought to finally prompt a rethink of the EU’s policy on the basis of values. But even confined to transactionalism, there is a powerful rationale for policy change. If a “geopolitical Union” has demonstrated a willingness to link Serbia’s enlargement path to the delivery of near-term strategic and security benefits, then it logically ought to follow that Vučić’s active efforts to damage those interests ought to bring a correspondingly withering policy response. Danish presidency? Given the protracted EU institutional inertia, member states are the more plausible agents of change. The Danish presidency should finally begin the long-overdue recalibration of the EU’s policy autopilot toward Serbia and the region to make it not only strategically sound but consonant with the Union’s democratic values. This is only feasible if it develops a coalition among other member states. This would begin with clarity on what Denmark and other likeminded members expect of candidate governments, including not only foreign-policy alignment, but genuine commitment to the full Copenhagen suite of obligations. It is critical to demonstrate support for those in Serbia taking risks on behalf of the EU’s foundational values. The risk for the EU — not just in Serbia, but in the entire Western Balkans — is serious. Instead of gaining Serbia, the Union’s policy of staying close to Vučić may well lose it for another generation, whether the protests ultimately succeed or fail. Let’s be clear: the EU’s choosing “stability” in the current moment means de facto endorsement of violent repression in Serbia. The policy therefore betrays both the EU’s foundational democratic values and its interests, near and long-term, at a time when those are being challenged from east, west, and within. To use a Trumpism, the EU has the cards. It needs to play some. Kurt Bassuener and Toby Vogel are co-founders and senior associates of Democratization Policy Council , a think-tank based in Berlin. Kurt Bassuener and Toby Vogel are co-founders and senior associates of
|
Democratization Policy Council
|
The EU choosing “stability” in the current moment means de facto endorsement of violent repression in Serbia. The EU’s timid messaging has in fact encouraged Serbian president Aleksandar Vučić to step up his repression. He unleashed violent thugs on the protesters and launched a relentless media campaign denouncing the students as “terrorists” paid by Serbia’s enemies.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-08T09:36:47.535Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar32857fdb
|
Von der Leyen snaps at far-right MEPs in EU debate about her unlikely ouster
|
Far-right MEPs heckled EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen while she called them names in Strasbourg on Monday (7 July), in a failed bid to oust her from her post. The level of shouting and jeering during von der Leyen's speech saw EU Parliament president Roberta Metsola intervene three times to call for quiet. The debate was a small moment of triumph for populist MEPs after a Romanian right-winger, Gheorghe Piperea, tabled a motion of censure against the commission on grounds of von der Leyen's allegedly improper SMS-es with US vaccine-maker Pfizer during Covid. The motion, to be voted Thursday, is doomed to fail after the main centre-right, centre-left, liberal, green, and left-wing groups all declared they would vote against it. The right-wing ECR group was split and its MEPs were left free to vote either way. But the stunt still gave far-right MEPs, such as Fabrice Leggeri and René Aust from the Patriots for Europe (PfE) and Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN) groups, an opportunity to demonise the EU's top official. Leggieri accused von der Leyen of "bureaucratic authoritarianism ... abuse of power ... strangulation [of farmers] ... [and] censorship of the people". Aust accused her of "consultancy corruption" in her time as German defence minister, of building specially adapted "tanks for pregnant women", and helping to flood the EU with "social migrants", as well as "Pfizergate". Meanwhile, von der Leyen fired back, calling her accusers "extremists ... iliberals ... conspiracy theorists ... anti-vaxxers ... [and] Putin apologists", referring to Russian president Vladimir Putin, whom the PfE and ESN groups leant towards . The motion of censure was a "crude attempt" to sow division in Brussels, she said. "Listen ... just listen ...", she disciplined her hecklers on a few occasions. She brought her 26 commissioners to the Strasbourg debate in a show of political strength and she left without making any closing remarks, in a snub to Piperea. But the show of solidarity from the centrist and progressive groups in the EP on Monday still saw political point scoring. Valérie Hayer, the head of the liberal Renew group, said von der Leyen had made a "big mistake" by breaking the rules in the SMS affair and blocking ethics reforms in the EU institutions. "Don't take anything [liberal support] for granted. Get your political house in order," Hayer said. The leader of the centre-right European People's Party (EPP) group, Manfred Weber, mocked the ECR's Polish delegation, the Law and Justice (PiS) party, for siding with "puppets of Putin", because PiS had backed the Piperea motion. "What is PiS now doing in this alliance?", Weber said. But the head of the centre-left Socialists & Democrats group, Iratxe García, and a co-leader of the Greens, Bas Eickhout, attacked the EPP for doing hypocritical side deals with the far-right on anti-immigration laws. "Who do you want to govern with?," García asked Weber. Eickhout said: "You [the EPP] are feeding the beast [far-right], but at a certain moment the beast will eat you". Like von der Leyen, García and Eickhout also belittled the PfE and ESN, calling them corrupt, anti-science, climate-change deniers, and misogynists, in a highly-attended meeting in the plenary chamber.
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
Far-right MEPs heckled EU Commission president while she called them names, in a failed bid to oust her from her post.
|
[
"Rule of Law"
] |
rule-of-law
|
2025-07-07T18:28:30.060Z
|
https://euobserver.com/rule-of-law/arb4f3db50
|
EU nearing 500 'temporary' border closures, as Poland imposes new controls
|
The latest introduction by Poland on Monday (7 July) of border checks with neighbouring Germany and Lithuania adds to the long list of similar Schengen closures over the years, totalling 472 notifications since 2006. Up until 2015, member states had only issued 35 such notifications to the European Commission, now posing questions on the survival of a border-free zone that spans 29 countries and some 400 million people. From late 2015 onwards, the primary reason for such closures were linked to irregular migration, followed by covid lockdowns during the pandemic, and Russia security threats . But the decision by Poland's prime minister Donald Tusk to impose border checks on Monday (7 July) also risks kicking off a possible tit-for-tat amid reports Germany is sending irregular migrants back into Poland. Germany has denied turning back asylum seekers to Poland along their shared 467km border. But Poland appears unconvinced. "The border guard, with the support of the police and the army, is fully prepared to undertake controls on the Polish-German and Polish-Lithuanian borders," Tomasz Siemoniak, Poland's interior minister was reported as saying in Polish media. Poland's latest 30-day notification, sent last Friday, covers 65 control points: 52 at the Polish-German border and 13 at the Polish-Lithuanian border. Far-right 'citizen patrols' And Polish far-right groups have since formed so-called 'citizen patrols' on the country's western border, reporters Reuters news agency. As migration continues to dominate the public and political discourse, often ahead of elections, the issue of free movement under Schengen remains strained. But Poland's neighbour Germany has been celebrating a dramatic decline in the number of asylum seekers, dropping by around 50 percent compared to last year. In June 2025, fewer than 7,000 new asylum applications were submitted, a 59-percent decrease compared to June 2024 — and the lowest level in over a decade. The drop comes on the back of political promises by Germany's chancellor Friedrich Merz to roll back migrant arrivals. "We have initiated the migration turnaround: with more restrictions, more rejections, more control, more returns — in line with European law," said Merz on X on Sunday. Germany also late last year imposed border control checks with Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland and Switzerland. Those checks will remain in place until at least September, after being extended earlier this year over migration fears. For its part, the commission has only ever once issued an opinion on such temporary closures, which aims to gauge whether they are both proportionate and necessary. "Reintroducing temporary internal border controls is possible subject to certain conditions, as set out in EU legislation, and in particular in the Schengen borders code," said a spokesperson for the commission.
|
Nikolaj joined EUobserver in 2012 and covers home affairs. He is originally from Denmark, but spent much of his life in France and in Belgium. He was awarded the King Baudouin Foundation grant for investigative journalism in 2010.
|
Monday's introduction by Poland of border checks with neighbouring Germany and Lithuania adds to the long list of similar Schengen closures over the years — totalling 472 notifications since 2006.
|
[
"Migration"
] |
migration
|
2025-07-07T13:41:24.975Z
|
https://euobserver.com/migration/are321c8cc
|
Chinese Movie Week in Brussels builds bridges between nations through storytelling
|
On 28 June 2025, Chinese Film Week commenced at the China Cultural Centre in Brussels, featuring a screening of the movie a powerful criminal drama exploring the dedication and sacrifices of Chinese police officers Hosted by the Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the European Union in collaboration with the China Film Administration, the week-long festival aims to promote Chinese cinema and strengthen cultural ties with the EU. The opening drew a diverse audience of EU diplomats, policymakers, Chinese expatriates, and film enthusiasts, fostering vibrant discussions in a lively atmosphere. Gu Yuwen, the event’s moderator, welcomed guests, noting that the event was more than a cinematic experience. It was in fact, a way to “take part in a broader cultural celebration that bridges nations through stories and hearts through films.” This underscores the festival’s role in advancing Chinese cinema’s global reach while showcasing its ability to resonate across different cultures. Marking the 50 anniversary of diplomatic relations between China and the EU, the Chinese Film Week in Brussels shines as a highlight of year-long cultural celebrations. The festival aims to foster deeper cultural connections through the universal language of film. At the opening, Gu Yuwen, moderator of the event, reminded the audience that “just like literature, films transcend languages, borders, and distance through images and storytelling.” Echoing this sentiment, Chinese ambassador Cai Run, in his welcoming speech, referenced Chinese president Xi Jinping’s meeting with the president of the European Council, Antonio Costa, emphasising that “both sides should celebrate this milestone with meaningful events and exchanges.” He described the anniversary as a “pivotal moment to build on the past and forge ahead into the future,” emphasizing film as a bridge for mutual learning and people-to-people connections. Ambassador Cai Run also expressed his eagerness to collaborate with “all friends across different sectors both in China and Europe” while emphasizing the importance of ongoing cultural exchange and learning. Ma Jia, editor-in-chief of China Movie Channel , highlighted the historical significance of 2025, which also marks the 130 anniversary of global films and the 120 anniversary of Chinese films. She expressed hope that the Chinese Film Week would “convey the warmth and strengths of Chinese films” to all viewers, adding that “at this moment, rich with opportunities for cultural inheritance and innovation, cinematic arts built a bridge for mutual learning among civilisations at a new historical juncture.” This reflects Chinese cinema’s growing influence on the global stage, as it shares authentic stories with international audiences. Endless Journey Directed by Mo Dai, Journey follows Cheng Bing (played by Yi Zhang), recipient of the Huabiao Award for Best Actor, a prestigious Chinese film award, who is wrongfully imprisoned and striving to bring a murderer to justice despite immense challenges. As Mo Dai emphasised, the movie has a universal appeal because it portrays worldwide values. “Justice is there. Maybe it comes later, but it comes at the end. It doesn’t matter which country you are in,” he said. The film not only portrays the reality of Chinese police but also captures the lives of ordinary people, with Mo Dai noting, “The ordinary people’s story can touch us more because we are ordinary people.” Zhang Yi, speaking on the delegation’s goals, said, “We aim to share our wonderful stories with European audiences, inviting them to know more about and visit China through films like .” He also expressed his gratitude for being there saying: “It’s our great honour to bring this beautiful story to Belgium.” Upon being asked what makes the movie special to a European audience, the actor responded that they “don’t think about which countries the audiences come from. We create movies for audiences without borders.” This approach exemplifies how Chinese cinema is crafted to appeal universally, transcending different divides. Quentin Hyde, a Dutch YouTube creator specializing in infotainment — a blend of information and entertainment — praised for its perspective. “A lot of Hollywood movies have a formula that’s pretty similar. This movie is created from a completely different point of reference, which frames the story differently,” Hyde explained. He highlighted the movie’s high production quality, comparable to Hollywood, noting, “It feels fresh because it’s from a different culture. It makes sense whether you’re Chinese or not, bridging that gap perfectly.” To pitch the film to his audience, Hyde described it simply as “the story of an old Chinese cold case that got reopened.” He added that he would also give a short movie review explaining the intriguing aspects of the movie that focus on cultural and historical nuances of Chinese storytelling. The Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the European Union .
|
The Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the European Union
|
Chinese Film Week launched on 28 June at the China Cultural Centre in Brussels. Marking 50 years of China-EU diplomatic relations, the festival aims to deepen cultural ties and globalise Chinese cinema.
|
[] |
stakeholders
|
2025-07-07T12:50:55.893Z
|
https://euobserver.com/stakeholders/ar447b56be
|
Last chance for a better EU anti-racism strategy on antisemitism
|
The European Commission’s public consultation on the EU anti-racism strategy 2026-2030 closes on Tuesday (8 July). Recognising that antisemitism is part of the wider landscape of racism in Europe will bring racialised communities together rather than against each other. On the other hand, addressing antisemitism in isolation from other forms of racism and creating unnecessary hierarchies between different groups has the adverse effect of isolating Jews within the broader antiracist movement and of pitting racialised communities against each other. In order to effectively combat antisemitism it should be incorporated into the larger fight against racism rather than singled out, exceptionalised or elevated above other forms of racism in Europe. The European Commission’s upcoming anti-racism strategy 2026-2030 is an opportunity to do exactly that - to address all forms of racism, including antisemitism. Antisemitism, or anti-Jewish hatred, is a form of racism. Obviously, it has its own particular history and expressions, like all other forms of racism. To fight against antisemitism in an effective way it is essential to address it alongside anti-Black racism, anti-Muslim racism, anti-Asian racism and anti-gypsyism. In fact, combating antisemitism without placing it within a broader anti-racist strategy is ineffective and even counterproductive. Antisemitism is often labeled as a unique phenomenon. This view can only be sustained by ignoring the devastating and enduring impact of racism against various racialized peoples at the hands of Europe’s powerful colonial empires. But singling out antisemitism is not only historically inaccurate. It also isolates the struggle against antisemitism from its natural allies and partners — other racialized groups who also suffer from racism and who are fighting for the same vision of racial justice and equality. In paticular, both Jewish and Muslim communities living in Europe are constantly stereotyped and pitted against each other, and even more so since 7 October 2023. 'The Jews' are often being cast as the helpless victims of a new pogrom or even a new Holocaust, while 'the Muslims' cast as the ultimate threat against Jews, the new antisemites, the new Nazis. Then, due to Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza, 'the Jews' became a target, collectively blamed for Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians, also becoming the new Nazis. All these stereotypes are racist and dehumanizing to both communities. Conflation of Jews and Israel This stereotyping against entire groups are related to other false ideas — that all Jewish people support Israel, that Israel’s interests are aligned with the interests of Jews, that defending Israel is somehow defending Jewish people wherever they are, and, lastly, that harsh criticism of Israel is, in fact, antisemitism. These are not only theoretical notions. There are concrete efforts across Europe to institutionalise this false framework around antisemitism into legislation and policy. To be clear, these notions that equate all Jewish people with the State of Israel are themselves antisemitic since they paint the diverse Jewish population as a monolith. These notions also deny an ever-growing segment of the Jewish population — Jews who stand in solidarity with Palestinians — of their agency and voice, if not of their sheer identity as Jews. The conflation between Jews and the State of Israel divides the Jews in Europe into those who are deemed legitimate, deserving of protection and support — Jews who support Israel — and those who are not — Jews who do not fully support Israel and even criticise it publicly. This actually creates an additional hierarchy among Jews, with Jews who criticise Israel being accused as being somehow ‘less’ Jews than others, as if unconditional support to Israel is the ultimate test of Jewish identity. This is deeply false. All Jewish people, regardless of their political position towards Israel, are worthy of the same rights and opportunities to participate in Jewish and public life in the countries where they live as well as at the European level of decision-making. Moreover, state policies which institutionalise this false equation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism are actively repressing freedom of expression and assembly in Europe under the guise of the fight against antisemitism. This is extremely dangerous since European governments justify their increases policing of pro-Palestinian activism by claiming that they do it in the name of Jewish safety, with the aim to protect the Jewish population. The consequenece is that all Jews then become associated with state violence and anti-Palestinian oppression. These dynamics actually increases resentment towards Jews and makes the Jewish communities becoming even more of a target for frustration and hate. The European Commission’s upcoming anti-racism strategy 2026-2030 is an opportunity to fix these false notions and dangerous conflations. By seizing this opportunity, we will be better equipped to face the challenge of combating antisemitism, addressing it for what it is — a form of racism. The new EU anti-racist strategy should tackle structural racism and discrimination against all racialised groups, including Jews. This opportunity to integrate the fight against antisemitism in a broad and comprehensive anti-racist approach will allow a much more effective policy of combating antisemitism. Finally, the new strategy should create incentives for various groups which are victims of racism and discrimination to come together as allies and partners. This will allow all of us to focus on the actual ideologies, institutions and policies which reproduce racism and discrimination against racialized persons — rather than dividing racialized groups from one another and putting them against each other. Dr Yoav Shemer-Kunz and Gabi Kaplan are coordinators of European Jews for Palestine (EJP), an EU umbrella organization consisting of 23 affiliated Jewish groups in 14 EU member states. Shemer-Kunz is a political scientist at Syracuse University. Kaplan is co-founder of Jews for Just Peace 5784 , Denmark. Dr Yoav Shemer-Kunz and Gabi Kaplan are coordinators of European Jews for Palestine (EJP), an EU umbrella organization consisting of 23 affiliated Jewish groups in 14 EU member states. Shemer-Kunz is a political scientist at Syracuse University. Kaplan is co-founder of
|
Jews for Just Peace 5784
|
The European Commission’s public consultation on the EU anti-racism strategy 2026-2030 closes on Tuesday (8 July). Here's why it's an opportunity to better fight against antisemitism, as a form of racism among others, instead of both Jewish and Muslim communities in Europe being constantly stereotyped and pitted against each other, write European Jews for Palestine.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-07T09:15:38.623Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar81df23a6
|
Europe’s Pride month: victory vs Orban, but 'pinkwashing' and uneven protections remain
|
A month full of colour draws to a close. It wasn’t so much the sunshine as the celebration of LGBT+ Pride that made it so vibrant. The annual parades brings a multicoloured crowd to the streets of Europe, committed to fighting for the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities, as well as other sexual and gender minorities. A non-conformist galaxy, parading its diversity, and often reveling in excess, expressed through colour: queer performers in rainbow-themed sequins and feathers, muscular thirty-somethings in black leather and steel-studded bracelets, elderly bankers who have dyed their hair green and pink for the occasion. The Pride attendance numbers continue to impress. The largest turnouts have been recorded in New York with four million in 2019, São Paulo with four million in 2011 and Madrid with 3.5 million in 2017. It has been more than 50 years since the parades began rolling through the cities. It all began with the Stonewall Riots of 28 June 1969 in New York. Following a police raid on a gay bar, riots broke out that led the community to become aware of their rights and make their voices heard. From that point forward, things began to change, and several countries established ad hoc legislation to protect LGBT+ rights. But there is still a long way to go, and sometimes all it takes is crossing a border to find yourself in upside-down land. Different countries, different mentalities ILGA Europe has taken stock of the state of LGBT+ rights across Europe, not just the EU. For about 15 years now, the Brussels-based organisation has published a report analysing the situation in 49 European states. The 'best' in class is Malta, which scores 88 out of 100 points, and the worst is Russia, with two points. Belgium, Denmark and Iceland have done very well, while Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan have performed poorly. If we were to draw an imaginary line from the Russian-Finnish border to the Mediterranean via the historic Oder-Neisse line, we would see a continent split in half, with two exceptions: Italy on one side, and Greece on the other. In other words, legislation in the West is relatively respectful of those whose sexuality “does not conform to the norm”, and in the East, it is inadequate, if not non-existent. The legacy of the Iron Curtain still marks certain borders. In the words of ILGA Europe, “the Rainbow Map 2025 ... highlights the pressing need to defend and advance these rights in the context of acute democratic erosion”. Yes, a question of democracy. As Chaber, executive director of the Brussels-based organisation, puts it : “We are entering a new era where LGBTI people have become the testing ground for laws that erode democracy itself”. The division in Europe has also been felt during Pride month. Initially, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen reportedly urged her staff not to attend the banned Pride parade in Hungary. The week before, she had supported the one in Brussels. “Be proud,” she declared on X , with a video showing the rainbow flag flying alongside the EU flag outside the European Commission building in Brussels. “Proud of whom you love. Proud of who you are. Proud of who you are becoming. Because your journey is your power. Always remember: Europe is your ally. I am your ally. This week and every week. Be proud. Always”. These diametrically opposed approaches triggered accusations that von der Leyen was all too willing to set aside LGBT+ rights to avoid provoking Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán. In March, under the pretext of a 2021 law prohibiting the depiction or promotion of homosexuality to under-18s, the Orbán government effectively banned the 28 June Budapest Pride. According to Manon Aubry, co-chair of The Left group and vocal supporter of the petition to ban sexual conversion practices in the EU, the European Commission “is doing more pinkwashing than taking real action in support of LGBTI+ communities”. Despite the bans, tensions and political friction, the mayor of Budapest, Gergely Karacsony, assured everyone that Budapest Pride would go ahead. While doing so, he invoked the democratic tradition of his city. Several commissioners, MEPs, mayors and other high-ranking politicians attended the march. Brussels: genuine commitment or pinkwashing? But beyond Pride, what do the people think? How do they perceive the role of European institutions? Is enough being done to promote a culture of diversity? What forms of hostility do communities experience on a daily basis? And by what means should these adversities be overcome? In order to gain a better understanding, OBCT, with the help of the independent media network PULSE , interviewed activists and experts from five EU countries: Austria, Belgium, Greece, Poland, and Spain. The picture that emerges is ambiguous. In general, the institutions in Brussels are seen as allies, bodies that go out of their way to recognise the rights of the most vulnerable groups. Dig a little deeper, however, and more than a few doubts emerge. “The European Union’s policies,” says Óscar Rodríguez Fernández of Spain’s FELGTBI+ , have led to "significant progress in the recognition and protection of LGBTI+ people’s rights ... but their actual effectiveness varies greatly from country to country." He also said that the European Commission has the opportunity to sharpen LGBTIQ+ policies in the short term through a new strategy 2026-2030, expected by the end of the year. But hostilities remain, and the normalisation of hate speech, especially on social networks and in the media, is one of the main concerns for Rodríguez Fernández. From Greece, the organisation ORLANDO LGBT complains that “the privileges that the EU can offer are mainly the prerogative of white, heteronormative and cisgender individuals, belonging to the middle or upper-middle class". They argue that these privileges are not equally available to everyone in Europe, warning that ignoring this gap between the EU’s image and the actual experiences of many people creates conditions where authoritarianism, discrimination, and far-right political movements can grow stronger. Meanwhile, Fédération Prisme in Liège, Belgium, has some doubts about whether the EU institutions are actually listening to the community. “Sometimes we feel more ‘recognised’ than genuinely ‘listened to’," they said. "Although institutional recognition exists, it remains somewhat distant and impersonal, characterised by a lack of sustained and direct dialogue ... That being said, some institutions, such as the Court of Justice of the European Union, are vital allies in upholding fundamental rights through high-impact judgments”. Everyone agrees that to overcome hostility towards LGBT+ communities, the focus has to be on education, but visibility is also crucial, according to Gernot Wartner, general director of HOSI Linz Austria. “The media are called upon to ensure that their focus on us does not stop with Pride month,” Wartner said. Alberto Burba is a freelance journalist contributing to Osservatorio Balcani, Voxeurop, European Data Journalism, and Krisis.info.
|
Alberto Burba
|
A month full of colour draws to a close. It wasn’t so much the sunshine as the celebration of LGBT+ Pride that made it so vibrant. But despite progress, discrimination, political tensions and uneven protections persist across Europe.
|
[
"Rule of Law",
"Health & Society"
] |
rule-of-law
|
2025-07-03T15:34:21.877Z
|
https://euobserver.com/rule-of-law/ar80fb1c71
|
Court attacks and defunding NGOs: a growing pattern of silencing protest in Europe
|
Speaking up against the actions of the rich and powerful, or openly resisting them, has always come with dangers, as Greenpeace well knows. Forty years ago this July, the French secret service bombed Greenpeace’s ship ahead of a planned protest against nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific, killing photographer Fernando Pereira. In March of this year, a jury in North Dakota, USA, found Greenpeace International and Greenpeace in the USA liable for over $660m [€560m] million in damages to the pipeline company Energy Transfer related to the ongoing Indigenous-led Standing Rock resistance to the Dakota Access oil pipeline. This is an attempt to saddle the organisations with backbreaking legal expenses in order to silence them. This week, Greenpeace had its first hearing in a Dutch court to use the EU’s new protections against these types of spurious lawsuits to shut down free speech – the first time this EU law will be put into action. Not all attacks on the right to protest, attacks on people standing up for their rights or to protect nature, gain as much international attention, but they are as numerous as they are insidious. People defending nature, their rights or their homelands from exploitation are to this day victims of violence and even murder, particularly in Latin America . Some of these, like the murders of Dom Phillips and Bruno Pereira, make it to headlines around the world, but many more remain out of the spotlight. In Europe, those who profit from the destruction of nature, and their political allies happy to trample people’s civil rights, also use a diversity of tactics to silence critics. NGOs fighting to protect nature and for a safe climate have been targeted by centre-right and far-right politicians in the EU, with attempts to defund them, leaving the debate over EU environmental policy dominated by fossil-fuel destructive industries with armies of hired lobbyists. The European Commission is also pressuring civil society groups working on health and patients’ rights into silence with the threat of EU funds being withdrawn. The European Parliament has set up a working group in its budget committee to specifically target NGO funding, ignoring calls to look into the EU funding that businesses receive. With fewer voices speaking out for the protection of the environment and people’s rights, the companies who can buy the biggest megaphone would drown out dissent to their exploitative business models. Coverage of these attacks on NGO funding in the EU has gone worldwide, and risks emboldening governments elsewhere to crack down on civil society in their countries, and for unscrupulous industries to encourage it. We already see the salmon industry in Chile calling on the government there to take action against campaign groups who resist its expansion, saying that the EU is doing the same. Greenpeace organisations don’t receive funding from the EU, nor from governments or corporations, so companies driving the climate crisis and nature destruction find other avenues of attack when they can’t pressure these funders. Shell, TotalEnergies, Eni Shell sued Greenpeace International and Greenpeace UK, demanding millions of dollars in damages and seeking an injunction to prevent the organisations from approaching its extraction sites to peacefully protest, eventually settling . TotalEnergies sued Greenpeace France in an attempt to silence criticism of the oil and gas giant’s emission’s calculations, but the case was dismissed by the court . The Italian oil and gas company Eni is currently suing Greenpeace Netherlands, Greenpeace Italy and ReCommon for criticism of the fossil fuel company, in apparent retaliation for a lawsuit that Greenpeace Italy and Recommon brought against them. In Romania, the state gas company Romgaz has just tried to sue to dissolve the local Greenpeace organisation for opposing Europe’s largest gas project, Neptun Deep in the Black Sea — backing down at the last minute. Legal action aimed at intimidating journalists, activists and NGOs are becoming increasingly common in Europe. In a non-exhaustive list, the Coalition Against SLAPPs (strategic lawsuits against public participation) in Europe has identified 1,049 such cases filed between 2010 and 2023. But European governments are also stripping away people’s right to take to the streets in peaceful protest too, for the environment or for other causes. The Hungarian government recently banned all Pride events, leaving the LGBT+ community at risk of prosecution for demanding equal rights — though it thankfully backfired — and plans new laws to sanction NGOs and journalists. The Italian government used an emergency procedure to force through new laws that criminalise many forms of protest, targeting tactics commonly used by climate protesters, and giving the police sweeping powers. In Spain, successive governments have upheld a ‘gag law’ that penalises peaceful protest, also seemingly written with climate protest tactics as the template. In Germany, police have arrested protesters for speaking Irish during a peaceful Palestine solidarity protest outside the Irish embassy, and have attempted to deport four foreign protesters. In the UK, Amnesty is warning about repeated government attempts to restrict the right to protest, and this year police reportedly broke into a Quaker meeting house to arrest people planning a Gaza war demonstration and the government has banned a Palestine solidarity group as a terrorist organisation . In France, the government tried to ‘dissolve’ the environmental protest group Soulèvements de la Terre – a procedure designed in the 1930s to remove violent fascist groups that posed a threat to the state – before it was blocked by the Council of State . The UN expert on environmental defenders has called France the worst country in Europe for police repression of green activism. Taken together, the pattern is clear. Powerful interests resent the truth being spoken, and seek to silence their critics in any way they can. Every bomb, bullet, lawsuit or arrest is supposed to act as a warning to others: stay quiet, or you could be next. The world is burning around us. We have a duty to stand up for nature, people and the planet. But all around the world people are being dragged into court rooms for defending their communities and raising their voices against injustice. SLAPPs are meant to silence people, draining money, time and energy from those speaking truth to power. Threats to funding and turning up the pressure on peaceful protest does the same. We must protect the right to peaceful protest and criticism of the powerful, as if all of our other rights depended on it. Because they do. Mads Christensen is executive director of Greenpeace International . Mads Christensen is executive director of
|
Greenpeace International
|
This week, Greenpeace had its first hearing in a Dutch court to use the EU’s new protections against these types of spurious lawsuits to shut down free speech – the first time this EU law will be put into action.
|
[
"Rule of Law",
"EU Political",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
rule-of-law
|
2025-07-03T11:20:16.152Z
|
https://euobserver.com/rule-of-law/arefa5c374
|
Wealthy Russian tourists back in EU despite Ukraine war
|
Wealthy Russian tourists are flocking back to Italy, France, and Spain — despite the Ukraine war and EU allies' security fears. Italy issued 152,254 Schengen area visas at its two Russian consulates last year ( according to EU Commission figures ) - almost 19,000 more than in 2023. France issued 123,890 visas in 2024 (25,000 more) and Spain 111,537 (15,000 more). The Schengen travel zone covers 25 EU countries plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland. Russian trips to Europe nosedived after the EU froze a visa-free deal and imposed aviation sanctions in 2022 due to Russia's full invasion of Ukraine. But 2024 figures showed a clear rebound, with 552,630 new Schengen visas issued overall, some nine percent more than in 2023. Greece (59,703 visas last year) and Hungary (23,382) also welcomed Russians with open arms. It costs about €1,000 to fly return from Moscow to Paris or Rome, usually via Turkey or the UAE, on top of visa fees and hotel costs. This is more than most Russians' monthly salaries, making EU travel a luxury affair. Less well-off Russians went to Egypt and Turkey, or to (Russian-occupied) Crimea in Ukraine, Sochi on Russia's Black Sea coast, and Russia's Altai region instead. But what Russians called their 'golden youth' (fashion influencers, oligarchs' kids, and pop stars) routinely posted flashy selfies on Instagram from trips to Paris and Courchevel in France, Sardinia in Italy, or Ibiza in Spain, despite the Ukraine war and Russia's toxic anti-Western propaganda. The list included Ksenya Borodyna , Ida Galich , Dana Manasir , Nikita Mazepin , Olga Orlova , and Ksenya Sobchak , in a glimpse into the EU lifestyles of Russia's party crowd. Regular Russian travellers also posted EU holiday videos on YouTube as souvenirs and status symbols. And while the EU Commission figures covered work and study visas as well as tourism, the bulk of the mass-scale visits were pleasure trips. "Russian tourists [who make it to the EU] will, on average, be wealthier than European tourists," said Jamie Shea, a former senior Nato official. "European resorts like them [Russians] because they buy properties at exorbitant rates, stay in expensive hotels instead of Airbnbs, and spend money in boutique shops," he said. "Russians don't do picnics," Shea said. France said it's also good for Russia relations. " People-to-people relations and cultural ties can play a positive role in fostering mutual understanding and dialogue between populations," the French EU and foreign affairs ministry told EUobserver in an emailed statement. "We work hard at maintaining a differentiation between the [Russian] regime responsible for the [Ukraine] war and the population, its civil society, and the opposition," it said. "It is essential to maintain this window, to enable Russian society to get access to a plurality of reliable sources of information," it added. And Emily Ferris, from the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi), a defence think-tank in London, echoed the French view. "I've travelled widely in Russia and to tar an entire nation for the decisions of its leader is unfair," she said. "Russians aren't responsible for what their government does and they don't make foreign policy decisions," Ferris said. The Italian and Spanish foreign ministries didn't reply to EUobserver. EU visa split But the numbers showed that French, Italian, Spanish, Greek, and Hungarian visa policy was diametrically opposed to the approach of EU states which bordered Russia, or which had a record of recent Russian sabotage attacks. Russian tourism was "in no way justified in a situation where Russia continues the war in Ukraine and simultaneously intensifies hybrid activities against EU countries," the Estonian foreign ministry told this website, for one. Czech foreign minister Jan Lipavský also told EUobserver: "Russian intelligence services have a long history of exploiting uncontrolled travel flows, including tourism, as part of their tactics". For its part, Russia-bordering Finland issued just 3,211 Schengen visas in Russia last year (some 7,500 fewer than in 2023). The three Baltic states issued 3,882 in total and Poland merely 251. Bulgaria issued 11,815 visas in 2024, but this was the steepest individual fall (by over 36,000) of any EU country, while the Czech Republic granted just 148. The Baltic states, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Poland, Romania, and Sweden all saw Russia-linked sabotage incidents in the past three years. And even Germany, which was home to the EU's largest Russian diaspora, has pulled up the drawbridge. Germany issued 17,202 visas to Russians last year, which was also an increase, but still tiny compared to pre-Ukraine war and pre-Covid levels of almost 300,000. The French authorities said they had security risks under control. "France takes security concerns very seriously, especially when it comes to Russian aggression against Ukraine and the risk of foreign interference in our country," the French ministry said. "We issue visas on a case-by-case basis for individual tourists from Russia, depending on the situation of each applicant and in full compliance with European rules," it said. France also backed Lipavský's proposal to limit the Schengen travel freedoms of Russian diplomats accredited in EU capitals in order to stymie cross-border espionage, the French ministry added. "France supports the Czech proposal and has been supporting it for a long time," it said. Greed and solidarity But the Russian threat looked different from Paris or Rome than from Tallinn or Warsaw, said Shea, who now teaches war studies at Exeter University in the UK. "It's less likely that Russian tourists going to more Russia-friendly countries like Spain, Italy, or Greece will be engaged in this kind of hybrid tourism warfare, which Russia tends to reserve for its more dedicated opponents, like the UK or the Baltic states," he said. Even if Russia never hurt anyone in France or Italy, mass tourism posed other threats, warned Steven Blockmans, from the Centre for European Policy Studies (Ceps), a think-tank in Brussels. "Professional spies aside, some Russian citizens may be pressured or incentivised ... to use their smartphones to map critical [EU] infrastructure, observe troop movements, or conduct other pre-operational surveillance," he said. And given that a French or Italian-issued Schengen visa gave Russians pan-European access, one EU official echoed the Czech sense of alarm. The French, Italians, and Spanish were "greedy, greedy, greedy" for tourist money and showed a "basic lack of solidarity" with frontline allies, the EU official said. Security questions aside, Lipavský also debunked France's culture diplomacy. "Let's be honest, spending holidays on Mediterranean beaches is not a meaningful form of people-to-people contact. We won't change the Kremlin's stance through tourism," he said. Shea said serious student exchange programmes might move Russian hearts and minds, but "a quick guided tour around San Marco [square] in Venice does not convert a bunch of average tourists ... more like ticking a box on a bucket list". Ceps' Blockmans said: "Catering for large-scale [Russian] tourism equates to being politically tone-deaf during wartime". The French ministry said they were "working with [our] European partners to ensure a coordinated and coherent response". The Estonian ministry said its harsher restrictions "should apply throughout the EU". But Rusi's Ferris said: "[Schengen] open borders come with risks, also for criminality — there's always a danger that people might slip through the net from the Russian side". Brussels silent The EU Commission issued non-binding "guidelines" on restricting Russian travel in 2022, but declined to answer when asked by EUobserver if it planned further action. The former EU home affairs commissioner, Sweden's Ylva Johansson, said last November that EU visa rules should be made "sharper" for security reasons. "It is important that consulates thoroughly verify whether applicants could be considered to be a threat to public policy, internal security, or to the international relations of any of the member states," the current commission visa guidelines said. The EU official said: "There's new voices [in EU circles] about making the [2022] guidelines legally-binding, so maybe there's something in the works, and they [the commission] don't want to spook France or Italy by going public with it too early". "Who knows, maybe 2025 will be the EU and Russia's last golden summer?," he said.
|
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.
|
Wealthy Russian tourists are flocking back to Italy, France, and Spain — despite the Ukraine war and EU allies' security fears.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-03T09:03:33.747Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arc73447ac
|
Helping undocumented migrants in Netherlands could soon be a crime
|
Dutch MPs on Thursday (3 July) are set to vote on asylum laws proposed by the far-right Party for Freedom (PVV), including a passed amendment that would make it a crime to help people with no residency status. The laws span everything from shortening residency permits from five to three years, reviewing temporary asylum permits every three years, and making family reunification almost impossible. It also seeks to impose a dual status system that differentiates people fleeing war from individual persecution. "Part of this is signalling 'don't come here'. It's about deterrence. Whether that really works is highly questionable," said Bram Frouws, director at the Mixed Migration Centre on Wednesday (2 July). On Tuesday, a last-minute amendment to criminalise undocumented migrants, as well as those who help them, mustered enough support after several Dutch MPs failed to show up for the vote – some because they were attending a yearly commemoration of the abolishment of slavery. "In a way, the PVV could probably consider this a win yesterday," said Frouws of the amendment, which may hit churches and faith-based organisations given their help for migrants in the Netherlands. The amendment has since scuppered wider support for the asylum package from the opposition Christian Democratic Party (CDA) as well as the New Social Contract, posing questions whether it will even pass in the Senate. There are also other factors at the play, including the EU's pact on asylum and migration. The Netherlands, like the other 26 EU states, have one year to implement the overhaul. But demanding Dutch agencies implement both the EU pact and the planned PVV asylum reforms at the same time will be onerous. Small numbers, big fuss Frouws also said that the number of asylum seekers in the Netherlands is below average, mostly due to the fall of the Assad regime in Syria. "It is not a major issue. It's a big political issue," he said, noting that net migration in the Netherlands is around 200,000. The vast majority are students or people who come to work legally. Of those, up to 15 percent are asylum seekers, he said. Dr Lynn Hillary, assistant professor at the University of Amsterdam, made similar observations. The proposals, if passed, would lead to less security and fewer rights for asylum seekers, she said. But it would also place a huge administrative burden on the Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND), an underfunded agency that oversees applications of people who want to live in the country. "They [IND] will have to distinguish between refugees and subsidiary protection, which is legally a more challenging assessment to make than just answering the question: is this someone who needs protection?" she said. The IND would also have to re-assess a person's temporary residency status every three years, further adding to a workload of an already overstretched agency. IND figures from April indicate that almost 18,000 people have been waiting between six to 15 months for a decision, according to the Dutch Council for Refugees. And almost 19,000 have been waiting for more than 15 months, it says. With elections in October on the horizon, the political mood against migration and asylum seekers in the Netherlands appears to be distraction from a bigger domestic issues, such as the housing crisis. But Wilders on Wednesday on X said his party will vote in favour of the two asylum laws. He also wants to send guards to the borders and turn back all asylum seekers entering from Germany and Belgium. "The Netherlands must become the property of the Dutch again and the Dutch must be put first again," he said. The Dutch politician, who is no stranger to controversy, wants to create Europe's strictest asylum regime. Last month, he plunged the country into political turmoil after withdrawing from the governing four-party coalition.
|
Nikolaj joined EUobserver in 2012 and covers home affairs. He is originally from Denmark, but spent much of his life in France and in Belgium. He was awarded the King Baudouin Foundation grant for investigative journalism in 2010.
|
Dutch MPs on Thursday are set to vote on asylum laws proposed by the far-right Party for Freedom (PVV), headed by Geert Wilders.
|
[
"Migration",
"EU Political"
] |
migration
|
2025-07-02T17:42:48.798Z
|
https://euobserver.com/migration/ar8f080929
|
Claudie Haigneré — ‘Girls who see women as leaders, grow into those roles more freely’
|
Pop star Katy Perry this year made headlines as one of six women who went for a controversial 11-minute suborbital trip aboard Blue Origin's New Shepard rocket. But looking back, the path to space hasn’t been easy for women, especially for female astronauts who have faced challenges, ranging from equipment designed by and for men to limited representation in training programs, systemic biases, and decades of institutional barriers. In fact, it took Nasa 22 years from launching its first man into space in 1961 to sending a woman into orbit. But some haven’t let this structural inequality deter them. Born in 1957 in Le Creusot, France, Claudie Haigneré has broken barriers in science, space, and politics, becoming a role model for countless young women and girls who grew up without many figures to look up to. “If girls grow up seeing women as discoverers, leaders, they‘ll grow into those roles more freely. This is one of the virtues of exemplarity,” the 67-year-old former astronaut tells EUobserver. Haigneré was selected by France’s CNES space agency in 1985, becoming the only woman among seven astronauts chosen for the programme. In August 1996, Haigneré made history as the fourth French person — and the first French woman — to travel to space. But that was just the beginning of a series of groundbreaking firsts. In July 1999, she became the first woman qualified to command a three-person Soyuz capsule for an emergency return to Earth. Then, in 2001, she became the first European woman to visit the International Space Station. A lot has changed over time, but Haigneré had previously admitted that she had to adapt to an "environment conceived by and for man”. Having worked in Franco-Russian space missions since the 1990s, she is a fluent Russian speaker, but she also speaks English and Spanish. “The invisible barriers are not written in law or policy, they are often harder to fight than visible ones,” she says, warning that “these barriers are invisible but not imaginary.” Her entry into politics came in 2002 when she was appointed minister for research and new technologies by French prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin — a decision seen at the time as part of efforts aimed at boosting the presence of non-politicians and women within the French administration. Later, she became France’s minister for European affairs and secretary general for Franco–German cooperation from April 2004 to June 2005. “The world’s biggest problems can’t be solved by just one kind of person. We need scientists and storytellers, dreamers and builders, quiet thinkers and loud changemakers. We need girls and boys, all cultures, all backgrounds, all identities,” she said. Even when on paper opportunities seem equal, Haigneré points out some of the ‘invisible barriers’ that still keeps holding women back: unconscious bias, confidence gaps (often linked to underestimating women’s abilities), unrecognised labour, lack of representation, fear of a backlash (which leads to self-censorship), outdated workplace systems, and gatekeeping networks. “The invisible barriers are not written in law or policy, they are often harder to fight than visible ones,” she says, warning that “these barriers are invisible but not imaginary.” Real change, she argues, begins by naming these structural issues but also solutions head-on. “To make the invisible visible, to redesign systems, to share power, to value care as real work, to build inclusive networks, and to encourage in young girls boldness — not just politeness,” she says. “We must tell women: you belong, you’re smart enough, you’re strong enough, you’re ready, you don’t have to fit into anyone’s box. The future of science, space and politics needs your voice,” Haigneré tells EUobserver. “Leading in science and space doesn’t require fitting in someone else’s mould. It’s about curiosity, enthusiasm, courage and the commitment to keep going — even when the path is new or hard,” she adds. Policy fixes will not be enough to achieve lasting equality. “Minds change, systems crack, and in those cracks, there’s room for light to get in. It is especially true for Europe, which can make its diversity an incomparable wealth to serve the progress of humanity" Haigneré argues that the next generation must radically redefine power and progress, embed equity into every solution and secure global solidarity. “It’s not just a technological evolution, it must be a moral and cultural evolution made possible by a better education for all.” “They are no longer the ‘Apollo Generation’, when science and technology were the powerful levers of progress,” she says, arguing that new generations must “rethink success as shared well-being”. “Lasting equality will come from connection, creating resilient alliances, building bridges across cultures, gender, disciplines and generations. Movements, not individuals, make equality lasting”. When asked about what gives her hope for the future, Haigneré appeals to the nonconformism of youth and those pushing back against the status quo. “Hope also lives in teachers who ignite curiosity instead of conformity, artists who dare to imagine what doesn’t yet exist, scientists who see knowledge just as a power but as a shared gift,” she tells EUobserver. “Minds change, systems crack, and in those cracks, there’s room for light to get in. It is especially true for Europe, which can make its diversity an incomparable wealth to serve the progress of humanity and peace on our beautiful planet.” And do let us know if you're interested in a physical copy of the magazine here .
|
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.
|
Many women struggle to break the so-called ‘glass ceiling’. Frenchwoman Claudie Haignere went one further — breaking through the earth’s atmosphere to travel to space.
|
[
"The EU's Unsung Heroes"
] |
the-eus-unsung-heroes
|
2025-07-02T15:59:49.461Z
|
https://euobserver.com/the-eus-unsung-heroes/ar33e8fd33
|
China must not interfere in the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama
|
This Sunday (7 July), the 14th Dalai Lama will turn 90 — a milestone for a spiritual leader whose message of peace and compassion has resonated far beyond Tibet. The Dalai Lama is indeed a vital figure not only for the Tibetan people, but also for the future of the world, embodying the principles of peace, reconciliation, and respect for human rights. In a world too often marked by division and aggression, the Dalai Lama's unwavering commitment to dialogue, mutual understanding, and respect for human dignity mirrors the very values upon which the European Union was founded. His consistent appeal for reconciliation rather than revenge has inspired thousands across faiths, ideologies, and generations. At a time when the Chinese government is seeking to assert full control over Tibetan Buddhism — including the deeply spiritual process of identifying the Dalai Lama’s successor — the European Union must take a principled stand. We must speak with one voice to defend freedom of religion, human rights, and the right of the Tibetan Buddhist community to determine their own religious leaders free from state interference. In 1988, the Dalai Lama addressed the European Parliament, presenting a visionary five-point peace plan. He called for all of Tibet to become a zone of peace, the protection of Tibetan culture and the environment, and meaningful negotiations with Beijing to determine Tibet’s status and the future relationship between the Tibetan and Chinese peoples. Most significantly, he renounced demands for full independence in favour of the “Middle Way,” which advocates for genuine autonomy within the People’s Republic of China. This approach remains a pragmatic and peaceful solution to the longstanding conflict. Yet, instead of seizing this opportunity, the Chinese Communist Party has responded with assimilation and repressive policies that threaten the very survival of Tibetan culture and identity. Since 2010, the Chinese authorities have unilaterally ended the dialogue process with the Dalai Lama’s representatives, which began in 2002. In the meantime, Beijing has rolled out increasingly aggressive assimilationist policies in Tibet, such as the coercive boarding schools system that forcibly separate Tibetan children from their families and culture — a policy that was denounced by the European Parliament in December 2023 . These measures are not only violations of international law — they are part of a broader strategy to erase an entire civilisation. The Chinese Communist Party’s attempts to control reincarnation are not merely symbolic; they are part of a calculated political strategy to legitimise its rule in Tibet and to undermine Tibetan spiritual authority. China: Reincarnation 'must bide national laws' As the Dalai Lama grows older, Beijing has been laying the groundwork to appoint its own successor. In response to the Dalai Lama’s new book stating that his successor will be born outside of China and that Tibetan freedom movement will continue even after his death, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson recently reiterated the government of China’s position that the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama “should abide by national laws and regulations”, adding that the search for the reincarnation should be a “domestic search” through China’s golden urn method and approved by China’s central government. This issue is not only a Tibetan one — it is a test of the international community’s commitment to religious freedom. If we allow a government to impose a spiritual leader on a people against their will, we set a dangerous precedent with global implications. Several of our governments and parliaments have already expressed their opposition to these interferences — including most recently the Dutch House of Representatives in a motion that clearly underlines that China has no legitimate role in the religious succession of the Dalai Lama. In June 2024, following the 39th EU-China Human Rights Dialogue — which included a field visit to the Tibet Autonomous Region — the EU also reiterated its position that "the selection of religious leaders should happen without any government interference and in respect of religious norms, including in the case of the succession of the Dalai Lama.” On 8 May this year, the European Parliament adopted a resolution firmly opposing any attempt by the Chinese government to interfere in the selection of Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leaders, including the Dalai Lama. While these past statements have sent an important signal, the time has come for the European Union and its members states to take a firmer stance and make it clear that we support the authority of the present Dalai Lama as the head of the Tibetan Buddhist community to decide on his reincarnation as per Tibetan religious tradition. Further, we should make clear that any interference by the Chinese government in the succession of the Dalai Lama will carry serious consequences. We call on the EU on behalf of the 27 EU member states to adopt a statement affirming this position. The EU must also make clear that any Chinese officials involved in such interference will be considered for listing under the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime — the so-called “European Magnitsky Act.” We further call on the Chinese government to resume direct and meaningful dialogue with the representatives of the Dalai Lama. The 2008 “Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy,” presented by the Tibetan side, remains a viable basis for negotiation. Dialogue – not repression – is the only sustainable path to peace and stability in Tibet. The Dalai Lama is not an obstacle but a solution to the frozen conflict in Tibet. In 2011, the Dalai Lama relinquished his political authority to the democratically-elected Central Tibetan Administration. Yet he remains a moral and spiritual guide — not only for Tibetans, but for the world. As he turns 90, we must ensure that his legacy of non-violence, dialogue, and hope is not met with silence. If the EU is to live up to its founding values, it must stand with the Tibetan people, defend their right to religious freedom, and demand that China returns to the negotiating table. . Vytenis ANDRIUKAITIS (Lithuania, S&D) Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS (Lithuania, Renew Europe) Saskia BRICMONT (Belgium, Greens/EFA) Per CLAUSEN (Denmark, GUE/NGL) João COTRIM DE FIGUEIREDO (Portugal, Renew Europe) Sebastian EVERDING (Germany, GUE/NGL) Michael GAHLER (Germany, EPP) Hanna GEDIN (Sweden, GUE/NGL) Markéta GREGOROVÁ (Czechia, Greens/EFA) Hannes HEIDE (Austria, S&D) Rasa JUKNEVIČIENĖ (Lithuania, EPP) Ondřej KOLÁŘ (Czechia, EPP) Andrey KOVATCHEV (Bulgaria, EPP) Miriam LEXMANN (Slovakia, EPP) Reinhold LOPATKA (Austria, EPP) Erik MARQUARDT (Germany, Greens/EFA) Sara MATTHIEU (Belgium, Greens/EFA) Liudas MAŽYLIS (Lithuania, EPP) Verena MERTENS (Germany, EPP) Luděk NIEDERMAYER (Czechia, EPP) Rasmus NORDQVIST (Denmark, Greens/EFA) Danuše NERUDOVÁ (Czechia, EPP) Maria OHISALO (Finland, Greens/EFA) Leoluca ORLANDO (Italy, Greens/EFA) Urmas PAET (Estonia, Renew) Kira Marie PETER-HANSEN (Denmark, Greens/EFA) Chloé RIDEL (France, S&D) Majdouline SBAÏ (France, Greens/EFA) Jonas SJÖSTEDT (Sweden, GUE/NGL) Villy SØVNDAL (Denmark, Greens/EFA) Bruno TOBBACK (Belgium, S&D) Dainius ŽALIMAS (Lithuania, Renew Europe) and chair of the EU Parliament Tibet Friendship Group Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ (Czech Republic, EPP) Milan ZVER (Slovenia, EPP) Vytenis ANDRIUKAITIS (Lithuania, S&D) Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS (Lithuania, Renew Europe) Saskia BRICMONT (Belgium, Greens/EFA) Per CLAUSEN (Denmark, GUE/NGL) João COTRIM DE FIGUEIREDO (Portugal, Renew Europe) Sebastian EVERDING (Germany, GUE/NGL) Michael GAHLER (Germany, EPP) Hanna GEDIN (Sweden, GUE/NGL) Markéta GREGOROVÁ (Czechia, Greens/EFA) Hannes HEIDE (Austria, S&D) Rasa JUKNEVIČIENĖ (Lithuania, EPP) Ondřej KOLÁŘ (Czechia, EPP) Andrey KOVATCHEV (Bulgaria, EPP) Miriam LEXMANN (Slovakia, EPP) Reinhold LOPATKA (Austria, EPP) Erik MARQUARDT (Germany, Greens/EFA) Sara MATTHIEU (Belgium, Greens/EFA) Liudas MAŽYLIS (Lithuania, EPP) Verena MERTENS (Germany, EPP) Luděk NIEDERMAYER (Czechia, EPP) Rasmus NORDQVIST (Denmark, Greens/EFA) Danuše NERUDOVÁ (Czechia, EPP) Maria OHISALO (Finland, Greens/EFA) Leoluca ORLANDO (Italy, Greens/EFA) Urmas PAET (Estonia, Renew) Kira Marie PETER-HANSEN (Denmark, Greens/EFA) Chloé RIDEL (France, S&D) Majdouline SBAÏ (France, Greens/EFA) Jonas SJÖSTEDT (Sweden, GUE/NGL) Villy SØVNDAL (Denmark, Greens/EFA) Bruno TOBBACK (Belgium, S&D) Dainius ŽALIMAS (Lithuania, Renew Europe) and chair of the EU Parliament Tibet Friendship Group
|
Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ (Czech Republic, EPP)
|
At a time when the Chinese government is seeking to assert full control over Tibetan Buddhism — including the deeply spiritual process of identifying the Dalai Lama’s successor — the EU must speak with one voice to defend the right of the Tibetan Buddhist community to determine their own religious leaders free from state interference.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-07-02T14:55:55.925Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar47531bf2
|
US-style green 'culture war' waging in Brussels, MEP warns
|
“I would have rather not been here,” Dutch socialist MEP Lara Wolters said this week, addressing a room full of businesspeople and investors from companies like Unilever, Philips and Dutch asset manager Robeco. They had gathered in the Royal Tropical Institute in Amsterdam for an event hosted by Dutch liberals, the EU political group Renew, and the centre-left Socialists and Democrats, on Monday (30 June). The aim: to nudge green(er) businesses into speaking out against the wave of deregulation now rolling through Brussels under the banner of ‘simplification’. While the goal may be “well-intentioned,” Wolters said the European Commission’s Omnibus package to roll back key green and ethical supply chain reporting rules has become politicised. “It’s cynical and disappointing,” she added, because “killing these rules or rendering them toothless relies on a far-right majority.” What started in 2023 with a conservative push to derail the nature restoration law and the 2035 combustion engine ban (both of which failed, for now) has since morphed into an anti-sustainability “culture war like it has in the US.” “The Berlaymont has become the de facto European People’s Party [EPP] headquarters,” she said, referring to the commission’s headquarters — which is meant to stand above party politics. And with conservatives dominating both the council and parliament, there’s little to stop the “mad rush” to scrap green laws that have barely taken effect. 'The Berlaymont has become the de facto European People’s Party [EPP] headquarters' The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) only came into force in 2023 and 2024 respectively. Reporting under the latter has yet to officially begin, but the latest council and parliament proposals will reduce the scope to only apply to a tiny fraction (1,000 companies) originally envisioned. “It's like picking a new colour for the living room we’ve only just renovated," Wolters pointed out. Wolters, formerly the parliament’s lead negotiator on the EU’s CSDDD, said the rollback of the law she helped push through — just a year after adoption and before it has even entered into force — is “enough to make you emotional.” “Cutting back on rules is a cynical and disappointing response,” she said. “Killing these rules, or rendering them toothless, relies on the far-right majority. It’s dangerous, but it’s being embraced in Brussels.” The deregulation push is not limited to the EU’s ethical and sustainability reporting standards. In recent weeks it has spread to the bloc’s corporate anti-greenwashing rules , the AI Act, data protection , the Minimum Wage Directive, deforestation , forever chemicals, the 2040 climate target , and more. “Sustainability is not a nice-to-have, but essential,” Wolters warned. “Some businesses may feel they cannot speak out — politics and business don’t always mix well — but now we really need them to. It’s no longer just about reporting rules, but about sustainability as a goal in itself.” The US is deregulating, so should we? In a debate on Dutch radio hosted earlier on Monday (30 June) conservative MEP Dirk Gotink (previously EPP president Manfred Weber’s spokesperson, and seen as one of the main driving forces behind deregulation in parliament), accused Wolters of “making light” of Europe’s competitiveness problem. “The US is massively deregulating,” he said, implying that the EU should follow suit or lose businesses to other environs. Wolters later described his remark as empty sloganeering. “We need adult dialogue, not PR slogans,” she said. In 2024 a global survey by PwC suggested companies expect the EU’s sustainability reporting rules to deliver “tangible business benefits.” A survey of 1,800 professionals shows 61 percent of firms prefer current green reporting rules, with only 25 percent backing the commission’s simplification plans. In an open letter published Tuesday, nearly 200 groups — including over 150 businesses and investors — urged the EU to keep its sustainable finance rules intact. These surveys don’t fully capture the mixed feelings about EU reporting rules. “Reporting takes so much effort, it’s so complex, and it pulls a lot of brainpower away from action,” said Hedwig Sietsma, global sustainability director at geo-survey company Fugro, during a panel discussion later at the event. But since green reporting and ethical supply chain rules are still new (the latter has yet to come into full force) the (competitiveness) benefits are only just becoming clear, proponents say. “Companies that understand their impact are better able to compete in the marketplace, which is important at a time when competitiveness is top of the agenda, also financially,” said Bastian Buck, chief standards officer at the sustainable non-profit Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). “Simplification can make sense; we can refine what we have, but we need to do so without undermining them,” Wolters added.
|
Wester is a journalist from the Netherlands with a focus on the green economy. He joined EUobserver in September 2021. Previously he was editor-in-chief of Vice, Motherboard, a science-based website, and climate economy journalist for The Correspondent.
|
Dutch socialist MEP Lara Wolters has urged green(er) companies to oppose Brussels’ deregulation push, calling the Commission’s Omnibus package “cynical and disappointing."
|
[
"EU Political",
"Green Economy",
"Health & Society"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-07-01T10:15:15.601Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar3fc64a40
|
Max Schrems — Europe’s data fighter
|
Europe’s personal data crusader, Max Schrems, is a bête noire of the EU Commission, after over a decade spent challenging and unpicking both the EU’s rules and third country agreements on data protection. An Austrian privacy activist who has spent most of the past decade fighting the free flow of European data to the United States, Schrems filed his first cases against Facebook’s approach to EU privacy law as a law student in 2011, but his name first became known in 2015 when the European Court of Justice agreed with him that the EU’s Safe Harbour data transfer deal with the US was invalid because the EU could not guarantee data privacy in the US. That was just the start. In the wake of the Safe Harbour ruling, Facebook started using so-called standard contractual clauses to shift the data to the US. By the end of 2015, Schrems had issued a complaint about Facebook to the Irish data protection authorities, the site of Facebook's European HQ, and called for the suspension of Facebook's use of these clauses — claiming that these data transfers lack sufficient data-protection safeguards. He argued that Facebook made personal data transferred to it available to certain US authorities, such as the NSA and FBI — which could carry out mass surveillance on EU citizens without a meaningful legal framework. After the EU and US rushed to agree on a new data transfer pact, known as the Privacy Shield, in 2016, Schrems challenged that too. “European data protection authorities have all the necessary means to adequately sanction GDPR violations and issue fines that would prevent similar violations in the future” In 2020, the ECJ again concluded that non-US persons were at risk of being targeted by surveillance programmes for foreign intelligence and the US-EU Privacy Shield and nullified it. One critique of the EU and other regulators is that online regulation has failed to keep pace with innovation. Schrems’ team have turned that claim on its head. “It seems that with each ‘innovation’, another group of companies thinks that its products don’t have to comply with the law,” says European Center for Digital Rights (which styles itself NOYB - None Of Your Business) data protection lawyer Maartje de Graaf. Another is that despite the court wins, Facebook and other online giants have continued to flout the rulings, with the passive acquiescence of EU regulators. In January, EU companies only faced fines for data privacy violations in 1.3 percent of cases, the Vienna-based NGO advocating for digital rights NOYB. “European data protection authorities have all the necessary means to adequately sanction GDPR violations and issue fines that would prevent similar violations in the future,” Schrems said. "Instead, they frequently drag out the negotiations for years — only to decide against the complainant’s interests all too often”. Former Dutch liberal MEP Sophie in't Veld, herself a veteran of many years spent negotiating the GDPR and other EU data laws, has said that Schrems had done more to defend citizen rights "than all the supervisors put together." But he is not without his critics, particularly among an EU tech community which argues that restrictive regulation has prevented the bloc from producing tech giants, whether in social media or now AI. Schrems’ critics say that his cases have hurt the EU’s digital economy, isolating the EU digitally, by preventing firms from transferring European data beyond the handful of countries that have been deemed "adequate" by the EU. The "adequacy determinations" by the EU Commission are based on how closely a country's data protection laws resemble the EU's own. Yet blaming Schrems for exposing that an EU law is illegal, rather than the officials who drew it up, is an odd conclusion to come up with. Now, Schrems and his privacy organisation, None Of Your Business, are setting their sights on AI, becoming the first to file a GDPR complaint about the artificial intelligence tool Chat GPT. NOYB claims that ChatGPT produced false, defamatory information about a Norwegian citizen, Arve Hjalmar Holmen. The complaint rests on a more obscure part of European data protection law, Article 5 of the GDPR, which states that “every reasonable step must be taken” to ensure that personal data is accurate. As things stand, however, there is no precedent for applying GDPR to AI. NOYB maintains that GDPR requires that information about individuals is accurate and that they have full access to the information stored, as well as information about the source. Moreover, Article 16 of GDPR states that data subjects have a “right to rectification” of inaccurate personal data. However, ChatGPT parent company OpenAI has admitted that it is unable to correct incorrect information and cannot say where the data comes from or what data ChatGPT stores about individual people. It is hard not to conclude that the EU’s digital rulebook as designed is destined to be permanently under challenge in court. Though the EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen insists that the bloc must " cut red tape ", including the digital sphere, Schrems says that reducing digital regulation is difficult when national digital regulatory regimes create fragmentation and uncertainty for businesses and consumers. One of Schrems’ other campaigns is that while the EU has a harmonised regulation on data protection, the interpretation of the law is left to national data regulators, most of whom have been deeply reluctant to impose sanctions on firms for breaching the law. He has proposed an EU-wide regulator, similar to how the European Data Protection Supervisor oversees EU institutions, as "a way to kind of bypass" a patchwork of regulation and enforcement. Schrems maintains that this is about consumer interest rather than a battle with the US. The issue is "European citizens versus business in general, no matter if it's American or European business," he said. And do let us know if you're interested in a physical copy of the magazine here .
|
Benjamin Fox is a seasoned reporter and editor, previously working for fellow Brussels publication Euractiv. His reporting has also been published in the Guardian, the East African, Euractiv, Private Eye and Africa Confidential, among others. He heads up the AU-EU section at EUobserver, based in Nairobi, Kenya.
|
He defeated Safe Harbour, he defeated Privacy Shield, now Austrian internet privacy campaigner Max Schrems is taking on AI, using the GDPR, to insist its personal data is “accurate”. AI is finding that difficult.
|
[
"The EU's Unsung Heroes"
] |
the-eus-unsung-heroes
|
2025-07-01T05:05:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/the-eus-unsung-heroes/ar59cbdf6f
|
What we can learn about resilience from Ukraine
|
I can no longer count the number of times I have asked this question to people I have met in communities across Ukraine’s 1,200+ km frontline. The decision to stay in their homes is, fundamentally, an act of courage. Regular Ukrainians make this choice every day. Approximately eight to 10 million people live in the regions close to active hostilities. And millions more endure daily drone attacks and missile strikes across the country, including in the capital. Ukraine’s recovery, while Russia’s war rages on, seems improbable to many onlookers: too complex of an undertaking. Countries in peace-time struggle to make progress on such reforms, let alone . Ukraine is huge, and while urbanisation is an ongoing trend, 15 to 17 million people still live in small municipalities and rural communities. They have been the backbone of Ukraine’s resistance, and they will be the backbone of its recovery. Last year, the government of Ukraine planned infrastructure reconstruction through a Single Project Pipeline. But only 10 percent of the project proposals came from communities that have suffered the most destruction. The authorities in these communities are often overwhelmed with the day-to-day work of providing services to their population, managing displacement, and addressing growing poverty and vulnerability. They lack the time, resources, and sometimes the capacity to write investment proposals, apply for grants, support new businesses, or build job training programmes. In 2022, the EU and United Nations Development Programme launched the flagship EU4Recovery initiative to support Ukrainians’ unwavering belief in their recovery by providing the resources and assistance needed to turn that belief into concrete action. Using an area-based approach, the initiative delivers comprehensive packages of support tailored to local needs. The first phase has invested €36m in the most war-affected communities to help local authorities improve the accessibility and quality of basic services, strengthen public safety and security, create platforms for community dialogue and mobilisation on recovery priorities, and promote solidarity and social cohesion. Amazing people across more than 100 communities have partnered with EU4Recovery to transform services and opportunities that have reached more than 2.5 million people. Concrete examples Iryna, deputy mayor of Zlatopil in Kharkiv Oblast, inspired me with her energy and leadership in setting up a Recovery and Development Office that has already mobilised $2.4m [€2.05m] and is focused on improving access to services for displaced people rebuilding their lives in her town. In Sumy, veterans Serhii and Mykola showed me a future veteran’s centre and shared their vision for helping others reintegrate after injury. Through EU4Recovery, seven such hubs have been launched, along with 200+ veteran-focused services. In Bilenke, Zaporizhzhia Oblast, social worker Olha visits older residents near the frontline in a specialized vehicle delivering essentials and human connection. EU4Recovery has delivered 86 such vehicles and trained more than 3,000 care workers. Artem runs a youth club and organizes nature camps to support children’s mental health and divert their attention from the horrors of war. His project is among 178 community initiatives and 163 small grants that have already reached over 173,000 people in 63 communities. All these stories are part of Ukraine’s tapestry of survival and resilience. As the government works on its national recovery ecosystem policy reforms, people in Ukraine's communities are already building the foundations of the post-war European future they envision. No one is more passionate today about European values than Ukrainians — it is literally a matter of life or death for them. The UNDP and the EU remain on the ground in the frontline regions of Ukraine, with a new expanded phase of EU4Recovery that will focus on: 1) supporting local communities to be reconstruction-ready and implement reforms that will put them on the EU accession pathway 2) socio-economic recovery 3) strengthening social cohesion with a particular focus on veterans, youth, IDPs, and women. The success of the model is partly in its area-based approach — designed for maximum flexibility to rapidly changing circumstances, concentrating resources in a geographic area, focusing on locally-identified solutions, and ensuring quick wins for the community. But a presence on the ground and cooperation in communities are required, and this is where the partnership between the EU’s financing and reforms agenda and UNDP’s recovery model is critical. This model bridges local-level emergency response and crisis management with sustainable development and EU accession, integrating subnational assistance with national-level institutional reform, and understanding that physical reconstruction is inseparable from social cohesion. And more broadly there is a valuable lesson for all EU citizens — social solidarity, innovation, and leadership result in resilience in the face of hardship. And this is why ordinary Ukrainians have achieved amazing things — as I myself have learned from Iryna, Serhii, Mykola, Olha, and Artem. Ana Lukatela is head of area-based recovery at the United Nations Development Program in Ukraine
|
Ana Lukatela
|
Around eight to 10 million people live in regions of Ukraine close to active hostilities. With Russia’s war still ongoing, the country’s recovery seems improbable to many onlookers: too complex of an undertaking. Even countries at peace struggle to implement reforms, let alone a country at war, writes the UN Development Programme.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-06-30T14:23:54.740Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arbb1a1947
|
UN aid summit, 2040 target, Moldova and Danish presidency in focus This WEEK
|
More than 70 global leaders are expected to attend a UN summit taking place in Seville from Monday to Thursday (30 June-3 July), with ambitious reforms on the agenda. Leaders are expected to formally adopt a 38-page document , dubbed the "Seville Commitment,” which was previously agreed upon. The agreement, while not legally binding, signals a political push to fix the global financial system, close the $4 trillion [€3.4 trillion] annual development funding gap, and speed up progress on the UN Sustainable Development Goals, including targets on education, health and poverty eradication. In April, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), reported that aid spending in 2024 dropped by 7.1 percent, with deeper cuts of more than 15 percent expected this year. The EU, for its part, is expected to deliver only the minimum . In a 12-page position paper published in May, on aid budgets, the EU simply “recalls the collective commitment” to fulfil their “respective ODA [Official Development Assistance] commitments” to deliver 0.7 per cent of gross national income as foreign aid. The Sevilla summit comes at a time of high global uncertainty, a looming US trade war, aid cuts, climate disasters, and with debt distress in developing nations intensifying. And with over 80 percent of USAID programs recently defunded and Germany also planning cuts to its development budget, success will hinge on whether political promises translate into real action. In neighbouring Portugal, the 2025 ECB Forum on Central Banking will take place from Monday to Wednesday. The conference brings together top central bankers to discuss how to adapt monetary policy and global financial stability. Meanwhile, the first EU-Moldova summit will be held in Chișinău on Friday (4 July). European Council president António Costa and European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen will join Moldovan president Maia Sandu to reaffirm the EU’s political and financial support. Denmark will take over the six-month rotating European Council presidency on Tuesday (1 July), with the typical visit of the colleague of commissioners and the opening celebration planned in Aarhus for Thursday. But before travelling to Denmark, the European Commission is expected to present the 2040 climate target on Wednesday, which independent scientists say must include at least a 90-percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990 levels to stay aligned with the Paris Agreement. But that move is now in doubt , after French president Emmanuel Macron publicly urged the EU not to rush into an ambitious 2040 target, arguing that more time is needed to balance climate goals with European competitiveness. The EU has committed to achieving climate neutrality (net‑zero emissions) by 2050 and to reducing its net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. US president Donald Trump said last week that the US and Iran would meet next week — but no official date has been confirmed.
|
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.
|
This week, over 70 leaders will attend the UN summit in Spain to adopt the "Seville Commitment" targeting global financial reform and development funding. Also on the agenda, the EU-Moldova summit, ECB forum, and the controversial 2040 climate targets.
|
[
"Agenda"
] |
agenda
|
2025-06-30T05:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/agenda/ar1684d86c
|
The war on Europe's NGOs
|
While Europe rallies to defend Ukraine from tanks and missiles, a quieter assault is unfolding inside its borders — one that strikes at the heart of its democratic resilience. From Warsaw to Tbilisi to Bishkek, civil society is under siege. Activists are being smeared as foreign agents. NGOs are being defunded, closed down, and criminalised. Volunteer groups are labelled as security threats. This isn’t Cold War theatre — it’s Europe and its neighbourhood in 2025. In Georgia , the recent adoption of a “foreign agents” law ignited mass protests and international condemnation. But Georgia is no outlier. Belarus has forcibly liquidated over 1,500 NGOs since Lukashenka’s 2020 crackdown. In Tajikistan , hundreds of CSO groups were forced to shut down following unrest in 2022. Kyrgyzstan's 2024 foreign-agent-style law requires any foreign-funded group engaging in vaguely defined “political activity” to register under a stigmatising oversight scheme, under threat of closure. This law sets a dangerous precedent for all of Central Asia, with similar legislation under consideration in other countries of the region. Worryingly, this authoritarian toolkit is migrating westward. Hungary demands that civic groups disclose foreign donors, while prime minister Viktor Orbán decries NGOs as a “shadow army”. Slovakia and Serbia are contemplating their own versions of Russia’s foreign agent laws. The pattern is clear: discredit, dismantle, and dominate. Here’s why this matters. The European continent is arguably the world’s most important bastion of democracy. If it falters, the idea of a liberal, rules-based global order risks faltering with it. That makes prioritising democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental freedoms in Europe and its broader neighbourhood not only morally necessary but strategically vital. And none of that is possible without a strong, independent, and resilient civil society. Civic actors are more than idealists. They are the early warning systems, the accountability mechanisms, the human bridge between the governed and the government. They expose corruption, amplify marginalised voices, and foster public trust that populists and autocrats erode. When they’re silenced, it’s not just NGOs that vanish — it’s democratic resistance itself. Yet the EU’s response remains tepid. Western donors cite 'geopolitical realities' and 'donor fatigue' as they scale back support. National governments increasingly invoke 'sovereignty' and 'traditional values' to justify silencing dissent. Even Brussels, despite its rhetoric, often reacts too late (or not at all), underlining a flagrant lack of consistency between its declared commitment to support civil society and its actions in practice. The lesson of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act still holds 50 years after its adoption: lasting peace and security in Europe depend on open societies and human dignity. If Europe wants to be more than a continent of empty declarations, it must treat civic space as essential infrastructure – and not as an afterthought. That means legal protections for activists, sustained funding for grassroots groups, and zero tolerance for those who weaponise 'sovereignty' to erode rights. Brigitte Dufour is director of International Partnership for Human Rights . Brigitte Dufour is director of
|
International Partnership for Human Rights
|
NGOs are being defunded, closed down, and criminalised. Volunteer groups are labelled as security threats. This isn’t Cold War theatre — it’s Europe and its neighbourhood in 2025.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-06-27T10:44:46.834Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ard8c01ca4
|
Putting regions at the heart of Europe’s next budget
|
As the EU prepares for the post-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), we face a defining choice: will our next long-term budget reflect the lived realities of Europe’s people and regions — or drift toward centralisation and uniformity? The European People's Party group in the European Committee of the Regions believes firmly in the former. We advocate for a strategic, place-based MFF that empowers our territories, sustains cohesion, and boosts competitiveness. The EU’s strength lies in its diversity — economic, social, and territorial. Local and regional authorities (LRAs) are the democratic foundations of the European project. They know the needs on the ground. That is why the next MFF must reflect this complexity through a place-based approach, which implies greater engagement of regional and local authorities in the design and delivery of EU funds and policies. Tailor-made strategies This requires not only active subsidiarity, but binding provisions to guarantee genuine dialogue across all levels of governance. Subsidiarity means that we, as Europeans, have the right to shape how our lives and communities develop — moving together toward a peaceful and prosperous future. Regions like Prešov and Košice, where capacity exists but centralised control often hinders responsiveness, are a clear example of why decision-making in EU fund management must be shifted closer to the people it is meant to serve. In the outermost regions, such as the Canary Islands, the case is even stronger: EU policies must be adapted to their specific geographic, economic, and social realities. Their unique position calls for tailor-made strategies and robust local implementation, underscoring the need for LRAs to be at the forefront of delivering the EU’s strategic agenda. This also means recognising the strategic importance of rural areas — not merely as zones to compensate, but as vital actors in Europe’s triple transition: green, digital, and demographic. The future of the EU budget cannot be decided behind closed doors in Brussels — it must be co-created with those who live and work in Europe’s regions Places like Plœuc-l’Hermitage in Brittany illustrate how rural communities can lead in sustainable agriculture, biodiversity preservation, and local innovation. The next MFF must ensure stable and dedicated funding for such areas, anchored in the EU budget and reflecting their role in food sovereignty, ecosystem services, and territorial cohesion. We must also acknowledge the changing nature of challenges. While security, digitalisation, and resilience are rightly rising in priority, they must not come at the expense of the EU’s founding pillars — cohesion, and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). These traditional policies must evolve and modernised by integrating with new goals while maintaining their strategic value and funding. Simpler, quicker procedures Cohesion and competitiveness are not contradictory — they are complementary. For Europe to thrive globally, all its regions must thrive. That includes regions in transition and rural areas, but also industrial powerhouses like Bavaria and innovation-driven regions such as Zuid-Holland. A forward-looking Cohesion Policy must help prevent even economically strong regions from stagnating or falling behind due to structural or demographic shifts. By supporting high-tech ecosystems, green innovation, and knowledge-intensive sectors — as seen in Zuid-Holland — cohesion policy actively contributes to Europe's competitiveness. Flexibility in the MFF is essential — but it must be smart and strategic without derailing long-term objectives. We support the creation of flexible budgetary reserves and simpler, quicker procedures – so regions can respond to crise and cater for their particular needs and specificities. Using differentiated indicators complementary to GDP that reflect socioeconomic diversity will help to adapt the EU co-financing on the ground. And we should empower implementing authorities with procedural agility and reduced compliance burdens — especially smaller municipalities. Preserving proximity At a recent meeting with MEPs from the EPP Group in the European Parliament’s Working Group for Budget and Structural Policies, we agreed that centralisation would be a major step backward. The real strength of EU lies in its regions and cities, allowing territories to define their priorities and innovate accordingly. The next MFF must preserve the proximity. Europe needs to be closer to the ground and to the daily life of our citizens. In closing, I call on the European Council and all its formations to engage early in structured dialogue with the European Parliament and local and regional governments. The future of the EU budget cannot be decided behind closed doors in Brussels — it must be co-created with those who live and work in Europe’s regions. Furthermore, the next MFF must be equipped with sufficient financial means, new own resources, and incentives for private investment and public-private partnerships. Only then can we truly bring Europe closer to its citizens. The EPP-CoR stands ready to work with all partners to shape a modern, transparent, inclusive MFF that delivers real impact on the ground — from Cantabria to Bavaria, from Zuid-Holland to Prešov and Košice, from the Canary Islands to the rural innovation of Plœuc-l’Hermitage, and across all of Europe’s vibrant territories. . Sari Rautio is president of the European People's Party group in the European Committee of the Regions (EPP-CoR) and member of the Hämeenlinna City Council in Finland. Sari Rautio is president of the European People's Party group in the
|
European Committee of the Regions
|
As the EU prepares for the post-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), we face a defining choice: will our next long-term budget reflect the lived realities of Europe’s people and regions — or drift toward centralisation and uniformity?
|
[] |
stakeholders
|
2025-06-27T10:34:06.620Z
|
https://euobserver.com/stakeholders/ar156ee87e
|
The threat to the EU's LIFE programme in the next budget
|
The EU’s new priorities are at a major crossroads. The once cutting-edge European Green Deal is now ditched in favour of defence, security and competitiveness. These discussions are taking place against the backdrop of the much-anticipated future EU budget, the financial resource responsible for driving forward the EU’s goals. Competitiveness in particular has become the new buzzword. It now appears everywhere, there’s even a commissioner responsible for a competitive circular economy. What we hear is that investing in clean technology, industry, and simplifying legislation, particularly for private companies, is key to achieving this. But what we don’t hear is what forms the very foundations of our economy: nature. It’s what provides us with clean drinking water, clean air, helps protect against disasters such as floods, droughts and landslides, stores carbon and pollinates the food we depend on all services that not just our economies, but our lives depend on. But nature is far from being in a healthy state. 81 percent of habitats are in poor status in the EU and the situation appears to only be getting worse. One of the key ways the EU can address this is by financing measures to protect what we still have and restore what has been lost. There is already a dedicated programme albeit modest to finance such activities. 'Best-performing' EU fund For more than three decades, the EU’s LIFE programme has done just that. Directly financing innovative, ambitious projects to halt biodiversity loss and restore vital habitats. In fact, it is widely deemed to be the best-performing EU fund. The EU needs to continue this programme, which has proven its worth for several decades, and increase its funding, which currently makes up just 0.5 percent of the EU budget. But as more details emerge about the new EU budget, it seems increasingly likely that the LIFE programme will be swallowed by a new 'mega-funds’ focusing on financing competitiveness. No separate, standalone fund for the environment would exist. Critics argue that spending scarce public resources to save butterflies or protect trees from being cut down is not viable. But a quick look at some facts and figures is enough to see the importance of nature and what’s at stake. According to the European Commission’s own Joint Research Centre , between 19 and 36 percent of the EU’s gross value added is highly dependent on ecosystem services. Pollination services alone are currently valued by the European Environment Agency at around €10-15bn yearly in the EU. While investment into nature restoration generates €8-38 in economic value for every euro spent, from the various ecosystem services provided. The commission, in its current attempts to chase competitiveness is failing to see the wood for the trees. Even a modest level of economic activity depends on a healthy environment, so if the ultimate goal is human wellbeing and prosperity, we need to invest in the resources that support us: nature. . Daniel Thomson is EU policy officer for biodiversity at CEE Bankwatch Network . Daniel Thomson is EU policy officer for biodiversity at
|
CEE Bankwatch Network
|
EU policymakers will soon unveil how they plan to spend the next seven years of the EU budget. Yet the only fund dedicated solely to protecting and conserving the environment – the LIFE programme – is at risk of being axed.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Green Economy",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-06-26T13:55:01.130Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar92e23cbb
|
Uganda’s Hilda Nakabuye — ‘We export food and get plastic waste in return’
|
As a child growing up in Masaka, southern Uganda, Hilda Nakabuye’s family, like so many others, depended on farming to make a living. But ever-increasing heat, drought, and intense and erratic rainfall, all made worse by climate change, led to repeated harvest failures. Eventually, her family had to give up the farm and relocate to Kampala. There, in early 2019, Nakabuye launched Uganda’s section of Fridays for Future , inspired by images of Greta Thunberg protesting outside the Swedish parliament in 2018. Her activism focuses on education. “It’s different here than in Europe. A lot of people simply don’t know what’s happening. And those who do often can’t speak out,” she says. “There’s greenwashing, there’s denial,” she says, but the overall story is of a growing youth movement trying to “break through” to the decision-making process, which “we’re still mostly shut out of.” Friday’s For Future Uganda now numbers over 53,000 members, most of them young, and as in Europe, it is engaged in climate strikes, much of it directed against a single project: the East African Crude Oil Pipeline ( EACOP ). The project is led by France’s TotalEnergies and China’s CNOOC, with the aim of transporting crude oil over 1,443km from Uganda’s Lake Albert oil fields to the Tanzanian port of Tanga via a heated pipeline. If completed, it would cut through sensitive ecosystems and displace thousands of people. But many Ugandans continue to see the project as a boon and a way for the country to increase its wealth. “This is a country that’s never had an oil project before,” says Nakabuye . “People are being told they’ll benefit.” Indeed, when an Australian wildcatter discovered the oil reservoir in 2006, Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni, in office since 1986, convened a national prayer festival, during which he thanked God "for having created for us a rift valley 25 million years ago" and for providing "the wisdom and foresight to develop the capacity to discover this oil." “Europeans make it sound good on paper,” she says. “But a lot of it benefits Europe more than us. Germany, for instance: we export food and get plastic waste in return.” But Nakabuye warns it may play out differently: “We’ve seen this before with copper. It was extracted, exported, and now no one here can name a single product made from it in Uganda.” Despite many of the most powerful people in the country standing to benefit from EACOP, activists have so far managed to convince several international banks to pull out of the pipeline project. Deutsche Bank, Crédit Agricole, BNP Paribas, Barclays, Santander and more have all ruled out financing EACOP, citing human rights concerns, and Uganda’s energy ministry admitted late last year that debt talks had stalled. “That’s been our gap,” says Nakabuye. “The project has the permits. It doesn’t yet have the finance and insurance.” But their actions have come at a cost. “We’ve seen arrests, detentions, even kidnappings. Last year, an activist was abducted and left for dead. The people meant to protect communities are often the ones violating them,” says Nakabuye. “Uganda’s civic space was already tight. The back and forth about the oil has made things worse,” she adds. Independent reports have documented harassment, forced evictions and displacement of the local populace by Uganda Peoples' Defence Forces (UPDF) personnel. The EU has positioned itself as a leader in global climate diplomacy, and is steaming ahead with plans to connect Africa’s resource wealth to its own industries, promising to create local value. But Nakabuye is sceptical of the European-African partnership when it comes to tackling the climate crisis. “Europeans make it sound good on paper,” she says. “But a lot of it benefits Europe more than us. Germany, for instance: we export food and get plastic waste in return.” Pretending that the auctioning off of oil and minerals in Congo benefits the local population is “absurd,” she adds. Carbon markets, another favourite tool promoted by European donors as a way to channel funds into conservation, are, in Nakabuye’s view, just greenwashing. “It’s not a solution,” she said. The annual UN climate summits, where she has repeatedly called for a just transition, are also becoming increasingly disillusioning. “We were hoping for real commitments on climate finance,” she said. “We’re now talking about needing three to five trillion [dollars], but we’re still stuck on billions. There’s just no political will.” Despite this, Nakabuye sees hope in the growing youth movement across Africa. Fridays for Future has taken root in Tanzania, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Ghana, and South Africa. “We share events, opportunities, and media spaces. We support each other. We’re pushing for global decisions together.” And do let us know if you're interested in a physical copy of the magazine here .
|
Wester is a journalist from the Netherlands with a focus on the green economy. He joined EUobserver in September 2021. Previously he was editor-in-chief of Vice, Motherboard, a science-based website, and climate economy journalist for The Correspondent.
|
What to do when a European oil project has the permits, popular approval and government go-ahead to destroy sensitive Ugandan eco-habitats? Target the financing and insurance, says activist Hilda Nakabuye
|
[
"The EU's Unsung Heroes"
] |
the-eus-unsung-heroes
|
2025-06-26T05:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/the-eus-unsung-heroes/arcf8ce67f
|
Fortify EU's Russia sanctions — before 31 July deadline
|
EU commissioner for defence and space, Andrius Kubilius, has warned that Russia is already capable of producing four times more weapons than all Nato member states combined, including the United States. Now imagine how this imbalance would escalate if Russia received a financial injection of €200bn — more than its entire war budget for 2025. Unfortunately, this is no longer a theoretical concern but a very real risk that could materialise as early as of the end of July. The immobilization of nearly €200bn in Russian Central Bank (RCB) assets is currently part of the EU sanctions regime, which is reviewed every six months and requires unanimous agreement to be continued. The next review is scheduled for 31 July 2025. If even a single EU member state — like Hungary , which regularly threatens to block the extension of sanctions — follows through on its blackmail, the freeze on these assets could be lifted, allowing Russia to immediately reclaim the funds. There would be no way to reverse this decision. Money that could have helped to finance Ukraine’s reconstruction and bolster European security would instead fund more Russian tanks and missiles to kill Ukrainian children and return to Europe in the form of terrorism and sabotage. Additionally, the EU would lose a key repayment source for the $50bn [€43.1bn] Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration (ERA) loan issued by the G7. Even if European leaders succeed in persuading Viktor Orbán to support the sanctions' extension in July, the same threat will resurface in January. Rather than heroically fighting and claiming victory in the same battle every six months, the EU must finally take decisive action to fortify its sanctions regime and focus on broader defence and security challenges across the continent. Most importantly, EU sanctions are not merely a political gesture or an act of solidarity with Ukraine. They are legal measures designed to counter serious threats, establish reaction to violation of international law and must be treated as such. The general legal framework of the EU's external actions is laid down in articles 3 and 21 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) . EU Council Decision 2022/335 explicitly states that Russia's actions constitute a flagrant violation of the UN Charter and pose a threat to international security. The EU had to respond to the Russian aggression. Even if European leaders succeed in persuading Viktor Orbán to support the sanctions' extension in July, the same threat will resurface in January Moreover, the EU's legal position has already been clearly established in case law. The General Court of the EU has explicitly stated, for example, in decision on sanctions against Venezuela, that decisions in the area of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) are taken to ensure compliance with international law, the prohibition of torture, the protection of child rights, and other fundamental principles. Secondly, contrary to widespread belief — including among many European officials we meet regularly — the time limitation of EU sanctions is not a legal requirement. It is a political choice. Article 28(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) allows the council to set a duration for sanctions but does not oblige it to do so. The key criterion for reviewing a sanctions decision should not be an arbitrary date, but a meaningful change in circumstances. Sanctions should remain in force until their objectives are fully achieved. Spending nights in metro stations in Kyiv to shelter from ballistic bombardments, we haven’t noticed the meaningful change in circumstances equal to Russia ceasing its aggression. Then how can there be any serious talks about potential lifting of sanctions? The council of the EU official guidelines on imposition of restrictive measures outlines two possible approaches to sanctions duration: Renewing the sanctions decision if the council of the EU determines that its objectives have not yet been achieved, and repealing the decision if the council concludes that its objectives have been met. While the second approach is explicitly presented as preferable, it has not been applied in practice, unfortunately. Yet these two approaches are fundamentally different. Reverse the 'burden of proof' onto Orbán Under the second model, if Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán wanted to lift the sanctions, the burden would be on him to convince the other member states that Russia has stopped bombing Ukrainian children in their beds — not the other way around, as it currently stands. So why are sanctions against Russia based on the weakest possible model? The reason is purely political — all necessary legal tools exist to remove the automatic expiry mechanism and adopt the “in force until objectives are achieved” model, which is clearly outlined in the EU documents. If the EU is unwilling to change its overall approach, then at the very least the duration of sanctions should be significantly extended. Did you know that the first EU sanctions package against Russia in 2014 was adopted for 12 months before being reviewed? Ironically, the EU later decided to shorten the revision period to six months — apparently, to make sure that they don’t miss if Russia’s aggression could suddenly end without anyone noticing. Therefore, if the EU manages to succeed with Plan A — that is, to prolong sanctions by unanimous decision in July — it must seize the momentum to build in additional safeguards to protect against future sabotage from within. The review period should be extended from the current six months to a minimum of 36–48 months. If Russia were to end its aggression and agree to pay reparations sooner, the council of the EU could always conduct an extraordinary review and lift sanctions ahead of schedule. Moreover, the status quo on frozen Russian assets should also be changed before it’s too late. To be secured from being reclaimed by Russia in case of lifting sanctions, in order to generate much bigger profits through active management, this money should be transferred to a separate Trust Fund with Ukrainian participation in decision-making, which may possibly be located in Brussels, and work to the maximum extent for Ukraine’s defence, reconstruction and compensation for victims. Since Slovak prime minister Robert Fico traveled to Moscow last month to attend the 9 May parade, and Romania narrowly avoided falling into Russia’s embrace, we must acknowledge a growing danger: the longer the EU delays in strengthening its sanctions regime, the longer the list of member states willing to engage in 'hostage diplomacy' over sanctions may grow. We call on the European Union institutions to urgently adopt a sanctions framework that remains in force until its objectives are fully achieved, and to establish robust legal and financial mechanisms that will prevent Russia from reclaiming its frozen assets under any circumstances and will ensure this money works for Ukraine much more effectively. . Andrii Mikheiev is head of anti-corruption compliance at the International Center for Ukrainian Victory . Olena Halushka is a board member of the Ukraine's Anti-corruption Action Centre (AntAc) and a co-founder of the International Center for Ukrainian Victory. Andrii Mikheiev is head of anti-corruption compliance at the International Center for Ukrainian Victory . Olena Halushka is a board member of the
|
Ukraine's Anti-corruption Action Centre (AntAc)
|
Imagine if Russia received a financial injection of €200bn — more than its entire war budget for 2025. Unfortunately, this is no longer a theoretical concern but a very real risk that could materialise as early as of the end of July.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-06-25T14:16:43.628Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar1429d4b7
|
Emilio De Capitani — The lone legal battler fighting ‘confidentiality by default’
|
Thousands of documents are produced and handled by the EU institutions daily — yet only a portion of those end up in the public register of documents, due to a culture of secrecy rooted in the EU’s tradition of behind-closed-doors decision-making. Transparency veterans such as Emilio de Capitani, an Italian former senior official in the European Parliament known for his work on transparency and civil liberties, are trying to tear down this model. Access to documents is guaranteed in Article 42 of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Regulation 1049/2001 was meant to operationalise and implement these constitutional provisions and increase the openness of the European policy-making machinery — but over time, this piece of legislation has been eroded by delays, loopholes and broad exemptions. Legal battles in European courts and complaints to the European Ombudsman by rights groups, MEPs, academics, journalists, and ordinary citizens, have sought to ensure compliance with EU law. And a familiar face in those EU courts is De Capitani, who tried to become the European Ombudsman last year. De Capitani has regularly challenged EU institutions that refused to provide or hindered access to documents. Transparency scored a win in 2023, when the General Court slammed the EU Council for blocking access to working group documents, ruling in favour of De Capitani’s legal challenge, paving the way for others to access these technical documents. The former parliament official also brought an action before the General Court against the European Parliament's decision to deny access to the 'trilogue' negotiations in 2016, and won — making a legal case for the publication of the infamous 'fourth column' negotiating texts. Still, he regrets that they are accessible only on request. “ Delaying accessibility hinders the implementation of the principle of participative democracy,” he tells EUobserver. Journalists frequently encounter long delays when navigating the freedom of information (FOI) process — an issue raised by the EU Ombudsman, who found in 2023 that the European Commission missed deadlines in 85 percent of access to information requests. Together with the NGO Access Info and Päivi Leino-Sandberg (a professor at the University of Helsinki), De Capitani recently launched a legal challenge against the commission, arguing that its new rules of procedure on access to documents violate EU law. “The EU institutions still consider citizens more as a 'public' to be entertained and potential followers, rather than true citizens” The principle of legislative transparency in Article 15.2 of the TFEU is often underestimated, the 78-year-old former parliamentary official says, slamming his former employer and co-legislator for following secrecy practices installed in the European Council. “Fifteen years after the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament still seems unaware of this Copernican revolution and prefers to follow the council’s practice of limiting access to legislative preparatory works under the pretext of protecting the decision-making process,” he says. Breaking down a culture of what De Capital terms “confidentiality by default” is not an easy task. However, concerns are widespread and rising that transparency within the EU institutions has been significantly eroded over the past few years. “Transparency has indeed worsened,” the former parliament official tells EUobserver, arguing that “the EU institutions still consider citizens more as a 'public' to be entertained and potential followers, rather than true citizens.” In this context, the retired lawyer argues that the commission’s proposal to limit access to documents in the name of information security (‘INFOSEC’) is a “true scandal”. The so-called INFOSEC proposal has raised alarms among transparency advocates, who see it as a major step backwards in the decades-long battle to promote EU openness and democratic accountability. And looking ahead, De Capitani warns of the lack of a legal basis for aligning national legislation on access to documents, which turns the implementation of EU policies at the member-state level into a black box. Last year alone, De Capitani filed over 60 access-to-documents requests. He says the European Parliament claimed most were already in its public register, while the Council eventually released the documents but didn’t publish most of them publicly. This means that documents are scattered across different platforms or are only accessible to those who ask. But De Capitani argues they should all be published on the EU Law Tracker or the parliament’s Legislative Observatory. “Without a common informational platform, how can EU media and civil society interact in a timely manner with the EU institutions?” he wonders. The reality is — they (we) can’t. “The institutions have spent a lot of public money creating a platform to discuss the future of Europe — maybe it would make sense to expand its scope to include the present as well,” he adds, referring to the Conference on the Future of Europe , the EU-wide initiative launched in 2021 to engage citizens in shaping the bloc’s long-term vision, but which turned into something of a damp squib. One of those citizens’ proposals called for “ensuring transparency of decision-making by allowing independent citizens’ observers to closely follow the decision-making process, guaranteeing broader right of access to documents”. But if transparency was the promise, it seems the EU is still keeping it well-hidden. And do let us know if you're interested in a physical copy of the magazine here .
|
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.
|
The 78-year old Italian Emilio De Capitani is a gamekeeper turned poacher — going from working for the European Parliament, to using every legal trick in the book to try to force open the ‘black box’ of EU decision making.
|
[
"The EU's Unsung Heroes"
] |
the-eus-unsung-heroes
|
2025-06-24T13:18:51.552Z
|
https://euobserver.com/the-eus-unsung-heroes/arf16b144c
|
Big Oil: over 1,000 lobby meetings with MEPs in under a year
|
Just as far-right forces crack down on civil society dealing with climate, a new study reveals that lobbyists from the top fossil-fuel industry organisations had over 1,000 meetings with MEPs within less than a year. The study out Tuesday (24 June) by Transparency International EU, the Brussels-branch of the Berlin-based advocacy group, analysed over 31,000 meetings declared by MEPs since June 2024. It found, among other things, that the European Parliament committee dealing with the environment held most of its meetings with ExxonMobil and FuelsEurope. FuelsEurope , a large business association, ranks as one of the top 20 organisations for the European Parliament. Within the committee, ExxonMobil met most often with MEPs from the centre-right European People's Party (EPP), the largest political grouping in the European Parliament. This information is based solely on declared meetings, a new requirement by the European Parliament following lobbying scandals spanning Qatar to Huawei, a Chinese tech giant. Not all MEPs appear to be following such rules. The only group whose MEPs have all declared at least one lobbying meeting are the Greens. At 61.5 percent, the far-right Europe of Sovereign Nations came in last place, according to the analysis. Wider crackdown The findings follow the wider crackdown on EU-funded NGOs dealing primarily on climate, amid claims by far-right forces led by the EPP they are being paid to lobby on behalf of the European Commission . Nicola Procaccini, an Italian MEP and co-chair of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), has taken public credit for the NGO crackdown which led to the formation of scrutiny working group. Procaccini's declared lobby meets also include ExxonMobil, Renault Group, Huawei Europe, as well as British American Tobacco. Another tobacco giant, Philip Morris International, also ranks as among the top 20 organisations with the most meetings. Where are Patriots? Other standout finding by the analysis casts doubt on the whether the far-right Patriots for Europe is declaring the meetings. As the third-largest group in the European Parliament, the Patriots for Europe represent only four percent of total published meetings. Although the smallest of the political groups, the analysis also reveals that far-right Europe of Sovereign Nations, as well as non-attached members, repeatedly met with officials from Belarus, China and Russia. Among those MEPs were Bulgarians Rada Laykova, Petar Volgin, Czech Ondřej Dostal, Germany's Michael von der Schulenburg, Slovak Milan Mazurek, plus others. For her part, Laykova hails from the Vazrazhdane party in Bulgaria, which last month signed a cooperation agreement with Vladimir Putin's ruling party, United Russia.
|
Nikolaj joined EUobserver in 2012 and covers home affairs. He is originally from Denmark, but spent much of his life in France and in Belgium. He was awarded the King Baudouin Foundation grant for investigative journalism in 2010.
|
Just as far-right forces crack down on civil society dealing with the climate, a new study reveals that lobbyists from the top fossil-fuel industry organisations had over 1,000 MEP meetings within less than a year.
|
[
"Rule of Law",
"EU Political",
"Green Economy",
"Health & Society"
] |
rule-of-law
|
2025-06-24T05:35:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/rule-of-law/arb968e83c
|
The state-aid rules' death of Europe's electric vehicle battery industry
|
On Wednesday (25 June), the EU Commission will publish its revision of state aid rules (CISAF). Leaks suggest they are expected to maintain a ban on production aid: that is the giving of subsidies per unit of, say, battery cells produced. Production aid was critical to the success of the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in attracting battery factories — and eclipsing Europe on battery production. Commission president Ursula von der Leyen is now presiding over a slow-motion collapse of the European auto sector that will leave it unable to produce or procure anything without Chinese help. The EU’s industrial strategy risks becoming full of grand declarations and elegant plans, yet hollowed out by indecision and EU bureaucratic inertia. Take the union’s strategy for electric vehicles. Once, Europe’s car industry was the envy of the world. Stuttgart, Wolfsburg, and Paris set the pace in automotive innovation. Now, as Chinese manufacturers roll out cheap LFP batteries and software-defined vehicles, Europe’s giants are left scrambling. Von der Leyen reacted forcefully and drew up a bold plan combining battery production aid, strategic regulation of Chinese foreign direct investment, and robust European content requirements. But what could have been a heavyweight strategy now risks being diluted into a featherweight menu, with commissioners cherry-picking the least controversial items and slow-walking the rest. Take battery production aid. Von der Leyen announced IRA-style support to give European battery makers a fighting chance, and said the EU would condition aid to Chinese giants on technology sharing and local supply chains. Instead, the bloc’s draft state aid guidelines threaten to ban such aid , but do nothing to prevent Hungary from giving billions to create Chinese battery enclaves in the heart of the EU. Why? Apparently production aid does not align with the bureaucracy’s ‘doctrine’. While parts of Brussels wallow in 1990s dogma, even US Republicans now recognise batteries are a strategic technology. Donald Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” preserves the IRA battery production aid though it inserts fierce anti-Chinese provisions. The commission chief’s original vision for Chinese FDI was clear: yes to more investment and collaboration, but based on clear rules to prevent Europe from becoming a screwdriver assembly line for BYD and CATL. What’s emerging are non-binding guidelines destined for the bottom drawer of national ministries. Even the promise of “European content requirements on battery cells and components in EVs” is at risk of being lost in the legislative fog. Will the Industrial Decarbonisation Accelerator Act , Brussels’ latest attempt to decree an industrial renaissance without significant funding, have more bite than the ill-fated Net Zero Industry Act ? Squandered by 'non-binding' Von der Leyen promised legislation to speed up the electrification of Europe’s huge company car fleet. What her transport team is developing is another set of non-binding targets on EU states, squandering the biggest EV demand opportunity at Europe's disposal. The tragedy is not a lack of ideas but a lack of follow-through. This is being exploited by car lobbyists who are busy working to erode the 2035 zero-emission goal, pushing for weaker standards, fantasy fuels and lightly regulated plug-in hybrids — an open invitation for China to dominate the global EV market. Europe’s industrial strategy is not just lightweight. Each compromise, each delay, each non-binding directive is another step toward what Mario Draghi called “the slow agony of decline”. Can we really afford to mortgage the continent’s industrial future for the comfort of today’s incumbents and the convenience of bureaucratic consensus? Von der Leyen has the right ideas, and she has the power to make them happen. She now faces a stark choice. She can preside over the slow-motion collapse of Europe’s industrial might, and watch a solar scenario unfold for EV supply chains, with Europe walking back on its EV goals and unable to produce or procure anything without Chinese help. Or she can seize this moment, impose discipline on her Commissioners, and deliver the hard, heavy policies, and funding that Europe needs to reclaim its place in the automotive and industrial vanguard. William Todts is executive director of clean transport group Transport & Environment and a member of the EU strategic dialogue on the future of the European automotive industry. William Todts is executive director of clean transport group Transport & Environment and a member of the
|
EU strategic dialogue
|
Once, Europe’s car industry was the envy of the world. Stuttgart, Wolfsburg, and Paris set the pace in automotive innovation. Now, as Chinese manufacturers roll out cheap LFP batteries and software-defined vehicles, Europe’s giants are left scrambling, warn NGO Transport & Environment.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Green Economy",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-06-23T10:13:47.456Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ardd2cf286
|
The potential for corruption and mismanagement in Nato's 5% target
|
With the Nato summit next Tuesday and Wednesday (24-25 June), talk of soaring defence spending and accelerated rearmament is growing. Leaders meeting in The Hague may endorse a new five percent of-GDP benchmark, backed by the EU’s Readiness 2030 policy. We share this sense of urgency. However history teaches us, from Iraq to Covid, that rapid spending results in waste and misallocation. The risks are high in the defence sector where secrecy can mask poor decisions from the public. Money alone won’t guarantee security. Every euro must deliver real capability in a way that citizens can trust. Openness and oversight can bring the desired return on investment. Without a transparent process, these gaps create the perfect conditions for waste, poor-quality equipment and corrupt middlemen to flourish while limiting the possibility of effective oversight by parliaments and civil society. But secrecy or openness is not a binary choice. Europe’s military spending oversight is uneven. Transparency International documents that many governments still grant blanket secrecy to defence agencies, with most countries lacking the most basic safeguards when classifying defence information. European parliamentarians have raised concerns that Readiness 2030 sidelines parliamentary oversight through the expansion of emergency powers. A study of corruption risks in EU defence procurement over 2007-2019 found that more transparent military contracting resulted in lower levels of corruption. Furthermore, some governments are already proving that transparency does not slow progress. For instance, Lithuania publishes all major contracts within 30 days and Sweden’s Defence Materiel Administration shares how it estimates their full cost of military equipment . Critics argue that national security demands secrecy. While true in some cases, the expert consensus is that this is often a false trade-off. The Tshwane Principles on National Security and the Right to Information , developed by transparency and security experts, provide guidance: security matters should be public by default and only withheld if disclosure poses a real threat. Three principles for speed without secrecy The lesson is clear: secrecy that hides incompetence or corruption weakens defence just as much as underfunding. To avoid this trap, we propose three principles for how Nato countries can spend faster, without compromising on transparency. First, publish what's safe: defence budgets, capability gaps, and the rationale behind urgent purchases. Citizens deserve a clear picture of where their money is going, and how it will protect them. When national security demands secrecy, independent experts should weigh the justification. Even for classified contracts, officials should be required to document their reasons clearly and submit them to an independent reviewer within 60 days. This creates a check on potential closed deals. Defence manufacturing and research needs to span borders. So must oversight. We need better cooperation between auditing agencies and their civil society counterparts. Currently, Nato lacks any binding rules on defence transparency. At the country level, auditing capacity is uneven. Auditors and their counterparts can work together on data standards, information-sharing agreements, and joint investigations. Nato members don’t have to invent this infrastructure from scratch. It already exists in other sectors. Coordinating bodies exist between auditors and their non-government counterparts in labour law enforcement ( SLIC ), public finance auditors ( CEAOB ), and the US network of Inspectors General ( IGNET ). Defence must be next. Speed matters in emergencies. Instead of focusing solely on approvals beforehand, parliaments and auditors could be allowed to conduct thorough reviews after contracts are awarded. These reviews could examine prices, delivery, and contractor behavior. Publishing contractor performance data and using strong enforcement helps deter misconduct without slowing down procurement. To be credible, these reviews ought to be led by independent audit institutions or ombuds offices with the authority to demand corrections and publish findings. Bigger budgets and stronger accountability can go hand-in-hand. With the right safeguards, public support for military spending can be sustained over the long-term. European citizens can understand that contractors are chosen based on quality not connections, and politicians can make decisions based on merit, not pressure. . Speed without integrity undermines the very foundations of the European security that we are aiming to build. If leaders choose to act boldly and wisely in the coming weeks, they can deliver both. Openness and engagement are critical tools for building resilience and support through trust. If Europe is serious about strengthening its security, it must treat transparency not as a burden, but as a force multiplier — one that builds public trust, deters corruption, and ensures capability through accountability. Paul Maassen is the chief of global programs at the Open Government Partnership , a global partnership of government and civil society organizations advancing transparency and accountability around the world. Dr Francesca Grandi is the head of advocacy at Transparency International for defence & security, where she leads efforts to advance the governance and integrity of the European defence sector and to integrate anti-corruption into the global peace and security agenda. Paul Maassen is the chief of global programs at the Open Government Partnership , a global partnership of government and civil society organizations advancing transparency and accountability around the world. Dr Francesca Grandi is the head of advocacy at
|
Transparency International
|
History teaches us, from Iraq to Covid, that rapid spending results in waste and misallocation. MEPs already have raised concerns that Readiness 2030 sidelines parliamentary oversight through the expansion of emergency powers.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-06-22T06:36:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arc912f2e5
|
Activists opened pop-up abortion clinic outside Polish parliament. Opponents threw acid at it
|
Donald Tusk's Polish government has not yet pushed through abortion law reform. In the meantime, opposite the parliament building, feminists have opened an abortion 'clinic', where they face harassment and bullying by anti-abortion activists several times a week — with no protection from the Polish authorities. “What can I tell you?” shrugs Nikola, a bearded Netflix employee from Bulgaria, when I ask him how he perceives the current political situation. “The whole of Europe is heading towards fascism!” “I’m constantly angry,” adds his Polish partner Anna, who is looking at sweatshirts on a rack next to the window. Nikola and Anna met in the Netherlands, where they lived together for several years. Five years ago, they started visiting Poland more often to attend mass pro-choice demonstrations, and then moved to Anna’s native Warsaw. “We’ll see how the next parliamentary elections turn out,” Anna muses. “Maybe we’ll have no choice but to go back to the Netherlands. Not that it’s ideal there, but I feel like people care more about each other there, that there’s a stronger authentic Left. The Polish Left is too polite.” "Is it too big for me?" she asks, turning to the mirror in the pink sweatshirt she chose. We all nod approval as Anna hands it to Emilia, who’s set up a pink iron-on machine. Anna picked a pop art design: a yellow star between parted red lips, pills falling above, and the words: “I help with abortions.” It is the logo of the abortion 'clinic' AboTak , a safe space where anyone can come for advice and support in the event of an unwanted pregnancy or unprotected sex. Activists from the Aborcyjny Dream Team organisation opened the clinic on this year’s International Women’s Day on Wiejská Street in Warsaw, opposite the Polish parliament. They did so a year and a half after the ultra-conservative anti-abortion party Law and Justice (PiS) lost its majority in parliament and a politically-diverse coalition led by Donald Tusk of the centre-right Civic Platform took power. Tusk returned to the prime minister’s office with grandiose promises summed up in 100 specific programme points for the first 100 days of his government. One of them was legalising abortion. Last April, four government bills to relax Poland’s abortion laws were submitted to parliament. The current law allows abortion only in truly extreme situations: incest, rape or if the mother’s life is at risk. Along with Malta , it is considered one of the strictest in Europe. Two proposals from the Civic Coalition and the New Left coalition proposed legalising abortion on demand up to the twelfth week of pregnancy, while the third proposal from the New Left sought to decriminalise abortion altogether. Polish women can now terminate their pregnancies with impunity, but those who help them face punishment. A fourth proposal by the Third Way coalition allowed abortion only on the grounds of foetal impairment. This exception was overturned in 2020 by a ruling of the Constitutional Court, which the PiS had successfully brought under their control during their eight years in power. None of the proposals passed. 'I knew from the beginning that they were lying to us. Even during the election campaign, they knew they wouldn’t get a majority for reforming abortion legislation...And that is exactly why we opened AboTak – to show people that, unlike politicians, we keep our promises,' says Justyna Wydrzyńská, a prominent Polish pro-choice activist 'They could have been heroes' Marta Lempartová, the former face of pro-choice demonstrations, meets me in the office of the All-Poland Women’s Strike in central Warsaw. As a proud reminder of her beginnings, a photograph on the wall shows the largest protest in October 2020, when around half a million people took to the streets. Over the years, the former coordinators of the movement have become a team of civil society organisers. Lempartová, however, remains uncompromising. As Lempartová points out, Tusk’s government has changed its arguments throughout its term in office as to why it has not yet pushed through the relaxation of abortion legislation. Initially, it blamed the expected veto of outgoing president Andrzej Duda. “They could have been national heroes. If they had tried to push through what their voters want and fought for the right thing regardless of whether the president would block their efforts, people would have appreciated it. After all,” she notes, “this is an issue that may well cost them the next parliamentary elections.” As Lempartová emphasises in every interview, according to polls, the majority of Polish society currently supports the relaxation of abortion legislation. Last August, Tusk admitted that he simply did not have a parliamentary majority to legalise abortion on demand, as his conservative coalition partners from the Polish People’s Party and, to some extent, from the Poland 2050 party, were opposed to legalising abortion. “Nonsense. The People’s Party has been a junior coalition partner in all governments. They can easily be bought; it would take Tusk 15 minutes to convince them. All he would have to do is threaten them with the loss of lucrative positions or financial resources. They are so corrupt and weak that if elections were held now, they wouldn’t even make it into parliament. And we all know it.” Lempartová stands by her words with her characteristic fervour. “We have no choice but to take to the streets again for abortion and probably for registered partnerships too.” A ban on education I didn’t expect anything,” says Justyna Wydrzyńská, a prominent Polish pro-choice activist. “I knew from the beginning that they were lying to us. Even during the election campaign, they knew they wouldn’t get a majority for reforming abortion legislation. So why did they promise it? They're playing political games with us , the rules of which we don’t know, and they've exploited us for political tactics. And that is exactly why we opened AboTak – to show people that, unlike politicians, we keep our promises.” We sit nonchalantly on the floor in a small room separated by a single door from the main room of the AboTak clinic. Behind us is a light pink armchair and a beanbag of a similar but deeper shade. Several heart-shaped lamps are attached to the wall, and there is also a lava lamp and reading material. Wydrzyńská, dressed in a long flowing dress with lilac eyeshadow, blends in perfectly with the interior. There is also a separate toilet. This room is nicknamed 'mizolatka' — a combination of the words “isolation” and “misoprostol”, the most common pharmacological abortion drug. Science and the internet mean that the vast majority of Poles who become pregnant unintentionally now undergo abortion at home using pills ordered online through organisations such as Women on Web. According to the World Health Organisation, pharmacological abortion is safe up to the twelfth week of pregnancy, even without medical supervision. Several countries, such as the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands, already allow pharmacological abortion to be performed at least partially at home. All it takes is five pills — the first is mifepristone, which causes the foetus to detach from the uterine wall. One to two days later, four misoprostols must be swallowed, which cause uterine contractions and the opening of the cervix. Approximately eight hours after taking misoprostol, during which time the body expels most of the foetus, women can spend time here in the 'mizolatka'; not every Polish woman has a safe space where she can undergo an abortion undisturbed. What’s more, here they have access to empathetic professionals with years of experience in the abortion underground. According to unofficial estimates, approximately 100,000 Polish women undergo an abortion each year. The tightening of abortion legislation in 2020 resulted in mass demonstrations and a society-wide awareness campaign. More people joined self-help abortion networks , and stickers and graffiti appeared in public spaces with the phone numbers of abortion organisations and information on how medical abortion works. The most active abortion organisation, Aborcyjny Dream Team, was founded in 2016 by Wydrzyńská together with Natalia Broniarczyková and Karolina Więckiewiczová. They were already helping women in Poland who had become pregnant unintentionally before AboTak was founded, either online or by phone. “In Poland,” Broniarczyková points out, “it is easier to have a pharmaceutical abortion today than in Germany, for example.” In Germany, abortion is preceded by a consultation with a social worker, followed by a mandatory three-day waiting period. In Poland, on the other hand, women have the decision and the process in their own hands — without medical supervision and without a record in their medical records. And if necessary, they can take their questions in real time to women who will not judge them. 'We're afraid of legalisation of abortion' This leads to a paradoxical situation. “We don’t need a law legalising abortion,” explains Wydrzyńská. “In fact, we are afraid of it. The healthcare system is not prepared to provide 100,000 abortions a year." "What we need is decriminalisation. We don’t want to see the relatives of women who have had abortions being dragged through the courts,” she also said. In Poland, law enforcement agencies launch random investigations — for example, of a boyfriend who gave his partner money for abortion pills. As lawyer Karolina Gierdalová pointed out to AFP, criminalising assistance with an abortion “causes a lot of anxiety about where such assistance begins. Can a friend be with me? Can she give me a bottle of hot water?” Wydrzyńská is the only activist who has been convicted for allegedly assisting with an abortion, for which she was given a sentence of eight months of community service. In 2020, she provided a woman with abortion pills, which the woman’s boyfriend discovered, and he then reported Wydrzyńská. Wydrzyńská was convicted under a 1993 law targeting doctors who perform manual abortions, and yet no doctor has ever been convicted of performing an abortion in Poland. “I only provided the woman in question with a tool that she could use if she wanted to,” says the activist, who insists on her innocence. “Moreover, the pills were confiscated by the police, and she did not have an abortion until many weeks later — using a foil cutter.” In February this year, the appeal court overturned the verdict and returned the case to the court of first instance on suspicion of bias on the part of the judge, who had been nominated to the post by the ultra-conservative former minister of justice Zbigniew Ziobro. Despite the fact that AboTak provides only information and a safe space for abortions to take place, not pills, Wydrzyńská and Broniarczyková are still being repeatedly questioned by the police. When Tusk announced that he did not have a parliamentary majority to push through abortion reform, he promised that he would at least do everything in his power to end the persecution of people helping with abortions. According to Broniarczyková, decriminalising abortion would also help to test whether the Polish medical community really refuses to perform abortions primarily out of fear of punishment. “A similar situation prevails now in Mexico, where abortion was recently decriminalised, not legalised — and doctors have started to perform abortions themselves.” In contrast to decriminalisation, every abortion law contains a list of restrictive conditions that determine up to which week of pregnancy, how often and under what medical supervision an abortion can be performed. “Given the conservative composition of the Polish parliament, I'm terrified that abortion will only be allowed under strict conditions and will consequently become less accessible than it is today. In the end, it is our lives and health that are at stake. There is no scientific or medical reason why abortion should be regulated by law, let alone the criminal code,” Broniarczyková argues. “It is nothing more than control over women.” People can buy items to support AboTak: a pink mug with the inscription 'You will never walk alone' or panties inscribed with 'I fuck to come, not to get pregnant' are apparently the best-sellers A pastel-coloured desire to live a normal life Six women have had abortions at the clinic so far. “We thought there would be more interest in this service,” admits Wydrzyńská. “Nevertheless, I think we do need more places like this — even if they are only open twice a week. They have an important symbolic value. Just look at the type of messages, ideas and images that were associated with abortion until recently — exclusively negative ones. We want to associate abortion with positive messages about relief and the desire to live a normal life,” she explains. Meanwhile, the main room at AboTak is bustling with activity, as it is every day. In addition to Anna and Nikola, who came with a bag of sugared marmalade croissants, Ola has also rushed in today. The petite girl in a dark summer shirt with a palm leaf pattern has brought with her an Easter cake thickly dusted with powdered sugar, nicknamed 'Babka' [grandmother]. In central Poland, where she comes from, babka contains a surprising ingredient — mayonnaise, which makes it moister. Ola’s babka had risen quite a bit, and the dome on top had cracked, making it look like a vulva. “I didn’t plan it, but I knew I would bring it here while I was baking it – Babka must have known,” she laughs at the play on words, while the women of AboTak pose playfully with their tongues sticking out. One in three-to-four women will have an abortion at least once in their lives. Ola is one of them. “I got pregnant after being raped. Fortunately, I was living in England at the time. I found out in the 12th week, but I didn’t get an abortion until the 20th week. If I had been in Poland at the time, I might have an eight-year-old child today,” she says. In Poland, a woman who has been raped can only have an abortion up to the twelfth week, and the rape must be proven by a prosecutor. A punk with a beautiful, pierced boyish face, who recognises Ola as a feminist TikTok influencer, also comes to thank the AboTak team for their work. He buys a canvas bag with a capybara print and the word “abo” on it, into which Emilia puts a supply of condoms. She hugs everyone. Every day, the table holds a vase of fresh flowers — today, red tulips — and a plate of sweet snacks for everyone: gestures of support that people bring to AboTak every day. The room is dominated by a red satin couch in the shape of sensual lips, and a curtain of the same colour divides the room into a public area and a backstage area. The coat rack and shelves are overflowing with items in mostly pastel shades with pro-choice and feminist slogans, which people can buy to support AboTak: a pink mug with the inscription “You will never walk alone” or panties inscribed with “I fuck to come, not to get pregnant”. These are apparently the bestsellers — although most customers ask for them in whispers. Stickers and posters in the room are full of messages about sisterhood, female autonomy and the almost magical ease and accessibility of pharmacological abortion. Broniarczyková, who usually comes to AboTak with her two French bulldogs, glances nervously out the window from time to time. “Who’s that cameraman?” she asks, pointing to a man outside. “Is he one of us?” Bullying with noise I fully understand the reason for her suspicious glance a week later. Cartoonist Carrot B. is presenting her latest comic, Wyjście (Exit), about a Polish woman who travels to the Netherlands to have an abortion. Suddenly, in front of the AboTak shop window, a group of people unfurl posters with photographs of foetuses. To make matters worse, a dangerously loud noise begins to bellow from huge speakers: a high-pitched sound, reminiscent of an ambulance siren, and the sound of a baby crying inconsolably. One of the people present listens intently. “They added a new sound today, didn’t they?” Some of the protesters blow their plastic vuvuzelas obsessively. “This is the most bizarre book presentation I’ve ever seen”, says the illustrator, trying to lighten the tense atmosphere with laughter, but she is clearly uncomfortable. “I’ll have to take an Uber home again,” sighs Broniarczyková, trying to silence her nervousness by eating one peanut after another. “They’ve robbed me of everything, even the joy of riding my bike.” Anti-abortion protesters gather outside the clinic about three times a week. Their noisy protests are sometimes accompanied by cries of “Murder of Innocents.” At other times, they play excerpts from a podcast in which Broniarczyková talks about her experience with abortion and how, despite her conviction that she made the right decision, she sometimes thinks about how old her child would be today. Twice already, the protestors have splashed the clinic’s doorstep with pungent smelling butyric acid. The anti-abortion protesters have officially registered their demonstration in front of the clinic every day between 8 AM and 8 PM. Activists and women who want to come to AboTak for advice or to have an abortion never know whether they will have to fight their way through a hateful, rowdy crowd that has no qualms about putting vuvuzelas to their ears. A few days ago, a Ukrainian refugee who became pregnant after being raped and was unable to order pills online reportedly had to pass through a particularly aggressive protest. AboTak is, moreover, in a residential area, and the regular harassment with noise disturbs the lives of local residents. Neighbours told the activists that they even had to hospitalise a six-year-old autistic girl after she started self-harming because of the noise. That made the activists consider closing the clinic. “It’s not that we’re afraid of them,” Wydrzyńská explains. “But we don’t want our neighbours to suffer because of our space. However, when we told one of them, she replied: “You can’t do that. This isn’t about you. This is about them.” So we decided to give the clinic another chance. And we started to take a more aggressive approach. Now we record the faces of the protestors on our phones and post on the internet what they do to us.” The activists agree, however, that responding to the protests is primarily the responsibility of the city, whose mayor, Rafał Trzaskowski, a presidential candidate from Tusk’s Civic Platform, lost in the second round of the presidential elections on 1 June against conservative candidate Karol Nawrocki. On the initiative of leftwing senator Magdalena Biajetová, the clinic is now guarded by police on a daily basis, so acid is no longer being thrown at it. However, the police refuse to break up demonstrations that disrupt public order, citing freedom of assembly, which they say cannot be denied to anyone on the grounds of decibel levels. According to the Polish constitution, however, the police can, of course, disperse a gathering if it threatens the health, property or safety of the population, which is undoubtedly the case with demonstrations that result in a six-year-old girl being injured. The police’s inaction seems particularly inappropriate in view of their response to the peaceful May Day demonstration by the Plakaciary group, whose members posted pro-abortion slogans near the parliament in response to the attacks with butyric acid. As soon as they stepped onto the lawn in front of the metal fence on which they wanted to post the slogans, they were surrounded by about 20 police officers equipped with mini cameras. Although the police eventually allowed the activists to complete their action, all those present will be summoned for police questioning because they allegedly committed a criminal offence. “Where were you when acid was thrown at the clinic?” Julia Kamińska, a member of the Plakaciary group and a well-known actress, asked the police. “Do you know that women are being doused with acid all over the world to intimidate them? What can we do to feel safe in our own city?” “Stay at home, eat pizza, watch Netflix and don’t cause any trouble,” replied the police officer. Another member of the group, a vigorous blonde, Janka, adds approvingly: “That was exactly our purpose: to point out that they don’t care about acid attacks on abortion clinics, but they'll send 20 police to deal with posters supporting human rights.” To stop them from continuing their alleged criminal activity, the police confiscated the paintbrushes and plastic bucket of liquid glue from the activists. Despite two hours of commotion, illustrator Carrot B. finished her book presentation. Nonetheless, we left the clinic that day through the back door, feeling dejected. Broniarczyková has a frozen expression on her face, a mixture of anger, exhaustion and sadness. I ask her if she is okay. “Yes and no,” she replies. “How could everyone have left us in the lurch? I have helped so many important women in Poland with abortions. I could compile a really long list.” “I need a drink” commands Zuza, an artist and AboTak worker with dreadlocks tied in an elegant bun under a peach-coloured scarf, before striding forward angrily. “How can anyone claim that Trzaskowski supports abortion? It’s his inaction that’s allowing all this to happen. And when we point this out, we’re accused of helping the fascists win. As if we have to celebrate anyone who isn’t openly fascist.” “Exactly,” Joanna, a bespectacled volunteer and anti-fascist who has been involved in the fight for abortion rights since she was 15, continues in a more conciliatory tone. “Lately, for the first time in my life, I feel like there’s nothing left to lose. It’s as if the fascists have already won, in a way.” And yet, in the end, we spend a touchingly beautiful evening together. We talk about activism, family traumas, and socialisation into accepting chronic feelings of inadequacy and guilt. “I feel so incredibly privileged to have the opportunity to work with such amazing people as you” repeats Emilia, AboTak’s manager. And every time someone lifts a glass that night, the whole room shouts: “To sisterhood!” Petra Dvořáková
|
is a journalist at
|
Donald Tusk's supposedly liberal Polish government has not yet pushed through abortion law reform. Meanwhile opposite the parliament building, feminists have opened an abortion 'clinic', where they face harassment and bullying by anti-abortion activists several times a week — and the Polish authorities do not protect them.
|
[
"Health & Society"
] |
health-and-society
|
2025-06-21T05:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/health-and-society/ar6eb25e24
|
Full text of EU report on Israeli crimes in Gaza
|
The EU has corroborated UN allegations that Israel was guilty of "indiscriminate attacks ... starvation ... torture ... [and] apartheid" against Palestinians in a leaked "review". The "restricted", eight-page EU foreign service document was circulated to member states' embassies in Brussels on Friday (20 June) and leaked in full (see below) for the first time by EUobserver. It concluded, on page eight, that "there are indications that Israel would be in breach of its human rights obligations" in a 25-year-old EU-Israel "association agreement", which could cost Israel €1bn/year in trade perks - if member states were to take action. The leaked EU paper was bracketed with assorted caveats. It was billed merely as a "note" to "contribute to the ongoing review" of EU-Israel relations, rather than as the last word on the subject. It didn't entail "any value judgment" by EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas or EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen. It apologised for excluding violence by Palestinian militant group Hamas, but said this lay outside its scope. And it was chiefly based on findings by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague - because Israel had allowed the EU "no capacity" to do its own investigations in Gaza, the Kallas report said. But it referenced chapter and verse of the laws of modern warfare. And it chronicled a litany of Israeli violations, lending EU weight to the factuality of the UN findings, and conjuring horrific images of events on the ground. Israel's food blockade meant "half a million people (one in five)" in Gaza were "facing starvation", the Kallas report said. "The blockade and siege of Gaza by Israel amounts to collective punishment ... and may also amount to the use of starvation as a method of war", it added. Israel was "in violation of an ICJ provisional ruling" designed to "prevent the commission of acts within the scope of the genocide convention", the EU review noted (in its only use of the word "genocide"). It spoke of "indiscriminate [Israeli] attacks" using "heavy weapons, including air-dropped bombs, on places were civilians are sheltering". Victims included babies, infants, and disabled people. "Palestinian journalists and media workers have been reportedly killed in large numbers, possibly as a result of being directly targeted," the EU foreign service paper said. And this was likely a "deliberate attempt by Israel to limit the flow of information to and from Gaza and prevent reporting on the impact of its attacks", the EU document said. Turning to Israeli aggression in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the EU referenced ICJ reports of Israeli "racial segregation and apartheid". Israeli arrests of Palestinians "often involved violence, humiliation, and inhuman and degrading treatment, in some cases amounting to torture", the Kallas review said. "The leaked EEAS [EU External Action Service] paper makes it abundantly clear that EU institutions know very well what's happening in Gaza ... that they don't deny it, or seek to justify it in some bizarre fashion," said H.A. Hellyer, from the London-based think-tank, the Royal United Services Institute. "If the EU doesn't act on the conclusions in this paper, then its credibility will be incredibly damaged," he said, as EU ambassadors, foreign ministers, and leaders prepared to discuss follow-ups in Brussels this week. A previous EU foreign service report on Israel, carried out last November, also spoke of Israeli "war crimes", but prompted no sanctions. And draft conclusions for next Thursday's EU summit, also seen by EUobserver, left open what EU leaders planned to say on the Kallas paper, meaning they might passively "take note" that it was filed, instead of more boldly endorsing her conclusions. The draft summit declaration said, low down in point 17, only: "[p.m.: review of Israel's fulfilment of its obligations under Article 2 of the Association Agreement]". Meanwhile, even if the EU foreign service didn't have staff in Gaza, the EU did have diplomats and officials in Egypt, Israel, and the West Bank, said Claudio Francavilla from the Human Rights Watch (HRW) group in New York. "They've seen, with their own eyes, food trucks rotting because of the Israeli blockade, so they don't need to rely on the UN to bear witness to that," he said. "The evidence was so overwhelming that they [EU institutions] had no choice but to acknowledge reality: Israel is in massive breach of Article 2 [on human rights compliance in its EU pact]. EU foreign ministers must act accordingly on Monday [23 June] and suspend the association agreement," Francavilla said. But the caveats and "pathetic phrasing of the [Kallas] conclusions ... reflect political discomfort and cowardice in certain powerful corners of the EU," he added. Tom Gibson, from the Committee to Protect Journalists, also in New York, said: "EU foreign ministers need to act and suspend it [the Israel agreement]. The message must be clear: Israel must be held to account. Anything less is a disgrace". The Israeli embassy to the EU declined to comment.
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
Full text: The EU has corroborated UN allegations that Israel was guilty of "indiscriminate attacks ... starvation ... torture ... [and] apartheid" against Palestinians in a leaked "review".
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Rule of Law"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-06-20T20:24:38.566Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar0246a0da
|
Israel violated EU pact on human rights, review says
|
Israel has formally violated its EU treaty due to human rights abuses, marking a watershed in relations. Its violation of the EU-Israel association agreement was set forth in a "review" by EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas, which was circulated to EU embassies in Brussels on Friday (20 June). "On the basis of the assessments made by the independent international institutions … there are indications that Israel would be in breach of its human rights obligations under Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement," said the Kallas review, which was distributed in paper copies, but leaked to Politico . "Wording they [Politico] have in that is accurate," an EU diplomat told EUobserver. Israel's EU embassy did not comment on the leak. The negative findings could see Israel lose €1bn/year in EU trade perks and access to science grants after July, if member states vote to suspend parts of the bilateral accord. A senior EU diplomat said on Thursday nothing might happen if Israel "took action" by quickly improving humanitarian access to Gaza. A previous EU foreign service report in 2024 also documented Israeli "war crimes" and member states ignored it. But even if EU countries don't suspend anything, the non-binding Kallas review still marks a historic stain on Israel's EU record after 25 years of close relations. It means Israel joins a rogues' gallery of African, Caribbean, and Pacific states, in a list of 17 similar cases since 2000. And it makes Israel look like a less attractive ally in a moment of peak tension in the Middle East, even as it seeks US weapons and EU political cover for its war with Iran. The Kallas review will be discussed by EU ambassadors in Brussels on Sunday, foreign ministers on Monday, leaders on Thursday, and foreign ministers again in July, keeping Gaza on the agenda despite the wider Middle East crisis. Israel has killed 55,637 people in Gaza in the past 20 months, including 15,613 children, according to a UN report on Wednesday . Israel's Gaza food blockade means another "71,000 cases of acute malnutrition among children aged six to 59 months," the UN said. And "children will [soon] begin to die of thirst", a UN spokesman warned in Geneva on Friday, as "just 40 percent of drinking water production facilities remain functional". Iran context Meanwhile, Kallas also joined the French, German, and British foreign ministers in talks with Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi in Geneva on Friday. "The Iranians can't sit down with the Americans whereas we can," said a European diplomat, speaking to Reuters . "We will tell them to come back to the table to discuss the nuclear issue before the worst case scenario, while raising our concerns over its ballistic missiles, support to Russia and detention of our citizens," the diplomat said. US president Donald Trump has also said he would wait two weeks before deciding whether to bomb Iran together with Israel, in a setback to Israeli hawks, who had wanted immediate joint action.
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
Israel has formally violated its EU treaty due to human rights abuses, attracting stigma even as it seeks friends on Iran.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Rule of Law"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-06-20T17:29:01.404Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar2044f2f8
|
Martina Geiger-Gerlach — Eyes wide shut, trying to photograph the European Dream
|
A public opinion poll earlier this year suggests the vast majority of European citizens look to the EU to protect them against global challenges and security risks. The demands are immense. Several million refugees fled to the European Union after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in early 2023. The US, under the increasingly autocratic leadership of Donald Trump, is threatening to annex Greenland, as he trashes a decades-old transatlantic alliance and launches a global trade war. Climate change, inflation, economic hardships, ageing populations and migration are among some of the other larger issues that Europeans are also facing. Yet almost three-quarters of people believe that EU membership is a massive benefit to their home countries. It is the best result ever recorded by Eurobarometer since this question was first asked in 1983. "I kept hearing about this dream of Europe. But what could it be? Nobody knows" The survey comes at a time of uncertainty, with Europeans looking at what it means to be a part of the European Union, a project rooted in the ashes of World War II, in the hopes of preventing future conflicts while promoting economic cooperation. Utopian principles spanning human dignity, freedom, democracy , equality, rule of law, and respect for human rights shape its governing constitution. Some speculated the project would collapse like a domino after the United Kingdom left the bloc in 2016. But calls by some mostly far-right politicians in France , Germany and Italy to also leave the EU faded into the background as the UK grappled with the realities of being alone on the world stage. It is in these moments that the concept of the European dream appears to take shape, where a fractured unity among the remaining 27 member states becomes more relevant as people look for a sense of community and peaceful co-existence. These are questions that German artist Martina Geiger-Gerlach has been exploring through an extraordinary digital photomontage of European Parliament plenary sessions in Strasbourg. "I kept hearing about this dream of Europe. But what could it be? Nobody knows," she says, in an interview with EUobserver. "Does this mean that a parliament needs to dream from time to time?" she says. Geiger-Gerlach spent two-and-a-half years on the project and visited the Strasbourg plenary sessions over five months, every session from morning to evening, from October 2019 to February 2020. The end result is a series of eight large panels of some 818 politicians, leaders and officials affiliated with the EU institutions — all with their eyes shut. Among them are younger versions of familiar faces like European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, Manfred Weber of the centre-right European People's Party, and ousted far-right Hungarian MEP József Szájer. "It's a really crazy idea to try to come together in one voice with so many people, nations and interests. And it's really so necessary" As if in a dream, they are portrayed in what Geiger-Gerlach describes as simultaneously beautiful and pensive. Although the Parliament Dreams was finalised years ago, it still has relevance and bearing today. "I did the concept in 2016, but only in 2019 I got the chance to realise the project in Strasbourg, just in time when a very special dynamic of big incidents started: Brexit, the Green Deal, Covid, and then the war in Ukraine. And now, crises all over," she says. Geiger-Gerlach says the photos are deliberately open to interpretation. Some cynics may see them as lazy politicians asleep on their jobs — others as an impressive demonstration of democracy. Geiger-Gerlach falls into the latter category, noting that the work has transformed her perception of the European Parliament. The people in the photos were no longer just politicians or officials with their own agendas; they were also beautiful vulnerable humans, she says. "I learned a lot about democracy, especially how demanding it really is," says Geiger-Gerlach. "It's a really crazy idea to try to come together in one voice with so many people, nations and interests. And it's really so necessary. We have no other choice. ..maybe it's never possible, but we are trying this. That's really big...maybe trying to come together is enough." Based out of Stuttgart, Geiger-Gerlach has spent the better part of the past 20-plus years exploring topical social and political issues, often in performative settings. But efforts to have her work displayed at the European Parliament had their own set of challenges. Every year, the assembly selects artists from around Europe to display their work in the plenary halls. Once a pre-selection is made, it then needs approval from the parliament's questors, a group of five senior MEPs overseeing the financial and administrative interests of their peers. All refused to endorse Geiger-Gerlach's work. Geiger-Gerlach says it was due to budgetary constraints. Others were worried that they would be viewed by the wider public as asleep, she says. "It doesn't matter if they sleep like in a night dream, or have a daydream or a wishing dream. Sleeping and dreaming is much more about networking in the brain, about an impressive imagination, and about experiences of unrealistic visions and utopias," concludes Geiger-Gerlach. And do let us know if you're interested in a physical copy of the magazine here .
|
Nikolaj joined EUobserver in 2012 and covers home affairs. He is originally from Denmark, but spent much of his life in France and in Belgium. He was awarded the King Baudouin Foundation grant for investigative journalism in 2010.
|
The Parliament Dreams is a poetic series of digital photos by German artist Martina Geiger-Gerlach. After two-and-a-half years and five months of visiting Strasbourg plenary sessions, she created eight large panels featuring 818 EU politicians, leaders, and officials—all with their eyes closed.
|
[
"The EU's Unsung Heroes"
] |
the-eus-unsung-heroes
|
2025-06-20T07:50:39.409Z
|
https://euobserver.com/the-eus-unsung-heroes/ar97db32a2
|
PM Sánchez cornered: What's happening in Spain?
|
Spain is in political turmoil. A new corruption scandal has once again shaken the government in Madrid, with prime minister Pedro Sánchez’s party (PSOE) facing its worst crisis since he came to power in 2018. High-ranking officials of Sánchez's PSOE have allegedly been involved in a massive corruption scheme involving irregular awarding of public contracts in exchange for kickbacks. The so-called (often called the Caso Koldo in Spain), launched by the Guardia Civil's elite Central Operative Unit (UCO) and coordinated with the anti-corruption prosecution office, investigates alleged manipulation of emergency procurement procedures during the Covid-19 pandemic. But what started as an investigation into irregular pandemic-era mask purchases has rapidly expanded into a broader political scandal, which is still far from over. The probe has expanded well beyond public‑health procurement, even prompting a high-level investigation of potential misuse of EU funds led by the European public prosecutor's office (EPPO). The European anti-fraud body, Olaf, is also involved in the investigation. The mask scheme turned out to be only the tip of the iceberg, as investigators have uncovered a sophisticated corruption scheme involving bid‑rigging for lucrative regional and national infrastructure contracts, money laundering, and coordinated political influence. And the deeper the investigation goes, the more difficult it is for Sánchez to justify being unaware of what was happening. Sánchez, who has so far tried to distance the party from the scandal by framing it as the isolated misconduct of a few individuals, has apologised to Spaniards and PSOE voters. But he has refused to resign or call for elections, as the centre-right political opponents (the PP party) and far-right Vox are demanding. If elections were called, the latest estimates from May 2025 suggest that the PSOE would win 32 percent of the vote, while the PP would receive 29.3 percent. However, it is clear that the ongoing investigation (and its eventual outcome) could significantly undermine the PSOE’s credibility and impact the results of the upcoming elections. All this comes ahead of tough weeks in the international arena. First at the Nato summit in The Hague, where Spain has rejected Trump's demands to set a new five percent defence-spending target, and then at the European Council in Brussels. Who is involved in the corruption case? At the heart of the corruption scandal are, so far, Koldo García (former close adviser to ex-transport and urban agenda minister José Luis Ábalos), Ábalos himself (who is now a solely MP), and Santos Cerdán (PSOE's secretary of organisation and effectively Sánchez's party's "number three"). It all started in early 2024, when Koldo García and his wife were arrested over an alleged corruption scheme involving pandemic-era mask purchases. In García's home, over 30,000 photos, documents, and audio files were confiscated by police, including data recovered from cloud backups. The relation between Sánchez and Ábalos, who was also PSOE's "number three" until 2021, has been special. In 2021, Sánchez removed Ábalos as PSOE secretary of organisation and transport minister without much explanation, raising many questions that were left unanswered. But in the wake of the snap elections in 2023, Ábalos was rescued for the electoral lists. In February 2024, when accusations against him were still unclear, he was suspended from membership and expelled from the parliamentary group. As a result, Ábalos went from being a very powerful fish within the PSOE to a lone deputy. The three high-ranking socialist politicians are currently facing charges including influence peddling, corruption, embezzlement, and membership in a criminal organisation. All the suspects have denied any wrongdoing. The investigation of the Guardia Civil's UCO not only points to several PSOE politicians, but also to five businessmen (not under investigation) for their alleged involvement in the rigging of public works contracts. On top of this, Sánchez took five days to reflect in April 2024, when his wife, Begoña Gómez, came under scrutiny for alleged influence-peddling. Many saw the move as politically motivated. Rule of law at risk? This week, the European Parliament held a debate on the rule of law in Spain, during which the EU commissioner, Michael McGrath, urged Madrid to strengthen the independence of its prosecutor's office. Under the current system, Spain's attorney‑general is appointed by the government, raising concerns in Brussels about the lack of independence and autonomy of the prosecution, as flagged in the European Commission's latest annual rule of law report. The debate was triggered in part by a preliminary decision by Spain's Supreme Court to prosecute the government-appointed attorney-general over allegations he leaked confidential information to the media about a tax offence from the couple of a political opponent. Yet, much of the debate in Strasbourg wasn't just about this episode. Instead, it revolved around the latest political scandals engulfing the Sánchez government: from allegations tied to the Delorme Operation, to questions about the Catalan amnesty law, judicial interference, and the integrity of its own party. The centre-right opposition used the opportunity to attack Sánchez's policies and call for elections, the socialists tried to defend themselves and their S&D European party, while others talked about a European debate being hijacked for national interests. In an email, seen by EUobserver and sent to all members of the S&D group ahead of the plenary debate, the head of the Spanish delegation of the S&D, Javier Moreno Sánchez (not related to Pedro Sánchez), defended the "immediate" response of the government. "Once again, we have demonstrated that we are not all the same — and that the Socialist Party has zero tolerance for corruption, something the Partido Popular cannot claim," he said, referring to a massive corruption scandal known as the 'Gürtel case', which led to the successful vote of no confidence against Sánchez's predecessor, Mariano Rajoy (PP) in June 2018. Back then, several senior PP members were found guilty of embezzlement. "We are fully aware of the responsibility we hold — both in Spain and in Europe," Moreno Sánchez also said. With scandals piling up and Europe watching closely, can Sánchez still hold on or is Spain on the verge of a political shake-up?
|
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.
|
A new corruption scandal has once again shaken the government in Madrid, with prime minister Pedro Sánchez's party (PSOE) facing its worst crisis since he came to power in 2018.
|
[
"Rule of Law"
] |
rule-of-law
|
2025-06-20T05:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/rule-of-law/ar1bfc79ce
|
‘Nazi’, ‘kosher’, ‘Green party’: how EU institutions and firms misused ad-targeting on X
|
What do “Marine le Pen”, “Nazi”, “FEMYSO”, “#EvaKaili”, “communism,” “Viktor Orban” and “Christianity” have in common? At first glance, not much, which makes it all the more puzzling why X users who’ve shown an interest in these topics or figures were purposefully excluded from seeing ads run by the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs (DG HOME) at the European Commission between September 2023 and May 2025. This is one of many findings in a new report by AI Forensics , an organisation that describes themselves as “digital detectives who shine a light on hidden algorithmic injustices, and work to bring accountability and transparency to the tech industry.” The report , titled , was published on Wednesday (18 June), and examined publicly available data — mandatorily provided by X under the Digital Services Act (DSA) – on ad targeting from dozens of organisations. Paul Bouchaud, the author and researcher of the report, told EUobserver that they got interested in looking into this topic when they spotted that on X, they were being targeted by ads based on criteria that, under the EU’s privacy regulation, are known as ‘sensitive categories’. Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) , these data are specified as “special categories of personal data”, and include personal data like health, racial or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, gender, but also political affiliation and religious or philosophical affiliation or beliefs. GDPR categorically forbids the targeting of online users based on these types of personal data. And so does the DSA. “‘Special category’ data enjoy particularly strong protections in the GDPR because they relate to the intimate life of a person. Companies are not permitted to use these data by default,” concurs Dr Johnny Ryan, senior fellow at the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and an expert in digital surveillance, data rights, competition anti-trust, and privacy. And in December of 2024, the European Data Protection Supervisor issued a decision against the European Commission for illegally targeting advertising at citizens using "sensitive" personal data on their political views — the same campaign for the controversial chat control regulation that DG HOME was advertising. And yet the report found that not only DG HOME excluded users that were segmented according to political and religious interest, but also found examples of the European Health and Digital Executive Agency running ads for Horizon Europe in France that excluded politically sensitive segments such as "fascist", "ultra nationalist" and "communist". They also excluded, for whatever reason, the segment "mass murder". It also found evidence that companies across Europe were excluding user segments. TotalEnergies for example excluded showing ads to French users with an interest in green party politicians, but also who had been segmented as interested in "kosher". Dell Technologies in Germany chose to exclude showing ads to users segmented as interested in "Nazismus" [Nazism] but also ‘#lesbisch’ [lesbian]. Pharma company Merck Healthcare did not want their ads shown to segments labeled as "Jesus", "church" and "bible". In all, the report covers around 30 organisations. Tip of the iceberg However, Bouchaud said they would have liked to do 10,000, but because X’s ads repository is so buggy so as to work intermittently, they had to settle for less. “I built something that tried automatically, a small script that just tried until one worked. That's why there are only 30 brands in the report and not 10,000. There's a huge limitation on the website.” X, for its part, writes on its ads help center that “when you use X to follow, post, search, view, or interact with posts or X accounts, we may use these actions to customise X Ads for you.” Bouchaud explains that X then uses this information to offer advertisers an extensive menu of keywords to choose from that you can either target an ad towards, or exclude from showing your advertising. They also said that X offers ways to broadly exclude ads from appearing around controversial content or conversation, so excluding specific categories is not necessary to ensure what advertisers call "brand safety". In other words, “the argument saying we need to be targeting could be valid, but you can do it in a more inclusive way” Bouchaud says. In fact, X itself stipulates in its advertising guidelines that — despite offering them — “targeting customers based on sensitive categories is a violation of our Ads policies,” but also that “you are responsible for all your promoted content and targeting on X. This includes complying with applicable laws and regulations regarding online advertisements.” Ryan however says that he thinks “the problem is that the company in question is offering this product as a normal thing. This problem is a result of enforcement failure by X's lead data protection supervisory authority (Ireland) and the DG Just's failure to ensure that the GDPR is fully applied by Ireland. So, while it is true that advertisers who use digital services should be careful, the essential intervention is to enforce the law against the companies that offer the service so that no advertisers can fall in to this trap. X should not be processing these data at all, except in the rare circumstance where a person trusts them to do so.” And indeed, the DSA’s Article 26(3) states that providers of online platforms “shall not present advertisements to recipients of the service based on profiling … using special categories of personal data referred to in Article 9(1)” of the GDPR. Bouchaud agrees. “The report has a goal to question the regulation as it is. This practice is illegal but if we collectively think it's okay, then the regulation should bend it, and if not, it should just be applied and forbidden.” As part of the report, AI Forensics also created a website where X users can upload their data to check if they were targeted under sensitive categories, which can be found here . DG HOME did not reply to a request for comment at time of publication.
|
Alejandro Tauber is Publisher of EUobserver. He is Ecuadorian, German, and American, but lives in Amsterdam. His background is in tech and science reporting, and was previously editor at VICE's Motherboard and publisher of TNW.
|
A new report finds that EU bodies and companies alike have been using political and religious targeting on X to exclude users from seeing certain ads — which is expressly forbidden under GDPR.
|
[
"Digital",
"EU Political"
] |
digital
|
2025-06-20T04:30:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/digital/ar9600663c
|
Hans-Dietrich Genscher — The overlooked German guru behind the single currency
|
The euro’s origin story usually centres on Jacques Delors, the French commission president who steered it from concept to treaty. But in 1988, West German foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher quietly set the stage with a memo pushing for a single currency and an independent central bank — a move that helped crack open the door. The euro, in his view, was not just a tool for financial housekeeping and European integration but a geo-strategic imperative. As the Cold War was unravelling, Genscher spoke of reducing dependency on the dollar, expanding Europe’s room for manoeuvre, and shaping a more balanced international order. “It is in the interest of all EMS [European member states],” the memo argued, “to reduce their dependence on the dollar and to increase their scope for monetary policy action.” Not long after, in 1990, the EU Commission started talking about monetary unification as “a decisive building block for a more stable multi-polar monetary regime.” Unlike some of his contemporaries, Genscher was explicit and strategic in viewing the euro as a counterweight to global superpowers, anticipating some of the questions Europe is once again now grappling with today. The European Central Bank that eventually emerged was a triumph of German and French institutional thinking: independent, rules-based, and with a strict mandate for price stability, but with some room to manoeuvre. “To the extent that the eurosystem is successful in maintaining price stability, it will also automatically foster the use of the euro as an international currency” But the international role Genscher and others had envisioned for the currency never fully materialised. While the euro is used daily by millions and is the world’s second-most-traded currency, it has not become a true rival to the dollar, nor has it developed into a geopolitical tool in its own right. This is in part due to the intellectual constraints of the era, which Genscher shared and laid out in his 1988 ‘Magna Carta’ of European stability policy that said that the ECB “must orient its monetary policy toward the goal of price stability.” The 1992 Maastricht Treaty embedded many of the same assumptions: that price stability, central bank independence, and strict fiscal discipline were not only necessary but sufficient. A stable coin, it was believed, would spread on its own. “To the extent that the eurosystem is successful in maintaining price stability, it will also automatically foster the use of the euro as an international currency,” the first-ever ECB president, Wim Duisenberg (1935-2005), would later say to this effect. The rules were designed to build trust by replicating the discipline of the German model. But over time, they entrenched a narrow, technocratic approach, focused more on internal balance sheets than external influence. “Unlike the US, where the treasury and the federal reserve had for centuries played the leading role in promoting the dollar's international status, the EU failed to actively design its monetary governance to support the international role of the euro, ” economist and philosopher Jens van ‘t Klooster wrote in a recent paper . Still, the deeper thread in Genscher’s thought — that sovereignty can be pooled without being lost, that integration is the best defence against geostrategic impotence, and that the euro can serve as a tool of strategic autonomy — has lost none of its urgency , as the EU once again navigates a hostile world. And do let us know if you're interested in a physical copy of the magazine here .
|
Wester is a journalist from the Netherlands with a focus on the green economy. He joined EUobserver in September 2021. Previously he was editor-in-chief of Vice, Motherboard, a science-based website, and climate economy journalist for The Correspondent.
|
Jacques Delors is often seen as the ‘godfather’ of the euro, but Hans-Dietrich Genscher played a quieter, catalytic role. His 1988 ‘magna carta’ helped reframe the single currency as a question of European security — a theme especially relevant today.
|
[
"The EU's Unsung Heroes"
] |
the-eus-unsung-heroes
|
2025-06-19T14:21:32.654Z
|
https://euobserver.com/the-eus-unsung-heroes/ar44dd78a2
|
Child sexual abuse directive — as MEPs do their bit, now up to member states
|
This week, the European Parliament adopted — by an overwhelming majority (559 for, two against, with 69 abstentions) — its position on the revision of the directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children. We, MEPs of the European Parliament’s negotiating team, now armed with a strong and clear mandate from the house of EU citizens, are ready to begin inter-institutional negotiations with member states. Child sexual abuse is a silent pandemic. One-in-five children in Europe has been, is, or will be a victim of sexual violence. This pervasive crime affects every member state and every layer of society. Every day, we hear harrowing stories from survivors and through the media — accounts emerging from schools, families, and institutions alike. The scale of these crimes, and the vulnerability of their victims, compel us — as MEPs, and as representatives of the European Union — to provide a harmonised, ambitious, and effective response for all EU citizens and residents. We cannot turn a blind eye. The European Parliament’s position seeks to ensure that every victim, every survivor, is recognised, protected, and given justice and reparation. Recognising that many survivors need years — sometimes decades — to come forward, we propose lifting the statute of limitations for the most serious forms of abuse and exploitation. This ensures victims can seek justice and compensation when they are ready. Because accountability must not fade with time. There should be no legal loophole that shields perpetrators once the clock runs out. Those who harm children must never find refuge in legal technicalities and when victims carry the trauma for life, justice should remain within reach for as long as it takes. The revised directive incorporates provisions inspired by the , which promotes a multidisciplinary, child-friendly approach throughout the criminal justice process. From the moment a crime is reported, through victim support and court proceedings, this approach helps safeguard children and prevent secondary victimisation. All children are equal, but some are more vulnerable than others. Our position ensures that special attention is given to those who need it most. AI-generated abuse To harmonise criminal law across the Union, it is essential that similar offences are recognised in all member states. We have worked to strengthen penalties, better define existing offences and introduce new ones. In this respect, we will outlaw the horrific 'instruction manuals' found in the darkest parts of the internet. These detailed guides teach how to harm children while avoiding detection and erasing evidence. We also criminalise AI-generated CSAM and tools to create such material. Because these digitally produced images are mostly created with real material, and often lead to real abuse. However, repression alone is not enough. If we are to eradicate child sexual abuse and exploitation, prevention must be a cornerstone of our approach. We call for comprehensive awareness campaigns, targeted training, early intervention programs for potential offenders, and a society-wide effort to build resilience and awareness. We recognise that these policies and reforms will only succeed if backed by adequate human and financial resources. The cost of inaction is far greater — for society, for families, and above all, for the children whose lives are at stake. From the side of the European Parliament, the ambition is unequivocal. We also call on member states to meet the challenge of combating child sexual violence with the ambition this moment demands. The European Union cannot miss this historic opportunity to protect our children from the worse. Jeroen Lenaers is a Dutch MEP with the European People's Party and rapporteur for the European Parliament committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs. Saskia Bricmont is a Belgian MEP for the Greens , and shadow rapporteur on the same committee. Also signed by: MEP Hilde Vautmans, shadow rapporteur for Renew Europe. MEP Marina Kaljurand, shadow rapporteur for Socialists & Democrats. MEP Isabel Sérra Sanchez shadow rapporteur for The Left. MEP Assita Kanko shadow rapporteur for the European Conservatives & Reformsts. Jeroen Lenaers is a Dutch MEP with the European People's Party and rapporteur for the European Parliament committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs. Saskia Bricmont is a Belgian MEP for the Greens
|
, and shadow rapporteur on the same committee.
|
To harmonise child sex abuse criminal law across the EU, it is essential similar offences are recognised in all member states. In this respect, we will outlaw the horrific 'instruction manuals' found in the darkest parts of the internet, and also criminalise AI-generated CSAM and tools to create such material, write EPP and Green MEPs.
|
[
"Digital",
"EU Political",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
digital
|
2025-06-19T10:34:57.058Z
|
https://euobserver.com/digital/ar1f86aeec
|
S&D, Green, Renew MEPs to attend banned Budapest Pride, in defiance of Orban
|
A number of MEPs are heading to Budapest to attend the banned Gay Pride march set to take place on 28 June — as pressure mounts for the EU to strip Hungary of its voting rights. The announcements on Wednesday (18 June) by left-leaning senior European lawmakers follows a decision earlier in the year by Hungary's prime minister Viktor Orban to use facial-recognition cameras to help identify and slap €500 fines on anyone who attends the pride march. "We will march with you in Budapest, side-by-side, proud and loud," Iratxe García Perez, the Spanish MEP who leads the Socialist and Democrats (S&D) group, told the Strasbourg plenary. García Perez said EU commissioners also need to attend, in comments directed at Michael McGrath, the EU's justice commissioner. The liberal Renew Europe made similar demands. Taking the floor of the plenary on Strasbourg on Wednesday, Fabienne Keller MEP said her group will attend the march, along with other socialists, greens and the left. The centre-right EPP also spoke out against Hungary, describing Orban's ban as a desperate attempt "to silence dissent and ensure he and his corrupt inner circle can cling to power." Daniel Freund, a German MEP with the Greens and often at loggerheads with the Hungarian government, said Orban had surrounded himself with an all-male cabinet. "Apparently that environment leads you to such sexual insecurity that you need to ban the Pride," he said, accusing Orban of launching a culture war to hide corruption. The commission is withholding some €18bn of EU funding, due, in part, to corruption in the country. The docked funds are meant to pressure Hungary into rule of law reforms. But Kinga Gál, a Hungarian MEP and vice-president of the far-right Patriots for Europe, described the attacks on Hungary as hysteria. 'About 70' "We hear that about 70 MEPs will be attending [Budapest gay pride march]," she told reporters in Strasbourg. However, the show of support from within her own ranks at the Patriots for Europe also appears to be on shaky ground. "Social issues are up to different societies to determine. So we have areas of agreement and convergence," said Jordan Bardella, a French MEP and Patriots for Europe president. "I wouldn't be planning to ban such a march in Paris, for example," he said. Political optics aside, the Hungarian ban is rooted in an amendment that allegedly seeks to protect children's rights. The amendment, which entered into force on 15 April, also allows police to ban public demonstrations that breach the so-called children protection law. The commission says they are analysing the new Hungarian law and possible implications under EU law. "The commission is also examining the provisions of the law related to the use of facial recognition to identify those participating in the prohibited demonstrations," said McGrath. But MEPs from across most of the political spectrum are also demanding the EU impose article 7, which could lead to suspension of Hungary's voting rights. The procedure, first launched seven years ago, has yet to produce any meaningful pressure on Hungary.
|
Nikolaj joined EUobserver in 2012 and covers home affairs. He is originally from Denmark, but spent much of his life in France and in Belgium. He was awarded the King Baudouin Foundation grant for investigative journalism in 2010.
|
A number of MEPs are heading to Budapest to attend the banned Gay Pride march on 28 June — as pressure mounts for the EU to strip Hungary of its voting rights.
|
[
"Rule of Law",
"EU Political",
"Health & Society"
] |
rule-of-law
|
2025-06-18T15:45:32.179Z
|
https://euobserver.com/rule-of-law/arafd0a9b3
|
EU top diplomat urges Trump not to bomb Iran
|
The EU's top diplomat has urged the US not to attack Iran, while also pledging to remember "the suffering of the people" in Gaza. Kaja Kallas told press in Brussels on Tuesday (17 June): "When it comes to the United States getting involved it would definitely drag the region into broader conflict and that is in nobody's interest". "From my calls with [US] secretary of state [Marco] Rubio, it was also clear it wasn't in the US interest to be dragged into this conflict," she added. Kallas spoke after her first huddle (via video-conference) with the 27 EU foreign ministers since Friday, when Israel bombed Iran's nuclear facilities, while accusing it of secretly building atomic weapons. US president Donald Trump has given mixed messages on what he might do next. And Kallas' EU-27 readout was also softer on Iran than previous Western statements. Kallas urged "all sides ... [to] avoid actions that could spiral out of control" and for "a diplomatic solution" to the crisis. "Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb," she said. But she didn't describe Israel's attack as "self-defence" or accuse Iran of stoking "regional instability," the way G7 leaders did in their summit statement in Canada on Monday. The G7 countries comprise France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, the UK, and the US. EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen had backed Israel using the same vocabulary on Sunday. But some member states' delegations in the Kallas talks called for "an immediate end to all military operations and encouragement for a shift toward diplomatic engagement," an EU diplomat said. They also "strongly opposed any attacks on nuclear facilities," the EU diplomat added, with Iran saying that its nuclear plants were for civilian purposes. Kallas had spoken to the Iranian foreign minister, as well as Rubio, and said all "channels were open" in an EU push "to stop the war". 'Southern Neighbourhood' event postponed? But EU plans to host foreign ministers from Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, and Tunisia in Brussels on 23 June to discuss the "Southern Neighbourhood" were likely to be postponed, a second EU diplomat said. And as the Israel-Iran fighting escalated despite EU appeals, Kallas noted that "one clear outcome [of Tuesday's video-talks] was the coordination we have for our citizens to evacuate them from there [the Middle East]". "We have member states who have planes, member states who don't have planes - we coordinate efforts," she said. An evacuation flight with 73 people from Israel, including 29 Slovaks and 44 other EU nationals, landed in Bratislava on Tuesday, while a second rescue flight, with 66 people, landed in Prague, Reuters reported. Israel has also killed over 55,000 people in Gaza in the past 20 months in its war against Palestinian militants Hamas, including 59 people at an aid checkpoint on Monday. Gaza 'suffering' And while EU ministers didn't discuss Gaza on Tuesday, Kallas pledged that "we will not let our focus on Gaza slip", despite the Iran escalation. Kallas said her "review" of whether the EU should suspend trade perks with Israel on human rights grounds was "ongoing" and would be ready when foreign ministers met face-to-face in Brussels on 23 June. "We will not lose sight of what's happening in Gaza, the need to let in humanitarian aid, help people on the ground there, come to a ceasefire, release the [Israeli] hostages, but also stop the suffering of the [Palestinian] people," she said. And speaking to the European Parliament in Strasbourg the same day, Jordan's king Abdullah II also highlighted the need for a just end to the Gaza war. "We must recommit to our values ... because when the world loses its moral bearings, we lose our shared sense of right and wrong – of what is just, and what is cruel. And when that happens, conflict is never far behind," he told MEPs. Russia Meanwhile, Iran's ally Russia has offered to mediate in peace talks with Israel, but Kallas said this would be unacceptable due to Russia's war against Ukraine, where it killed 16 people on Monday. "Keep in mind that Iran has also helped Russia in its attacks against Ukraine," she said, after Iran supplied drones to the Russian military. The EU should redouble efforts to enforce an oil price cap on Russia after the Iran war caused a spike in oil prices, Kallas also said. "The situation in the Middle East will increase oil prices and make Russia earn more and be able to fund its war machine on an even bigger scale," she said.
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
EU foreign affairs chief, Estonia's Kaja Kallas, said: "When it comes to the United States getting involved it would definitely drag the region into broader conflict and that is in nobody's interest".
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-06-17T13:33:51.428Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar555948e3
|
Marion Picot — Trying to plot a future for young farmers in Europe
|
Marion Picot knows young farmers. Having grown up in northern France, where dairy has a strong tradition, Picot found a path that eventually led her to Brussels. Today, she leads the European Council of Young Farmers (CEJA) , an organisation that describes itself as the voice of Europe's next generation of farmers. "I just felt like I wanted to work with people who are trying to think a bit more proactively about the future and the future of us all, and trying to find actual solutions on the ground towards challenges," she says. By definition, young farmers are under 40 with a certain level of education or training. The mix of millennials and Generation Z is now set to accept an even younger generation. "We're starting to see some of the ‘Gen A’ that will be coming to us," says Picot. That's encouraging. But young farmers still represent just 12 percent of all farmers in Europe, posing a major demographic problem. With an average age of 57, around half of the nine million farmers in Europe are set to retire within the next ten years. Many of those are also telling their children to find work elsewhere. "This is really crazy. It's a very deep, deep issue. The demographics have been plunging since decades already," says Picot. The share of farmers in the 25-44 age group dropped from 23 percent in 2010 to 19 percent in 2020, according to the European Commission. Many are also leaving rural areas where farming tends to be more intense. Yet the average age in rural areas is also higher on average. The challenges are multiple. High land prices and difficulties securing loans are just among the few. The European Commission in February this year presented its vision for agriculture and food in the hopes of injecting a renewed future into farming. Among them is its goal to create opportunities for young farmers in rural areas. "It's like being a bit in a hamster wheel. You're trying to make efforts to be more meaningful towards your environment and your climate, but you don't know how much your impact is, and this is a bit discouraging" Picot has welcomed the vision, noting it is unacceptable for farmers to sell below their cost of production. But she also points out some reality checks in the EU's future long-term budget. Member states have been given too much of a margin of manoeuvre on the budget at a time when they have largely abandoned rural policy, she says. The volatility of the market is also concerning, especially since the US leadership under Donald Trump is upending global trade with unprecedented tariffs. "This is certainly not going to encourage young people to invest in our sector, because they will see all the risks that they're taking, and the risks are very high on trade," she says. Another issue is how to reach EU climate goals. The path has been set at the EU level but it's not clear what exactly farmers need to do , she said. "As an individual farmer, I know that European agriculture has to decrease emissions, but what can be my contribution, and in what terms should my contribution be?" Picot says farmers often don't know where they should put their efforts when it comes to emission reductions, noting there is no way to measure results. "It's like being a bit in a hamster wheel. You're trying to make efforts to be more meaningful towards your environment and your climate, but you don't know how much your impact is, and this is a bit discouraging," she says. Given all these obstacles, one may wonder why any young person would be a farmer. Picot says young people are lured by meaningful change and often have a strong entrepreneurial mindset. A new vision of farming has also emerged where a work-life balance leans towards personal development, she says. "This is a big novelty, because they will really take more time looking at what can be my impact on the community, but also on my own health, my own well-being," says Picot. Picot describes it as "out of the box" thinking on farming, that spans everything from emission reductions and biodiversity principles. Others tend to experiment with sustainable practices to protect the environment. It's not all doom and gloom. Austria is seen as a success. It also has the youngest farmers. The attraction is due, in part, to a very strong consumer attachment to Alpine farming. This is coupled with other investments that lure capital, including tourism and non-productive ecosystem services. "It is not a model you could reproduce everywhere, because it is very specific to their geographical conditions," warns Picot. And do let us know if you're interested in a physical copy of the magazine here .
|
Nikolaj joined EUobserver in 2012 and covers home affairs. He is originally from Denmark, but spent much of his life in France and in Belgium. He was awarded the King Baudouin Foundation grant for investigative journalism in 2010.
|
Half of Europe’s nine million farmers are set to retire in the next 10 years. A mix of obstacles prevents many young people from choosing it as a career. Donald Trump’s tariff threats are not helping either.
|
[
"The EU's Unsung Heroes"
] |
the-eus-unsung-heroes
|
2025-06-17T11:53:39.407Z
|
https://euobserver.com/the-eus-unsung-heroes/ar1eeb31cd
|
The rising tide of physical attacks on European politicians
|
Intimidation and violence against local officials are becoming a disturbing feature of European public life. A new report by ACLED (Armed Conflict Location & Event Data) underscores the scale and persistence of the problem. These acts erode democratic legitimacy from the ground up — and call for a coordinated European response. In 2024, ACLED records 110 cases of physical violence against local officials across 12 EU countries. While this marks a decline from the 2023 peak, the drop is largely due to a sharp fall in incidents in France, where violence had spiked during unrest following the fatal police shooting of Nahel Merzouk . Excluding France, however, the number of incidents across the EU rose from 87 in 2023 to 98 in 2024 — with notable increases in Germany and a wider geographic spread. Italy led with 59 incidents — more than triple Germany’s 18. Metropolitan France followed with 12. Property damage — especially to municipal buildings or officials’ properties — was the most common form of intimidation. What’s driving this violence? Rising political polarisation is at its core. Over the past decade, Europe has weathered a series of overlapping crises — from the financial crisis to the pandemic to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — that have eroded trust in institutions and fuelled the rise of anti-establishment movements. Local officials, often the most accessible face of government, have borne the brunt. Many are targeted with disinformation, hate speech, and threats — especially during election periods — and some face direct physical attacks. Organised crime compounds the threat, particularly where local officials are seen as obstacles to illicit activities. This is especially true in parts of Italy, but notable cases have also emerged in France and Spain. The consequences are far-reaching. Local officials are changing how they work, what they say, and whether they stay in office at all. In Italy and the Netherlands, some mayors increasingly avoid public events due to safety concerns. In France, local projects — particularly those involving migrant reception — are often abandoned under pressure. A 2024 survey found that 40 percent of mayors in small municipalities had faced intimidation — and over a quarter had considered stepping down The psychological toll is mounting. In Germany, president Frank-Walter Steinmeier has voiced concern over mayors limiting public exposure or resigning altogether. A 2024 survey found that 40 percent of mayors in small municipalities had faced intimidation — and over a quarter had considered stepping down. In France alone, more than 2,400 mayors resigned between 2020 and 2024, and 57,000 council seats were left vacant. Recruitment is increasingly difficult, especially in rural areas, where political roles are often poorly compensated and protection is limited. When capable officials abandon public service, vacancies go unfilled, extremist actors find new openings, and civic trust erodes. The result is more than administrative strain — it’s a hollowing out of democracy at its closest level. What can be done? Some European countries are starting to act. In France, the interior ministry established a dedicated centre in 2023 to monitor and counter violence against elected officials, complementing an earlier observatory run by the Association of French Mayors. A 2024 law increased penalties for assaults on local officials and improved coordination between prosecutors and municipalities, with additional measures under discussion. Germany’s observatory, launched in 2021 under the federal MOTRA programme , tracks threats and hate speech against local public servants in collaboration with police and municipal associations. In 2024, a new national strategy — informed by past cases of radical violence — introduced digital reporting tools and expanded access to legal and psychological support. Since 2015, Italy’s interior ministry has operated a national observatory on intimidation against local officials. This complements a report published annually since 2011 by the NGO Avviso Pubblico . Protection measures include tougher penalties for offenders and reimbursement of legal costs for affected officials. Despite these advances, the EU still lacks a coordinated strategy. While bodies like the Committee of the Regions and European Parliament have raised concerns, no common framework exists to systematically monitor violence or support targeted local officials. The Council of Europe has taken a more active stance in recent years, issuing recommendations and compiling best practices. Yet, these efforts remain largely consultative and stop short of delivering concrete, coordinated protection. To address this growing threat, the EU could take meaningful steps — such as establishing a pan-European observatory on violence against local officials, promoting shared data standards and reporting tools, funding psychological, legal, and physical protection measures (particularly in rural areas), and supporting training and peer networks for elected local representatives. Recognising this phenomenon as a systemic threat to democracy would be an important step toward a more coordinated European approach. The risks are clear: institutional disengagement, radical infiltration, and growing public distrust. Protecting local officials is not just about personal safety; it’s about defending democracy where it’s most visible, most local, and most at risk. Andrea Carboni , Giulia Bernardi , and Nicola Audibert are, respectively, head of analysis, research manager for Western Europe, and assistant research manager for Western Europe at ACLED (Armed Conflict Location & Event Data), an organisation that collects, maps, and analyses political violence and protest activity around the world. Andrea Carboni , Giulia Bernardi , and Nicola Audibert are, respectively, head of analysis, research manager for Western Europe, and assistant research manager for Western Europe at
|
ACLED
|
In 2024, there were 110 cases of physical violence against local officials across 12 EU countries. Italy led with 59 incidents — more than triple Germany’s 18. France followed with 12.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-06-17T10:48:55.535Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/arf5c2db92
|
Left behind — why the EU is not pursuing new trade deals with Africa
|
Free trade deals are back in vogue. The European Commission plans to ‘diversify’ relations with its trading partners as it faces the reality of the Trump administration’s 25 percent tariff on its cars, steel and aluminium and 10 percent on all other goods. That’s good news for the commission’s army of trade lawyers. But while the EU executive hopes to start the ratification process on its deal with the South American Mercosur bloc , is fast-tracking talks with India , the United Arab Emirates and Indonesia, and hopes to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, it’s so-called "equal partner" — the African continent — is nowhere in the queue. Publicly, top EU officials continue to describe Africa as the "sister continent" and of a "partnership of equals". “More than ever, we recognise the immense potential of strengthening trade and investment relations between the European Union and Africa. This partnership is not just a priority; it is an opportunity to build a future that is mutually beneficial for both continents,” European Commission trade spokesperson Olof Gill tells EUobserver. "Through our network of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) in sub-Saharan Africa and Association Agreements in north Africa we are working hand in hand to diversify trade, foster industrialisation across Africa, and attract foreign direct investment that can transform economies." But in substance, EU-African trade relations have made little progress in almost two decades since the Economic Partnership Agreements pushed by then EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson tried to open market access for EU and African exports. “Agility has never been a strong suit of the EU-Africa relationship,” cautions Carlos Lopes , a former advisor to the African Union. “The moment is ripe – but only if both sides drop their pretensions: Europe must stop projecting its model as universal, and Africa must stop negotiating from a position of vulnerability. Otherwise, the opportunity will pass, like others before,” adds Lopes. A web of agreements The EU has a complex web of trade agreements with Africa. Most African states have tariff-free access to export to the EU under the ‘Everything but Arms’ agreement. The only regional EPA to have been fully-ratified and implemented is between the EU and the Southern African Development Community (SADC), a 16-member bloc which includes South Africa. In north Africa, Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt have Association Agreements with the EU which are more ambitious than the EPAs in terms of investment and market access. However, they are now also linked to agreements on migration co-operation between the north African states and the EU Commission, as part of the EU’s bid to stem African migration via the Mediterranean Sea . In 2019, the African Continental Free Trade Agreement was launched. It aims to create a single market and customs union but hefty barriers to intra-African trade remain and the continent’s trade policy has been shaped by a patchwork of regional economic blocs and their external deals. Intra-African trade has hovered between 15-18 percent of the continent's total trade. A continent-to-continent agreement has been talked of as a long-term project by former commission president Jean-Claude Juncker. Because all member states in the EU and African Union would need to reach consensus, agreeing mandates, let alone brokering a deal at EU and AU level would be politically fraught. Neither is it an immediate EU priority. The Samoa Agreement , a pact covering the trade and political relations between the EU and the 88 member states of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Community, which came into force last year, did not make any changes to existing trade arrangements. China advances, US in retreat While the EU appears to be in a holding pattern vis a vis African trade, the US is in retreat, leaving China to spy another opening. Last Wednesday (11 June) China said it was “ready to” expand its zero‑tariff policy to cover 100 percent of tariff lines for all 53 African countries with diplomatic ties to Beijing — excluding Eswatini (former Swazilend). The offer builds on last September’s move to give the 33 countries in Africa classified as ‘least-developed’, zero-tariff treatment. The trade offer was made alongside a 10-article declaration signed by China and African ministers urging the international community to prioritiwe Africa’s economic challenges, stressing that development aid “should be effectively increased, not unilaterally slashed,” and called for “true multilateralism.” The Chinese offer replicates what the UShas offered to over 30 African states under the African Growth and Opportunity Act . Signed by the George W. Bush presidency in 2000, AGOA offers tariff and quota free trade. Kenyan economist and former advisor to Uhuru Kenyatta government, Alexander Owino tells EUobserver that AGOA was “dead in the water” as a result of the Trump tariffs. Since AGOA and the Trump tariffs are contradictory, it may take a lawsuit to determine which takes precedence. But AGOA will expire in September, and while there is still cross-party support in the US Congress for it to continue in some form, its provisions have been directly contradicted by president Donald Trump’s 10-percent duties which now land on African exports. Clean alternatives If the EU is unlikely to offer revised terms to basic trade, it is dangling some alternatives. EU commission trade spokesperson, Olof Gill, tells EUobserver that there is “tremendous potential to diversify trade with Africa,” These include lean Trade and Investment Partnerships (CTIP), the first of which was agreed in March between the EU and South Africa, which is aimed at move away Pretoria’s coal dependency to cleaner energy. Gill describes the CTIPs as “a new kind of partnership, focused on investment and trade in clean energy, technology and raw materials.” The EU commission says that the CTIP with South Africa could be worth up to 4.7bn in investment, with green hydrogen projects, one of the EU's new favourites, likely to be among the main beneficiaries. “At the same time, they would support the EU’s green transition, while reducing our economic dependencies,” he adds.
|
Benjamin Fox is a seasoned reporter and editor, previously working for fellow Brussels publication Euractiv. His reporting has also been published in the Guardian, the East African, Euractiv, Private Eye and Africa Confidential, among others. He heads up the AU-EU section at EUobserver, based in Nairobi, Kenya.
|
The EU says that Africa is its "sister continent". But African states are last on the list of countries with whom it has fast-tracked trade talks.
|
[
"Africa"
] |
africa
|
2025-06-16T14:53:15.937Z
|
https://euobserver.com/africa/ar48a468b5
|
Israel vs Iran — does the Gulf Cooperation Council have a role?
|
The recent and ongoing Israeli attacks on Iran and Iranian counterattacks are bringing the Middle East once again to the brink of a wider war. While headlines rightly focus on the immediate fallout, including the damage, retaliation, and fear of further escalation, including a nuclear dimension, there is a deeper and more urgent truth that policymakers must confront: the cycle of conflict in the Middle East will not end unless serious diplomatic leadership steps in. The crisis, therefore, also offers an opportunity — one where Europe and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states in particular — must step into the current vacuum to take ownership with a new diplomatic initiative that addresses what the region’s security environment will look like post Israel-Iran crisis. The attack by Israel on Iran and the subsequent regional shockwaves mark a dangerous turning point in an already fragile region. Iran’s longstanding involvement in proxy conflicts across the Arab world — from Lebanon to Syria, Iraq, and Yemen — has made it a persistent source of tension with its neighbours. At the same time, the government of Benjamin Netanyahu’s uncompromising stance on national security, often at the cost of diplomatic restraint, is feeding into a cycle of tit-for-tat violence. The result is a continuous downward spiral where everyone loses — civilians suffer, extremism festers, and trust across borders erodes. That cycle must be broken. Amid this chaos, the usual arbiters of peace — chiefly the United States — are no longer seen as reliable brokers by many in the region. Washington's political polarisation and its increasingly transactional approach to foreign policy have left question marks on its credibility. Russia, distracted and weakened by its war in Ukraine, is no longer a stabilising counterbalance. China, for all its growing diplomatic ambitions, still lacks the deep historical ties and cultural literacy required for lasting influence in the Middle East. Both Russia and China lack the institutional depth to mediate in the Middle East effectively. This vacuum presents a unique and urgent opportunity for Europe and the GCC. Together, they possess the diplomatic relationships, economic leverage, and regional legitimacy to chart a new course. To seize this moment, the two sides together should now lay out a serious, coordinated plan for a post-conflict Middle East — one grounded in realism, mutual respect, and long-term strategic thinking. Why Europe? Europe has both a moral obligation to and a strategic interest in Middle East stability. Waves of migration triggered by Middle Eastern wars have had profound political consequences across the continent, fueling the rise of populist movements and undermining social cohesion. Terror attacks on European soil — many inspired by chaos sown in Syria, Iraq, and beyond — have shown that Middle Eastern instability does not stay confined within its regional borders. A prolonged Israel-Iran war ensures that such instability will not only continue but increase. Europe still enjoys strong diplomatic relations with key players on both sides of the current divide. In the framework of a strategic partnership with the GCC states, an increased convergence of views on the causes and paths forward on regional security is being formed. Europe has long maintained dialogue with Iran under the framework of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) , and European capitals continue to underline their unwavering support for Israel’s security. European diplomacy is reactive, cautious, and inconsistent It is also true that much of the Middle East leadership looks to Europe to play a diplomatic role that the US is either unable or unwilling to play, or one that regional players cannot fully claim. Yet, Europe is almost completely absent when it comes to peacebuilding in the Middle East. European diplomacy is reactive, cautious, and inconsistent. Europe’s failure to hold the Netanyahu government to account for its violation of international law when it comes to the crisis in Gaza has seriously undermined European credibility. To be clear, Europe’s inattentiveness in its direct neighbourhood has contributed to the region’s insecurity. Unless reversed, the direct consequences for European security will mount. Why the GCC? The GCC has emerged as a diplomatic force in recent years. Saudi Arabia’s outreach to Iran, the UAE’s normalisation with Israel via the Abraham Accords , and Qatar’s ability to mediate hostage negotiations in Gaza all illustrate a newfound maturity and pragmatism in Gulf diplomacy. This is coupled with a commitment to finding solutions to the region’s perennial problem, exemplified in Saudi Arabia’s leadership in the Global Alliance for the Implementation of the two-state solution or the GCC’s push through the Arab League for the Gaza reconstruction plan. The GCC also brings economic and soft power to the table. The bloc's financial clout will be essential to underwrite reconstruction efforts in conflict-ravaged areas. Its sovereign wealth funds will be critical for driving regional infrastructure projects that bind nations together through shared interests, and its religious and cultural influence will help foster narratives of coexistence, rather than confrontation. Moreover, the GCC has a vested interest in regional stability. The fallout from a full-scale Iran-Israel war would be catastrophic for Gulf economies, particularly given the vulnerability of maritime trade routes and oil infrastructure. Thus, preventing further escalation is not merely an act of altruism — it is an existential necessity. Now is not the time for shoulder shrugging or continued complacency. Instead, it is time for leadership and foresight. Critics will argue that the region is too fractured, the enmities too entrenched. But history shows that the most fruitful diplomacy often arises from the moments of greatest danger. The European Union itself was born out of the ashes of two world wars. The Helsinki Accords emerged during the Cold War’s tensest period. Furthermore, the current waves of attacks between Israel and Iran have shaken the status quo. They have reminded all regional actors of the fragility of peace and the urgency of restraint. In this equation, it must be underscored that military victories will be fleeting, and only political solutions will endure. Based on their shared vision for a better and more stable future, Europe and the GCC must now act together, not as distant benefactors or cautious observers, but as co-architects of a new Middle East, outlining a path for a regional system of cooperation and security. Both have ties that cross the regional divide and can serve as stabilising forces by offering a roadmap toward de-escalation and longer-term security arrangements. Waiting for the perfect moment is futile, as the only current certainty is that inaction will result in more lives lost, more cities destroyed, and more generations condemned to cynicism and despair. The window for diplomacy remains open, but that opportunity must be urgently seized, as the cost of failure will disperse far beyond the borders of the Middle East and be felt around the globe. Dr Christian Koch is director of research at the Gulf Research Center in Brussels. Dr Christian Koch is director of research at the
|
Gulf Research Center
|
The fallout from a full-scale Iran-Israel war would be catastrophic for Gulf economies, particularly given the vulnerability of maritime trade routes and oil infrastructure. Thus, preventing further escalation is not merely an act of altruism — it is an existential necessity
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-06-16T11:54:09.689Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar95475de0
|
EU's 'Omnibus' green rollback likely to hit legal challenge, experts warn
|
The EU’s efforts to roll back green reporting and due diligence rules adopted by the previous commission are moving fast. And last week's draft proposals from both member states and the European Parliament show broad political alignment, making a deal to water down the laws likely later this year. But there's likely to be trouble ahead. Because the so-called Omnibus simplification package is being rushed through without an impact assessment, the EU's push to slash reporting obligations may soon be challenged in court, leading to “years of legal uncertainty where no one really knows what the law says.” So says David Frydlinger , a partner at Cirio, one of Sweden’s leading commercial law firms, in an interview with EUobserver. He recently co-authored a legal analysis of the Omnibus package, and concluded that “the commission hasn’t done its legal homework,” he told EUobserver in an interview. One area of concern is that under EU law, once a certain level of protection has been achieved, any rollback must be justified as proportionate and necessary. But proportionality checks have been skipped. “Scrapping protection against forced labour and child exploitation without proving less dramatic measures are ineffective would trigger legal challenges from progressive member states and NGOs immediately,” he said. The Omnibus hasn’t even officially been adopted, but there are already signs that some may be preparing to do just that. Spain and Denmark have already voiced concerns. And a group of eight NGOs and trade unions recently filed a complaint with the European Ombudsman, arguing the process disregards environmental and human rights protections. The Omnibus is meant to help EU businesses. But “if challenged in the court, parts of the Omnibus could be annulled,” said Frydlinger. The ensuing legal chaos "would only harm EU competitiveness, as well as the people and climate goals Europe claims to protect.” What is the Omnibus about? The proposed omnibus changes target three interlinked EU Green Deal laws: the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), and the EU’s green taxonomy regulation. Together, they form a kind of operating system for aligning European business with the bloc’s climate, human rights and biodiversity targets. All three laws have already been adopted. But the commission’s new Omnibus proposals would roll back many of these requirements by shrinking their scope or delaying their entry into force. For example, under current rules, the CSRD would apply to companies bigger than 250 employees by 2029. The commission now wants to limit it to firms with more than 1,000 employees reducing the scope by some 80 percent. Some member states and lawmakers want to go even further. Swedish centre-right European People's Party MEP Jörgen Warborn, who leads the file in parliament, said he wants to roll back the CSDDD and CSRD to apply only to firms with over 3,000 employees, while French president Emmanuel Macron wants to completely abolish the CSDDD. Either way, reducing the scope to firms with over 3,000 employees, “would actually have similar effects” to scrapping the regulation outright, professor Andreas Rasche told EUobserver, because only a small fraction of Europe’s 33 million companies are that big. Legal risk All this talk about cutting red tape abstracts why these regulations are there in the first place, and why it's not simply a matter of less is more. “What the commission and Mr Warnborn call ‘red tape’ is in fact legislated protection of rights recognised in the EU Charter and the European Convention,” said Frydlinger. “Changing such a law isn’t forbidden, but you can’t roll back protections without separate tests of necessity and proportionality and no such analyses have been published," he said. The legal principle underpinning this is one of ‘non-regression’. Repealing parts of the reporting and due diligence laws without showing that milder alternatives could work therefore carries the “highest risk” of being challenged in court, Frydlinger said. “I find it very unlikely the EU Court of Justice wouldn’t apply a full proportionality test,” if the law is weakened to quite the degree Macon or Warnborn envision, he added. But that’s not the only point where the Omnibus’ legality is doubtful. Due diligence rules currently apply across entire supply chains, but the commission wants to limit them to direct suppliers only. That would exclude exactly the parts of the chain where the worst human rights and environmental abuses often occur — such as informal cobalt mines, smallholder farms, or garment factories like Rana Plaza, the Bangladeshi plant that collapsed in 2013 which resulted in 1,100 deaths and sparked the political push that resulted in the CSDDD over a decade later. The commission admits that the Omnibus would “partially diminish" the positive effects of the CSDDD on human rights. And as Frydlinger pointed out, “courts can’t ignore it when authorities admit to weakening human rights protections without demonstrating that it is necessary or proportional.” Another legal risk emerges from deleting the original requirement for companies to adopt and implement a transition plan. That obligation has now been softened to merely outlining intended actions. Most member states support this shift, but it may not withstand legal scrutiny. Frydlinger pointed to the KlimaSeniorinnen ruling , where European court judges found Switzerland had violated the right to private life by failing to combat climate change. This implies that states also have a duty to implement climate measures, not just announce their intention. Even the proposed and already adopted delay of implementation deadlines until 2029 may raise legal red flags because if compliance is “genuinely impossible, why would delay help,” he said. “Courts may see that as political convenience rather than genuine necessity.” “We could see years of uncertainty,” Frydlinger said. “Businesses won’t know what rules apply, while courts and companies argue over who’s liable for what. Repeating past mistakes If challenged, the Omnibus proposals could suffer the same fate as other poorly prepared EU laws — like the Data Retention Directive or the US personal data transfer mechanisms — both of which were struck down in the EU top court for breaching fundamental rights. In all three cases, the court found that the commission had failed to ensure proper legal safeguards — a warning, Frydlinger said, that could just as easily apply to the current green deregulation drive. “We could see years of uncertainty,” Frydlinger said. “Businesses won’t know what rules apply, while courts and companies argue over who’s liable for what.” One particularly fraught area are commission plans to water down civil liability provisions for damages caused by companies. The EU’s CSDDD, which came into force in July 2024, created a “single, predictable legal standard for corporate accountability across the bloc,” professor Geert van Calster recently wrote in a separate report that reinforces Frydlinger’s argument. But the commission in its Omnibus has dropped plans for a harmonised EU rulebook, leaving enforcement to national courts. Member states have yet to agree, so it is currently unclear what will happen to this part of the supply chain regulation. But scrapping these provisions, van Calster wrote, exposes companies to over 200 national and global regimes, another recent legal paper found. “The Omnibus would leave companies in the EU exposed to litigation based on non-EU law even when complying with the CS3D,” he concluded. “The Omnibus proposal neither delivers harmonisation nor simplification, but instead significantly increases divergence, complexity and uncertainty.” Europe’s legal problem = vagueness Frydlinger makes clear he agrees that the standards need simplification, but “simpler policies don’t necessarily make for simpler rules.” “The problem isn’t that reporting and due diligence requirements are too burdensome; they’re just unclear,” he adds. The current system runs on too many ill-defined terms and concepts. Companies for example are told to report on “material” impact on the environment and take “appropriate measures” to prevent adverse human rights impacts — but there’s no clear standard for what those terms actually mean in practice. This uncertainty leads to overuse of consultants (who also lack clear guidance) and excessive reporting driven by fear of legal risk, which in turn increases costs and harms competitiveness. Rolling back the rules to apply only to the biggest companies won’t solve the issue. Part of Frydlinger's fix would be to clarify all rules by anchoring them in two basic duties: prevent harm when you can ('duty to act'), and share information people need ('duty to inform'). Instead of the vague instruction to “take appropriate measures” when harm is “material,” companies could follow a clear proportionality test. Think of it like a flowchart: Can I prevent the harm? At what cost? Do I have the capacity? If yes, then the duty applies. “We think the rules can and should be improved,” he said. “But the Omnibus is doing it the wrong way, and it will create a lot of legal uncertainty.”
|
Wester is a journalist from the Netherlands with a focus on the green economy. He joined EUobserver in September 2021. Previously he was editor-in-chief of Vice, Motherboard, a science-based website, and climate economy journalist for The Correspondent.
|
EU plans to roll back green rules and weaken forced labour and child exploitation protection are moving fast, but are likely to be challenged in court "immediately" and lead to "years of legal uncertainty," one legal expert told EUobserver.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Green Economy"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-06-16T05:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/arb6c217df
|
Human Rights Watch on feeding Gaza — and the so-called 'Gaza Humanitarian Foundation'
|
Footage of the newly-opened Israeli-backed, US-supported aid distribution centers in Gaza is horrifying: Palestinians clamoring to get food; crowds being turned away; gunfire ringing out. Israeli forces have in recent days gunned down Palestinians trying to secure food for their families and themselves, with at least 163 people reportedly killed. Not only are these distribution centres deadly, but they fail to address the mass starvation taking place, which Palestinian officials have declared to be a famine. At least 60 children have already starved to death and the UN has declared that “Gaza is the hungriest place on earth.” Rather than delivering food to the people who need it across Gaza, these distribution centres are furthering forced displacement, which some Israeli officials have already openly, unabashedly admitted is their ultimate goal. But there is another way to get food to the people in Gaza: a humanitarian diplomatic convoy to break the Israeli-imposed siege of Gaza. The current aid distribution centres came after more than 11 weeks of an Israeli-imposed total blockade on Gaza — no food, no medicine, just bombs and bureaucratic cruelty. The trickle of aid coming in has hardly made a dent. Mothers cradle skeletal infants and scour rubble for scraps. Fishermen are shot dead for casting nets, chronically-ill patients left without access to medication. Aid trucks looted under the watch of Israeli drones. This is not collateral damage — it is a deliberate strategy to create conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians in Gaza in whole or in part This did not just begin with the latest escalation – over 18 years of blockade on Gaza and 19 months of hostilities , Israeli authorities have carried out war crimes, crimes against humanity, including extermination, and acts of genocide. Instead of halting these atrocities, the US, Israel’s chief backer, is facilitating them — supplying the bombs, providing the backing for accelerating ethnic cleansing, and now supporting and thereby legitimizing this dystopian aid scheme. These distribution centers, managed by the newly-created Gaza Humanitarian Foundation , operating in close coordination with Israeli forces and run by private military contractors, violate one of the most fundamental principles of humanitarian law: aid must be impartial. Instead of aid reaching Palestinians where they are, Palestinians — most of who have already been displaced multiple times, and tens of thousands with chronic injuries — must now trek across active war zones to reach these so-called distribution centres, located in the areas that Israeli forces, with their troubling record of using starvation as a weapon of war, are actively seeking to concentrate the population into. The subtext is clear: Palestinians will eat only what Israel permits, when and where Israel permits it, and only those permitted to eat by Israel, an occupying power bent on their extermination. Israeli officials have openly declared their intent to empty Gaza. Israeli authorities in March 2025 created a government body to facilitate "voluntary” Palestinian migration from Gaza. National security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir demands "the right to return to Gush Katif" (former illegal settlements that were located in Gaza). Sinister trap The "humanitarian zones" are a trap — a way to herd Palestinians into concentrated areas, where they can more easily be controlled and even expelled, facilitating further forcible displacement and ethnic cleansing. The outsourcing of enforcement to private military contractors, which had notorious records in Iraq and Afghanistan and were difficult to hold accountable, is particularly sinister. The legal vacuum around contractors makes them perfect tools for plausible deniability, as we have already seen when Israeli authorities initially denied gunning down starving Palestinians rushing for aid. Who will be held responsible in these instances? It is not enough for states in the EU and around the world to reject these new distribution centres. They need to take concrete action to challenge Israel’s grave abuses. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has already ruled in January 2024 that Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to a “real and imminent risk” that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the “the right of Palestinians to be protected from acts of genocide.” The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Netanyahu and former defence minister Gallant. Under the Genocide Convention, all states have a duty to prevent genocide as soon as they learn of the risk. According to the ICJ, states must cooperate to end the illegal occupation of Palestine. Under the Geneva Conventions, states have the duty to ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances. These duties are at the heart of the international legal system supposedly designed to prevent crimes that scar the consciousness of humanity. When an occupying power weaponizes hunger, third parties need to act. Palestinian civil society organisations, along with over 900 other civil society organizations are calling for a humanitarian diplomatic convoy to break the siege — a coalition of nations’ diplomats accompanying aid trucks through Rafah or by sea, bypassing Israel’s stranglehold. The plan is simple, each state is asked to commit to sending a diplomatic delegation to escort the delivery of aid to Gaza. If enough states sign on, the diplomatic pressure might be strong enough to achieve the goal of delivering life-saving aid to Palestinians. This is not just logistically feasible; it is a call grounded in states’ international legal obligations. What about Hamas? Sceptics will cry, "But what about Hamas?" Here’s the truth: humanitarian aid is never conditional. Deliberately starving civilians, even if the purported reason is to weaken militants, is a war crime — full stop. Others will warn of the risk of further escalation. But Israel is already escalating. Gaza is already largely rubble. The real risk is inaction — allowing Israel to normalise mass starvation as a tool of war, and take a sledgehammer to the international legal order. This is not just about Gaza. It is about to what extent nations care about international law. If the world accepts Israel’s blockade — we greenlight a future where might makes right. A humanitarian diplomatic convoy is not just about delivering food. It is about reclaiming the principle that no government has the right to decide who eats and who starves. The time for handwringing is over. The time for action is now. Shahd Hammouri is an academic at the University of Kent and an international lawyer. Omar Shakir is the Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch . Shahd Hammouri is an academic at the University of Kent and an international lawyer. Omar Shakir is the Israel and Palestine director at
|
Human Rights Watch
|
Not only are these Israeli-backed US-supported aid distribution centres deadly, but they fail to address the mass starvation taking place, warn Human Rights Watch. But there is another way to get food to the people in Gaza: a humanitarian diplomatic convoy to break the Israeli-imposed siege.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-06-13T09:47:26.947Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar527b12f4
|
Sahara desert vs Mediterranean - where do more migrants actually die?
|
About 10 years ago, I noticed how international organisations began to suggest that more migrants would die when trying to cross the Saharan desert than the Mediterranean Sea. For example, members of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) shared their assumption that the death toll in the Sahara “has to be at least double those who die in the Mediterranean.” Representatives of the UN refugee agency would also voice such a claim : “We, the international community, the UNHCR, say that for every death in the Mediterranean there are at least two in the Sahara, unknown and anonymous.” My research has long focussed on border violence and the deadly effects of restrictive migration policies, including in the Mediterranean context, and so I was struck by these estimates, which seemed both extremely high and ambiguous. However, that statistics on deaths at sea vary considerably and are themselves deeply contested , and that geographical designations of Sahara or Mediterranean are anything but specific, has not prevented the circulation of dubious estimates on ‘desert deaths’. Given the ambiguity of the claim, media outlets reporting on migration across the Sahara would come to very different mortality figures, at times the result of simply multiplying the estimated death toll for the Mediterranean by two, even three . Trying to understand how this ‘Saharan knowledge claim’ first emerged and why it continues to be spread by international organisations, I began to look into statistics production on deaths in the Sahara in 2022 and my findings were published last week in the journal . When I started my research, I quickly came across a report called “Forgotten Fatalities: The number of migrant deaths before reaching the Mediterranean”, published by the Mixed Migration Centre in 2016. This two-page-long report, credited by at the time as “probably the first attempt to gauge the size of a largely-unrecorded death toll among migrants in the Sahara”, shared findings of a survey carried out between 2014 and 2016. Higher than at sea? It suggested that 1,245 people had lost their lives in Libya, Sudan, and Egypt and concluded that “it would be safe to assume the number of migrants and refugees dying before reaching the shores of Egypt and Libya is even higher than the number of deaths at sea.” When interviewing Bram Frouws, the author of this report and director of the Mixed Migration Centre , he explained that this survey was meant to counter the void of information about deaths in the Sahara and to draw attention of policymakers and the media to the reality of suffering in the desert. At the same time, he stressed that this survey was “not pretending to be very scientific in nature” and admitted methodological challenges and shortcomings. Among them the difficulty of accessing people in transit, the risk of including ‘hearsay’ and double-counting. According to Frouws, these issues, parred with growing ethical concerns when interviewing traumatised survivors ultimately led to the end of data collection in early 2020. In the meantime, however, the claim that the report helped birthed had begun to circulate widely. Chinese whispers and 'circular referentiality' I noticed how the suggestion that the desert was deadlier for migrants than the sea emerged in reports and press releases of international organisations, which often referred to each other as the source. In my study, I refer to this echoing of the claim as ‘circular referentiality’, in the process of which the claim appears to have grown in authority, gaining much media attention . This circular referentiality was also the result of data-sharing practices between organisations. For example, the Mixed Migration Centre would share its mortality data with the IOM, which meant that the IOM’s death toll increased significantly for a few years. For example, the figure of 54 deaths documented by the IOM alone for 2018, rose to more than 800. In turn, when the Mixed Migration Centre ended its data practice, the IOM’s recorded death toll decreased dramatically, from 913 fatalities in 2019 to 149 a year later. While increases in the documented death toll prompted press releases and media reporting, decreases in statistics on Saharan deaths did not. Strikingly, even with the — deeply problematic — data of the Mixed Migration Centre included in the IOM’s mortality statistics, the overall death toll would never exceed the recoded toll for the Mediterranean Sea. Indeed, even the deadliest year on record in the IOM’s Missing Migrants Project for the Sahara — 2017 with 1,328 deaths — has a lower toll than any of the recorded annual tolls for the Mediterranean Sea between 2014 and 2024. In fact, in my interviews, members of Missing Migrants Project were equally perplexed about the repetition of the Saharan knowledge claim by members of their own organisation. Given that there simply is no convincing data that could back up the suggestion that more migrants die in the desert than the sea, I examined the context in which members of international organisations had voiced such claim, considering that this may shed some light on the reason why it circulated so widely. Peak anxiety The Saharan knowledge claim proliferated during a time of peaking anxieties over migration in Europe. Following the problematically-termed ‘ migration crisis ’ of 2015, EU member states and institutions focused their energies, and resources, on preventing further migrant arrivals. The Sahara, considered a transit zone for those seeking to subsequently cross the Mediterranean to Europe, became of specific interest. From 2015 on, European actors implemented a range of border control and anti-smuggling measures in the Sahel region. For human rights groups, this ‘securitisation’ of the desert meant that the once legal and much safer transport economy was pushed ‘underground’, with migration routes becoming increasingly dangerous. Indeed, critics consider Europe’s externalised border control as one of the primary reasons why the desert has become “ an open-air tomb ”. It is at this time and in this context that the Saharan knowledge claim came to be spread by members of the IOM and the UNHCR. In the context of the ‘migration crisis’ in Europe, European funding windows opened widely and the IOM experienced “an exponential growth of operational activity” in the Sahara. Though framing these activities predominantly as humanitarian responses, it has long been shown that the organisation has become deeply implicated in border control activities, including in the training of local security forces or even the construction of new border posts . This can be considered as forms of ‘ deterrence humanitarianism ’: practices that whilst underpinned by humanitarian rationales, primarily the saving of migrant lives at risk, aim to hamper migrant mobilities. The vague but powerful claim that twice or possibly even three times as many migrants die in the desert than the sea can be considered as an ideal discursive vehicle to emphasise the urgent need for the increased presence and role of international organisations in the Sahel region – both to better ‘manage’ migration and to prevent deaths in the desert. Of course, all of this is not to question a devastatingly deadly reality in the desert . Testimonies of migrant survivors provide glimpses into the horrors that occur in this space. Still, we will never know how many lives have been lost in the attempt to migrate across the Sahara. When we look at the career of the Saharan knowledge claim, we need to remind ourselves that data on migrant death is not ‘innocent’. That the suggested death toll has received no critical scrutiny and continues to be spread in the reports of researchers, journalists and international organisations should worry us. This should worry us especially in times when deaths at borders are politically instrumentalised to legitimise increased border controls – controls that have been at the heart of producing the deadly conditions of migration in the first place. Dr Maurice Stierl is an academic at the Institute for Migration Research and Intercultural Studies (IMIS) at Osnabrück University. Dr Maurice Stierl is an academic at the
|
Institute for Migration Research and Intercultural Studies
|
Statistics on deaths at sea vary considerably and are themselves deeply contested, and geographical designations of 'the Sahara' or 'the Mediterranean' are anything but specific — but that has not prevented the circulation of dubious estimates on ‘desert deaths’, warns Dr Maurice Stierl.
|
[
"Migration",
"Africa",
"Opinion"
] |
*
|
2025-06-12T11:04:07.208Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/ar5dbf57e8
|
Follow the 77 Russia oil tankers to join EU blacklist
|
The EU is adding 77 tankers to its Russia-sanctions blacklist, most of which are currently in the Eastern Mediterranean — for anyone who wants to track Russian oil smuggling in real time. The names of the 77 more "shadow fleet" ships will officially be published shortly after 23 June, when EU foreign ministers agree the 18th round of Russia sanctions. It will bring to 419 the number of vessels accused of helping Russia break a Western oil embargo, which are banned from calling at EU ports or receiving services, such as insurance or refuelling, from EU firms. But a draft EU sanctions proposal, circulated in Brussels on Tuesday (10 June) and seen by EUobserver, enabled this website to already identify the 77 new rogue ships and to check their current positions using marine-tracker websites. This showed that few of them were in the Baltic Sea area on Wednesday (where the risk of cable-cutting incidents is the greatest, due to the high concentration of them on the shallow seabed) - these were the Pearl , Valera , Elephant , Fiesta , Kira K , and Nagarjuna . (You can follow their movements in real time by clicking on the links embedded in their names.) They were typical shadow fleet-type vessels: ageing bulk tankers some 200m long by 40m wide, flying flags of convenience. Another three of the 77 were in the Western Mediterranean, suggesting they had come from or were going to Russia's Baltic Sea ports — the Nautilus , Pierre , and Ricca . But there were many more shortly-to-be-blacklisted tankers in the Eastern Mediterranean ( Destan , Saint , Topaz , Tango , Yanhu , Feliks , Gogland , Boray , Kusto , Proxima , Sofia K , Saetta , Vision , Jaldhara ) and in the Middle East ( Vernal , Monarch 1 , Saraswati , Maisan , Samadha , Olia , Cordelia Moon , Achilles , Sealion I , Ru Yi , Himalaya , Sandhya ). There were also several vessels potentially full of toxic oil in the Black Sea, on the edge of the Ukraine war zone (the Nizami Ganjavi , Konstantinovsk , Akhty , Katran , Akar West , Virat , Sea Marine 1 ). A handful of the 77 were in the Azov Sea, Caspian Sea, or in Russia's inland waterways ( Volgoneft 160 , Volgoneft 251 , Sergey Tserkov , Flura , Armada Explorer , Kaluga , Sanar 18 ). And there were also several vessels ( Arctic Mulan , Nova Energy , Rymo , Prisma , Seasons I , Smyrtos , Lebre , Utaki , Evita , Blue Talu , Monte 1 , Kai Fu , Bivola , Golden Eagle , Cross Ocean , Deneb , Themis , Sirius 1 , Hu Po , Sea Honor , Hulda , Diva 1 ) in the Far East — where Russia's main oil buyers, China and India, were situated. The rest were outliers - two ships near African coasts (the Listiga and Leruo ) and one in South America (the Tasta ). Some 13 of the 77 ships flew a Russian flag, meaning Russia was legally responsible for any accidents involving them. Panama (23), Sierra Leone (11), and Comoros (8) were also shadow fleet-flag hotspots, while Curacao, Palau, and Sao Tome Principe provided three flags each. Barbados, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, St Kitts Nevis, Vanuatu, and Vietnam also provided flags. The EU is currently trying to convince the US, Canada, the UK, Norway, Switzerland, and Japan to get on board with lowering the price cap from $65 [€56.6]/barrel to $45/barrel at which Russian oil can be legally bought. In additional measures, the EU is imposing a visa-ban and asset-freeze on an Indian captain who sailed a shadow fleet vessel, to act as a deterrent to others who considered doing so too. It is also asset-freezing an Iranian shipping firm boss (Hossein Shamkhani) and a Russian shipping company director (Viktor Fofanov). Shamkhani's firms "blend and rebrand crude oil along with various petroleum products from Russia for exporting purposes, thereby concealing their origin," the EU draft sanctions note said. Meanwhile, the UAE looked like a hub of illicit Russian oil trading, with five Emirati-based shipping firms to be put under the EU's asset-freeze and visa-ban regime as well: the Monolink Group, 2Rivers DMCC, Milavous Group, Admiral Group, and Twister Shipmanagement. Two other EU asset-freeze shipping firms were located in Mauritius: Sapang Shipping and Redbird Corporate Services. The rest were in Azerbaijan (Aqua Fleet Management), China (Zhu Jiang Shipmanagement), Singapore (2Rivers PTE), and Russia (Invest Fleet and Volgotrans).
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
Most of the 77 oil tankers being added to the EU's blacklist are currently in the Eastern Mediterranean or Middle East — for those who want to track Russian oil-smuggling in real time.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-06-12T07:45:08.891Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar78a06421
|
Why Germany's Baerbock is unfit to be the new UN general assembly president
|
The United Nations has elected a genocide-enabler, Germany’s former foreign minister Annalena Baerbock, as the next president of the General Assembly. Unless the UN changes course on Gaza before she takes office, and unless countries show solidarity by seeking the unprecedented step of removing her from the presidency, this may be the moment the United Nations buries itself too deep to be saved. Last Monday (2 June), Baerbock was elected to preside over the General Assembly’s 80th session, which begins in September 2025 and lasts one year. While this role is mostly ceremonial, it carries the power to shape negotiations on global crises and influence public discourse. More than this, the president of the General Assembly symbolizes what the United Nations stands for, and what direction it is heading towards. That direction is a disgrace. Many now believe the UN has lost its purpose and should be abolished. This moment confirms it for even more. I have witnessed it myself. Running a global political movement - Atlas - that challenges unfair and undemocratic UN processes, I used to hear from people that the UN was broken, but still necessary and in need of reform. Now I regularly hear a different message: burn it down. Given its failure to protect peace when powerful states are involved, that anger makes sense. Still, I believe the UN can matter. Beyond the Security Council, it delivers food, medicine, education. It helped reduce nuclear arsenals, nearly eradicate polio, and ban weapons from space. But its contradictions are undeniable. Paralysed, compromised, and unable to act in Ukraine or Palestine, the UN lets a few states block action. The United States has repeatedly used its veto to shield Israel from accountability, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of war crimes, with the latest instance happening last week, as it vetoed an “immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire” in Gaza . But this election damages the UN’s reputation further. In choosing a known cheerleader for Israel as its next figurehead, the United Nations sent a message that complicity in mass atrocity is no barrier to high office. Out of 193 countries, Baerbock received 167 votes in a secret ballot. Fourteen delegations abstained. Baerbock is not just any diplomat. As Germany’s foreign minister from 2021 to 2025, she tried to justify over and over again Israel’s war crimes as “self-defence”, rejected ceasefires, and her country continued to provide Israel with hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons , making it its second biggest arms supplier . She de facto became one of Israel’s strongest defenders alongside United States officials, while bombs were falling on hospitals, refugee camps, and schools. Feminist? Or merely female? Many Western Media have pointed to the fact that Baerbock is only the fifth woman to preside over the UN General Assembly in its 80-year history. In an institution where gender equality remains a distant goal, her election should have been a celebration. But feminism is not about advancing individuals who perpetuate violence and ignore injustice. Feminism means solidarity with all people, especially those facing occupation, displacement, and slaughter. She is not a symbol of progress. She is a political actor who used her power to enable mass atrocities. And she does not belong at the helm of the United Nations. Too many have excused Germany’s actions by pointing to its historical guilt. But having committed genocides in the past — from the holocaust to Namibia's — does not justify supporting one today. On the same day Baerbock was elected, Germany’s current foreign ministe r declared publicly , “Germany will continue to support the state of Israel, including with arms deliveries.” That statement should disqualify any country from leading a body that claims to uphold international law. Under the UN's own Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Article I and III), states are not only prohibited from committing genocide, but from being complicit. This is not just a legal argument. Israel has murdered over 54,607 Palestinians, displaced nearly the entire population of Gaza, destroyed most civilian infrastructures, and is using starvation as a weapon of war while escalating violence in the West Bank. UN experts and committees as well as most human rights organisations and the people of the world have recognised this for what it is: genocide. And instead of ending all military, economic, and political ties, Germany has increased them. How can the UN survive this crisis of legitimacy, especially after decades of US vetoes that protected Israel from scrutiny? I am not sure it can. Germany must either change its foreign policy, which seems extremely unlikely given its constitutional pro-Israel stance, or Baerbock must be removed from office. While there is no formal mechanism for removing a president of the General Assembly, it is not impossible. The General Assembly could pass a resolution calling for her resignation. Member states could refuse to cooperate with her presidency. Public mobilisation could render her position untenable. But this is only a short-term fix. The real issue is deeper. It is unconscionable that states can materially support genocide and still rise to leadership positions within the UN. If the UN is to survive this crisis, it must be fundamentally reformed. That means ending the veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council. It means creating accountability mechanisms to ensure that states with military ties to genocidal regimes face scrutiny. And it means banning governments involved in war crimes from holding leadership positions in the first place. The UN must act without double standards. It must oppose war and repression, regardless of who is responsible. If it cannot do that, then people will not just lose faith in it. They will bring it down. Colombe Cahen-Salvador is the co-found of Atlas , a global political movement working for a more democratic and united world, a senior non-resident fellow at the Center for International Policy , and is currently running a campaign to challenge the 2026 UN secretary-general selection process Colombe Cahen-Salvador is the co-found of Atlas , a global political movement working for a more democratic and united world, a senior non-resident fellow at the Center for International Policy
|
, and is currently running a campaign to challenge the
|
Annalena Baerbock is not just any diplomat. As Germany’s foreign minister from 2021 to 2025, she tried to justify over and over again Israel’s war crimes as “self-defence”, rejected ceasefires, and her country continued to provide Israel with hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons, making it its second biggest arms supplier.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-06-11T10:49:31.533Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar28f6367a
|
European Defence Fund millions benefiting Israeli state-owned drone manufacturer
|
An Israeli state defence company directly involved in the Gaza conflict is benefiting from millions in EU defence funding, thanks to an exemption allowing foreign-owned entities to participate in the bloc's military projects, Investigate Europe and Reporters United can reveal. The European Defence Fund (EDF) is designed to enhance the continent’s military capabilities by financing domestic innovation , yet at least €15m has been awarded to Greece’s Intracom Defense , since it was acquired in May 2023 by Israel’s largest state-owned aerospace and defence company . Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), which is controlled by the government of Israel , acquired the firm to capitalise on an “ever-increasing demand for air defense” systems in Europe, according to IAI’s press announcement at the time. Intracom Defense is currently involved in 15 EDF projects , the investigation found. Seven of them, including one co-funded directly by European governments, were awarded after its sale to IAI and the start of the war in Gaza in October 2023, where IAI surveillance drones have been used in Israeli military operations in the territory . While Intracom Defense is registered and based in Greece and has a Greek presence on its board, its financial records for 2024 show that 94.5 per cent of shares are owned by IAI, and according to the Israeli firm’s latest records it holds 100 per cent of voting rights in Intracom Defense. The EDF outwardly promotes domestic innovation but a clause in article 9 of the regulation states companies need only to be based in Europe to be eligible, as long as they provide guarantees to the government where they are registered. These include ensuring that sensitive information is not shared with the mother company . This allows entities like Intracom Defense, though owned by an Israeli state-owned company, to access European defence funds. Intracom Defense failed to answer questions sent by Investigate Europe, Reporters United and partners regarding the EDF guarantees and its ownership by IAI. A spokesperson said the company participates in EU projects in full compliance with national and international laws, adding it is “a Greek company registered and operating in Greece and has been one of the leading Greek companies in the defence and security sector in Europe for more than 20 years.” IAI did not respond to requests for comment by the time of publication. Belgian MEP Marc Botenga said the arrangement reflects a “structural security issue” with the EDF that permits non-EU, third-party involvement . “If you were to accept the logic of the EDF as a European programme, for it to be true to its name, entities controlled by a third country or by a non-associated third country entity should be excluded from funding. This means cutting out all loopholes currently present, in amongst others article 9 of the Regulation,” said Botenga, a MEP from the Left group, who sits on the committee on security and defence. Despite IAI being part of Israel’s military industrial complex , its subsidiary has secured a leading role in a multi-million euro EDF project launched in December 2024 to develop drone technologies for weapon integration and other capabilities for European use . Intracom Defense has been designated the lead coordinator of the €59m four-year drone programme, Actus, which also involves French defence company Safran and 21 European entities . The Commission has co-funded Actus with €42m. The origin of the remaining €17m has not been made public, but seven European defence ministries are known co-funders : France, Belgium, Greece, Norway, Sweden, Cyprus and Finland. Greek guarantees A spokesperson for the European Commission said that based on the guarantees approved by Greece, they considered Intracom Defense as “eligible for participating in EDF projects”, adding that the guarantees could not be made public due to their sensitive nature. They added that projects were selected only after “thorough technical and legal evaluations […] conducted independently of political developments and based strictly on project eligibility”. All EDF projects were evaluated on ethical grounds, the spokesperson said, adding that the EDF does not fund projects in breach of international law. The Greek ministry of defence said Intracom Defense and IAI have signed “a special security agreement prohibiting the transfer between the two parties of classified information … technology, materials, and other sensitive information.” A ministry spokesperson added that Intracom Defense must provide guarantees and an “ownership control declaration” when participating in an EDF project, but provided no further details by the time of publication. The revelations that an enterprise in the orbit of the Israeli military is building Europe’s future defence systems have stoked security and ethical concerns among campaigners and analysts, and come amid heightened criticism in the EU of Israel’s actions in Gaza. European governments have sharpened their stance on Israel in recent weeks, with several of those funding the IAI-linked project also reportedly among those calling for a review of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, a pact defining trade and diplomatic relations. Human rights advocates highlighted the hypocrisy of governments for effectively funding an Israeli arms company linked to the conflict in Gaza, where more than 50,000 people have been killed since October 2023, according to Gaza’s health ministry . “On the one hand, we have a state [France] that denounces violations of international law and, on the other, it is prepared to collaborate with a company that is owned by the Israeli state,” Aymeric Elluin, an arms trade campaigner at Amnesty International France, said in response to the findings . Analysis of EU tender databases reveals Intracom Defense has received at least €15m to participate in EDF projects since being purchased by IAI. The Triton and Marte projects, for example, both starting in December 2024, will develop AI-driven cybersecurity technology and tank systems for combat, respectively. The latter involves Leonardo, the defence giant part owned by the Italian government. But its most significant involvement is as coordinator of Actus, a project that will design, test and certify Nato-compliant drones that can track and identify people as potential targets in real time. Actus is focused on weaponising France’s Patroller drone and certifying Greece’s surveillance drone Lotus for operational use . Safran and Intracom Defense, the companies behind the two drones, received more than half of the €42m released by the European Commission for the project. Intracom Defense took €14m. Only three of the 22 entities involved in the project alongside Intracom Defense responded to requests for comment. In its response, Safran only referred to the involvement of its Norwegian business in the project. A spokesperson said it was aware of Intracom’s ownership and the company “remains deeply committed to strict adherence to the regulatory framework” of the defence fund. The other replies came from Finnish firms Patria Aviation and Robonic. Both said they knew about IAI’s ownership of Intracom and that they followed all EDF guidelines and policies. Four of the government co-funders, France, Belgium, Finland and Sweden, were among 17 member states to back a Dutch proposal in May calling for a review of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, over Israel’s offensive in Gaza and its failure to lift a two-month aid blockade . Norway, another Actus co-funder and whose firms have received around €2m for EDF projects alongside the IAI subsidiary, has publicly condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza, describing them as “brutal warfare”. Sweden’s foreign minister said the review should go further and called for EU sanctions against Israeli ministers (its companies have taken more than €3m for projects launched after December 2024 involving Intracom Defense). “The Israeli government's blind violence, the blocking of humanitarian aid have turned Gaza into a place for dying, not to say a cemetery," French foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot said in May, according to Reuter s. At the same time, Safran, a company part-owned by the French state , is working with IAI-owned Intracom Defense on the drone development programme. "How can you advocate the establishment of peace when, at the same time, through a fund supposed to strengthen European defense, you are bringing into play the Israeli industry, which is committing a crime of genocide and whose leader is the subject of an arrest warrant for crimes against humanity?," said Amnesty International’s Elluin , referring to the International Criminal Court arrest warrant issued in November 2024 against Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu . The Israeli government have denounced the ICC arrest warrants and rejected all claims of genocide made by Amnesty and others. All seven governments were contacted for comment. Norway’s ministry of defence said it provided funding of €118,536 to the two Norwegian participants in Actus, and none went to Intracom Defense. A spokesperson said that questions on EDF eligibility were a matter for the commission, adding: “Norway expects that no action taken by any partner can contribute to violations of international law, including humanitarian law.” The Finnish ministry of defence said its funding was also only for national participants, but did not say how much was awarded. A spokesperson said there was a “mutual sincere trust” between member states on such co-operations, adding: “We have no reason to question that potential risks of third country control would not be addressed through the guarantee process”. The Belgian government did not respond to questions about its co-funding of the project, and said that questions about the guarantees were for the commission and Greek government. The Swedish government said it gave 3 million SEK (€274,000) in co-funding to local firm Saab Aktiebolag, and did not comment on the involvement of Intracom Defense. The governments of France and Cyprus did not respond to requests for comment by the time of publication. Israeli involvement in EU-funded schemes has come under scrutiny since the latest conflict in Gaza started. More than €1.1bn in research grants have gone to its companies and institutions under the EU Horizon research programme, a recent investigation led by Dutch outlet Follow the Money found . But Israeli links to specific European defence projects have until now largely remained under the radar. The European Commission committed €910m to the EDF last year in an effort to meet its Rearm Europe Plan 2030 and “strengthen pan-European defence capabilities” . The scheme’s Eurocentric ethos, however, is limited to geography as companies based in Europe but owned abroad can also receive funds. A company owned by a third country, such as Intracom Defense, is eligible as long as it provides guarantees including that sensitive information is not transferred to its foreign owner. These guarantees are sent to and approved by the government where the company is based, in this case Greece, a close ally of Israel. “It's not surprising that those states which do not take actions against Israel, do not see cooperating with Israel as a threat to European security,” said Laetitia Sedou, EU project officer from the European Network Against Arms Trade . “[it] is not a huge amount of money, of course, for the size of the industry or for a country. It's a form of support, it's a form of extremely dramatic and problematic support.” 'Israeli know-how' The admittance of companies owned abroad into the EDF reflects Europe’s urgent need to enhance its military power, and tap into specialist knowledge and skills from overseas. Not least in Israel where the European defence industry has long-established military trade partnerships. “We need the Israeli know-how that we lack. In my opinion, that explains the Intracom maneuver. We want to develop our own loitering munitions [drones that can crash into targets], and we also want an ‘Israeli input’ in this segment,” said a global defence expert, who asked to remain anonymous. IAI’s reputation is built off the back of their military expertise, specifically drone technology, some of which has been deployed in Gaza. The company manufactures the Heron surveillance and armed drones used by the Israeli Air Force . “Many squadron reservists are IAI employees tasked with developing, manufacturing, and operating the Heron family of UAS,” an IAI press release read in December 2023 . A month earlier CEO Boaz Levy said that the Heron drones “ played a pivotal role in the Iron Swords War ”, referring to Israel’s assault on Gaza following the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack. There is no evidence to suggest that products developed in Actus or the other EDF projects involving IAI-owned Intracom Defense will be utilised by IAI in Israel. However, there are no strict ethical guidelines surrounding the export of technology produced via EDF projects. Although member states are bound by EU and national export controls for military goods and technology. Article 7 of the EDF regulation states that projects shall comply with relevant national, EU and international law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union . Companies are required to conduct a project self-assessment under the ethical and other grounds of Article 7, which can be examined by the Commission and a panel of “independent experts” whose identity is not made public . “The EDF regulation is extremely weak on ethics and transparency… Self-certification in this sector is obviously insufficient at best, a joke at worst,” Belgian MEP Marc Botenga said. “It is clear that the EDF's current framework does not sufficiently prevent EU-funded projects from contributing to violations of international humanitarian law.” On 16 May 2025, Intracom Defense announced three new projects funded by the EDF , taking its total involvement to 15 projects. Konstantina Maltepioti , Maria Maggiore , Leila Minano and Chris Matthews of
|
Investigate Europe
|
A European subsidiary of Israel Aerospace Industries is currently involved in 15 EU defence projects, including a multi-million euro drone development programme co-funded by European governments.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-06-11T09:36:53.467Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar201316e5
|
What next for Ukrainian refugees in Europe?
|
With the future of Ukraine’s peace at a crossroads, 4.5 million Ukrainians who fled to the European Union (EU) are wondering what the future holds for them . Can they stay here? Will they be forced to return? Many of those I have met are torn: they miss their homeland deeply, but they have also built new lives in exile — working, raising families, and contributing to their communities. Ukrainians are trying to understand their options: how to extend their stay to remain legally in the Union by turning their temporary protection into something more permanent. The EU’s Temporary Protection Directive — which gave Ukrainians the right to live, work, and access essential services without having to apply for asylum — is set to expire in March 2026. That may sound far off, but with less than a year before governments start preparing for a transition, many refugees are already anxious. And rightly so — because this week (12-13 June), EU interior ministers will decide whether to extend their temporary protection. The uncertainty is taking a toll. As one Ukrainian mother asked me, “Does Europe still stand in solidarity with us?” Right now, returning to Ukraine is simply not safe — full stop. Intensified Russian attacks have led to a staggering rise in civilian casualties compared to last year with missiles and drones hitting homes, hospitals or schools across the entire country, including Kyiv. Despite the risks, many have spontaneously returned already, and countless others have decided to stay put. Even if a ceasefire were declared tomorrow — or even a fragile peace reached — many Ukrainians fear it would not last. At the UN Refugee Agency , we believe conditions in Ukraine are not yet safe or stable enough to support large-scale returns. Most refugees express a strong desire to go home. But many at the same time are concerned about potential insecurity back home; some wonder whether they will have the means to rebuild their home, whether they will have access to electricity and water, schooling or medical care. Refugees need help for as long as they are away from home. Landmines and schools in ruins The risks are real: what about the landmines still scattered across agricultural fields? The schools and hospitals that lie in ruins? And the deep trauma suffered by so many — especially children and women who have lost loved ones? Some of those who have gone back have found themselves without jobs, healthcare, or other basic services. For vulnerable people such as widowed mothers, families with disabled children or elderly without any family support, going back too soon puts them at risk – and their communities would not be able to cope with their needs. This is why we are urging EU countries to extend temporary protection at least until March 2027. The current system has worked well. It gave Ukrainians safety and stability – and allowed them to contribute to the communities that welcomed them. They have found jobs, paid taxes, sent their kids to schools, and became our neighbours. But the EU cannot stop here. What about those who might not be able to return, even after peace? Those coming from territories that may remain occupied by the Russian Federation? What about those who hope to stay, as they have become part of the communities that have welcomed them and are sending remittances to help Ukraine’s reconstruction? It is time to think long term. Ukrainians need real solutions –permanent residency or work permits, or full refugee status where needed – and further efforts to bring a just peace to their homeland and investments to help its reconstruction to sustain returns. These are no longer just “refugees.” They are colleagues, classmates, and community members. They deserve clear answers – and dignity. For those who do choose to go back, they need time, support, and safety to do so when the moment is right. This is a defining moment. Europe has a chance to lead by example – not just in responding to a crisis, but in shaping what comes after. By offering Ukrainians genuine choices about their future, we can help them keep building their lives – whether that’s here in Europe or one day back in a peaceful Ukraine. Jean-Nicolas Beuze is the UNHCR's representative to the EU in Brussels. Jean-Nicolas Beuze is the
|
UNHCR's representative to the EU
|
Some of those who have gone back have found themselves without jobs, healthcare, or other basic services.
This is why the UNHCR are urging EU countries to extend temporary protection at least until March 2027.
|
[
"Migration",
"EU Political",
"Ukraine",
"Opinion"
] |
migration
|
2025-06-10T12:14:25.269Z
|
https://euobserver.com/migration/ar37b6f014
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.